From annual allocation, total visas used for EB3-ROW in FY 2011
Total visa used upto 22 November 2005 = 13927 + 7092 = 21019
Adding Consular Processing cases (15 %) = 1.15 * 21019 = 24,172
On similar lines as above from different inventories,
From ROW annual allocation, total visas used EB3-Mexico in FY 2011
Total visa used upto 22 November 2005 = 5177
Adding Consular Processing cases (15 %) = 1.15 * 5177 = 5,953
Out of EB3-ROW allocation, EB3-M could have used 5953-2803 = 3,150
From ROW annual allocation, total visas used EB3-Philippines in FY 2011
Total visa used upto 22 November 2005 = 2813
Adding Consular Processing cases (30 %) = 1.30 * 2813 = 3,656
Out of EB3-ROW allocation, EB3-P could have used 3656-2803 = 854
Estimated EB3-ROW Allocation used for FY 2011
So EB3- ROW annual allocation of 28,800 were used more or less in this way (some error here and there)
.
24,172 + 3,150 + 854 = 28,176
You Might Also Like :
17 comments:
CM,
Well done for attempting a very difficult subject.
I think your figures overestimate EB3-ROW and underestimate EB3-Mexico usage.
EB3-Mexico has a CP % of 2-5% - using that figure would give silly figures.
In reality, over 30% of EB3-Mexico demand is completely hidden from demand.
I belive EB3-Mexico has used closer to 7k visas and EB3-ROW will only achieve 22-23k this year.
Next year, EB3-Philippines will possibly consume 7k visas due to to demand of 12.6k in 2006. EB3-Mexico will be constrained by the same Cut Off Date as EB3-ROW, but their usage is almost impossible to predict, because so many cases appear from nowhere.
PS Since EB3-China only have an allocation of 2,503, the theoretical EB3-ROW allocation is actually 29,128, not 28,828.
Thank you AR for looking into this. I would like to reply in detail to you but I will need to get back to my computer for this. iPad may not be sufficient. I would get back to you by tomorrow.
Hi CM,
I missed july 2007 with priority data 01Jun2007. Really waiting to get EAD . I am sticking to my old job from past 6 years loosing the promotions as well as veryy good chances from out side can i expect EAD at lest near future
Hi Cm,
From your analysis, are you saying tha EB3M and EB3P received spillover from EB3Row, that M and P used approx. 4500 visas supposed to be for ROW?
Is'nt it they are supposed to get only 2802 each for a fiscal year?
Or since there are only few EB1 and EB2 for these countries, the excess or unsused visa for these categories spilled down vertically to EB3 within the respective country (M and P)?
Otherwise, it seems that EB3M and P are taking visas away from ROW?
First of all, thank you for looking at the calculations and putting forth your thoughts regarding it. It always helps us to grow better, precise and knowledgeable.
I agree numbers can be overestimate or underestimate from the real use as it is very difficult to evaluate consumption when you have large percentage of hidden demand. Hidden demand can come either from Consular processing cases or after return of eligible cases from LO to National Service Centers. These days even few cases are getting approved at the local offices, as such this demand would never make it to the inventory but would still end up using visa numbers.
I agree that EB3-Mexico demand can be more than what I have accounted for in my calculations, and EB3-ROW could be receiving less than 24k (calculated value), but still I do not believe that EB3-M Consular Processing demand is less and around 2-5%.
Although, 30% hidden demand based on your experience do make sense from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf.
This is the last document published on November 2010, outlining number of individuals, who are documentarily qualified and waiting at NVC for visa numbers. As per this document, EB3-M has at least 2,434 individuals.
I believe it is appropriate to assume that these individuals would mostly be from those who have their PD until July 2007. In addition to these, other demand can be from those who had received ‘Visa Bill’ for PD beyond July 2007 in past. I know of few cases until January 2008 who have received visa bill 2 years ago.
Just for coming up percentage use at consulates overseas, I tried to compare the numbers from NVC to number of pending cases in January 2011 USCIS inventory. There were 7552 pending cases from inventory for EB3-M with PD until July 2007. I used these numbers to roughly estimate 2434/(7552+2434) = 24 %.CP cases for EB3-M. Adding few cases from LO will give us 30% demand that you quoted.
Instead of using 24% as hidden demand, I used 15% because we are not sure about general trend, which can shift month to month depending upon density of applications. Other than these with EB3, long wait could cause lot of employers to abandon their future employees’ green card that is processed overseas. I was also not sure of how many of these are CP demand post July 2007. Accounting for this, I estimated 15% demand.
