sanjaymk
07-17 12:58 PM
Hello All-
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
Looks like they are monitoring this website and they have removed it now. There is no misunderstanding here, I copied and pasted it from their website so the question of mis-understanding doesn't arise.
It doesn't matter because they would have sent that fax to the Senators before and the senators would have a copy of that fax.
I am trying to write a strong letter to dis-credit that organization and their smear tactics and false propoganda. If nothing, then I would like to use the lettter posted by one of the posters here as a webfax and send the fax to the senators.
Kindly, don't assume that they removed point #2 so they could be let off, what happens if they add something like this in the future and nobody notices it.
Ideally, we should ask them to expose their membership accounts so that their lie of having 455000 volunteers is proved a blatant lie.
Thanks,
Sanjay.
wallpaper Taurus Raging Bull .44 Magnum
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
rimzhim
01-28 11:04 AM
I don’t want to start another war here but all I am asking for is a fair treatment of people and not discriminate against people based on country of birth. One of the reasons I left my country, India, is because of the discriminating that exists there in terms of "reservations" where everything is reserved based on your caste for 50%. Now please dont tell me reservations and country cap are different, they are not different they are the same. they accomplish the same purpose in case of skilled immigration.I never thought such a thing would happen in US but it seems worst here because Indians and Chinese make up almost 70 to 80% of H1 (which is dual intent) but when it comes to employment based green cards (which are based on H1) Indians and Chinese combined get only 14% of the visas, don’t you see the tragedy here? Why don’t they enforce the country cap on H1 also, that way people from India and china will not have to suffer worse than others? But US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1 and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
Take my case for example, I have come to this country in 1999 on F1 and have been working and paying takes since 2001. I am not even able to apply for 485. If I get laid off now I will have to leave US next year. Contrast this with somebody from Taiwan, UK or some non retrogressed country. In some cases they can get green card within the first year of coming to US. This is not a hypothetical case but a scenario which is happening quite often, especially in EB2. In my own company I have seen people (6 so far) who are 5 years junior to me (i.e joined the company 5 years after I did) get a green card where as I am dazed and confused and haven’t even applied for 485.
I totally agreed with country caps in non skilled immigration, because the only criteria is that you don’t have any diseases and don’t have a criminal background. But in skilled immigration it does not make sense to apply country caps unless you apply country caps in H1. but US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
I understand your plight, but then the solution is to put a country cap to H1. Also, I respectfully disagree with comparing your situation in regards to caste etc in your country to country-cap based quotas in the US. This has only happened because the number of H1s for many years exceeded the number of GCs allowed every yr. The US does believe in some diversity which is why they have affirmative action, and the country cap has been imposed in the same spirit. Affirmative action will not go away from the US even if it is, as you say, same thing as caste-based reservations in your home country. I agree: there should be a country cap on H1 also and the total number of H1 per yr should never exceed the number of GCs per yr.
Take my case for example, I have come to this country in 1999 on F1 and have been working and paying takes since 2001. I am not even able to apply for 485. If I get laid off now I will have to leave US next year. Contrast this with somebody from Taiwan, UK or some non retrogressed country. In some cases they can get green card within the first year of coming to US. This is not a hypothetical case but a scenario which is happening quite often, especially in EB2. In my own company I have seen people (6 so far) who are 5 years junior to me (i.e joined the company 5 years after I did) get a green card where as I am dazed and confused and haven’t even applied for 485.
I totally agreed with country caps in non skilled immigration, because the only criteria is that you don’t have any diseases and don’t have a criminal background. But in skilled immigration it does not make sense to apply country caps unless you apply country caps in H1. but US is a competitive country, they want the best available talent for H1and that’s the reason they don’t put country caps on H1.
I understand your plight, but then the solution is to put a country cap to H1. Also, I respectfully disagree with comparing your situation in regards to caste etc in your country to country-cap based quotas in the US. This has only happened because the number of H1s for many years exceeded the number of GCs allowed every yr. The US does believe in some diversity which is why they have affirmative action, and the country cap has been imposed in the same spirit. Affirmative action will not go away from the US even if it is, as you say, same thing as caste-based reservations in your home country. I agree: there should be a country cap on H1 also and the total number of H1 per yr should never exceed the number of GCs per yr.
