In the newly released January visa bulletin, EB-2 and EB-3 visas remain current for most countries. EB-2 in China have advanced 3 months to April 1, 2016 and India advanced only 3 days to April 12, 2009. EB-3 for the Philippines advanced 3 months to March 1, 2018. EB-1 categories for all countries remain retrogressed. EB-1 for China and India has advanced to February 22, 2017, and for all over countries to February 1, 2018. Both the EB-5 Regional Center and Non-Regional Center categories for China advanced 1 week until September 15, 2014. Vietnam has advanced 5 weeks to August 22, 2016. EB-5 is current for all other countries.
Every year, Congress sets limits on the number of immigrant visas that can be issued each year. In order to adjust status to that of a legal permanent resident, also known as a Green Card holder, an immigrant visa must be available to the applicant both at the time of filing and at the time of adjudication. Visa retrogression happens when a country’s visa allowance is not “current”, but rather a cutoff date is imposed on its applicants. The Department of State publishes a monthly Visa Bulletin which lists the cutoff dates that govern visa availability. It determines which applicants are eligible to file for adjustment of status, as well as which applicants are eligible for permanent resident status. Applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cutoff date published in the most current Visa Bulletin are eligible to apply for permanent residence.
To find out more about the new rules or other investor visas, contact Scott Legal, P.C.
Ian E. Scott, Esq. is the Founder of Scott Legal, P.C. He can be reached at 212-223-2964 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This website and blog constitutes attorney advertising. Do not consider anything in this website or blog legal advice and nothing in this website constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.