Tag Archives: eb3

Visa Retrogression & How Does It Apply to EB2 Visa Green Card Applicants

The U.S. government makes only a certain number of immigrant visas (green cards) available each year and these are allocated among the various immigrant visa categories and countries from which applicants seek to immigrate. For the past few years, the number of immigrants approved for employment-based immigrant visas has been lower than the number of visas available, resulting in no backlog in visa numbers. Recently, the DOS has seen far more immigrants approved for employment-based immigrant visas and has run out of visa numbers in certain categories, causing a temporary backlog or “retrogression” of visa numbers.

When worldwide demand for employment based visas exceeds worldwide availability, immigrant visa numbers are further apportioned among the various countries from which applicants seek to emigrate. Each country has a limit and each approved applicant is “charged” against his or her country’s limit. Most countries have fewer applicants than available visa numbers. However, certain high-immigration countries often meet or exceed their chargeability limit. These countries include China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Please note that for chargeability purposes, a person’s country of birth controls. A person cannot claim country of citizenship for retrogression purposes. For instance if applicant A is born in India, but possesses Canadian citizenship, applicant A will be unable to adjust status (based on EB1 or EB2) until visa numbers for India become current.

In addition, please note that a spouse can take on their spouse’s country of birth for retrogression purposes. For example, applicant A is a national of Bangladesh and applicant A’s spouse is a national of India. Applicant A’s spouse WILL be able to adjust status even though he or she was born in India because he or she can take on applicant A’s country of birth for retrogression purposes.

Immigrant visa numbers are given out according to a “first come, first serve” policy. The date an applicant first begins the green card process (often a Labor Certification Application filed with the U.S. Department of Labor or an I-140 or I-130 Petition filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) becomes that person’s priority date, which will determine the order in which that person will receive a visa number and thus be further processed for an immigrant visa or adjusted to immigrant status. When a retrogression occurs in visa numbers, applicants will have to “wait in line” until their priority date becomes current before they can be adjusted or receive an immigrant visa.

A visa number retrogression means that EB1, EB2 or EB3 applicants from certain high-immigration countries will not be able to apply for an immigrant visa (by filing an I-485 or through Consular processing) until a visa number becomes available for their priority date.

Supply and Demand for Visas

Visa number availability is determined by using a simple formula of supply and demand.
Each fiscal year (October 1-September 30), DOS reviews the demand for the above referenced classifications and per-country limits. If DOS finds that the demand for any of the above classifications is too high and that they do not have enough supply, they pull back the ‘priority dates’ of the visas in order to ride the wave of demand and ensure that supply is not exceeded. By pulling back the priority dates, DOS is able to regulate the flow of these visas. If the demand for a certain preference classification is too high, the visa will retrogress and will not become available until the priority date for that classification has been reached.

For instance, according to the immigrant visa bulletin that was just released for February 2008, the visa numbers for nationals of India in the EB2 category have become completely unavailable. This means that a person who filed an I-140 immigrant visa petition in the classification of EB2 category, after cannot file an adjustment of status (or consular process) until their priority date becomes current.

It is important to note however, that these priority dates are subject to change during the fiscal year. It is entirely possible that visa numbers in the EB2 category for Indian nationals could suddenly become current a few months from now or that the priority date could be reestablished. The reason for this is that the DOS is making an assessment based on what they believe will be the demand for these types of visas. It is their way of ‘testing the waters’ of demand. If a month from now, DOS reviews the demand for these visas and finds that it is not what they believed it would be, they will establish a priority date.

Consequently, if the demand is as high as first believed, they will keep the category ‘unavailable’. Right now, DOS is taking a very conservative approach to meet the their perception of demand and they will reassess their position on a monthly basis as the year moves forward. This is simply a regulatory mechanism where by DOS can control the number of visas issued in any given year to ensure that the demand does not exceed the supply.


Guest Author
Stephen Jeffries

Letter to President Obama & USCIS re: Green Card Processing Delays and Immigration Reform

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter as I am sure you receive many. I am writing to you in hopes of promoting change to an issue that is close to my heart, and I believe close to yours as well.

As of November 2009, the current visa bulletins show a backlog of green card approvals all the way back to June 2002 for the employment-based third priority applications (EB3).

The effects of these delays are significant. EB3 consists of many young graduates such as myself, who graduated at the top of our class, who had to compete above and beyond the qualifications of regular graduates at every step of the way, who, like many former immigrants who came to America to seek a better life, are forced to make tough decisions in the face of these long waiting times. Some of us have been laid off, only to be given unrealistically short timeframes to find another job or go back to our home countries after decades of living abroad. Many of us simply wait in fear. Fear of the unknown and what might happen to us in the long years to come. In some ways, these restrictions stagnant those who foster ideas of entrepreneurship by preventing career change, growth and the risk-taking nature of American entrepreneurship that so evidently fuels the spirit and prosperity of this economy.

Intel, eBay, Yahoo!, Sun Microsystems, Google and many other companies were all founded by immigrants who were welcomed by America. Over the last 15 years, foreign nationals have started 25 percent of U.S. venture-backed public companies, accounting for more than $500 billion in market capitalization and adding significant value to our economy. There is a wealth of talent and ambition hidden below the covers of these immigration laws.

I arrived in Boston when I was 16 and I still remember the day I graduated (I was 20 and still couldn’t have a drink because it was illegal!) in 2004. Last month I turned 26, and I realized that I have been here for over a decade. This is the longest I have lived in any country since being on many diplomatic missions around the world with my father. When you were young, your family also lived overseas, so I know you can relate to what it feels like to have a “home country” and to have a desire to prosper and pursue happiness there.

You once said among a crowd of young students that “here in America, you write out own destiny, you make our own future” and I hope that this can one day come true when college graduates can have a realistic goal of becoming permanent residences if they work hard and believe in all that this country has to offer. When you came to Google in 2007 you told us that you would support the H1b program as well as more and faster permanent residents for those who add value to this country. Many of us here at Google as well as beyond the valley were very excited, and we remain hopeful today.

A lot of people laughed when I said that I would send you a letter. They expect me to give up. They expect that you to not read this letter. They will expect that even if you do, nothing will change.

I would like to prove them wrong. I hope that if anything, this letter will allow for a moment of consideration for actions that will speed up processing times for employment based immigration, of which many of us have already sacrificed so much for.

Sincerely,

Richard Wan