h1b_forever
03-09 12:31 PM
Looks like
April 2008 - 01 oct 2001
April 2009 - 01 Nov 2001
April 2010 - 01 Dec 2001
and so on...
We will def get our GC this century if we are lucky
April 2008 - 01 oct 2001
April 2009 - 01 Nov 2001
April 2010 - 01 Dec 2001
and so on...
We will def get our GC this century if we are lucky
wallpaper ull shark attack lake
rayoflight
02-19 11:29 AM
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
va_dude
08-21 10:08 AM
Uscis has done nothing wrong.
This person who posted the new thread seems to have come in to the country without even a passport. How is that legal?
How in the world can we expect Uscis to overlook all that? Don't criticize uscis for doing their job right (for once) :)
This person who posted the new thread seems to have come in to the country without even a passport. How is that legal?
How in the world can we expect Uscis to overlook all that? Don't criticize uscis for doing their job right (for once) :)
2011 Bull Shark (Carcharhinus
rsriram
11-02 03:57 PM
I am on L1 & my I-94 is expiring in a month from now on 11 Dec 2007 . I have applied for my L-Extenstion and is pending for approval.
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
more...
snathan
04-03 11:57 PM
tens of people who come out and attack them on why they need money all the time. But they still go ahead and do it. The reason being for every 10 who ridicule the idea, there are 20 who support it.
I really admire the perseverance the core shows in moving forward.
If everything seems to be tied to donations, this is because everything needs money. You know ,keeping up this website needs money. Lobbying needs a lot of money. The other day, some one pulled the info from a public website and said 500,000$ have been already spent on lobbying. I am sure more than 90% is probably contributed y less than 5% of the members. I am not one of those 5% even remotely.
Ignore teli and Sanju. You donot need their express approval to move forward. You know why they pick on you ? Because tyou just come and expect to be welcomed as heroes for any idea you have. You need to earn those stripes, then people will follow you.
Tak one Idea. Do something with it. YOu may not get a positive result in the end , but your effort will be appreciated and people will be more receptive to your next idea.
Well said...every now and then some one will pop up with some questions and attack on IV and core... Typically it used to be like this
1. Coming up one proposal with no proper plan
2. Attack on core and asking what the core is doing all these days...?
3. What is preventing core from doing this and that...?
Dont you guys understand that core members also volunteer, they do have their full time job and family. If you believe in something you need to lead the effort. You can not expect others to work and execute your half baked ideas. Come up proper plan and convince others. Otherwise actively take part in IV issues, join state chapter. Contribute more time if you can not contribute money. Build your reputation and others will follow you.
See this Guy who op-ed this thread...once in a week/two he comes here for time pass. He is questioning everyone and advocating to contribute for the recapture though he is not even contributing a penny so far. Dont you think its funny.
I really admire the perseverance the core shows in moving forward.
If everything seems to be tied to donations, this is because everything needs money. You know ,keeping up this website needs money. Lobbying needs a lot of money. The other day, some one pulled the info from a public website and said 500,000$ have been already spent on lobbying. I am sure more than 90% is probably contributed y less than 5% of the members. I am not one of those 5% even remotely.
Ignore teli and Sanju. You donot need their express approval to move forward. You know why they pick on you ? Because tyou just come and expect to be welcomed as heroes for any idea you have. You need to earn those stripes, then people will follow you.
Tak one Idea. Do something with it. YOu may not get a positive result in the end , but your effort will be appreciated and people will be more receptive to your next idea.
Well said...every now and then some one will pop up with some questions and attack on IV and core... Typically it used to be like this
1. Coming up one proposal with no proper plan
2. Attack on core and asking what the core is doing all these days...?
3. What is preventing core from doing this and that...?
Dont you guys understand that core members also volunteer, they do have their full time job and family. If you believe in something you need to lead the effort. You can not expect others to work and execute your half baked ideas. Come up proper plan and convince others. Otherwise actively take part in IV issues, join state chapter. Contribute more time if you can not contribute money. Build your reputation and others will follow you.
