bfadlia
02-16 01:57 PM
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
don't worry my friend.. it's not u.. that dummy has been using this fascist style of discussion on all threads
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
don't worry my friend.. it's not u.. that dummy has been using this fascist style of discussion on all threads
just ignore him.. it infuriates him like hell.. u'll be amused with his later responses :)
wallpaper super funny quotes. super
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,
permfiling
11-08 06:14 PM
Congrats ! How long did it take for CPO email since u recieved the 485 , I-797 and which service center
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
Guys,
Today I spent around $300 to start medical exam report. I've to still to do lab work and may need x-ray. I was working with my swollen arm and got this message..
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production On September 22, 2010 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
-----
Now I have to wait.. I will skip tomorrow's lab :rolleyes: and talk to my attorney. Confused yet happy
2011 super funny quotes. super
sukhwinderd
02-22 09:22 AM
with StarSun. there are so many people in neighboring states (to DC) who can come during advocacy days, or atleast offer accomodation, hotel pickup drop offs. hardly anything to loose. its pathetic that people will line up for free lunch, but will not do anything to get it, even when there is nothing to loose.
more...
perm2gc
01-18 03:23 PM
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/H1_Visa_Info/messages
Jaime
09-10 09:55 PM
Microsoft using cricket to try to stop Reverse Brain Drain!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...oft_cricket_dc
more...
retrohatao
02-03 09:40 AM
I have not heard from any of the moderators/forum organizers on this. Does that mean immigrationvoice is NOT FOR "name check" affected immigrants?
2010 images super funny quotes. new
needhelp!
10-28 06:15 PM
Did this last Friday. Waiting on receipt number.
This is the doc:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkc5z3x_4cj4sxwgh
This is the doc:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkc5z3x_4cj4sxwgh
more...
abhijitp
07-18 12:57 AM
As in, if you have a delivery confirmation from Fedex/UPS does it have any significance? It is still not clear if it will be accepted/ rejected AFAIK.
Have there been any applications that were not even "accepted" because the "packet" suggested it was an AOS application?
More likely, applications can be rejected for being "improperly filed" but you would only come to know about it whenever they are rejected. No one would know this in advance, so no point worrying about it.
Have there been any applications that were not even "accepted" because the "packet" suggested it was an AOS application?
More likely, applications can be rejected for being "improperly filed" but you would only come to know about it whenever they are rejected. No one would know this in advance, so no point worrying about it.
hair super funny quotes. super
keshtwo
08-15 05:15 PM
wonder what that means for India-China EB2 in the October Bulletin. Will the retrogression be back to Jan 07 dates?:confused:
more...
goel_ar
03-21 12:29 PM
Send me I'm. My prev post was deleted by mod becos they won't allow other websites to be published here
wow -- why mods don't allow other websites to be published here?
wow -- why mods don't allow other websites to be published here?
hot super funny quotes
reddymjm
04-23 06:34 PM
for sharing the news
more...
house super funny quotes. funny
like_watching_paint_dry
01-19 04:26 PM
Of course. Judges are the ones who interpret the laws. Officers just do what they are instructed to do. My point was just out of curiosity, how I think this law is being interpreted.
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
LOL. That's an interesting approach. I've heard of a story where a hispanic dude who had a beer breath actually get out of a breathalyzer test and eventually get off a potential DUI conviction because of lack of evidence. His excuse was he could not understand the instructions the officer was giving...
"no comprende..."
"put your mouth here and phoo phoo ..."
"no comprende..."
But of course. My opinion is not only not to argue with officers, but don't even talk to them. When I feel that officer wants some "conversation" with me, my favorite response is "sorry officer, me no understand, no speak english". period. Smile to his face, keep saying "sorry". Don't show any extra document - just only what is required, nothing extra. Officer can be asking any questions, just hand him business card of your lawyer, say "my lawyer, talk him". as worse English you will use, as better it will be for you. My experience.
When I first entered United States I was kept at secondary check for 4 hours (1999, IAD, Virginia). They kept asking me all kinda questions, it was no end. Finally I got pissed, I said "Sorry, I don't speak English good" and started playing with them. I took my dictionary and starting looking up every word. My next answer took 5 minutes. In next 5 minutes a woman walked to me, handed my documents and said "Welcome to America".
LOL. That's an interesting approach. I've heard of a story where a hispanic dude who had a beer breath actually get out of a breathalyzer test and eventually get off a potential DUI conviction because of lack of evidence. His excuse was he could not understand the instructions the officer was giving...
"no comprende..."
"put your mouth here and phoo phoo ..."
"no comprende..."
tattoo super funny quotes. perverted
GreenCardVirus
01-27 10:29 AM
Name Check is haunting quite many of those seeking Citizenship and Green Card.
This is not an issue of law. It is an issue of effenciency.
My case has been stuck up in Name Check for over 600 days now.
This is not an issue of law. It is an issue of effenciency.
My case has been stuck up in Name Check for over 600 days now.
more...
pictures funny quotes barbie. super
nojoke
03-01 04:06 AM
Unfortunately, Obama is not changing much. The mortgage bailout is just a show. Almost irrelevant.
They are throwing good money into a black hole.:mad:
They are throwing good money into a black hole.:mad:
dresses super funny quotes. super
waitforevergc
02-14 10:02 AM
this is an irrelavant thread. pls delete this thread.
'ethnic cleansing' is a strong word and shouldnt be used in our context.
thanks.
'ethnic cleansing' is a strong word and shouldnt be used in our context.
thanks.
more...
makeup super funny quotes
Gravitation
02-20 05:18 PM
Ok guys before you shoot it down heres my calc for EB2 pending apps from 2000 to Dec 2003. Obviously its a rough estimate, who knows how many eb3s switched, labor subs etc etc etc.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
girlfriend super funny quotes. super
GCwaitforever
02-22 11:41 AM
EB-2 India went to unavailable because USCIS stamped 2003/2004 petitions left and right to consume VISA numbers. Then they realized there were bunch of 2001/2002 petitions gathering dust. After no VISA numbers left, they had no option but to move the priority date backwards to make very few petitions current.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
hairstyles super funny quotes. super
gc28262
08-10 03:26 PM
Before proposing a solution, we need to make sure these are valid arguments. We need to crack INA ourselves to make sure were making a valid legal argument.
Those of you are willing to join effort on the following thread, please pm GCPerm.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html#post1977684
Those of you are willing to join effort on the following thread, please pm GCPerm.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1599562-team-visa-allocation-by-dos.html#post1977684
pmb76
07-16 09:15 PM
Someone mentioned that IV has the same web fax facility. Can someone tell us how to use this facility. I registered with the numbersusa site and used their own fax to send out our message. I used the first name, last name and address form fields to put in our message like, "Bunch of Lies", "H1 pay all taxes", Numbersusa is spreading false information". Lets beat them at their own game by sending faxes ourselves and also using their fax service to spread our message. If its a good idea, please register on their site and send out faxes with our message.
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
Well said. I totally agree with you. Admin please bump up this thread so we may correct the facts on behalf of numbersusa :D
24fps
02-19 07:59 PM
read my lips, THIS BILL WILL NEVER PASS
its so redundant that even NumbersUSA haven't even reported.
its so redundant that even NumbersUSA haven't even reported.
No comments:
Post a Comment