- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Retrogression Iss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Retrogression: Doing the Math
- Thread starter berkeleybee
- Start date
EB2 retro calculation
140K total visas each year and 28% for EB2 annd 7% of those for each country; the numbers available for Indians applying in EB2 category would be ~2800.
with 300K pending labors in BEC, assuming 25% are EB2 and 50% of those are Indians, the number comes to 35-40K pending labors in BEC. This is all from pre-perm days.
assuming two visas get consumed per labor in BEC, we need about 80K EB2 numbers for India. with close to 3k numbers available each year, how long is it going to take? Is this calculation overly pessimistic?
140K total visas each year and 28% for EB2 annd 7% of those for each country; the numbers available for Indians applying in EB2 category would be ~2800.
with 300K pending labors in BEC, assuming 25% are EB2 and 50% of those are Indians, the number comes to 35-40K pending labors in BEC. This is all from pre-perm days.
assuming two visas get consumed per labor in BEC, we need about 80K EB2 numbers for India. with close to 3k numbers available each year, how long is it going to take? Is this calculation overly pessimistic?
infostarved
Registered Users (C)
Pessimistic calculation
The following are your mistakes....(people, please correct me if I am wrong)
1. 7% cap is for family and EB put together. If this cap applies, EB and family divide allocation in the ratio of worldwide family to worldwide EB numbers. If there are unused EB numbers after letting all countries have their fill then the cap doesnt apply (in that context, worldwide EB3 cutoffs are alarming).
2. 28% is not per-country. 28% is for the entire EB category.
3. 140K is the minimum EB limit. At the minimum you will add unused family based numbers from the previous year. Add to that whatever the AC21 pool from 1999 and 2000 provide you. According to the Jan 05 bulletin, there were still 100K of these visas remaining.
By the way, I've seen this 300K-pending-labors-in-BEC stuff floating around. Can anybody confirm this please? (as in... post a link to something credible).
The following are your mistakes....(people, please correct me if I am wrong)
1. 7% cap is for family and EB put together. If this cap applies, EB and family divide allocation in the ratio of worldwide family to worldwide EB numbers. If there are unused EB numbers after letting all countries have their fill then the cap doesnt apply (in that context, worldwide EB3 cutoffs are alarming).
2. 28% is not per-country. 28% is for the entire EB category.
3. 140K is the minimum EB limit. At the minimum you will add unused family based numbers from the previous year. Add to that whatever the AC21 pool from 1999 and 2000 provide you. According to the Jan 05 bulletin, there were still 100K of these visas remaining.
By the way, I've seen this 300K-pending-labors-in-BEC stuff floating around. Can anybody confirm this please? (as in... post a link to something credible).
tusharvk said:140K total visas each year and 28% for EB2 annd 7% of those for each country; the numbers available for Indians applying in EB2 category would be ~2800.
with 300K pending labors in BEC, assuming 25% are EB2 and 50% of those are Indians, the number comes to 35-40K pending labors in BEC. This is all from pre-perm days.
assuming two visas get consumed per labor in BEC, we need about 80K EB2 numbers for India. with close to 3k numbers available each year, how long is it going to take? Is this calculation overly pessimistic?
infostarved please say it again
Infostarved I did not understand what you wrote can you PLEASE!!!! explain it again may be using numbers. That 300K thing is true and I have read this in one of DOL releases it is in fact 350K. I only thing is in next 2-3 years lot of hopefulls will move on either filing new one in higher catagories, move to Canada etc.
Infostarved I did not understand what you wrote can you PLEASE!!!! explain it again may be using numbers. That 300K thing is true and I have read this in one of DOL releases it is in fact 350K. I only thing is in next 2-3 years lot of hopefulls will move on either filing new one in higher catagories, move to Canada etc.
varasidhi_gc
New Member
Is this going to happen???
