Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:43:04 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:
    >>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>But if you have another cite, please post it, because another law
    >>could well override what this one clearly says about counting based on
    >>when the visa is issued, just like the
    >You really learn something about our legal system.. .
I'm glad you are. It will may make you better able to understand such
things.

    > In case you haven't discovered, that congress rarely replaces and
    > entire section.. It admend's it with a paragraph or two in appropriate
    > places.
Well, sure, that's why I quoted from the amended code.

    >(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations of
    > paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are filed for
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a visa or
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted against the
    > numerical limitations of paragraph (1)"
    >A pretty hard thing to do.. If you have to wait until the visa is
    >granted to count it torwards a finite limit..

What is it that you think is hard to do? You can take a number when
you go into a Baskin Robbins. That number determines the order in
which you will be served. But getting a number does not mean that you
have been served. And they might even limit the number of numbers
given out as they get close to closing. But if a customer gets his
number called and then realizes he has no cash, they might release
another number for prospective customers. It really is not very hard.
    >-------- Now if you wan't exact details on how law was implemented
    >you have to look up the code of federal regulations.. -----
    >http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAI-
    >SdocID=14860724421+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
    >Page 311
    >" (8) Numerical limits--(i) Limits on affected categories. During
    >each fiscal year, the total number of aliens who can be provided
    >nonimmigrant classification is limited as follows:"
    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >Notice: the word "classification"..
    >It doesn't mean granted or completed.

Really? Where did you see that definition? And it is a real stretch to
say that you get non-immigrant classification under H-1B just by
applying.


    > " (A) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants, excluding those
    > involved in Department of Defense research and development projects or
    > coproduction projects, may not exceed:
    > (1) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
    > (2) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
    > (3) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
    > (4) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year.
    > (B) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants to work for DOD
    > research
    > and development projects or coproduction projects may not exceed 100
    > at
    > any time.
    > (C) Aliens classified as H-2B nonimmigrants may not exceed 66,000.
    > (D) Aliens classified as H-3 nonimmigrant participants in a
    > special
    > education exchange visitor program may not exceed 50.
    > (E) Aliens classified as H-1C nonimmigrants may not exceed 500 in
    > a
    > fiscal year.
    > (ii) Procedures. (A)
    > (A) Each alien issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
    > status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), or
    >101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Act
So we are talking about individuals issued a visa or granted
nonimmigrant status under 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). I missed the part of
that section that said that nonimmigrant status shall be granted
immediately to anyone who applies.

    > shall be counted for purposes of the
    > numerical limit. Requests for petition extension or extension of an
    > alien's stay shall not be counted for the purpose of the numerical
    >limit. The spouse and children of principal aliens classified as H-4
    > nonimmigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limit.
    >(B) Numbers will be assigned temporarily to each alien (or job "
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
    > "opening(s)for aliens in petitions with unnamed beneficiaries)
    > included in a new petition in the order that petitions are filed. If"
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > Notice the words "are filed"

You seem to be confusing numbers assigned for priority with the count
to which the limit applies.

    >"a petition is denied, the number(s) originally assigned to the
    >petition shall be returned to the system which maintains and assigns
    >numbers. "
    >I.E.. If a petition is denied.. The next petition in line after a cap
    > has been reached will be granted..
    >Now.. if you still don't understand the concepts.
    >I suggest you take a year or two of legal training.
    >Until then you're just wasting time and blowing smoke..
Question for you: In your theory, where would people who applied
between March and September '00 but approved in FY '01 be counted. Be
careful; this is a trick question. Is there any way you can get around
saying that they apply to the FY2000 limit, since that is when their
applications were received? If so, why did they need the section of
the American Competitiveness Act that says:
"In the case of any alien on behalf of whom a petition for status
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is filed before September 1, 2000,
and is subsequently approved, that alien shall be counted toward the
numerical ceiling for fiscal year 2000 notwithstanding the date of the
approval of the petition."?

After all, under your theory of the law, that is where they would be
counted anyway. And I guess they said "notwithstanding the date of the
approval of the petition" because the drafters hadn't gone to the TK
school of law and learned that the date of approval is not relevant.
Boy are they dumb! (Actually, the correct date appears to be the later
of the approval date or the requested effective date.)

Thus far, we have:

TKtheory 1, which is that the counting of applications made by the end
of the 11th month of FY00 but approved in FY01, as explained in the
law firm's notice, serves to explain how counts should happen any time
an application is received in one FY (any month this time, not just
before the last month) and approved in the subsequent year should be
treated.

TKtheory 2, which is that the numbers assigned to an application for
priority constitutes classification of the applicant as a nonimmigrant
under 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).