See this Guy who op-ed this thread...once in a week/two he comes here for time pass. He is questioning everyone and advocating to contribute for the recapture though he is not even contributing a penny so far. Dont you think its funny.
nixstor
07-05 03:58 PM
First of all Nixstor everybody here really appreciates your contributions and support for the community. However, we have to remember that when there is a need people will act. You did no harm by making this very important point. Ofcourse the site might not be converted to a paid one, but your post really brought out certain very important points to light and we really appreciate that. You are right there are many who benefit without contributing. But we have to remember that any efforts similar to this (IV) will cosist of a huge population. Out of that there will always be a percentage who will never contribute and some selfless people like yourself who always take the extra step to help others and in turn recieve help. If this site becomes paid many might simply cut of their visits. And I wont argue with you if you say that aint true. Personally I feel we might loose a lot of the memberships if that happens. Regarding the present fight against the uscis, I dont even think we are in need of that big a sum because the AILF is taking up the case free of cost (correct me if I am wrong). You may / may not contribute. They are already decided and they will fight. Now the drive for the future CIR if any, will go on slowly and can be increased as need arises. More than money what we need now is people sending out information to the media / politicians. Money comes last now, as far as I know.
Money never, never comes last, IMHO. Money does have its place right beside grass root efforts. Any one who undermines either of them at any time is making a huge mistake.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
Money never, never comes last, IMHO. Money does have its place right beside grass root efforts. Any one who undermines either of them at any time is making a huge mistake.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
more...
NKR
10-16 05:04 PM
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
2010 ull shark attack pictures.
vivid_bharti
05-07 12:13 AM
cool down...I did pay for that effort, I am not a member of donor forum though..If you had contributed for the FOIA effort you would have known the actions IV has taken in donor forum. Its a shame that people like you dont contribute and have audacity to come back and demand answers.
more...
av2004
06-10 04:09 PM
Sent e-mail to my senators..
hair ull shark attack lake
sammas
07-12 03:57 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
more...
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
hot Worst Shark Attack Ever: Ocean
immigrationsri
06-26 06:25 PM
Hi,
I am on H1B visa for the past 2.5 years and my current visa expires on 30th Sept 2010. When i approached my company for visa extension, i was told that based on management decision they are changing my visa from H1 to L1. I have a question on this one. If i proceed with this process and in the mean time i get a job offer from different company in US that is ready for H1 transfer and extension, Is it valid? Can i continue to work on my H1 for remaining years? If this is not a valid case and i need to continue with L1 only (with current employer), Will my number of years to work in US be reduced?
Please treat these questions as urgent ones and kindly reply.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Sri
I am on H1B visa for the past 2.5 years and my current visa expires on 30th Sept 2010. When i approached my company for visa extension, i was told that based on management decision they are changing my visa from H1 to L1. I have a question on this one. If i proceed with this process and in the mean time i get a job offer from different company in US that is ready for H1 transfer and extension, Is it valid? Can i continue to work on my H1 for remaining years? If this is not a valid case and i need to continue with L1 only (with current employer), Will my number of years to work in US be reduced?
Please treat these questions as urgent ones and kindly reply.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Sri
more...
house ull shark attack pictures.
smuggymba
10-10 03:58 PM
There are so many illegal immigrats working as lawn tenders, cleaners at stores....why doens't USCIS go after them? They are easy to spot and can be found anywhere...why harrass students?
tattoo ull shark attack. great white
samy
11-11 04:47 PM
Please come up with ideas. Remember - IV core looks at all the posts and get ideas from the forums. You may want to start a thread saying - Lets all put our constructive thoughts about moving ahead with Obama administration here. People can posts their ideas, plans, implementations, strategies ...... and we can all discuss.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
Wise words from a Senior Member!
But people here are not ready for new ideas. They are dreaming that Obama will install a GC card printer and start printing once he sworn in.
I presented an idea recently, as a temprory fix in these tough times. All I got was couple funny replys that has nothing to do with my plan. Also I got few red dots as a bonus.
