H******i
发帖数: 4704 | |
l*******k
发帖数: 1974 | |
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 3 实际上不是，但是分配名额的时候是，看链接。
国务院的年度总额没有减去1000个中国六四血卡，我分别减去了。
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDa
【在 l*******k 的大作中提到】
: China EB5 是0？
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 4 How come Mexico and Phillipins EB3 can get spillover when EB2IC still have
backlog, is this againt law?
BTW, thank you for all the hardwork ! |
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 5 Which part of the law states that 7% is per country on combined FB and EB?
Then why they gave a 2803 EB limit per country / per category. Are they
mistaken the law so that 7% is per country combined FB/EB instead of EB and
FB seperately? If the law states 7% is per country and EB only, the South
Korean should be backlogged and no EB3 can get spillover before EB2 cleared. |
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 6 INA 202(a) (2)
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2
and
cleared.
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Which part of the law states that 7% is per country on combined FB and EB?
: Then why they gave a 2803 EB limit per country / per category. Are they
: mistaken the law so that 7% is per country combined FB/EB instead of EB and
: FB seperately? If the law states 7% is per country and EB only, the South
: Korean should be backlogged and no EB3 can get spillover before EB2 cleared.
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 7 good one.
"by countries," doesn't sound normal, "7% per country" may be better.
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 怎么才能抢得到多一点的spillover？
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 8 from the flow chart, you can see that "priority date" has the lower priority
than "7% per country limit". this is why Mr. O would not do ealier SO
allocation in the beginning of each fiscal year. |
y**********r
发帖数: 2004 | |
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 10 Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
what is the point of 2803 number?
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
- Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: INA 202(a) (2)
: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2
:
: and
: cleared.
|
|
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 11 听你的话先改了图再说。
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: How come Mexico and Phillipins EB3 can get spillover when EB2IC still have
: backlog, is this againt law?
: BTW, thank you for all the hardwork !
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 12 The current demanding date: C=3000, I=5000. Ratio> 1:2. Based on most our
estimate, the ratio between C/I < 1/3. It tells me that the I-PD is moved
ahead of C-PD, meaning EB2I is moved ahead of EB2C on the dates. |
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 13 7% for FB and EB, separately...
for a country, if FB did not use 7% cap, the number could be used to its EB.
that's why in 2010, EB2C had the chance to use a little more visa numbers.
immigrants.
immigrant
not
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
: what is the point of 2803 number?
: (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
: - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
: visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
: area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
: exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
: the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
: available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 14 South Korea EB2 takes spillover too, right? ~3000 each year?
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 听你的话先改了图再说。
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 15 So, the extra 3000 for South Korea EB2 are not from the EB visa number, but
from FB visa number?
EB.
【在 M*******t 的大作中提到】
: 7% for FB and EB, separately...
: for a country, if FB did not use 7% cap, the number could be used to its EB.
: that's why in 2010, EB2C had the chance to use a little more visa numbers.
:
: immigrants.
: immigrant
: not
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 16 In 2007, EB3I got 17,795 approved while EB2IC still backlogged. Is this
legal? |
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 17 这是中印捆绑之前的事。政策2008年4月开始改的。
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: In 2007, EB3I got 17,795 approved while EB2IC still backlogged. Is this
: legal?
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 18 给个官方链接介绍一下政策怎么改的。
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 这是中印捆绑之前的事。政策2008年4月开始改的。
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 19 i think in reality, O combined the FB and EB visas for each country.
in initial visa allocation, 7% applies to each category.
as, Mexico has less EB #s, so, they can use more FB's.
S.K., on the other hand, has less FB's, they use more EB's>9.8k.
this could be a good point to inquire O.
but
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So, the extra 3000 for South Korea EB2 are not from the EB visa number, but
: from FB visa number?
:
: EB.
|
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 20 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 给个官方链接介绍一下政策怎么改的。
|
|
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 21 So they misinterpreted law until 2007? Then how can we be so sure they are
doing it right now?
Both South Korean EB2 and Mexico EB3 are technically eating up the
spillovers due to the combined EB/FB 7% interpretation. If in fact 7% should
be liminated to per country per catogory (seperate EB/FB), then we will get
a lot more spillovers.
