Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
wallpaper Cool Desktop Wallpapers,
akilhere
10-21 02:43 PM
I replied to my RFE last Friday and the status changed to Reponse Review. I got a soft LUD yesterday. Nothing after that!
coopheal
07-02 07:03 AM
Doing more than what IV suggest is good. If you personally take responsibility and make the online petition a success, great... and best luck.
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
2011 Desktop Wallpaper Showcase 29
Libra
09-27 11:03 AM
First we come here which is completely different environment and struggle to adjust, then after 10 yrs or so, if we go back then struggle to adjust in home country.
more...
ThinkTwice
09-20 12:09 AM
I agree with sunny1000, We definetly should consider it
We retain the name Immigration Voice but we add a slogan to it
for xample in a news report it would appear some thing like this -
"" IMMIGRATION VOICE- An organisation of Legal Immigrants, was directly responsible for driving the congress to increase the greencard numbers to 300,000, exclude the family members from the quota and reduce the FBI check times to no more than one month, after such huge success and having achieved their ultimate goal IMMIGRATION VOICE - An organisation of Legal Immigrants has decided to fight for world peace.""
Good point...
Just my 25 cents...;)
We retain the name Immigration Voice but we add a slogan to it
for xample in a news report it would appear some thing like this -
"" IMMIGRATION VOICE- An organisation of Legal Immigrants, was directly responsible for driving the congress to increase the greencard numbers to 300,000, exclude the family members from the quota and reduce the FBI check times to no more than one month, after such huge success and having achieved their ultimate goal IMMIGRATION VOICE - An organisation of Legal Immigrants has decided to fight for world peace.""
Good point...
Just my 25 cents...;)
ebizash
06-11 10:23 AM
Sent to IL lawmakers.
Forwarded to a few friends.
Forwarded to a few friends.
more...
villamonte6100
09-26 12:50 PM
its illegal to take color photocopies of driver licences, ONLY send b/w
You dont make sense.
There is no law that says it is illegal to take color photocopies of driver license.
I've done that many times.
You dont make sense.
There is no law that says it is illegal to take color photocopies of driver license.
I've done that many times.
2010 cool wallpapers for desktop.
SFSweta
09-10 02:43 PM
So there you have it - no vote on the bill today...
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
more...
Milind123
06-07 10:52 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/nationalnamecheck.htm
hair 40 Cool Wallpapers for your
Macaca
09-10 03:47 PM
My gut says that Andy is in. He is making travel arrangements!
more...
makemygc
07-05 10:56 AM
Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
hot desktop backgrounds,
sri1309
09-10 05:27 PM
Guys,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
more...
house cool desktop backgrounds
obviously
07-13 10:17 AM
Permit me to call out the grossly misguided emotions I've seen in this thread.
We have a co-alum of the DHS Secy sending a detailed, cogent and EASY TO READY letter pleading for our cause and yet we diss her.
Sheela Murthy might be different things to different people. Reality is that she is agent of capitalism JUST AS WE ARE. Then, why take a holier than thou attitude and arbitrarily attribute nefarious intentions to her actions?
This shallowness illustrates the deep void in vision and a decidedly insular world view.
I would urge IV members to THANK Sheela Murthy for her cogent articulation of the human impact of this disastrous situation and ask her to continue to support the cause through various means.
And by the way, I am NOT a client and that should make no difference in the quest for objective realization that there are shared interests at play.
However, I AM a trained negotiator and conflict mediator (apart from being a co-author of a mediation model) and hence from that perspective would aver that such realization of shared gains are what ADD VALUE to a discussion.
Cheers!
We have a co-alum of the DHS Secy sending a detailed, cogent and EASY TO READY letter pleading for our cause and yet we diss her.
Sheela Murthy might be different things to different people. Reality is that she is agent of capitalism JUST AS WE ARE. Then, why take a holier than thou attitude and arbitrarily attribute nefarious intentions to her actions?
This shallowness illustrates the deep void in vision and a decidedly insular world view.
I would urge IV members to THANK Sheela Murthy for her cogent articulation of the human impact of this disastrous situation and ask her to continue to support the cause through various means.
And by the way, I am NOT a client and that should make no difference in the quest for objective realization that there are shared interests at play.
However, I AM a trained negotiator and conflict mediator (apart from being a co-author of a mediation model) and hence from that perspective would aver that such realization of shared gains are what ADD VALUE to a discussion.