Many gave up hope I believe.
Rajuram - your concern is valid and basically what is happening is - IV now needs some dedicated new generation members who can make a difference. thats how IV has been working from the beginnibg, people come and go - so do admins.
You can help in this way by opening a thread to share new ideas and strategies.
Wise words from a Senior Member!
But people here are not ready for new ideas. They are dreaming that Obama will install a GC card printer and start printing once he sworn in.
I presented an idea recently, as a temprory fix in these tough times. All I got was couple funny replys that has nothing to do with my plan. Also I got few red dots as a bonus.
Many gave up hope I believe.
more...
pictures Student survives shark attack
kondur_007
06-08 06:03 PM
That "small change" of EB2 China PD is very important. It suggests that there is going to be "Spill over" so EB2 India and China will have to move together to use the unused numbers. A good sign; at least EB1 retrogression does not seem to be likely and there will be some spill over numbers to EB2 India (EB2 china may not benefit much as it had a PD later than that for the rest of the year.
Scorpion: how can you say "no spill over". EB2ROW is current and so spill over is likely (more likely from EB1 and even to some extent from EB2 ROW)
Moreover, EB2 ROW remained current meaning that they have not used all their quota; they will not use any spillover numbers and they may even provide spill over numbers to EB2 India and China.
Scorpion: how can you say "no spill over". EB2ROW is current and so spill over is likely (more likely from EB1 and even to some extent from EB2 ROW)
Moreover, EB2 ROW remained current meaning that they have not used all their quota; they will not use any spillover numbers and they may even provide spill over numbers to EB2 India and China.
dresses ull shark attack
nomi
12-11 03:58 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.
Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.
more...
makeup years after shark attack
delax
07-14 07:39 PM
Yes. I VOLUNTARILY exclude myself from any such potential benefit.
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
girlfriend Bull Shark on fishing line.
logiclife
01-31 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=logiclife]Unpaid bench means you are "Out of Status". Not illegal.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
Look. Here's the deal.
Whether you are on unpaid bench while looking for a project, or on unpaid maternity leave or on unpaid vacation. Missing paystubs means you are out of status. Period. Probably for maternity leave, you can have unpaid days off but still you may be issued paystubs of 0-dollar in which case it might be ok. I dont know about unpaid maternity leave.
The problem arises at the time of H1 transfer. And here is the classic situation:
You are looking for a project on an unpaid bench. You've been unpaid for 2 months. Then you find a project but thru another employer(bodyshop). Then you join that project and change your employer and file for H1 transfer. When you file for H1 transfer, since you are missing paystubs from previous employer for 2 months, due to unpaid bench, there is a "Gap" in employment. USCIS considers missing paystubs as out of status and then sends an inquiry about the H1 transfer. So you are in hanging status. Then you shell out a couple of thousand dollars to an attorney to reply to that inquiry about the gap to USCIS with whatever crap fits into that. Most of the cases, USCIS approves the petition with I-94. Sometimes it approves without I-94 therby forcing you to travel out of country and come back.
So the unpaid bench is a really issue if you have to change your employer at the end of the bench time. If you continue with the same employer after your unpaid bench, then yes, you are out of status but it doesnt create problems.
I don't agree at all with this statement. People can go on a unpaid maternity leave and still maintain status.
Out of status is anyway no better than illegal.
Look. Here's the deal.
Whether you are on unpaid bench while looking for a project, or on unpaid maternity leave or on unpaid vacation. Missing paystubs means you are out of status. Period. Probably for maternity leave, you can have unpaid days off but still you may be issued paystubs of 0-dollar in which case it might be ok. I dont know about unpaid maternity leave.