2010: SC EB2 4,793 Mexico EB3 5,983 Philippines EB3 3,197 , All> 2803
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
H*V
发帖数: 2770 | 22 does the law allow combination of FB and EB? any leftover of either FB or EB
should go to spillover but not its own country, right?
should
get
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So they misinterpreted law until 2007? Then how can we be so sure they are
: doing it right now?
: Both South Korean EB2 and Mexico EB3 are technically eating up the
: spillovers due to the combined EB/FB 7% interpretation. If in fact 7% should
: be liminated to per country per catogory (seperate EB/FB), then we will get
: a lot more spillovers.
: 2010: SC EB2 4,793 Mexico EB3 5,983 Philippines EB3 3,197 , All> 2803
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 23 I think they interpret the law in a weird way (maybe the wrong way just like
the EB3I case in 2007). Say South Korea for example: their EB2 is always >
2803; but due to the fact that they have less FB, they are allocated more
visas for EB2. BUT those extra visa numbers they got are from EB visa number
(spillover), not from FB visa number. This does not make sense to me. |
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 24 Could you share the source for this? Thank you.
like
>
number
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: I think they interpret the law in a weird way (maybe the wrong way just like
: the EB3I case in 2007). Say South Korea for example: their EB2 is always >
: 2803; but due to the fact that they have less FB, they are allocated more
: visas for EB2. BUT those extra visa numbers they got are from EB visa number
: (spillover), not from FB visa number. This does not make sense to me.
|
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 25 The way they interpret the law is correct. Note that it says "under
subsectionS (a) AND (b) of section 203" and "under such subsectionS". 用了
and不是or，用了复数S，而不是单数each subsection。
other sources：
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/cir/Greenwood/combined.htm
"In addition to setting a higher overall limit on admissions, the 1990 Act
altered the per-country limitations used to determine how many immigrants
may enter the United States each year. Previously, the per-country quota was
set at 20,000 visas per year. The 1990 Act provides that family-based and
employment-based visas made available to citizens of a single independent
foreign state may not exceed 7 percent of the total available. Given the
minimum of 226,000 family-sponsored and 140 employment-based allocations,
the per-country ceiling for an independent country is raised to 25,620.
Additional flexibility is provided for potential migrants by the fact that
the 7 percent per-country limit is not subdivided between family-sponsored
and employment-based allocations."
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5560.html
"Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants
is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based
preference limits, i.e., 25,620 for FY-2011."
http://immigrationroad.com/visa-bulletin/how-visa-bulletin-work
■Fall Across: If an oversubscribed country demands relatively small
quantity of visas in the family preferences, the excess visa numbers would
be made available to the Employment preferences, as long as the total number
use is still within the annual limit for that country. In such case, EB1,
EB2 and EB3 would each receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and EB4 and EB5
would get 7.1% each.
Fall-across may also happen if an oversubscribed country lacks demand in the
employment preferences, which would result in excess visa numbers being
allocated to family preferences.
Sometimes fall-across can prevent a country from becoming oversubscribed.
For example, if a foreign state has very little demand for FB visas, but
significantly more for EB visa numbers, the allocation of unused visa
numbers may exceed the limit established for employment categories. However,
as long as total demand is still below the 7% cap, this country would not
be classified as oversubscribed.
immigrants.
immigrant
not
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
: what is the point of 2803 number?
: (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
: - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
: visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
: area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
: exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
: the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
: available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 26 So the fall-across for South Korean should be excess FB visa number, NOT EB
number, same as Mexico. |
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 27 No. EB has 140,000 limit per year. So what ever South Korea eats will reduce
other countries' EB share.
EB
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So the fall-across for South Korean should be excess FB visa number, NOT EB
: number, same as Mexico.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 28 So this is where it doesn't make sense. If the fall-across came from FB visa
, how can it use EB number?
reduce
【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: No. EB has 140,000 limit per year. So what ever South Korea eats will reduce
: other countries' EB share.
:
: EB
|
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 29 Unfortunately, that's the rule. Every country entitles 7% of total EB+FB. In
extreme condition, if a country has no FB, it can have all its 7%(FB+EB)
share in EB. Every country uses the same rule.
visa
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So this is where it doesn't make sense. If the fall-across came from FB visa
: , how can it use EB number?