Hi guys,
I am a silent reader of this form for the last 2 months and want to pass info below. Got this info from http://www.ilw.com
============================
Retrogression, The Real Numbers
The FY 2006 140,000 employment-based numbers will increase by 7,000 numbers (overflow from family immigration numbers per the existing statutory scheme). Another one-time 101,000 numbers will be recaptured from FY 1999-2004 and will also be added to FY 2006, bringing the total to 248,000. This may portend some dramatic improvement in the Visa Bulletin in the balance of FY 2006 but it may not be enough. Different solutions are being considered for meaningful relief. These include: reallocation of the diversity visa (55,000) numbers by eliminating the DV category, and recapturing erroneously counted employment numbers (rumored to be significant). Other solutions being considered are the issuance of advance parole and EAD eligibility to primary applicants and spouses applying for their I-140s and large permanent increases in permanent employment numbers through the Mc-Cain-Kennedy bill. This pressing problem will surely provide ample opportunity for creativity during this Congress.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com
Hi guys,
I am a silent reader of this form for the last 2 months and want to pass info below. Got this info from http://www.ilw.com
============================
Retrogression, The Real Numbers
The FY 2006 140,000 employment-based numbers will increase by 7,000 numbers (overflow from family immigration numbers per the existing statutory scheme). Another one-time 101,000 numbers will be recaptured from FY 1999-2004 and will also be added to FY 2006, bringing the total to 248,000. This may portend some dramatic improvement in the Visa Bulletin in the balance of FY 2006 but it may not be enough. Different solutions are being considered for meaningful relief. These include: reallocation of the diversity visa (55,000) numbers by eliminating the DV category, and recapturing erroneously counted employment numbers (rumored to be significant). Other solutions being considered are the issuance of advance parole and EAD eligibility to primary applicants and spouses applying for their I-140s and large permanent increases in permanent employment numbers through the Mc-Cain-Kennedy bill. This pressing problem will surely provide ample opportunity for creativity during this Congress.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com
infostarved
Registered Users (C)
Thanks for that post. Definitely one of the more informed ones I have seen on this thread.
Question: How do they know about the 7000 unused family based visas from FY2005. The year isn't even over yet.
Also, the 101K visas from AC21 were as of Dec 04. Given the amount of noise USCIS is making about "very heavy demand", I wont be surprised if they used up quite a bit of it for FY2005.
But that apart, anything above 200K is a huge number to play with. Put this in perspective with 2002, 2003, 2004 where they granted 175K, 82K, 155K EB visas respectively.
Question: How do they know about the 7000 unused family based visas from FY2005. The year isn't even over yet.
Also, the 101K visas from AC21 were as of Dec 04. Given the amount of noise USCIS is making about "very heavy demand", I wont be surprised if they used up quite a bit of it for FY2005.
But that apart, anything above 200K is a huge number to play with. Put this in perspective with 2002, 2003, 2004 where they granted 175K, 82K, 155K EB visas respectively.
varasidhi_gc said:Hi guys,
.....The FY 2006 140,000 employment-based numbers will increase by 7,000 numbers (overflow from family immigration numbers per the existing statutory scheme).....
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
infostarved said:Thanks for that post. Definitely one of the more informed ones I have seen on this thread.
God willing this information is true. I don't expect much out of the McCain-Kennedy bill though.
Hmmm..I don't understand how EB2 could have retrogressed all the way to 99. My priority date was 2000 and it took a long time for my labor after which I didn't submit the I-485 for sometime and the I-485 took another 2 years. Despite all this I got my GC last year. I know a lot of people who took much less. My point is..who are these people with PD in 99 and who still haven't gotten their GC?? I think, despite what I am hearing, the dates will move pretty quickly in the begining as the few people with those early PDs get their numbers. I think the real backlog will only begin around 2002 or later. Basically, the retrogression is definitely not linear and is an exageration (do not equate time of retrogression to number of people in backlog). My 2c.
bigbang2001
Registered Users (C)
I agree. There have been many analysis but each had their own assumptions.
Calfornia was around March/April 2002 when the whole BEC madness began.
At the same there were huge number labor apps around 2001 April. It is lkely they are the cause of this shift.
Either way it has caused enough stress and a rethink of road to take.
Calfornia was around March/April 2002 when the whole BEC madness began.
At the same there were huge number labor apps around 2001 April. It is lkely they are the cause of this shift.
Either way it has caused enough stress and a rethink of road to take.
bigbang2001
Registered Users (C)
And in reply to infostarved question on 350 K. Yes that is true.
Each B(lackhole)EC center has 170K labor apps.
Each B(lackhole)EC center has 170K labor apps.
infostarved
Registered Users (C)
Dept of State says somewhere (I forgot where.. I think in the visa bulletin itself) that....
PD(country, category) = earliest 485 applicant from {country,category} who did not get a visa number due to quota limitations.
