August 2010 Visa Bulletin – EB-2 and EB-3 Substantial Forward Movement

The August 2010 Visa Bulletin was just released by the State Department.  The eleventh visa bulletin for the fiscal year 2010 brings some substantial forward movement in the EB-2 India category which had not moved for the past few months.  Also, there is some gradual forward across all EB-3 employment-based categories.

Summary of the August 2010 Visa Bulletin – Employment-Based (EB)

Below is a summary of the August 2010 Visa Bulletin with respect to employment-based petitions:

  • EB-1 remains current across the board.
  • EB-2 ROW (Rest of World) remains current, EB-2 China moves forward by slightly over three (3) months to March 1, 2006, EB-2 India moves forward by five (5) months from October 1, 2005 to March 1, 2006.
  • EB-3 ROW moves forward by nine and a half months (9.5) months to June 1, 2004, EB-3 China  moves forward by slightly over one (1) month to September 22, 2003, while EB-3 India moves forward by slightly over one (1) month to January 1, 2002.  EB-3 Mexico remains unavailable.
  • The “other worker” category moves forward by a few months, to May 15, 2002 for ROW and China and to January 1, 2002 for India.

Substantial Forward Movement Continues

The notable forward movement in EB-2 and some EB-3 categories continues in this month’s visa bulletin as well.   This significant movement is due to the fact that there are some visa numbers available from other countries have not been reached yet and such countries’ per-country limit has not been reached.  As a result, as we are getting close to the end of the fiscal year, and after taking the worldwide demand into account, the State Department has determined only 8,100 of the total available EB-2 preference numbers would be used in that quarter.   In this case, the unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits.

Forward Movement Is Temporary

Note that the substantial forward movement  does not indicate a trend; instead, the last two visa bulletins’ forward movement was to ensure that no available visa numbers remain unused due to poor allocation of the unused numbers.  We expect that there be some retrogression over the next 1-3 months.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help you prepare and file your I-485 adjustment application, should your priority date become current.

). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability.
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
By | Last Updated: May 20th, 2017| Categories: Articles, EB-2, EB-3, 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.

Related News and Articles

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.