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,
wallpaper ollywood wallpapers
alias
06-10 02:20 PM
Even with EAD there is a problem finding jobs today. Employers sometimes do not call you after you tell them you have EAD. If they are going to make Immigration difficult for legals do you really think having EAD or not having EAD will really count? Nobody will give job for fear of lot of legal paper work, lawyer cost and complicated rules associated with layoffs. After TARP it was tough to get jobs in financial sector even if there was no TARP restriction for that position.
Don't you guys get it?
why are you digressing from the topic in this thread? let's put aside the EAD discussion for some other time :)
Don't you guys get it?
why are you digressing from the topic in this thread? let's put aside the EAD discussion for some other time :)
invincibleasian
01-31 06:18 PM
Well excuse me, but people having queries other than the reason why this thread was started, please create a new thread.
Sorry to say so, but my query for travel has been sidelined because of other issues.
thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Dude quit hogging any thread!
Sorry to say so, but my query for travel has been sidelined because of other issues.
thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Dude quit hogging any thread!
2011 Subscribe to Bollywood Movie
uppaji
08-03 12:29 PM
Hi Can we all agree up on a standard content format to Lou Dobbs.
Please send your text, if you have already sent emails.
I just want to make sure that they should realize that there is mass response for the smae topic.
Please send your text, if you have already sent emails.
I just want to make sure that they should realize that there is mass response for the smae topic.
more...
champu
03-09 04:37 PM
looks like that is Plan B :D:D
the way eb3 is , I may get it faster if my US born kids sponsor me. He is 8 right now.;)
the way eb3 is , I may get it faster if my US born kids sponsor me. He is 8 right now.;)
ArunAntonio
08-17 05:33 PM
Please vote -- > http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
more...
chanduv23
11-22 01:33 PM
I dont think that is correct - as per my lawyer this is what she says -
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
In order to move to a new employer and still continue with the same gc applications, you must meet all of the following conditions under AC21:
1. Your I-140 must be approved
2. Your I-485 must be filed and pending for at least 180 days
3. Your new job classification must be the same as in the old job
If you are missing any of the 3 conditions at the time you move to an employer, you will lose your gc application and you will need to start a new one.
So guys please make sure you give correct information. Also, I would suggest people who are asking various questions over here in IV should also talk to their own lawyers and take a decision. Please do not take decision based on comments given over here. So "LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP".
Please note that most people here give suggestions and advices based on their knowledge, experience etc... and may not be taken as legal advice. One must definitely consult an attorney before taking any career move. But also note that, Lawyers may not also be 100% aware or correct, as such no lawyer is perfect and most lawyers are commercial and you may * not really get the true picture* , exceptions and provisions are done on case to case basis and experienced and good lawyers can definitely help answer your questions.
Changing employer after 140 abd keeping PD is something new and I guess lawyers may not suggest taking that route, but in realty if u r in troubled waters, definitely u must see if u can work that option out.
2010 Bollywood Movies,
looivy
02-14 03:23 AM
However, the immigration policy has been Europe friendly. They allowed free flow of white Europeans during 19th and a good part of 20th century. No doubt that these Europeans who came also struggled initially.
The recent policy is to block non-English speaking Mexicans. Why shoudl language and to some extent race be a factor?
The recent policy is to block non-English speaking Mexicans. Why shoudl language and to some extent race be a factor?
more...
rpulipati
10-31 10:18 AM
This poll people are the most affected in the retrogression and I can see that 700 people has voted so far.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
Official number may be much large, x2, x3 or x10.
Without no law change, we will be here for years to come.
Support IV.
hair Bollywood Movie Kites
amitjoey
01-18 12:36 PM
I've been following this Forum daily for more than
two years and never seen any achievement by Core group or
their lobbysts!
Why should I contribute this time?
Thanks
The question to ask is what should/can I do to help the core with this effort.
Not be a arm-chair critic. I know, you seem to be just frustrated, I am sure you are not questioning the core and their efforts. This is our year and we are going to be successfull this year. Nothing meaningfull can be achieved without struggle.
two years and never seen any achievement by Core group or
their lobbysts!
Why should I contribute this time?
Thanks
The question to ask is what should/can I do to help the core with this effort.
Not be a arm-chair critic. I know, you seem to be just frustrated, I am sure you are not questioning the core and their efforts. This is our year and we are going to be successfull this year. Nothing meaningfull can be achieved without struggle.
more...
msp1976
12-21 09:28 AM
Please take time to write to the New Jersey Senators this holiday season to encourage them to take up the immigration legislation
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
hot Di Jodi: Movie Wallpapers
slowwin
06-16 01:06 PM
what happened with this amdt. Did it fail or pass ?:confused:
more...
house Bollywood Movie
vparam
10-29 12:27 PM
Not wrong in hoping right :-)
tattoo Bollywood Movies Wallpapers
deepakjain
06-08 06:32 PM
Do not abuse me...for this post.
2 of my friends have moved back to India after looking at EB2 date of JAN00....I think they took the wise decision....
Else let us work here thinking that we are in Saudi Arabia, work till the age of 58-65 and then move back to India letting our kids settled here.
2 of my friends have moved back to India after looking at EB2 date of JAN00....I think they took the wise decision....
