CSPAvictim
07-09 07:24 PM
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
On second thoughts, it seems like you're talking about the 37800 for the last quarter. Well, I havent yet come across any law/regulation that prevents USCIS from using up all the visa numbers before the last quarter. And like I said before, the last quarter is not subject to the 27% limitation. Over the years, USCIS has not been using up all the numbers for the fiscal year. This time, they did the opposite and used them up in the first three quarters itself!:eek:
On second thoughts, it seems like you're talking about the 37800 for the last quarter. Well, I havent yet come across any law/regulation that prevents USCIS from using up all the visa numbers before the last quarter. And like I said before, the last quarter is not subject to the 27% limitation. Over the years, USCIS has not been using up all the numbers for the fiscal year. This time, they did the opposite and used them up in the first three quarters itself!:eek:
wallpaper Scottish singer-songwriter
pappu
01-16 06:14 PM
Guys please post any websites/forum where we can post our message.I will post it.I have already done in many websites but missed a few that are non-english.
Thanks. could you try yahoo, google and msn groups on immigration too.
when you type these words you will see several such forum names. Select the ones with more membership and become a member. Thgen post messages. Emails sent in these forums go to each member.
others, pls suggest more websites and help in posting IV messages on them.
Thanks. could you try yahoo, google and msn groups on immigration too.
when you type these words you will see several such forum names. Select the ones with more membership and become a member. Thgen post messages. Emails sent in these forums go to each member.
others, pls suggest more websites and help in posting IV messages on them.
va_labor2002
07-24 12:38 PM
Hi rpatel,
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
I agree with your points.You are totally right. We should atleast try this channel. I think IV should address this issue to USCIS.
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
2011 Lead singer of Blink- 182,
BharatPremi
03-17 12:56 PM
As far as I know there are atleast 5-6K applicants waiting with PDs before Dec-2003. Considering 3 visas used for each applicant. There'll be a requirement of atleast 15-20K Green Card numbers for Indian EB3 to clear people up to Dec'2003. While EB3 gets a maximum of 3K/Year. My guess is it'll take 5-6 Years to get the EB3 to Dec'2003.
Including spillover generally EB3-I clears up around 5000 visas per year on average ( Though theoratically stuck at 3300-3500). 3 visas per applicant is at bit high end. I would not assume everybody is married AND have child.. I would put that around 1.75. But, yes, even if select these new parameters than also it would take years..Theoratically, ofcourse:):)
Including spillover generally EB3-I clears up around 5000 visas per year on average ( Though theoratically stuck at 3300-3500). 3 visas per applicant is at bit high end. I would not assume everybody is married AND have child.. I would put that around 1.75. But, yes, even if select these new parameters than also it would take years..Theoratically, ofcourse:):)
more...
ameryki
03-17 03:00 PM
PD Nov 2005 filed in Aug 2007
mariner5555
02-14 06:31 AM
Canuck,
There is no divide and rule policy by US as giving H1 does not mean that you have to file for Immigration, It is the choice of the person to get immigrated to US and US has set some policies by quota system. If you don't like it then no one is forcing you to stay back (US will say that if u sue USCIS).
Thought to chip in my 2 cents as you are showing similarities of british raj and US. First of all it was the fault of the kings in India during that time who were not united enough to kick them out.
Cheers
permfiling
EB2 -INDIA
N Cal Chapter maybe there is no divide and rule - but definitely when they thought of country limits - they must have debated and come to conclusion that there should not be domination from one country (as one country people can become powerful - demand more etc) .so in a way it is divide. but in this age - country limits dont make sense. the problem is laws dont change easily.
There is no divide and rule policy by US as giving H1 does not mean that you have to file for Immigration, It is the choice of the person to get immigrated to US and US has set some policies by quota system. If you don't like it then no one is forcing you to stay back (US will say that if u sue USCIS).
Thought to chip in my 2 cents as you are showing similarities of british raj and US. First of all it was the fault of the kings in India during that time who were not united enough to kick them out.
Cheers
permfiling
EB2 -INDIA
N Cal Chapter maybe there is no divide and rule - but definitely when they thought of country limits - they must have debated and come to conclusion that there should not be domination from one country (as one country people can become powerful - demand more etc) .so in a way it is divide. but in this age - country limits dont make sense. the problem is laws dont change easily.
more...
vandanaverdia
09-10 05:48 PM
^^^ bump^^^
2010 Singer Chris Martin could be
eilsoe
03-04 02:16 PM
uuh... crap...
*goes to work on entry*
*goes to work on entry*
more...
Jerrome
08-07 11:02 AM
June processing numbers are available
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
Very much what i expected.