So technically it is possible that they can have a 98/99 guy. But their warning about "PD movement expected to be slow/limited" is what flummoxes me. Either they are the dolts we have always suspected them to be, or they have some sinister plan up their sleeve they dont want to tell us.
PD(country, category) = earliest 485 applicant from {country,category} who did not get a visa number due to quota limitations.
So technically it is possible that they can have a 98/99 guy. But their warning about "PD movement expected to be slow/limited" is what flummoxes me. Either they are the dolts we have always suspected them to be, or they have some sinister plan up their sleeve they dont want to tell us.
ftj91 said:Hmmm..I don't understand how EB2 could have retrogressed all the way to 99. My priority date was 2000 and it took a long time for my labor after which I didn't submit the I-485 for sometime and the I-485 took another 2 years. Despite all this I got my GC last year. I know a lot of people who took much less. My point is..who are these people with PD in 99 and who still haven't gotten their GC?? I think, despite what I am hearing, the dates will move pretty quickly in the begining as the few people with those early PDs get their numbers. I think the real backlog will only begin around 2002 or later. Basically, the retrogression is definitely not linear and is an exageration (do not equate time of retrogression to number of people in backlog). My 2c.
infostarved
Registered Users (C)
Can you point me to more info on this.... do they have any info on the PD-wise distribution (I am assuming the BECs have atleast taken the trouble to look at the PDs on them dusty applications)?
bigbang2001 said:And in reply to infostarved question on 350 K. Yes that is true.
Each B(lackhole)EC center has 170K labor apps.
GOD_BLESS_YOU
Registered Users (C)
From ILW news letter
Retrogression, The Real Numbers
The FY 2006 140,000 employment-based numbers will increase by
7,000 numbers (overflow from family immigration numbers per the
existing statutory scheme). Another one-time 101,000 numbers will
be recaptured from FY 1999-2004 and will also be added to FY
2006, bringing the total to 248,000. This may portend some
dramatic improvement in the Visa Bulletin in the balance of FY
2006 but it may not be enough. Different solutions are being
considered for meaningful relief. These include: reallocation of
the diversity visa (55,000) numbers by eliminating the DV
category, and recapturing erroneously counted employment numbers
(rumored to be significant). Other solutions being considered are
the issuance of advance parole and EAD eligibility to primary
applicants and spouses applying for their I-140s and large
permanent increases in permanent employment numbers through the
Mc-Cain-Kennedy bill. This pressing problem will surely provide
ample opportunity for creativity during this Congress.
Retrogression, The Real Numbers
The FY 2006 140,000 employment-based numbers will increase by
7,000 numbers (overflow from family immigration numbers per the
existing statutory scheme). Another one-time 101,000 numbers will
be recaptured from FY 1999-2004 and will also be added to FY
2006, bringing the total to 248,000. This may portend some
dramatic improvement in the Visa Bulletin in the balance of FY
2006 but it may not be enough. Different solutions are being
considered for meaningful relief. These include: reallocation of
the diversity visa (55,000) numbers by eliminating the DV
category, and recapturing erroneously counted employment numbers
(rumored to be significant). Other solutions being considered are
the issuance of advance parole and EAD eligibility to primary
applicants and spouses applying for their I-140s and large
permanent increases in permanent employment numbers through the
Mc-Cain-Kennedy bill. This pressing problem will surely provide
ample opportunity for creativity during this Congress.
immigrationpain
New Member
Make your voice heard by the President/Congress
It's not enough for us for only complaining. We should be together to protect our rights as immigrants too. Please visit http://capwiz.com/aila2/home/ to participate the Campaign. Sponsored by AILA, you are able to send model letters or customized letters to the Congress and the President and urge them to support the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S. 1033/H.R. 2330). Mostly important, the bill suggests to increse the EB-based annual quota from current 140,000 to some bigger number such as 190,000. All of us will benefit if it passes. Shouldn't we help ourselves?
It's not enough for us for only complaining. We should be together to protect our rights as immigrants too. Please visit http://capwiz.com/aila2/home/ to participate the Campaign. Sponsored by AILA, you are able to send model letters or customized letters to the Congress and the President and urge them to support the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S. 1033/H.R. 2330). Mostly important, the bill suggests to increse the EB-based annual quota from current 140,000 to some bigger number such as 190,000. All of us will benefit if it passes. Shouldn't we help ourselves?
infostarved
Registered Users (C)
My explanation for why EB3 became "U" in July 05
To predict the future you have to explain the past... so listen up ppl....
