Reactions to the “Grim” Visa Number Predictions

We wrote last week about the “grim” predictions by Charles Oppenheim (who is with the Department of State) about the future of the visa numbers for green card employment-based preference categories.  We have received many comments and reactions from readers and clients and we share many of the concerns raised following Mr. Oppenheim’s comments.

We read a recent piece written by AILA President Bernard Wolfsdorf commenting on the visa number predictions.  We thought that it may be an interesting read and follow-up on the conversation started in the immigration community regarding the visa numbers scheme.

“Does it make sense to educate international students at our top universities and medical centers and then, when at the point where they are ready to contribute to our economy, say it’s time to go home? It has been 20 years since President Bush Senior increased the quota for employment immigrant visas. While scientific advances have occurred at lightning speed in these past two decades, employment visa quotas have been hopelessly encased in amber.”

Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber, June 12, 2009.

By | Last Updated: May 20th, 2017| Categories: News|

About the Author: Dimo Michailov

Dimo Michailov
Dimo has over 15 years of experience in US immigration including employment-based immigration benefits, corporate compliance and family based immigration. He represents corporate and individual clients in a wide range of cross-border immigration matters including mobility of key foreign executives and managers, specialized knowledge workers, and foreign nationals with extraordinary ability.

The Capitol Immigration Law Group has been serving the business community for over 15 years and is one of the most widely respected immigration law firms focused solely on U.S. employment-based immigration.   Disclaimer:  we make all efforts to provide timely and accurate information; however, the information in this article may become outdated or may not be applicable to a specific set of facts.  It is not to be construed as legal advice.