Means we had(have) 25K visas to be used(only from EB Quota) in July,August and September rt.
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
June-08 46024 740969 44989 42500 2489
Very much what i expected.
Means we had(have) 25K visas to be used(only from EB Quota) in July,August and September rt.
hair Chichester+high+school
reddymjm
10-15 01:31 PM
do that and as a backlash, the PDs will go back to 1800! after that even if u send the whole garden they won't be current again:D
I hate flower campaigns. If we do one more for sure it will go to 1900 if not 1800.
I hate flower campaigns. If we do one more for sure it will go to 1900 if not 1800.
more...
Jaime
09-10 03:53 PM
By the way, here's a funny (and sad but true) anecdote. I had already been on H1-B status with my current employer for over a year when I engaged HR to start my green card/adjustment of status process. The answer I got from the HR person was "Oh, sorry, but we don't sponsor"...I was frozen! Did not know whether to laugh or cry out loud! "But dear, you already have sponsored me!" I told the poor lady.....
Funny? Pathetic? WE NEED TO FIX THIS! AND THIS STARTS AT OUR RALLY IN WASHINGTON! LET'S ALL GO!!!!!
Funny? Pathetic? WE NEED TO FIX THIS! AND THIS STARTS AT OUR RALLY IN WASHINGTON! LET'S ALL GO!!!!!
hot My favorite singer and song is
reddymjm
06-03 05:06 PM
Hi friends,
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
Please advise me on this situation.
I am currently in US with L1B with Company A.
Company B has already filed H1B petition for me.
Assuming it gets selected & approved, Is it Possible for me to Continue with Company A after Oct1 2007 with the L1 itself.
Thanks.
As soon as the H1B gets approved your L1 b goes invalid. The options you have is if you have ur L1 validity after oct go out of the country and come back on L1. Or if it is expiring in Oct or close to Oct your company can file extension if it gets approved you may be ok but the period you work during that might be illlegal. But as USCIS has no way of tracking all these last issued status is a valid status making ur H1b invalid. But I suggest to do the other way.
more...
house A talented singer-songwriter
vin13
02-11 06:48 PM
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
Who are you questioning???
I just conveyed the message .Nobody said it is true or false. This is the message received period. Now we need to evaluate and see if it makes sense.
We are talking about an inefficient USCIS. It is OK to question and make sure things are happening as it should. The lawyer is not posting information everywhere. Why do you have to jump into conclusions? You and Me have a interest in us getting the green card not the lawyer. Don't expect the lawyer to file a lawsuit for you...and lets get the facts together and leave the lawyer alone.
Who are you questioning???
I just conveyed the message .Nobody said it is true or false. This is the message received period. Now we need to evaluate and see if it makes sense.
We are talking about an inefficient USCIS. It is OK to question and make sure things are happening as it should. The lawyer is not posting information everywhere. Why do you have to jump into conclusions? You and Me have a interest in us getting the green card not the lawyer. Don't expect the lawyer to file a lawsuit for you...and lets get the facts together and leave the lawyer alone.
tattoo INTERVIEW: HAWTHORNE HEIGHTS
StarSun
02-03 09:22 AM
To get a head start on the advocacy effort, we need members to register, contribute, plan the travel, and spread the word as soon as possible.
more...
pictures greatest singerquot; by World
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,
dresses Quiet Riot Singers Death Ruled
rpulipati
09-26 09:44 AM
If you guyz like it, please use it.
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
more...
makeup British singer Adele
chmur
09-11 03:04 PM
EB3-ROW Pending per Aug 2009 I-485 Inventory ~ 63K
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
The EB3-ROW Demand for October 2010 ~ 45K.
So actually backlog reduction for EB3 ROW has just been 18 K (much less than the 30K they should get). I don't see where you are seeing the overflow.
The total Pending in Aug 2009 was
EB2 ALL- 75K. EB3 all -151K . So total ~ 225K
The demand data today is EB2 = 34K(this is only I/C, no ROW demand)
Demand for EB3 = 136K.
So even though reduction in backlog is significant (225K- 170K =55K). It is not going to all categories evenly.
And unless USCIS comes up with a smarter way to determine demand data other than counting pending I-485, once this demand goes to zero they will have to advance EB2 I/C dates. Now they can be smart and advance it by 6 months to not open up floodgates and test the post 2007 demand, or just follow the rule blindly that supply > demand and the category is current. Either way, the law prevents any spillover from a category unless it is current and EB2 I/C is not getting current in 2-3 years.
I also want to believe like you that the hidden demand post 2007 for EB2I/C + EB3 ROW is as low as possible. And we won't know about the exact number till USCIS does a better job of reporting approved I-140 by country.