Disclaimers and prerequisites...
1. I am assuming you have read and understood the statutary limits on employment based immigration. Please refer to my older post on reading material if you havent.
2. Forget for the moment AC21 - the pool of 100K visas from '99,'00 - it hasnt kicked in since FY2002... there was no need.
3. All statements below are logical conjectures on my part substantiated with facts and events wherever possible
You have to go back to FY2003 to understand this.
FY2003
-------
1. FY2003 had 64K unused family based visas (FB overflow) which by law is avlbl to EB guys in FY2004. So total EB limit for FY2004 was 140K + 64K = 204K (source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/FlowReportLegalPermResidents2004.pdf).
FY2004
-------
Look at the FY2004 limit of 204K EB visas. This makes a *minimum* of 58K avlbl to each of EB1,EB2 and EB3 (the 28.6% rule). The following were the real consumptions....
EB1 = 31K, EB2=32K
(source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/FlowReportLegalPermResidents2004.pdf)
So, at the minimum, EB3 had (58K - 31K) + (58K-32K) + 58K = 111K this year.
Actual consumption in EB3 was 86K, much less than the visas avlbl. Since nobody went home unsatisfied, per-country caps evaporated too. So all dates were current all through FY2004.
FY2005
--------
For FY2005, the FB overflow from '04 was only 8K (source: Sep 05 bulletin). Therefore the total avlbl EB visas on '05 are 140K + 8K = 148K. This brings the visas avbl to EB1 and EB2 to only 28.6%*148K = 42K each. From 04's experience state dept expects....
(42K - 31K) + (42K - 32K) + 42K = 63K visas avlbl for EB3.
From 04's experience, state dept also knows that this number is not enough (86K > 63K) and somebody is going to go unhappy... so for sure the caps cannot be lifted, so it makes noises early in the year and imposes EB3 cut-off dates of 1 Jan 2002 on oversubscribed countries in the Jan 05 bulletin.
Furthermore, the per-quarter limitation of 27%, makes only
27% * 63K = 17K EB3 visas avlbl in Q1 of FY2005.
Sure enough, if demand aped the previous year, these 17K would be gobbled up in...
17K/86K * 12 = 2.36 months i.e mid Dec 04.
... exactly what the Jan 05 bulletin says in section D.2
At this point, state dept probably hopes that the cutoffs will reduce the EB3 consumption from oversubscribed countries significantly, probably enough to keep away from a worldwide EB3 cutoff. But no such luck....
Enter the just-got-labor-done-with-PDs-before-Jan02 folks in the rest of FY2005.... and the worldwide demand stays put.
So lo and behold EB3 becomes unavailable - "U" - without so much as a worldwide cutoff. How many months does it take to get to U?
63K/86K * 12 = 8.79 months.
Count 8.79 months from Oct 04 (beginning of FY2005) and tell me when it should become "U" guys ... tell me guys.... July 2005
I rest my case. Was long-labor-getting-done-now to blame like the bulletins keep claiming? Yes it did play a role in blindsiding the state dept. Is it the entire truth? Absolutely not!
The million dollar question is.... why hasn't AC21 kicked in already... and what's with the doomsday prediction about slow PD progress in the bulletins.
To predict the future you have to explain the past... so listen up ppl....
Disclaimers and prerequisites...
1. I am assuming you have read and understood the statutary limits on employment based immigration. Please refer to my older post on reading material if you havent.
2. Forget for the moment AC21 - the pool of 100K visas from '99,'00 - it hasnt kicked in since FY2002... there was no need.
3. All statements below are logical conjectures on my part substantiated with facts and events wherever possible
You have to go back to FY2003 to understand this.
FY2003
-------
1. FY2003 had 64K unused family based visas (FB overflow) which by law is avlbl to EB guys in FY2004. So total EB limit for FY2004 was 140K + 64K = 204K (source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/FlowReportLegalPermResidents2004.pdf).
FY2004
-------
Look at the FY2004 limit of 204K EB visas. This makes a *minimum* of 58K avlbl to each of EB1,EB2 and EB3 (the 28.6% rule). The following were the real consumptions....