Else let us work here thinking that we are in Saudi Arabia, work till the age of 58-65 and then move back to India letting our kids settled here.
more...
pictures Movie WallPapers bollywood
ItIsNotFunny
03-10 03:32 PM
I challenge visitors in this forum to make atleast one fix, any small fix by sticking to the point and not beating around the bush and not getting into the shoes of others to paint the whole world problems in this.
Just stick to one point agenda and deliver it fully..
1. Recapture Immigrant Visas - to me too big to bite but it is the best
2. Admin fix to file I485 when date is not current - Helps lot of people who missed July 07 fiasco for various reasons..
3. Admin fix to revalidate H1B in USA - Stops all the BS about IO at POE killed someone etc..
4. Accountability of CIS - Make sure they process in FIFO by PD (Damn it, we need to define PD for them :-) )
Just stick with one damn topic and deliver it. This will help IV get the required attention.
Need an example, look at FOIA thread, In four days we had people pledging almost 8K.
I second this.
Just stick to one point agenda and deliver it fully..
1. Recapture Immigrant Visas - to me too big to bite but it is the best
2. Admin fix to file I485 when date is not current - Helps lot of people who missed July 07 fiasco for various reasons..
3. Admin fix to revalidate H1B in USA - Stops all the BS about IO at POE killed someone etc..
4. Accountability of CIS - Make sure they process in FIFO by PD (Damn it, we need to define PD for them :-) )
Just stick with one damn topic and deliver it. This will help IV get the required attention.
Need an example, look at FOIA thread, In four days we had people pledging almost 8K.
I second this.
dresses Bollywood Movies Wallpapers
h1techSlave
06-12 09:55 PM
Any meaningful change in the current immigration policies are very unlikely.
This is what I have read in "The Week".
"Republican donon revolt: The Republican National Committee has suffered a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions, largely because of anger over President Bush's immigration reform push, The Washington Times reported last week. The donor backlash prompted the committee to fire all 65 of its telephone solicitors, RNC sources said. The GOP base is up in arms over Bush's plan to create a method for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status - a process critics consider amnesty. An RNS spokesperson said the firings were due to problems with the phone bank equipment and not from any drop-off in donations."
Cheers,
h1techSlave
This is what I have read in "The Week".
"Republican donon revolt: The Republican National Committee has suffered a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions, largely because of anger over President Bush's immigration reform push, The Washington Times reported last week. The donor backlash prompted the committee to fire all 65 of its telephone solicitors, RNC sources said. The GOP base is up in arms over Bush's plan to create a method for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status - a process critics consider amnesty. An RNS spokesperson said the firings were due to problems with the phone bank equipment and not from any drop-off in donations."
Cheers,
h1techSlave
more...
makeup Bollywood Movie Kites Poster
webm
04-24 11:53 AM
Thank you all for the warm response. I appreciate it and wish the same for absolutely all of you. I hope my heated discussions with various officials about TSC's lack of action will clear some logjam for everyone else who is current but still waiting.
Thanks much!!
Thanks much!!
girlfriend Watch Bollywood Movies
grupak
02-15 05:33 PM
Look, I don't want to enter a pissing match with anyone here. Go read your history (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses) before jumping to conclusions.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
Supporting a law based on eugenics is very sad indeed.
hairstyles Desktop : Bollywood Movie
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.
Suva
11-11 12:57 AM
Good one...
PCS - What you are suffering from is known as PVBS (Post Visa Bulletin Syndrome). It is very common in Indian and Chinese community living in the US.
This condition stays with the patient/sufferer for 15 days or so and then disappears like a f*a*r*t in the wind. It is more likely to happen to those who fall under EB-2 category and especially those who are 6 months or so from priority date to be current. This condition keeps re-appearing till the patient gets green card and then it gives birth to another condition call PGCS (Post Green Card Syndrome). Typically, that condition lasts for 5 years till the patient gets US citizenship. There are some documented evidences that Amway and QuickStar have tried to fix this condition but medical community is yet to approve that.
Laughter is the only known cure of this condition. Returning back to home country can also cure this condition.
PCS - What you are suffering from is known as PVBS (Post Visa Bulletin Syndrome). It is very common in Indian and Chinese community living in the US.
This condition stays with the patient/sufferer for 15 days or so and then disappears like a f*a*r*t in the wind. It is more likely to happen to those who fall under EB-2 category and especially those who are 6 months or so from priority date to be current. This condition keeps re-appearing till the patient gets green card and then it gives birth to another condition call PGCS (Post Green Card Syndrome). Typically, that condition lasts for 5 years till the patient gets US citizenship. There are some documented evidences that Amway and QuickStar have tried to fix this condition but medical community is yet to approve that.
Laughter is the only known cure of this condition. Returning back to home country can also cure this condition.
EdenMN
07-13 09:06 AM
I think we should not care 'Is Murthy doing for her publicity / money?' as long as it serves our purpose. We should respect people who are trying to help us . and many folks are blaming she is money minded.... but u know what she runs law firm not non-profitable organization.
In Iv many people are free riders when they can't contribute money to solve their problem why you guys expect Murthy to do charity work ....
In Iv many people are free riders when they can't contribute money to solve their problem why you guys expect Murthy to do charity work ....
Post a Comment