So yes, If I will take CP cases as 24%, EB3-M would have used close to 6419 total visas. However, I really doubt that hidden or CP demand will be so high. In past EB1-M has used 1800 visa numbers. Based on PERM data, EB2-M on average for this year was projected to use 1060, So adding up everything, Mexico as a country would end up using 9754 visas, which is very close to a maximum that an oversubscribed country can use. EB3-M receiving so many visas without getting spillover legally will be awful and wrong.
Anyhow, these calculations are just based on numbers, in reality you may be right and numbers might end up anywhere between our estimate. We will know more in few months.
For FY 2012, I have started believing that going forward DOS will treat EB3-ROW-M-P as one category (though listed differently in visa bulletin). Total demand of the three categories together will be used to determine cut-off dates for each bulletin. The reason that these categories cannot become part of ROW is because their counter FB category has a very high demand, which would cause them as a single country to use more than 7% of total annual EB +FB quota. EB3-ROW may not move much due to high EB3-P demand (as quoted by you) if for next year ROW is clubbed with M-P.
P.S. – I was aware of EB3-ROW allocation of 29,128, but for sake of simplicity in calculation (for myself), I always used 28,800; but you are right that it is time I should start using real numbers. Thank you for pointing this out.
CM,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a full response.
I agree that there is a lot of latitude within EB3 and I recognize how difficult it is to forecast. I certainly meant no criticism and your reply shows you did not take it as such.
Part of my pessimism also stems from the fact that DOS have not given the full 28.6% to EB3 in recent years. In FY2010 that meant the EB3-ROW allocation was reduced a further 657 (42,431 vs 43,088).
Regarding the CP % for EB3-Mexico, those are real figures from the annual reports of the Visa Office.
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Table V is AOS + CP and Table VI is CP alone. So for EB3-Mexico in FY2010, out of 7,740 visas issued, only 169 were via CP or 2.2%.
FY2010 - 2.2%
FY2009 - 5.4%
FY2008 - 2.9%
Of course, past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future, but the trend is fairly solid.
Keep up the good work. I enjoy all your articles.
Personally how things are going right now, I would expect you to file in exactly 2 years from now.
Yes it looks like 4500 or more as one of our friend suggested was used by M-P. There is no spillover happening but I have started believing that DOS would like to treat EB3-ROW-M-P as one category (though listed differently in visa bulletin). Total demand of the three categories together will be used to determine cut-off dates for each bulletin. The reason that these categories cannot become part of ROW is because their counter FB category has a very high demand, which would cause them as a single country to use more than 7% of total annual EB +FB quota. Though this sad but it looks like truth. Not extensive use by EB1 and EB2 in M-P really does makes it difficult for them to qualify these categories are oversubscribed.
Thank you for your response. Please be rest assured that I did not felt any disparagement or derision through your reply, rather I love such healthy conversation. We both know that whole analysis and number crunching is based on educated assumption and available data. You can do little with available information especially when major part is hidden demand. The whole point about this discussion was to learn.
I appreciate you directing me to some more information. It seems like 169 is the number quoted in theDOS statistics. Although it is very difficult to believe that year on year consumption is so less when you start comparing numbers to quoted in the NVC waiting list.
From this whole discussion at least we agree that there is some 15-30% hidden demand for EB3-M that comes from LO or CP and we both feel comfortable in quoting that EB3-M is using at least 100% more visas than allocated annual limit. Hopefully this will not be the case for FY 2012 but now you have EB3-P with such demand.
CM,
I'm just curious whats the basis of the EB3-P PD of May and June 2008 how did they get to put this date at those months is it because the demand of the visas are not that high or is it for some other particular reasons? if you may please give me an explanation for this particular months?
Thank you
my priority date 01 Jun 2007 i am just away by 45 day does it take 2 years
I am not sure about what you mean by PD May JUne 2008. Can you please elaborate?
Are you EB2-IC ? Since you posted in ROW article I thought you are EB3 ROW.
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_4205.html
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
Both this Priority Dates are way more advance than what we have today how did they come up with this dates ?
At that time lot of the cases were at the local offices for additional processing and hence demand was less but then when dates become current DOS realized demand was way more than anticipated and hence dates retrogressed then.
Basically their more on track now than then.. i guess that where the over retrogression started they gave more than they can..
Correct
Post a Comment