PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Yoder asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 392, a bill originally introduced by Representative Chaffetz, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 10, 2017
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.
The Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 is amended to eliminate the provision requiring the reduction of annual Chinese immigrant visas to offset status adjustments under such Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill establishes a transition period during which a percentage of employment-based second and third preference (EB-2 and EB-3) immigrant visas are reserved as follows:
for FY2017, 15% of such visas are allotted to natives of countries other than the two countries with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2011;
for FY2018, 10% of such visas are allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2012; and
for FY2019, 10% of such visas are allotted in each category to natives of countries other than the two with the largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining such visas in FY2015.
During the transition period, not more than 25% of the total number of the reserved EB-2 and EB-3 visas shall be allotted to natives of a single country.
For FY2015-FY2017, not more than 85% of the unreserved EB-2 and EB-3 visas shall be allotted to natives of a single country.
Amendments made by this bill shall apply beginning in FY2017.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Yoder asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 392, a bill originally introduced by Representative Chaffetz, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.392 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.392 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.392 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.392 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.