:
: reduce
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 30 So they mess up the 17,795 EB3I in 2007, can we do something about it.
Otherwise, they can just intentionally "mess" up things and then "oops", we
are screwed again. There should be remediation for that mess up. That is
about half year EB2 advance.
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
|
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 31 我没有找到那一句话。
we
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 32 考了下古，还原了下记忆：
2008年4月VB改了，O提到了那条剩余名额给EB2CI，但他没在官方正式场合说明为什么
改的。后来著名律师“大嘴Ron”给O打电话，O告诉Ron的。所以最先出处是Ron
Gotcher的网站。可惜他的论坛和MITBBS一样，只能搜索1年之内的文章。我在IV的论坛
上找到2008年7月的一个帖子：
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority
里面gondalguru的跟贴引用了Ron Gotcher的原文：
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view
that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before
the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further
review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they
concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual
preference petitions first.
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我没有找到那一句话。
:
: we
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 33 我靠，这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须鲁提辖提起碗
大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这
厮头上三十下，再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下... |
l*****n
发帖数: 1068 | 34 多尤气势的排比句啊，可惜没排版。。。。
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我靠，这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须鲁提辖提起碗
: 大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这
: 厮头上三十下，再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下...
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 35 LOL
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我靠，这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须鲁提辖提起碗
: 大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这
: 厮头上三十下，再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下...
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 36 排了
【在 l*****n 的大作中提到】
: 多尤气势的排比句啊，可惜没排版。。。。
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | |
l*******k
发帖数: 1974 | |
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 39 实际上不是，但是分配名额的时候是，看链接。
国务院的年度总额没有减去1000个中国六四血卡，我分别减去了。
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDa
【在 l*******k 的大作中提到】
: China EB5 是0？
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 40 How come Mexico and Phillipins EB3 can get spillover when EB2IC still have
backlog, is this againt law?
BTW, thank you for all the hardwork ! |
|
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 41 Which part of the law states that 7% is per country on combined FB and EB?
Then why they gave a 2803 EB limit per country / per category. Are they
mistaken the law so that 7% is per country combined FB/EB instead of EB and
FB seperately? If the law states 7% is per country and EB only, the South
Korean should be backlogged and no EB3 can get spillover before EB2 cleared. |
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 42 INA 202(a) (2)
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2
and
cleared.
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Which part of the law states that 7% is per country on combined FB and EB?
: Then why they gave a 2803 EB limit per country / per category. Are they
: mistaken the law so that 7% is per country combined FB/EB instead of EB and
: FB seperately? If the law states 7% is per country and EB only, the South
: Korean should be backlogged and no EB3 can get spillover before EB2 cleared.
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 43 good one.
"by countries," doesn't sound normal, "7% per country" may be better.
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 怎么才能抢得到多一点的spillover？
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 44 from the flow chart, you can see that "priority date" has the lower priority
than "7% per country limit". this is why Mr. O would not do ealier SO
allocation in the beginning of each fiscal year. |
y**********r
发帖数: 2004 | |
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 46 Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
what is the point of 2803 number?
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
- Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: INA 202(a) (2)
: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2
:
: and
: cleared.
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 47 听你的话先改了图再说。
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: How come Mexico and Phillipins EB3 can get spillover when EB2IC still have
: backlog, is this againt law?
: BTW, thank you for all the hardwork !
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 48 The current demanding date: C=3000, I=5000. Ratio> 1:2. Based on most our
estimate, the ratio between C/I < 1/3. It tells me that the I-PD is moved
ahead of C-PD, meaning EB2I is moved ahead of EB2C on the dates. |
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 49 7% for FB and EB, separately...
for a country, if FB did not use 7% cap, the number could be used to its EB.
that's why in 2010, EB2C had the chance to use a little more visa numbers.
immigrants.
immigrant
not
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
: what is the point of 2803 number?
: (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
: - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
: visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
: area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
: exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
: the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
: available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 50 South Korea EB2 takes spillover too, right? ~3000 each year?
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 听你的话先改了图再说。
|
|
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 51 So, the extra 3000 for South Korea EB2 are not from the EB visa number, but
from FB visa number?