2011 Taurus .44 Magnum
Dakota Newfie
07-03 12:20 PM
As I said, I expected to be "attacked" when I submitted my posts which only proves my point since the attacks are only coming from a "select group"; remember, the more you criticize my opions, the more you prove I'm right!
That being said, since I am not a member of this "select group", Administrator please remove me from the list of IMMIGRATION VOICE members. Thank you and good bye.
That being said, since I am not a member of this "select group", Administrator please remove me from the list of IMMIGRATION VOICE members. Thank you and good bye.
more...
carbon
07-24 12:39 PM
If USCIS could interpret the law to their advantage we can use our resources
to fight their interpretation and force them to change their policy.
I also think we can even file a law suite in relation to "incorrect" interpretation
by USCIS.
to fight their interpretation and force them to change their policy.
I also think we can even file a law suite in relation to "incorrect" interpretation
by USCIS.
leoindiano
03-17 09:59 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
more...
svr_76
02-19 02:34 PM
There are dozens of security agencies involved with handling crime..The generic statement in the bill is to allow that - Drugs administration, Narcotics, Child-abuse etc etc....
Think! if this bill cannot be used to bring undoc workers into legal status, why would anyone come up with such a bill...This is the Latino caucus pushing to gain vote for 2012. And you thought ppl here care for legal immigrants? If the bill was not meant for undoc workers they could have just used the word "Legal " wherever they are using immigrant or alien but they have carefully kept the legal word out.
So there will be another July-01 but this time 12-20 millions application packets will have to be delivered. Any guess on the order of processing of these applications?
Think! if this bill cannot be used to bring undoc workers into legal status, why would anyone come up with such a bill...This is the Latino caucus pushing to gain vote for 2012. And you thought ppl here care for legal immigrants? If the bill was not meant for undoc workers they could have just used the word "Legal " wherever they are using immigrant or alien but they have carefully kept the legal word out.
So there will be another July-01 but this time 12-20 millions application packets will have to be delivered. Any guess on the order of processing of these applications?
2010 magnum taurus
ajay
03-23 10:58 PM
Labor Filed Sept 2004
Labor Got Dec 2005
I140 Premium Processing Feb 2006
I485 Aug 17 2007
Eid Filed Dec 2007 and Got it in Feb 2008
Labor Got Dec 2005
I140 Premium Processing Feb 2006
I485 Aug 17 2007
Eid Filed Dec 2007 and Got it in Feb 2008
more...
gcseeker2002
03-20 07:56 PM
How do you know that the labour process has slowed down from Mar 01 2011 ? Any source for this info? Please share.
Yes I would also like to know where it says that Labor process is stalled from Mar 1st,as it is impacting my current decision.
Yes I would also like to know where it says that Labor process is stalled from Mar 1st,as it is impacting my current decision.
hair Taurus 44 magnum revolver
indio0617
11-20 09:20 AM
Probably, at this moment it might still be true but the reality is that it is soon going to be demoted from this position......so there is nothing like missing the opportunity....!!!!
VERY TRUE...
VERY TRUE...
more...
sbabunle
07-02 09:46 AM
bheemi
Nobody is invincible or above the law here. If we have the right resource
we could do that. Remember Pres: Clinton was impeached once.. As an organization our main problem is money. People often visit here to find a remedy for their proble, or to get some information. But the contributing members are very less. If we have right resources and right reasons we can bring anyone to their knees
babu
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
Nobody is invincible or above the law here. If we have the right resource
we could do that. Remember Pres: Clinton was impeached once.. As an organization our main problem is money. People often visit here to find a remedy for their proble, or to get some information. But the contributing members are very less. If we have right resources and right reasons we can bring anyone to their knees
babu
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
hot Taurus 44 6.5quot; - M44-6SS
god_bless_you
12-13 10:57 AM
I know , More than 50% of IV members who can not file I 485 due to retrogression will be happy to pay this nominal amount of $10 to fax letter to USCIS for rule change
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!
more...
house Taurus .44 Magnum
sri1234
05-27 11:44 AM
I wonder what are the required documents for America born citizens if they don't have passports. Just a driver license? or they have to carry birth certificates always?
