Tag Archives: green cards

Understanding the Wait Times for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 Category

The wait times for employment-based immigrants are of enormous significance to those personally affected by the green card backlog. In the employment-based second preference, or EB-2 category, those waiting are invariably from India or China.

Why Do Indians and Chinese Wait Longer?

The long waits for employment-based green cards are caused by two primary factors: 1) the 140,000 annual quota is too low and 2) the per country limit, which restricts the number of green cards available to skilled immigrants from one country to 7 percent of the total. Due to the per country limit, skilled foreign nationals from India and China, who make up most of the applicants, wait years longer than nationals of other countries.

In the EB-2 Category, There is No Wait for Europeans and Others

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states, “You may be eligible for an employment-based, second preference [EB-2] visa if you are a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or its equivalent, or a foreign national who has exceptional ability.” Since there is normally a spilling down of unused immigrant visas from the EB-1 category, there are usually about 50,000 immigrant visas available each year under EB-2.

It is quite surprising to most people who hear about it but in the EB-2 category, for the past number of years, individuals sponsored from countries other than India and China have experienced no wait for their green cards, other than processing times. In contrast, many Indian and Chinese have been forced to wait 6 yeas or more for their green cards.

Backlog only for Indians and Chinese in EB-2

The demand for Indian and Chinese highly skilled researchers and professionals, combined with the relatively low quotas and per country limits, has created a backlog in the EB-2 category. However, the backlog has been made up entirely of Indian and Chinese nationals. Earlier this year, it appeared the backlog of Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category, including dependents, could be as large as 90,000. However, it is likely that number has been decreasing (with some speed) in recent months.

Factors Helping Indians and Chinese in EB-2

It appears the number of green cards available to Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category has increased in recent years, possibly due to slack demand among individuals from other countries. (A provision in U.S. immigration law allows the per country limit to be, in essence, ignored, if immigrant visas in a category would otherwise go unused.) In the January 2012 Visa Bulletin, the State Department has announced it is inviting applicants with priority dates as of January 1, 2009 to complete the final stage of the green card process. (Priority dates are based on the filing of applications or labor certification.)

This represents rapid movement forward for Indian and Chinese skilled immigrants. Only a year ago, in the January 2011 Visa Bulletin, the eligible priority dates for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category were May/June 2006, meaning the priority dates have jumped forward three years in the space of one calendar year.

Eliminating the Per Country Limit Would Help More

It is unknown at this time whether the improvement in the situation for Indians and Chinese in the EB-2 category is only a temporary phenomenon. In any case, because of the per country limit, Indians and Chinese are at a disadvantage if a sufficient individuals from other parts of the world apply for green cards in the EB-2 category. The only thing that will change that situation in the future is legislation that eliminates the per country limit for employment-based immigrants. Such legislation has been held up, at least temporarily, by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). Passing H.R. 3012 in the U.S. Senate would move employment-based immigration to a “first come, first serve” system, without regard to an individual’s country of origin.

A Thanksgiving Special: Immigration to America in the Days Before H-1Bs, Green Cards and Illegal Immigration

Immigration policy in America is difficult to understand. But it is a little easier to understand if one knows about the early history of U.S. immigration. To help people comprehend better what the world was like before the days of H-1Bs and Green Cards, below is a brief history of immigration during the decades before and after the first Thanksgiving.

Opposition to Immigration

Opposition to immigration has always existed in America, with the degree of practical obstacles to those immigrating influenced by the country’s economic circumstances and Americans’ perceptions of international events. A political cartoon once showed two Native American (Indians) on a shore watching the Pilgrims arrive at Plymouth Rock. One knowingly says to the other: “Illegal immigrants.”

Although the first settlers to America at Jamestown and Plymouth were immigrants they were not breaking any immigration laws, since none existed. In fact, it would be a long time before those coming to America would face any serious impediments or legal restrictions.

Early History

In 1607, the first immigrant-settlers to America arrived in Jamestown. To say these first settlers experienced hardship would understate the case. “The hard winter of the Starving Time [1608] reduced a population of about 500 to barely sixty . . . Everything from the horses . . . to rats, snakes, mice and roots dug from the forest were consumed, and emaciated survivors took to eating the dead.”

In 1610, the surviving settlers decided to abandon Jamestown but were soon met at sea by ships with supplies and new settlers and chose to return to the colony. The settlement became important as an example of self-government. While King James and later his son, Charles I, retained the authority to enact laws and govern the colony, the settlers had the right, they believed, to decide purely local matters and established an assembly of burgess.