EB.
【在 M*******t 的大作中提到】
: 7% for FB and EB, separately...
: for a country, if FB did not use 7% cap, the number could be used to its EB.
: that's why in 2010, EB2C had the chance to use a little more visa numbers.
:
: immigrants.
: immigrant
: not
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 52 In 2007, EB3I got 17,795 approved while EB2IC still backlogged. Is this
legal? |
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 53 这是中印捆绑之前的事。政策2008年4月开始改的。
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: In 2007, EB3I got 17,795 approved while EB2IC still backlogged. Is this
: legal?
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 54 给个官方链接介绍一下政策怎么改的。
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 这是中印捆绑之前的事。政策2008年4月开始改的。
|
M*******t
发帖数: 513 | 55 i think in reality, O combined the FB and EB visas for each country.
in initial visa allocation, 7% applies to each category.
as, Mexico has less EB #s, so, they can use more FB's.
S.K., on the other hand, has less FB's, they use more EB's>9.8k.
this could be a good point to inquire O.
but
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So, the extra 3000 for South Korea EB2 are not from the EB visa number, but
: from FB visa number?
:
: EB.
|
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 56 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 给个官方链接介绍一下政策怎么改的。
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 57 So they misinterpreted law until 2007? Then how can we be so sure they are
doing it right now?
Both South Korean EB2 and Mexico EB3 are technically eating up the
spillovers due to the combined EB/FB 7% interpretation. If in fact 7% should
be liminated to per country per catogory (seperate EB/FB), then we will get
a lot more spillovers.
2010: SC EB2 4,793 Mexico EB3 5,983 Philippines EB3 3,197 , All> 2803
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
H*V
发帖数: 2770 | 58 does the law allow combination of FB and EB? any leftover of either FB or EB
should go to spillover but not its own country, right?
should
get
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So they misinterpreted law until 2007? Then how can we be so sure they are
: doing it right now?
: Both South Korean EB2 and Mexico EB3 are technically eating up the
: spillovers due to the combined EB/FB 7% interpretation. If in fact 7% should
: be liminated to per country per catogory (seperate EB/FB), then we will get
: a lot more spillovers.
: 2010: SC EB2 4,793 Mexico EB3 5,983 Philippines EB3 3,197 , All> 2803
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 59 I think they interpret the law in a weird way (maybe the wrong way just like
the EB3I case in 2007). Say South Korea for example: their EB2 is always >
2803; but due to the fact that they have less FB, they are allocated more
visas for EB2. BUT those extra visa numbers they got are from EB visa number
(spillover), not from FB visa number. This does not make sense to me. |
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 60 Could you share the source for this? Thank you.
like
>
number
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: I think they interpret the law in a weird way (maybe the wrong way just like
: the EB3I case in 2007). Say South Korea for example: their EB2 is always >
: 2803; but due to the fact that they have less FB, they are allocated more
: visas for EB2. BUT those extra visa numbers they got are from EB visa number
: (spillover), not from FB visa number. This does not make sense to me.
|
|
|
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 61 The way they interpret the law is correct. Note that it says "under
subsectionS (a) AND (b) of section 203" and "under such subsectionS". 用了
and不是or，用了复数S，而不是单数each subsection。
other sources：
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/cir/Greenwood/combined.htm
"In addition to setting a higher overall limit on admissions, the 1990 Act
altered the per-country limitations used to determine how many immigrants
may enter the United States each year. Previously, the per-country quota was
set at 20,000 visas per year. The 1990 Act provides that family-based and
employment-based visas made available to citizens of a single independent
foreign state may not exceed 7 percent of the total available. Given the
minimum of 226,000 family-sponsored and 140 employment-based allocations,
the per-country ceiling for an independent country is raised to 25,620.
Additional flexibility is provided for potential migrants by the fact that
the 7 percent per-country limit is not subdivided between family-sponsored
and employment-based allocations."
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5560.html
"Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants
is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based
preference limits, i.e., 25,620 for FY-2011."
http://immigrationroad.com/visa-bulletin/how-visa-bulletin-work
■Fall Across: If an oversubscribed country demands relatively small
quantity of visas in the family preferences, the excess visa numbers would
be made available to the Employment preferences, as long as the total number
use is still within the annual limit for that country. In such case, EB1,
EB2 and EB3 would each receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and EB4 and EB5
would get 7.1% each.
