(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
(b) Allocation of numbers. Within the foregoing limitations, the Department shall allocate immigrant visa numbers for use in connection with the issuance of immigrant visas and adjustments based on the chronological order of the priority dates of visa applicants classified under INA 203 (a) and (b) reported by consular officers pursuant to § 42.55(b) and of applicants for adjustment of status as reported by officers of the DHS, taking into account the requirements of INA 202(e) in such allocations. In the case of applicants under INA 203(c), visa numbers shall be allocated within the limitation for each specified geographical region in the random order determined in accordance with sec. 42.33(c) of this part.
(c) Recaptured visa numbers. An immigrant visa number shall be returned to the Department for reallocation within the fiscal year in which the visa was issued when:
(1) An immigrant having an immigrant visa is excluded from the United States and deported;
(2) An immigrant does not apply for admission to the United States before the expiration of the validity of the visa;
(3) An alien having a preference immigrant visa is found not to be a preference immigrant; or
(4) An immigrant visa is revoked pursuant to § 42.82.
[56 FR 51174, Oct. 10, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 15302, Mar. 31, 1994; 63 FR 48578, Sept. 11, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Zixiang Li v. John F. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (c). However, even in those situations, DOS must reallocate the visa numbers “within the fiscal year in which the visa was issued.”
Laura Luis Hernandez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b) (“[T]he Department shall allocate immigrant visa numbers for use in connection with the issuance of immigrant visas and adjustments based on .”
Jigar Babaria v. Antony Blinken, 87 F.4th 963 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “For example, in fiscal year 2021 (October 2020 through September 2021), Indian nationals used 47% of all EB-2 visas and 27% of all EB-3 visas.”
Scialabba v. Cuellar De Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (2014).
“1 (g)(1); 22 CFR § 42.51 (b). The system is thus first-come, first-served within each preference category, with visas becoming available in order of priority date.”
Krishna Geda v. Dir. United States Citizenship & Immigr., 126 F.4th 835 (3rd Cir. 2025).
“§ 1153 (e)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b). For countries like India that have more petitions than avail- able visas, the Department of State projects a cutoff date for each preference category and publishes its projections in a monthly Visa Bulletin.”
Feng Wang v. Pompeo, 354 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“If, however, the number of qualified applicants in a visa category is greater than the amount of visa numbers available for allotment for the month, State considers the category to be "oversubscribed," and establishes and publishes a cut-off date, referred to as a "final action…”
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475 (1st Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “at 48 (plurality opinion); see 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b). An applicant's "priority date" is either the date on which the labor certification was filed or, if no certification was filed, the date on which the Form I-140 petition was filed.”
Nshan Ayanian v. Merrick Garland, 64 F.4th 1074 (9th Cir. 2023).
“For example, in January 2020, the Department of State estimated that there would be visa numbers available for all the Chinese-born applicants in a particular family-preference category whose I-130 petitions were filed on or before July 15, 2008. 4 “The system is thus…”
Przhebelskaya v. United States Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y 2004).
“22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (c) provides: "An immigrant visa number shall be returned to the Department [of State] for reallocation within the fiscal year in which the visa was issued *403 when: (1) An immigrant having an immigrant visa is excluded from the United States and deported; (2)…”
Przhebelskaya v. Us Bureau of Citiz. & Immigr. Servs., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y 2004).
“[4] 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (c) provides: "An immigrant visa number shall be returned to the Department [of State] for reallocation within the fiscal year in which the visa was issued when: (1) An immigrant having an immigrant visa is excluded from the United States and deported; (2)…”
Bibi v. Bitter (E.D.N.Y 2024).
· cites it 3× “1 (g)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b). If a petition’s priority date is prior to the cut-off date in the “Final Actions Dates” chart on the Visa Bulletin, then a visa number is considered available, and the beneficiary may apply for an immigrant visa.”
Pinzon Rozo, 29 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA 2026).
“See 22 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b) (2026) (providing that visa numbers are made available “based on the chronological order of the priority dates of visa applicants”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.