The problem arises at the time of H1 transfer. And here is the classic situation:
You are looking for a project on an unpaid bench. You've been unpaid for 2 months. Then you find a project but thru another employer(bodyshop). Then you join that project and change your employer and file for H1 transfer. When you file for H1 transfer, since you are missing paystubs from previous employer for 2 months, due to unpaid bench, there is a "Gap" in employment. USCIS considers missing paystubs as out of status and then sends an inquiry about the H1 transfer. So you are in hanging status. Then you shell out a couple of thousand dollars to an attorney to reply to that inquiry about the gap to USCIS with whatever crap fits into that. Most of the cases, USCIS approves the petition with I-94. Sometimes it approves without I-94 therby forcing you to travel out of country and come back.
So the unpaid bench is a really issue if you have to change your employer at the end of the bench time. If you continue with the same employer after your unpaid bench, then yes, you are out of status but it doesnt create problems.
hairstyles Pismo Beach Shark Attack
greyhair
02-09 02:33 PM
Why am I not suprised with this news?
I think it is self evident that even though there is some spill over I think large number of visa's are getting wasted. Else last year we should have seen better movement than just wrapping up 2004. In 2008 there were so many people with 2005 & 2006 PD who were approved. I think it was either inefficiency on part of USCIS or a go slow directive from the administation that has caused visa wastage.
One immigration business shop says that visas are being wasted and that's our proof. We are now ready to list the reasons why visa numbers are being wasted. Not only the visas have been wasted but according to you the reason for wastage are -
1.) Inefficiency
2.) Directive from the administration
But before that, can anybody prove conclusively that visa numbers were wasted. What is the proof? Just because my application is pending doesn't mean that USCIS is wasting green card numbers. Give us all proof that visa numbers are being wasted. Where is the proof. Around 20 days back I wrote an email to the immigration business shop asking for proof of waste of visa numbers. No response.
I think it is self evident that even though there is some spill over I think large number of visa's are getting wasted. Else last year we should have seen better movement than just wrapping up 2004. In 2008 there were so many people with 2005 & 2006 PD who were approved. I think it was either inefficiency on part of USCIS or a go slow directive from the administation that has caused visa wastage.
One immigration business shop says that visas are being wasted and that's our proof. We are now ready to list the reasons why visa numbers are being wasted. Not only the visas have been wasted but according to you the reason for wastage are -
1.) Inefficiency
2.) Directive from the administration
But before that, can anybody prove conclusively that visa numbers were wasted. What is the proof? Just because my application is pending doesn't mean that USCIS is wasting green card numbers. Give us all proof that visa numbers are being wasted. Where is the proof. Around 20 days back I wrote an email to the immigration business shop asking for proof of waste of visa numbers. No response.
decipher
04-23 04:16 PM
To be fair, inability to get educated (linked to career progression) deserves some attention.
I was in gautamagg's situation earlier (I am still kind of ). I believe there are several others in the same situation. GC delay is an serious hindrance when age is a factor for getting education. However, there are alternatives - part-time education and studying in another country. Have friends who have taken both the approaches. You can come back to the U.S (if you really need to) after your education/experience through H1 again.
As far as the U.S loosing talent, U.S legislators/administrators are the ones who should be worried and try to stop it. The coveted trying to convince them seems contradictory and doesn't gel well.
Personally, I think expecting a quick solution for the mired immigration issue to get an education is expecting a little too much when there are alternatives. This is a wrong forum to do it too.
I was in gautamagg's situation earlier (I am still kind of ). I believe there are several others in the same situation. GC delay is an serious hindrance when age is a factor for getting education. However, there are alternatives - part-time education and studying in another country. Have friends who have taken both the approaches. You can come back to the U.S (if you really need to) after your education/experience through H1 again.
As far as the U.S loosing talent, U.S legislators/administrators are the ones who should be worried and try to stop it. The coveted trying to convince them seems contradictory and doesn't gel well.
Personally, I think expecting a quick solution for the mired immigration issue to get an education is expecting a little too much when there are alternatives. This is a wrong forum to do it too.
richi121175
01-16 10:21 PM
Contributed $20 in Dec and just signed up for $20 per month.
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??
Can anyone please confirm that we are still going for I-485 provision attached to the appropriation bills in February??