Fall-across may also happen if an oversubscribed country lacks demand in the
employment preferences, which would result in excess visa numbers being
allocated to family preferences.
Sometimes fall-across can prevent a country from becoming oversubscribed.
For example, if a foreign state has very little demand for FB visas, but
significantly more for EB visa numbers, the allocation of unused visa
numbers may exceed the limit established for employment categories. However,
as long as total demand is still below the 7% cap, this country would not
be classified as oversubscribed.
immigrants.
immigrant
not
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: Sounds to me that 7% for each subsection: meaning not combined? Otherwise
: what is the point of 2803 number?
: (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants.
: - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant
: visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent
: area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not
: exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in
: the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made
: available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 62 So the fall-across for South Korean should be excess FB visa number, NOT EB
number, same as Mexico. |
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 63 No. EB has 140,000 limit per year. So what ever South Korea eats will reduce
other countries' EB share.
EB
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So the fall-across for South Korean should be excess FB visa number, NOT EB
: number, same as Mexico.
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 64 So this is where it doesn't make sense. If the fall-across came from FB visa
, how can it use EB number?
reduce
【在 j*e 的大作中提到】
: No. EB has 140,000 limit per year. So what ever South Korea eats will reduce
: other countries' EB share.
:
: EB
|
j*e
发帖数: 1987 | 65 Unfortunately, that's the rule. Every country entitles 7% of total EB+FB. In
extreme condition, if a country has no FB, it can have all its 7%(FB+EB)
share in EB. Every country uses the same rule.
visa
【在 a**v 的大作中提到】
: So this is where it doesn't make sense. If the fall-across came from FB visa
: , how can it use EB number?
:
: reduce
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 66 So they mess up the 17,795 EB3I in 2007, can we do something about it.
Otherwise, they can just intentionally "mess" up things and then "oops", we
are screwed again. There should be remediation for that mess up. That is
about half year EB2 advance.
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 67 我没有找到那一句话。
we
【在 k********o 的大作中提到】
: 看看2008年4月的VB，里面应该写的。基本意思是咨询了更高法律部门，以前理解错误
: ，S/O应该分给EB2CI。。。当年讨论这个的特别多，你可以google一下。
|
k********o
发帖数: 1139 | 68 考了下古，还原了下记忆：
2008年4月VB改了，O提到了那条剩余名额给EB2CI，但他没在官方正式场合说明为什么
改的。后来著名律师“大嘴Ron”给O打电话，O告诉Ron的。所以最先出处是Ron
Gotcher的网站。可惜他的论坛和MITBBS一样，只能搜索1年之内的文章。我在IV的论坛
上找到2008年7月的一个帖子：
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority
里面gondalguru的跟贴引用了Ron Gotcher的原文：
Mr. Oppenheim explained that while the Visa Office initially took the view
that visa numbers had to fall down into employment third preference before
the could fall across to the individual country quotas, but after further
review, additional legislation, and consultation with Congress, they
concluded that they have to allocate the fall across within individual
preference petitions first.
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我没有找到那一句话。
:
: we
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 69 我靠，
这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在头上三十下，
再须鲁提辖提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，
再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如般砸在这厮头上三十下，
再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下,
再须laikecn褪下裤子，如雨点般拉在这厮头上三十下... |
l*****n
发帖数: 1068 | 70 多尤气势的排比句啊，可惜没排版。。。。
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我靠，这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须鲁提辖提起碗
: 大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这
: 厮头上三十下，再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下...
|
|
|
a**v
发帖数: 357 | 71 LOL
【在 H******i 的大作中提到】
: 我靠，这厮须武松提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须鲁提辖提起碗
: 大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下，再须李逵提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这
: 厮头上三十下，再须Helsinki提起碗大的拳头，如雨点般砸在这厮头上三十下...
|
H******i
发帖数: 4704 | 72 排了
【在 l*****n 的大作中提到】
: 多尤气势的排比句啊，可惜没排版。。。。
|
