Visa Bulletin Updates from Mr. Charles Oppenheim (June 2015)

Our office closely monitors not only each monthly Visa Bulletin but also any developments and updates from here in Washington, DC which may give us some idea on upcoming movements and surprises.   Our goal is to share any and all credible information with our clients and readers in order to allow proper planning and to set expectations as realistically as possible.

Mr. Charles Oppenheim, who is the Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State and the person who prepares and publishes the monthly visa bulletin, has provided some thoughts and his expectations for the upcoming few months’ Visa Bulletin movements.    These comments are as of June 12, 2015.

EB-2 Worldwide (ROW)

Mr. Oppenheim reiterated that there has been a significant increase in the demand of visa numbers in this category with demand far in excess of the historical patterns of the previous five months.    As an example, Mr. Oppenheim indicated that there was 80% demand increase from February to March 2015 and demand increased more than 100% between February and April 2015.     Despite this significant increase in demand in EB-2 ROW visa numbers, it is not expected at this time that there will be a cutoff date for this category and it is likely to remain current.

EB-2/EB-3 India

As a result of the significant forward movement in EB-2 India earlier this year, additional forward movement for the next few months is unlikely mainly due to EB-3 to EB-2 upgrades.  Additionally, because demand for EB-2 ROW has more than doubled unexpectedly over the past few months, EB-2 India cut-off date had to be held steady in the July 2015 Visa Bulletin. Unless there is a significant decline in EB-2 ROW demand, Mr. Oppenheim does not anticipate any forward movement in EB-2 India for the rest of this fiscal year (September 30).

EB-3 India is expected to continue to advance by one to two weeks per month.  This has been the recent trend over the past several months.

EB-2/EB-3 China

Demand in EB-2 China has been steady and gradual forward movement is expected over the next several months.     The EB-3 China cut-off date is expected to remain the same through the rest of the fiscal year (September 30).

EB-5 China

EB-5 China is expected to continue to advance,very likely as far as November 2013 towards the end of the fiscal year.

EB-3/Other Workers Philippines

After the category became unavailable in the July 2015 Visa Bulletin, it is expected to remain unavailable for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Conclusion

Mr. Oppenheim’s comments are extremely helpful to get a sense of the visa cutoff dates over the next few months.   Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can review your case, answer any questions or schedule a consultation.

We also invite you to subscribe to our free weekly immigration newsletter to receive timely updates on this and related topics.  Finally, if you already haven’t, please consider our Visa Bulletin Predictions tool which provides personalized predictions and charts helping you understand when a particular priority date may become current and what are the movement patterns.

By | Last Updated: May 20th, 2017| Categories: Articles, EB-2, EB-3, News, Visa Bulletin|

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.