Check with latest Inventory data - 05/2010
Also - where can i get the demand data you are referring to ??
girlfriend wicked singer, performer,
alisa
01-27 09:25 AM
I am glad you posted this.
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
I will put the numbers in the excel spreadsheet and see what comes out.
But these might give more sensible results than the preposterous wait times that we were getting.
If the average depletion rate for India is 34K per annum, then the wait times would look a lot better I think.
I am assuming that these numbers include the dependents. So, if 34K adjustment of status were awareded, then, roughly speaking, there were 17K primary applicants, and 17K dependents? Am I correct?
Also, for the accumulation rate, when we say that 65K H-1 visas are given out annually, I am assuming that does not include the dependents. Am I right??
FISCAL ------ Employment ------- EB3
YEAR ----- Total ---- INDIA | Total --- India
2000 ----- 111,024 | 15888 | 51,711 | -5567 :IV FY 2000 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2000%20table%20V.pdf)
2001 ----- 186,536 | 41720 | 90,274 | 16405 :IV FY 2001 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001%20table%20V.pdf)
2002 ----- 171,583 | 41919 | 87,574 | 17428 :IV FY 2002 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2002%20table%20V.pdf)
2003 ----- -83,020 | 20818 | 47,354 | 10680 :IV FY 2003 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2003%20table%20V.pdf)
2004 ----- 157,107 | 39496 | 88,114 | 19962 :IV FY 2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableV.pdf)
2005 ----- 242,335 | 47160 |122,130 | 23399 :IV FY 2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableV.pdf)
6 yr total - 951,605| 207001| 487,157| 93441
Annual Avg --------- 34500 | -------- 15574
If this trend would have continued. There should not be any MAJOR retrogression problem, but if you remember from the Nov 05 VB. The warning was very clear:
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
If you plug this number into your analysis the result might be a couple of years of advance for your predictions.
andy
hairstyles gifted Singer Freddy
msyedy
06-12 04:58 PM
Jeo laal Jeo.... I totally agree with you. I want to see these h1 b restrictions that have been applied in the CIR pass. It will be fun...
I do not think that they above restrictions will be in the CIR bill for H1-Bwhen it passes. We know, the tech companies know and most of the law makers know that they need us.. There will be an H1-B increase, restrictions removed and there will be a provition made in parallel to the merit system for EB green cards.
Our job is to get backlog relief.. How we do it is the question....
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
I do not think that they above restrictions will be in the CIR bill for H1-Bwhen it passes. We know, the tech companies know and most of the law makers know that they need us.. There will be an H1-B increase, restrictions removed and there will be a provition made in parallel to the merit system for EB green cards.
Our job is to get backlog relief.. How we do it is the question....
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
GreenLantern
02-15 08:01 AM
Give me a preview grinch. I would like to see how somebody else is going about this.
bfadlia
12-15 10:01 AM
Take the body shoppers and glorified body shoppers like TCS, wipro, infy etc out of the equation and you would have sheer wastage of H1B numbers since the American companies will not go abroad to recruit someone who is unfamiliar with US work culture.
That is why congress came up with 20K quota for master degree holders who can be recruited directly by US corporations. In my opinion, US corporations should not complain at all since they were never interested in upholding the true spirit of H1B by recruiting people from abroad directly.
-gcisadawg
US corporation did go abroad to recruit back when there was heavy demand in the dot com bubble and Y2K.. American recruiters for several big companies used to make regular trips all over the world like russia, eastern europe and middle east to scout talents and ship them here.. but that never happens now since 1- there is no real demand 2- Desi Bodyshops already brought in hundreds of thousands of H1 people on short term or fictituous projects then set them out to hunt for next projects in this tight market..
We programmers need to come to grip with the fact that today unless you have a rare skill and exceptional ability America will not roll the red carpet on your GC path.
That is why congress came up with 20K quota for master degree holders who can be recruited directly by US corporations. In my opinion, US corporations should not complain at all since they were never interested in upholding the true spirit of H1B by recruiting people from abroad directly.
-gcisadawg
US corporation did go abroad to recruit back when there was heavy demand in the dot com bubble and Y2K.. American recruiters for several big companies used to make regular trips all over the world like russia, eastern europe and middle east to scout talents and ship them here.. but that never happens now since 1- there is no real demand 2- Desi Bodyshops already brought in hundreds of thousands of H1 people on short term or fictituous projects then set them out to hunt for next projects in this tight market..
We programmers need to come to grip with the fact that today unless you have a rare skill and exceptional ability America will not roll the red carpet on your GC path.
No comments:
Post a Comment