Now it is beginning to look like you are as attached to this belief as
you are to your 357,000 number for FY2001. I think you went through
five different "explanations" for that before finally going personal.
This time, I have neither the patience nor time. So if you want to
come up with theory 3 about why the INS should count against the limit
based on when petitions are filed, I promise not to pull the rug out
from under you again, and you can go on believing what you want,
possibly with IB and Philotsopher in tow.

But I will be interested in seeing #3.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

user9999

So funny you only mention Indians... I am not Indian, but I may be one day target of your hate.

First of all, you are not being objective. You are driven by your feelings. Get informed. You only put 2 and 2 together thinking it maybe 4. But reality is a different story.

You are all against Indians, forgetting that British and Candians have also come in tons to this country. And I don't see you complaining about that. Just because they look like you and you can't really tell in any of them that a foreigner is taking a job an american should have. Now, you need to think twice. You are going by the looks and not reality.

I have also come to this country to look for better opportunities. I have gotten some of that. However, it has not been easy. You complain aboutjob security based on competion. You may not understand about what competition means. H1-B holders are requested to leave the US within 10 days after they lose their jobs. Do you have to leave if you lose yours? No, you don't. It's not only about the job we compete for, we compete for our lives, something you may not know about. We give up a lot. To gain a little hate from people like you. You are also forgetting that this country is all about capitalism. Something I am sure you support. Nothing says there are rules. And that is what you get when cheaper labor takes your job away. Foreigners are found to work harder and longer (?) than others. There's talk about education and experience. H1-Bs are approved mostly based on Educational background, and little, though required, work experience. So, get your facts right. Some people think they are really necessary at their jobs, when in reality all a company needs is a person that can do the job, type code and get the system running, no matter how many hours they spend at work. You may have to go home to family, most foreigners don't even have a relative close by. Another advantage for the employer. So, as you see, all these rules and situations are no mare than an effect of the US way of economy. Can you change that by reducing H1B quotas? I don't think so. While you may have reasons for believing that H1Bs are a threat for your job, it strikes me that what moves you is hate since you point towards a particular group. Remember, H1B has no nationality.

I only hope that you become a better profesional, and that you start to beleive that whatever route your profesional life takes, it will be only because of you and no one else.

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    > wrote:
    >>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:32:29 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>>>The annual quota on H-1Bs has been between 65,000 and 115,000 per
    >>>>>>year since the quota was imposed in the early 1990s (the quota was
    >>>>>>195,000 for
    >>>>> The H1-B program didn't exist before the 1990's.. Prior to 1991 it
    >>>>> was known as H-1... and required a minimum salary of 60K/yr.
    >>>>Actually, the H-1 program was split at the time into H-1A (nurses) and
    >>>>H-1B (everybody else who used to qualify for an H-1). So is your
    >>>>argument that we should undo this and reintroduce the H-1 as it
    >>>>existed from the 1950s to 1991?
    >>>>There never was a general minimum salary for H-1s or for H-1Bs. In the
    >>>>contrary, initially the H-1 program didn't specify anything about
    >>>>wages at all. Today, H-1Bs must be paid at least the prevailing wage.
    >>>>How much that is depends on both the specific job and the city.
    >>> Come to think about it.. 60K$/yr was the minimum to get around a bunch
    >>> of administrative hurdles. Otherwise you had to prove you advertised
    >>> the position, etc.. plus Lots of other hurdles..
    >>Actually, this $60k/year limit is a brand-new thing, and IIRC, it
    >>actually didn't even go into effect because INS didn't issue regulations
    >>about it.
    >>>>>>2002), only about half the quota was used. Since H-1Bs generally
    >>>>>> cannot
    >>>>> That remains to be seen as publish figures aren't out yet.. and The
    >>>>> uncounted categories number as much as the capped/counted
    >>>>> categories.
    >>>>If you count transfers, you are right. Those are people who have
    >>>>already been counted against the quota. Counting them again would be
    >>>>like counting how many guests a bar has by how many bottles of beer
    >>>>they sell and ignoring that many guests order two or three: it would
    >>>>artificially inflate the numbers.
    >>> I wouldn't count on your theory.
    >>> Starting in FY 01, transfers where no longer charged application
    >>> fees.
    >>INS fees for H-1Bs are (according to
    >>http://www.ins.u-
    >>sdoj.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm     as of today,
    >>10/19/2002):
    >>$130 application fee (form I-129); everybody must pay it $1000 training
    >>fee (form I-129). This must be paid for the first H-1B an employer files
    >>for a person, and for the first renewal. Most importantly, if the
    >>beneficiary changes jobs, the new employer must again pay that fee. The
    >>training fee is waived for certain non-profits and educational
    >>institutions.
    > As I recall their are some additional visa surcharges in the ~85$ range.
    > Add in the I-94 form $6.