I think American Citizens Drivers Licence do not have "Status Check" date where as Non-Immigrants have it.
I think American Citizens Drivers Licence do not have "Status Check" date where as Non-Immigrants have it.
tattoo taurus 44 magnum revolver.
grinch
03-14 07:30 AM
If ya'll do like a character model contest next time, I think I will be in. But we will need like a 4 week due date...lol. Good job all.
Sounds good 3d, I'll actually look toward a battle like that.
It'll be my first character project, but I'll be looking foward to it.
Sounds good 3d, I'll actually look toward a battle like that.
It'll be my first character project, but I'll be looking foward to it.
more...
pictures .44 Magnum revolver.
ItIsNotFunny
10-16 11:52 AM
yesterday some one left a red saying "go and sleep in your bedroom or something like that" :D,
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
Hey,
I mentioned very clearly that someone who didn't want to come in front did this. So definitely its not you as you wanted to express your opinion and discuss in public. I always appreciate other's suggestions as it will eventually bring us to right or better decision. I only hate people who don't want to do anything and curse people who want to do something.
(which I find hilarious..because I don't exactly sleep on my couch :D:D)
then some left a green saying "nullifying red".
folks, I didn't leave a red for anyone (who cares abt them anyways)...don't assume immediately that I reacted.
giving either reds or greens will not impact anyone's gc process..or change their PDs!
Like itsnotfunny says, if you agree/disagree say it so. gave itsnotfunny a green to nullify the red.
let me reiterate though, that I am completely opposed to flower campaign because once bitten, twice shy.
USCIS has lot of autonomy and there is every likely of a repeat i.e july 07 part 2 as a reaction to gandhigiri part 2
instead focus on other avenues, there is an excellent thread on FOIA in addition to the other avenues
Hey,
I mentioned very clearly that someone who didn't want to come in front did this. So definitely its not you as you wanted to express your opinion and discuss in public. I always appreciate other's suggestions as it will eventually bring us to right or better decision. I only hate people who don't want to do anything and curse people who want to do something.
dresses revolver, .44 Magnum cal.,
eager_immi
07-24 07:09 AM
A guy with visa #current in June, his check got encashed.Guys, check this thread out. sanjay is saying he got his checks cashed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10994&highlight=cheque
more...
makeup Taurus 651 .357 mag with
crystal
06-30 10:02 PM
i don't think they accept anything on sunday to deliver on Monday. You can call fedex cust rep and find more.
Does anyone know if Fedex or anyone accepts mails on Sunday to be delivered on Monday morning ? Please advice ASAP.
Thanks
Indra
Does anyone know if Fedex or anyone accepts mails on Sunday to be delivered on Monday morning ? Please advice ASAP.
Thanks
Indra
girlfriend taurus 44 magnum revolver.
reddysn
06-10 09:52 PM
as far as I know what you have mentioned here is correct
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
As far as I know L1 has no affect on the H1 filing. She can come US on L1 and if her H1 gets approved, she can continue to work on L1 with company A. To tranfer to H1, she has to go out of US and then re-enter after getting H1 visa stamped. This is based on my understanding and few of my friends who have done that. They were in US on L1 but filed their H1 through another company.
hairstyles Taurus Model 44SS6 6½quot; .44
abc
11-17 05:21 PM
try to move when your 6 months of any H1b year are over.
I am trying to file H1b transfer + extn through new company. I am on 6 and half years on H1.
So, i will get 18 months in new h1b. Thus, I can safely file Perm through new company and get further extensions.
I am trying to file H1b transfer + extn through new company. I am on 6 and half years on H1.
So, i will get 18 months in new h1b. Thus, I can safely file Perm through new company and get further extensions.
paskal
07-09 06:40 PM
there is still the last quarter's quota
which is 100 - (27% X 3) = 19%
this 19% cannot be issued in July either- not more than 10% a mnth
there is no question they ignored this
i'm curious to know what reason they will use to justify it.
especially if it's a deposition under oath.
which is 100 - (27% X 3) = 19%
this 19% cannot be issued in July either- not more than 10% a mnth
there is no question they ignored this
i'm curious to know what reason they will use to justify it.
especially if it's a deposition under oath.
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment