4 ms·

According to the letter submitted by Senators Kerry and Lugar, it would only affect resources for EB-5 visas (no mention of EB-3 visas): To make visas availabl

According to the letter submitted by Senators Kerry and Lugar, it would only affect resources for EB-5 visas (no mention of EB-3 visas): To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Though roughly 10,000 visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category, less than half were used in FY 2009, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs should not present an unreasonable burden. http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-visa-act-2-24-10.pdf http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-vi... This merely branches a new visa off from EB-5, which is separate from, and has different intentions than, EB-3. EB-5 visas are not all being used up anymore, so both Senators are attempting to put those waisted EB-5's to good use. They imply that the proposed EB-6 visas "should not present an unreasonable burden" on the system.

briansmith 17y ago
That's not how it works. Whatever EB-5's don't get used eventually trickle down to EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. They don't just go unused. If EB-6's start using them up, then there will be fewer EB-3's available every year.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa note: i am not an immigration lawyer (IANA[I]L). you may also wish to review language for the Immigration Act of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990
  - briansmith 17y ago
    You are correct about prioritization. The question is what happens to those "extra" 9,000 visa numbers that are pre-reserved for EB-5. Everything I've been told says that whatever numbers aren't used by EB-5s gets "spilled over," starting at the top (EB-1), instead of going unused. Also, I am not a lawyer either.

briansmith 17y ago

That's not how it works. Whatever EB-5's don't get used eventually trickle down to EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. They don't just go unused. If EB-6's start using them up, then there will be fewer EB-3's available every year.

davemc500hats 17y ago
i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa note: i am not an immigration lawyer (IANA[I]L). you may also wish to review language for the Immigration Act of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990
- briansmith 17y ago
  You are correct about prioritization. The question is what happens to those "extra" 9,000 visa numbers that are pre-reserved for EB-5. Everything I've been told says that whatever numbers aren't used by EB-5s gets "spilled over," starting at the top (EB-1), instead of going unused. Also, I am not a lawyer either.