Yes, that's right. These are visa and inspection fees and apply to anybody
who wants to get a US visa, whether it's a tourist visa or an H-1B.

The visa fee actually is $65 (to be raise to $100), plus a reciprocity
fee. The reciprocity fee depends on the nationality of the applicant and
is designed to be the same as what his country charges US citizens for a
comparable visa.

The I-94 fee actually is $7 if you cross by a land border. If you fly into
the US, the fee is built into the airfare; in this case, everybody,
including US citizens, pay it.

    >>$1000 premium processing fee (form I-907). This is optional. Paying this
    >>fee guarantees a decision within three weeks. If you choose not to pay
    >>it, then you have to wait with the "huddled masses," often two to four
    >>months.
    >>I think what you may be thinking of is the premium processing fee. This
    >>is not required by anybody. Typically, employers will pay it for the
    >>first H-1B to get the person hired quickly. For an extension or
    >>transfer, there is plenty of time, so there is no need to pay this fee.
    >>It is a bit confusing that the training fee and the premium fee just
    >>happen to be the same amount, but they are completely separate.
    >>>>>>This year was indeed special. In addition to the regular quota,
    >>>>>>those slots that had gone unclaimed in previous years because of INS
    >>>>>>processing delays were added. But, again, those slots were mostly
    >>>>>>unused because there just wasn't enough demand for them. They were
    >>>>>>carried over to 2002 (where they again went unused, and will now be
    >>>>>>carried to 2003, etc.)
    >>>>>>> FY 2002, 159,000*4/3 = 212,000? (Year end projection)
    >>>>>>What is this 4/3? FY 2002 is over already, and the latest numbers I
    >>>>>>have (from around June, three quarters into the fiscal year)
    >>>>>>indicate that there were well less than 100,000 H-1Bs requested.
    >>>>> Time lag.. The Fed's are real slow.. we'll be lucky to see Q4
    >>>>> numbers before Dec..
    >>>>Still, where does the number come from?
    >>> First three quarters of applications, projected to end of year..
    >>> I.E. 9months *4/3 == (Year end projection)..
    >>According to
    >>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BProces-
    >>sing.htm    ,
    >>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs, plus
    >>another 18,000 pending.
    >>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
    >>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
    > Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
    > http:-
    > //www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    > As a representative sample..
    > You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
    > months of FY 2001.

The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
first extension does cost the fee. The number is so small because usually,
people will get an H-1B for three years, and then either already have
their Green Card, or extend it once for the full six years. The
seventh-year extension is rarely needed.

    > Same goes goes for transfers.. 4,731 admended petitions without
    > extension for 1st nine(9) months of FY 2001.

What does an amended petition have to do with a transfer? An amended
petition is required if, for instance, an H-1B goes from part-time to
full-time, or vice versa.

    > Meanwhile notice the increasing trend of exempt
    > (N/P,education,affilliated/gov) catagory visa applications..

    > Which had climbed to ~17.8% for all applications submitted for
    > Fy01'Q3.. (Looks like the immigration lawyers handiwork to me)..

The only trend I saw was that the number of H-1B teachers increased as the
new school year approached, and similar seasonal effects. Other than that,
it looked like very steady numbers to me.

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:58:42 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:

    >>>>INS is extremely strict with recognizing non-profits. Even schools and
    >>>>universities who do clearly qualify have a problem getting this
    >>>>classification.
    >>>>> On top of that, the uncounted categories don't even pay the 1,000$
    >>>>> per visa fee for the US tech worker retraining fund.. I.E. Total
    >>>>> fees to import a tech worker less than 250$. (Less than the airline
    >>>>> ticket)..
    >>>>No. The vast majority of the uncounted H-1Bs are transfers, which do
    >>>>pay the $1000 fee (and who have been counted before).
    >>> Do you have data that confirms this?
    >>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BProces-
    >>sing.htm
    >>Second paragraph:
    >>Individuals counted against the H-1B cap comprise less than half of the
    >>total number approved for H-1B employment. The primary reason is that
    >>persons seeking extensions or modifications to current H-1B employment
    >>are not counted against the cap. In addition, persons working for
    >>employers statutorily exempt from the cap (such as institutions of
    >>primary, secondary, or higher education, or nonprofit research
    >>organizations) are not counted. Workers may have multiple petitions
    >>submitted on their behalf during the course of their H-1B employment (up
    >>to a maximum period of six years); however, they are only counted once
    >>against the cap if working for non-exempt employers, or never if always
    >>working with exempt employers.
    >>Sorry, I don't think that any breakdown is available yet. The concept of
    >>exempt employers is brand-new, I think FY 2002 actually was the first
    >>year that it even existed.
    > http:-
    > //www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    > Wrong, a lot of it started with Fy 2001.
    > But, there were exempt employers before SB 2045..

