My priority date is in September 2016 and I am from mainland China. I heard that because of the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992, Chinese investors have been using the “left-over” visas that have not been used by investors from other countries for many years. If there are many I-526 cases approved for investors from non-backlogged countries due to this new protocol, and all visas are used, could this worsen the backlog situation of China?
That is a concern we have. The China waiting line moved a little because the number of unused cases went up since adjudication was so slow. Now we are concerned that the number of other than China cases adjudicated will increase meaning China gets less leftover visas.
Your priority date, which is the date your I-526 petition was filed, establishes your place in line. The timing of USCIS adjudication and approval of your I-526 petition does not change your place in line, nor does it necessarily worsen the Chinese immigrant visa number retrogression.
The priority date is not changing, and you still cannot file for a green card before the I-526 is approved. But yes, Chinese investors may need to wait longer because those unused numbers will get used now. That said, by remaining in I-526 processing time that should stop the clock for kids aging out.
It could but there is also a large number of Chinese investors not applying for the final stage conditional green card so this opens up more slots for those still interested.
USCIS process and visa availability (backlogs) are separate and unrelated issues. The USCIS proposed change in processing priorities has no impact on visa availability for Chinese nationals or anyone else.
The common presumption is that the China EB-5 Final Action Date (China FAD) is actually advancing forward. The various reports from the Visa Bulletin and other information from the Visa Control Office at the U.S. Department of State reveal that the China FAD has been moving faster by as much as over 5 months. Thus, the conclusion that we see a further retrogression is not a true conclusion.