Plymouth Rock

The first immigrants at Plymouth Rock endured many hardships. Unlike the Jamestown settlement, which was organized by the Virginia Company, the Pilgrims sailed to America as a group of like-minded religious individuals and families seeking freedom to worship without interference from governmental authority. “The First Thanksgiving marked the conclusion of a remarkable year. Eleven months earlier the Pilgrims had arrived at the tip of Cape Cod, fearful and uninformed,” writes Nathaniel Philbrick, author of Mayflower. “They had spent the next month alienating and angering every Native American they happened to come across. By all rights, none of the Pilgrims should have emerged from the first winter alive . . . ”

The immigrants quickly learned a lesson about food production and private property that three centuries later Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong failed to grasp, resulting in the unfortunate deaths of millions in 20th century China and the Soviet Union. The lesson was simple – people work harder when they own property and can enjoy the fruits of their labor for themselves and their families.

Nathan Philbrick explained: “The fall of 1623 marked the end of Plymouth’s debilitating food shortages. For the last two planting seasons, the Pilgrims had grown crops communally – the approach first used at Jamestown and other English settlements. But as the disastrous harvest of the previous fall had shown, something drastic needed to be done to increase the yield. In April, Bradford had decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate, with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew. The change in attitude was stunning. Families were now willing to work much harder than they had ever worked before . . . The Pilgrims had stumbled on the power of capitalism. Although the fortunes of the colony still teetered precariously in the years ahead, the inhabitants never again starved.”

Early Colonial Period

Historian Bernard Bailyn estimates total migration to Colonial America between the founding of the Jamestown colony and 1760 of “at least 700,000,” including slaves forced to America against their will. The scale of immigration from 1630 to 1775 was large given the population size of America and the sending countries. Even in the 1630s and 1640s, concerns about religious persecution sent another 21,000 Puritan immigrants to New England. Between 1630 and 1660, an estimated 210,000 British immigrants came to America. Approximately 75,000 German immigrants arrived between 1727 and 1760, while about 100,000 to 150,000 Scotch-Irish came to the colonies from 1717 to 1760.

The pace of immigration increased after 1760. Bailyn calculates approximately 221,500 arrivals between 1760 and 1775, an average of about 15,000 a year compared to about 5,000 annually in earlier decades. And here is an amazing figure: about 3 percent of Scotland (40,000 people) and 2.3 percent of Ireland (55,000) came to the colonies from 1760 to 1775.

A Correct Prediction of How Immigration Would Transform America Into a World Power

A prescient writer in the London Chronicle in 1773 understood the significance of the large flow of migrants from Britain: “America will, in less than half a century, form a state much more numerous and powerful than their mother-country…”

And this turned out to be true. As we now know, the early immigrants and their descendants became the people who fought for American independence, giving us the country we have today.

Labor Certification – Making it Hard for Talented Foreign-Born to Stay in the USA

Many people would find it odd that after a company recruits for a position the federal government may require the employer to recruit again. That is the strange world of labor certification, a process required by law for many skilled foreign nationals to gain employment-based green cards. Given that Indians are the largest recipients of H-1B temporary visas each year, America’s questionable labor certification policy likely affects Indians more than any other group.

When sponsoring an individual for an employment-based green card, the Department of Labor mandates that employers place advertisements to show no U.S. workers are available to fill the jobs, detail recruitment results, and complete much paperwork subject to government review.

Surprisingly, the actual language of the law does not specifically say employers need to place advertisements. This is an invention of the Department of Labor. The law also does not specify that if employers “test” the labor market they must hire anyone “minimally qualified” for the job. These things come from the Department of Labor’s regulations.

Here is what the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act on labor certification states:

Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that—
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and (II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.


In the past, the Department of Labor has admitted its process is paperwork-intensive for both the government and companies. In 2002, when the Labor Department issued a proposed rule to revise the system, its own rule stated, “The process for obtaining a permanent labor certification has been criticized as being complicated, time consuming and requiring the expenditure of considerable resources by employers, SWAs [state workforce agencies] and the Federal Government. It can take up to two years or more to complete the process for applications that are filed under the basic process and do not utilize the more streamlined reduction in recruitment process.”

While since then the Department of Labor has moved to a somewhat different system called PERM (Program Electronic Review Management), the new system is not much of an improvement. While PERM is theoretically faster in the initial stage, since it relies on attestations, the Department of Labor audits a high percentage of the cases. It also can force employers to engage in “supervised recruitment” if they hope to gain a green card for an employee. A chapter in the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s handbook declared, “Understanding PERM has been one of the greatest challenges in recent times in the practice of immigration law.” And PERM was meant to be the Department of Labor’s “streamlined” system.

The United States is making itself less competitive by requiring such a bureaucratic and counterproductive process for employers that wish to keep skilled professionals working for them long-term. “I have personally seen foreign nationals with U.S. masters degrees go to more welcoming countries abroad to settle because the U.S. system is so time consuming and complex,” said Ann Pinchak, a Houston-based attorney with more than 20 years of experience in immigration law.

If America hopes to retain the most talented workers in the world, a good place to start is reforming the Department of Labor’s labor certification policies. The policies do not “protect” American jobs but waste resources, discourage foreign-born professionals and make U.S. companies less competitive in the global economy.