Can you tell me which employers were exempt before? I am not aware of any
category of employer.

    > Which added to number a catagories..
    > And a trend line shows dramatic increasing usage. 17.8% of all
    > I-129/H1-B applications by Q3 of FY01.

Given that, as you just said, non-profits and schools qualified first in
FY01, that should hardly be surprising!

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:11:39 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:28:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    > wrote:
    >>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 04:48:54 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 07:08:51 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 19:26:48 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:34:45 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:00:57 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:35:39 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 05:14:46 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:02:41 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:39:45 -0700, No One wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Foreigners are not required to register with Selective
    >>>>>>>>>>> Service; so, why should they have access to our job market?
    >>>>>>>>>>That's not true; foreigners are required to register with
    >>>>>>>>>>Selective Service. There is an exception for non-immigrants, but
    >>>>>>>>>>both immigrants and undocumented aliens ARE indeed required to
    >>>>>>>>>>register.
    >>>>>>>>> H1-B's come in under form I-129 and are given a I-94 visa card.
    >>>>>>>>> (exempt from SSS).. But if that weren't enough, being older
    >>>>>>>>> than 26 or female would exempt ANY immigrant, legal or
    >>>>>>>>> otherwise.
    >>>>>>>>It would also exempt any US citizen...
    >>>>>>> Except a US citizen would be liable for breaking the law.
    >>>>>>A female US citizen or a citizen older than 26 isn't breaking the
    >>>>>>law by not registering.
    >>>>> I see we have another live one.
    >>>>> Just how does an normal male US citizen get from age 18 to age
    >>>>> 26
    >>>>> without breaking the law??
    >>>>> P.S. The current SSS law has been around for ~20+ years or so.
    >>>>For instance, by turning 50 years old today.
    >>> A 50 year old male, would gave gone thru 1970 vietnam war draft which
    >>> still had a significant probably of death or injury.
    >>But he would have broken the law by not registering for SS. So what
    >>really is your point?
    > You implied otherwise.. I'll repeat your statements...

Sorry, typo. I meant to write "But he would NOT have broken the law by not
registering for SS."

But here is an easy solution: since women aren't required to register, why
don't we introduce an extra quota for women in the H-1B program?

Tim Keating

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:59:43 -0400, alexy
wrote:

Alex,

Tell us this, why in the world an administrative procedure,
(processing time), be allowed to subvert the intent of any law.

According to Alex's dumb little theory, increasing the I-129
processing time from the current 1 to 6 months* to 12 months should
cut off the H1-B program in it's entirety!!!

You have got a lot to learn about our government..
Until then.. I suggest you stop trolling..

*-- INS processes form I-129 submissions at different four processing
centers.

    >Tim Keating wrote:
    >>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:43:04 -0400, alexy
    >>wrote:
    >>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>But if you have another cite, please post it, because another law
    >>>could well override what this one clearly says about counting based on
    >>>when the visa is issued, just like the
    >>You really need to learn something about our legal system.. .
    >I'm glad you are. It will may make you better able to understand such
    >things.
    >> In case you haven't discovered, that congress rarely replaces and
    >> entire section.. It admend's it with a paragraph or two in appropriate
    >> places.
    >Well, sure, that's why I quoted from the amended code.

No.. You quoted only the amended text.. And you selected the wrong
portion of the amended text on top of that..