EB1 = 31K, EB2=32K
(source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/FlowReportLegalPermResidents2004.pdf)
So, at the minimum, EB3 had (58K - 31K) + (58K-32K) + 58K = 111K this year.
Actual consumption in EB3 was 86K, much less than the visas avlbl. Since nobody went home unsatisfied, per-country caps evaporated too. So all dates were current all through FY2004.
FY2005
--------
For FY2005, the FB overflow from '04 was only 8K (source: Sep 05 bulletin). Therefore the total avlbl EB visas on '05 are 140K + 8K = 148K. This brings the visas avbl to EB1 and EB2 to only 28.6%*148K = 42K each. From 04's experience state dept expects....
(42K - 31K) + (42K - 32K) + 42K = 63K visas avlbl for EB3.
From 04's experience, state dept also knows that this number is not enough (86K > 63K) and somebody is going to go unhappy... so for sure the caps cannot be lifted, so it makes noises early in the year and imposes EB3 cut-off dates of 1 Jan 2002 on oversubscribed countries in the Jan 05 bulletin.
Furthermore, the per-quarter limitation of 27%, makes only
27% * 63K = 17K EB3 visas avlbl in Q1 of FY2005.
Sure enough, if demand aped the previous year, these 17K would be gobbled up in...
17K/86K * 12 = 2.36 months i.e mid Dec 04.
... exactly what the Jan 05 bulletin says in section D.2
At this point, state dept probably hopes that the cutoffs will reduce the EB3 consumption from oversubscribed countries significantly, probably enough to keep away from a worldwide EB3 cutoff. But no such luck....
Enter the just-got-labor-done-with-PDs-before-Jan02 folks in the rest of FY2005.... and the worldwide demand stays put.
So lo and behold EB3 becomes unavailable - "U" - without so much as a worldwide cutoff. How many months does it take to get to U?
63K/86K * 12 = 8.79 months.
Count 8.79 months from Oct 04 (beginning of FY2005) and tell me when it should become "U" guys ... tell me guys.... July 2005
I rest my case. Was long-labor-getting-done-now to blame like the bulletins keep claiming? Yes it did play a role in blindsiding the state dept. Is it the entire truth? Absolutely not!
The million dollar question is.... why hasn't AC21 kicked in already... and what's with the doomsday prediction about slow PD progress in the bulletins.
optimistguy
Registered Users (C)
what is the bottom line
Infostarved, you are a genius - very impressive analysis. I trust your analysis, but could you also tell what is the bottom line? What do you infer from your analysis (do you expect this situation to improve at all)? Would like to hear your predictions too.
I am amazed at the talent of the people in this forum. I am pretty sure that 60% of the lawyers out there may not be as knowledgible as some of the posters here. Great work guys!
Infostarved, you are a genius - very impressive analysis. I trust your analysis, but could you also tell what is the bottom line? What do you infer from your analysis (do you expect this situation to improve at all)? Would like to hear your predictions too.
I am amazed at the talent of the people in this forum. I am pretty sure that 60% of the lawyers out there may not be as knowledgible as some of the posters here. Great work guys!
rajguy20022002
Registered Users (C)
Thatz an awesome calculation with perfect proof...
I have only one doubt regarding the calculation where 80-17 = 63K would use 8.79 months. But this period should start from where the 17K ended i.e mid December.. Am I wrong somewhere??
If I am not wrong it would come to Mid August though not much of a difference from July.
But infostarved you are a genius and your post should put an end to all the assumptions.
I have only one doubt regarding the calculation where 80-17 = 63K would use 8.79 months. But this period should start from where the 17K ended i.e mid December.. Am I wrong somewhere??
If I am not wrong it would come to Mid August though not much of a difference from July.
But infostarved you are a genius and your post should put an end to all the assumptions.
infostarved said:To predict the future you have to explain the past... so listen up ppl....
So lo and behold EB3 becomes unavailable - "U" - without so much as a worldwide cutoff. How many months does it take to get to U?
63K/86K * 12 = 8.79 months.
Count 8.79 months from Oct 04 (beginning of FY2005) and tell me when it should become "U" guys ... tell me guys.... July 2005
I rest my case. Was long-labor-getting-done-now to blame like the bulletins keep claiming? Yes it did play a role in blindsiding the state dept. Is it the entire truth? Absolutely not!