Advertisement

June 18, 2013

Congressional Research Service Studies the Effect of Per-Country Caps on Visa Backlogs

In response to somewhat recent arguments in favor of lifting the per-country caps on immigrant admissions, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) conducted a study of approved pending employment-based immigrant petitions to explore lifting the caps as a policy option. Unfortunately, the results of the study were not very conclusive as to the effect the caps have on backlogs and visa availability, but the study nonetheless yielded some interesting statistical information.

On top of the numerical limitations placed on employment-based (and family-based) visas, the Immigration & Nationality Act provides that immigrants from a single country in a given year cannot comprise more than 7% of the number of visas available worldwide. These “per-country caps” have resulted in enormous backlogs for immigrants, especially for those from the countries with the highest rates of immigration, such as India, the Philippines, China, and Mexico.

The CRS study analyzed approved employment-based cases pending with the Department of State National Visa Center (NVC) as well as those pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The study found that the overwhelming number of approved visas pending at the NVC at the end of fiscal year 2010 were those of professional and skilled workers—102,395. Alternatively, USCIS revealed that most of the approved adjustment of status petitions awaiting visas are for professional, skilled, and unskilled workers–114,442. The CRS was unable to determine how much overlap exists between the data compiled from the two agencies, however it presumed that substantial duplication exists. This is largely what accounted for CRS’s inability to accurately estimate the effect the per-country limits have on the number of pending cases.

Despite the study’s inconclusiveness, the CRS suspects that if the caps were lifted, thus shortening delays, more people would seek employment-based visas, and employers and prospective foreign workers would be more likely to file petitions. As a result, the reduction in the number of approved cases pending if the caps were lifted might be short-lived. Additionally, the CRS states that if the per-country limits were eliminated for employment-based immigrants without any other changes to permanent legal immigration, it would likely have a ripple effect on family-based immigration as well as other potential employment-based immigrants.

The full CRS report can be found here.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Of Counsel

Joel Stewart practices exclusively in the area of immigration law. He specialized in Romance and Slavic Linguistics before receiving a J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law, and is fluent in Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Russian. He is Past President of the South Florida Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and is a nationally recognized authority on employment-based immigration matters as well as a popular speaker at immigration seminars for national and local bar associations throughout the United States.

(954) 703-3905

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.