Cheers!
tattoo cool desktop wallpaper
a_yaja
04-06 09:32 PM
well if the employer is not supporting you ..then maybe the IO does have the authority to refuse ?? (well assuming that these cases are correct ..then I guess we can assume that IO has recd instructions from his superiors) it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
To be denied entry, the visitor has to go through secondary inspection. That is the process. The CBP officer at the primary inspection does not have the authority to send some one home. Look at this link from Syracuse University that details this process:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/142/
Quotes from this page:
In a procedure known as Primary Inspections, the officers interview people appearing before them and check their documents. In addition, the documents are scanned into a computer to detect past immigration violations, criminal problems, and national security concerns. The entire process is very brief, averaging less than one minute per person to keep up with the crush of arriving travelers.
In Secondary, a new set of Inspectors have additional time and latitude to investigate whether a person's papers � and their reasons for coming to the U.S. � are legitimate and legal.
So whoever said that the CBP officer at the primary inspection called up employer and asked the employer if they cannot find US citizens is not telling the truth. Probably the guy started the rumor :D.
To be denied entry, the visitor has to go through secondary inspection. That is the process. The CBP officer at the primary inspection does not have the authority to send some one home. Look at this link from Syracuse University that details this process:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/142/
Quotes from this page:
In a procedure known as Primary Inspections, the officers interview people appearing before them and check their documents. In addition, the documents are scanned into a computer to detect past immigration violations, criminal problems, and national security concerns. The entire process is very brief, averaging less than one minute per person to keep up with the crush of arriving travelers.
In Secondary, a new set of Inspectors have additional time and latitude to investigate whether a person's papers � and their reasons for coming to the U.S. � are legitimate and legal.
So whoever said that the CBP officer at the primary inspection called up employer and asked the employer if they cannot find US citizens is not telling the truth. Probably the guy started the rumor :D.
more...
pictures wallpaper cool.
srkamath
07-04 03:16 PM
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
Yes, i'm not supportive of those that seek to exploit loopholes, I understand their frustration, i feel the same frustration. If we know for certain that someone is deliberately, possibly illegally abusing the system we should report it to either DOL or USCIS. Look what the exploiters have done to the PERM system.......
Yes, i'm not supportive of those that seek to exploit loopholes, I understand their frustration, i feel the same frustration. If we know for certain that someone is deliberately, possibly illegally abusing the system we should report it to either DOL or USCIS. Look what the exploiters have done to the PERM system.......
dresses 2010 cool backgrounds for
immi_seeker
07-13 11:26 AM
They have no reason to pull the dates back. Most 2004, 2005, part 2006 people got to apply during the july07 fiasco. In the past, they have pulled the dates back if new applications flooded in when they pushed the dates up.
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
more...
makeup cool wallpapers for desktop
dealsnet
03-19 10:07 AM
85,000 PERM cases certified in 2007. 2007 is a typical heavy filing year still...
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
One year 140,000 EB based visas available. If some how some of the back logs are eliminated, the future looks good as 140K for a year and less than 100K labor certifications per year. If the USCIS process with maximum visa/year, it is possible.
http://www.usavisanow.com/perm07.pdf
see a chart
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pezNTiCXNupwoSrZGE4kqcg&gid=1
girlfriend cool desktop wallpaper
indio0617
02-15 01:06 PM
Berkeleybee,
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
You are probably aware of these and have already tried it.
1. Heard the attorney / employer can file for some extra paperwork to expedite name check. I am not sure what it is... Have you checked into it.
2. Request your Senator / Congress staff to look ibto your case. I heard that often hastens the process. Some of my friends have had success with that approach.
FYI: My employer (Healthcare) has had phenomenal success with I-485 approvals. Average processing time has been 6 months.
Just so that you know, I am caught in the name check too. This is a bigger blackhole than even labor processing. Becos atleast labor processing your Immigration Attorneys can write to BECs (You may or may not get a reply, that is a different issue, but atleast it is allowed). In case of FBI name check, you just cant do much. It is a much dreaded process in the whole game and needs to get enough focus. Eventually, it is going to be everybodys problem.
Thanks.
You are probably aware of these and have already tried it.
1. Heard the attorney / employer can file for some extra paperwork to expedite name check. I am not sure what it is... Have you checked into it.
2. Request your Senator / Congress staff to look ibto your case. I heard that often hastens the process. Some of my friends have had success with that approach.
FYI: My employer (Healthcare) has had phenomenal success with I-485 approvals. Average processing time has been 6 months.
hairstyles Off-Road Desktop Wallpaper
StarSun
02-07 08:35 AM
immig4me, can you keep the advocacy thread on the home page in the weekend too?
needhelp!
09-26 12:07 PM
I see the updated text. Good job IV folks!
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
But it does seem out of place because the whole article is about H1..
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
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.
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.
