Rockme got the point.
Let's look at the demand data just released as of 10/01/2010.
The EB2-C demand prior ro 01/01/2006 is 52, and the number is 98 from 01/01/
2006 to 05/01/2006. The total number prior to 05/01/2006 is 150, which means
additional 100 can be subtracted from the demand data of 05/2006, which is
445. If 250 visa number is issued for EB2-C each month, then cut-off date
for the month of 10/2010 for EB2-C will be around 05/08/2006-05/15/2010, and
Mr. O set it to be 5/22/2006 to give some extra room. For 11/2010, the cut-
off date for EB2-C should be 5/22/2006 or 06/01/2006. So Mr. O set EB2-C
priority date strictly according to the "rule" of 250/month.
For EB2-I, the demand data prior to 01/01/2004 is 248, and 251 in the year
of 2004, and 756 in the year of 2005. The total demand number for EB2-I
prior to 05/01/2006 is 1678. If Mr. O plays a fair game for both EB2-C and
EB2-I, then he should set the cut-off date for 10/2010 to be 01/01/2004 for
EB2-I, and 01/01/2005 for 11/2010. Instead, he set EB2-I priority date
unchanged at 05/08/2006, which gives EB2-I unfair advantage of using up its
annual quota much faster than EB2-C.
In conclusion, Mr. O didn't play the game fairly by treating EB2-C and EB2-I
differently.
In fact, the recent released demand data from USCIS is a great opportunity
for EB2-C to have its monthly visa number increased from just 250/month.
Maybe NIU/LIA/P838/P8388 can communicate this with Mr.O.