    >>(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations of
    >> paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are filed for
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a visa or
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted against the
    >> numerical limitations of paragraph (1)"
    >>A pretty hard thing to do.. If you have to wait until the visa is
    >>granted to count it torwards a finite limit..
    >What is it that you think is hard to do? You can take a number when
    >you go into a Baskin Robbins. That number determines the order in
    >which you will be served. But getting a number does not mean that you
    >have been served. And they might even limit the number of numbers
    >given out as they get close to closing. But if a customer gets his
    >number called and then realizes he has no cash, they might release
    >another number for prospective customers. It really is not very hard.
    >>-------- Now if you wan't exact details on how law was implemented
    >>you have to look up the code of federal regulations.. -----
    >>http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?W-
    >>AISdocID=14860724421+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
    >>Page 311
    >>" (8) Numerical limits--(i) Limits on affected categories. During
    >>each fiscal year, the total number of aliens who can be provided
    >>nonimmigrant classification is limited as follows:"
    >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>Notice: the word "classification"..
    >>It doesn't mean granted or completed.
    >Really? Where did you see that definition? And it is a real stretch to
    >say that you get non-immigrant classification under H-1B just by
    >applying.
    >> " (A) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants, excluding those
    >> involved in Department of Defense research and development projects or
    >> coproduction projects, may not exceed:
    >> (1) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
    >> (2) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
    >> (3) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
    >> (4) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year.
    >> (B) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants to work for DOD
    >> research
    >> and development projects or coproduction projects may not exceed 100
    >> at
    >> any time.
    >> (C) Aliens classified as H-2B nonimmigrants may not exceed 66,000.
    >> (D) Aliens classified as H-3 nonimmigrant participants in a
    >> special
    >> education exchange visitor program may not exceed 50.
    >> (E) Aliens classified as H-1C nonimmigrants may not exceed 500 in
    >> a
    >> fiscal year.
    >> (ii) Procedures. (A)
    >> (A) Each alien issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
    >> status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), or
    >>101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Act
    >So we are talking about individuals issued a visa or granted
    >nonimmigrant status under 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). I missed the part of
    >that section that said that nonimmigrant status shall be granted
    >immediately to anyone who applies.
    >> shall be counted for purposes of the
    >> numerical limit. Requests for petition extension or extension of an
    >> alien's stay shall not be counted for the purpose of the numerical
    >>limit. The spouse and children of principal aliens classified as H-4
    >> nonimmigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limit.
    >>(B) Numbers will be assigned temporarily to each alien (or job "
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
    >> "opening(s)for aliens in petitions with unnamed beneficiaries)
    >> included in a new petition in the order that petitions are filed. If"
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> Notice the words "are filed"
    >You seem to be confusing numbers assigned for priority with the count
    >to which the limit applies.
    >>"a petition is denied, the number(s) originally assigned to the
    >>petition shall be returned to the system which maintains and assigns
    >>numbers. "
    >>I.E.. If a petition is denied.. The next petition in line after a cap
    >> has been reached will be granted..
    >>Now.. if you still don't understand the concepts.
    >>I suggest you take a year or two of legal training.
    >>Until then you're just wasting time and blowing smoke..
    >Question for you: In your theory, where would people who applied
    >between March and September '00 but approved in FY '01 be counted. Be
    >careful; this is a trick question. Is there any way you can get around
    >saying that they apply to the FY2000 limit, since that is when their
    >applications were received? If so, why did they need the section of
    >the American Competitiveness Act that says:
    >"In the case of any alien on behalf of whom a petition for status
    >under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is filed before September 1, 2000,
    >and is subsequently approved, that alien shall be counted toward the
    >numerical ceiling for fiscal year 2000 notwithstanding the date of the
    >approval of the petition."?
    >After all, under your theory of the law, that is where they would be
    >counted anyway. And I guess they said "notwithstanding the date of the
    >approval of the petition" because the drafters hadn't gone to the TK
    >school of law and learned that the date of approval is not relevant.
    >Boy are they dumb! (Actually, the correct date appears to be the later
    >of the approval date or the requested effective date.)
    >Thus far, we have:
    >TKtheory 1, which is that the counting of applications made by the end
    >of the 11th month of FY00 but approved in FY01, as explained in the
    >law firm's notice, serves to explain how counts should happen any time
    >an application is received in one FY (any month this time, not just
    >before the last month) and approved in the subsequent year should be
    >treated.
    >TKtheory 2, which is that the numbers assigned to an application for
    >priority constitutes classification of the applicant as a nonimmigrant
    >under 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
    >Now it is beginning to look like you are as attached to this belief as
    >you are to your 357,000 number for FY2001. I think you went through
    >five different "explanations" for that before finally going personal.
    >This time, I have neither the patience nor time. So if you want to
    >come up with theory 3 about why the INS should count against the limit
    >based on when petitions are filed, I promise not to pull the rug out
    >from under you again, and you can go on believing what you want,
    >possibly with IB and Philotsopher in tow.
    >But I will be interested in seeing #3.

Tim Keating

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:41:08 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:58:42 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>INS is extremely strict with recognizing non-profits. Even schools and
    >>>>>universities who do clearly qualify have a problem getting this
    >>>>>classification.
    >>>>>> On top of that, the uncounted categories don't even pay the 1,000$
    >>>>>> per visa fee for the US tech worker retraining fund.. I.E. Total
    >>>>>> fees to import a tech worker less than 250$. (Less than the airline
    >>>>>> ticket)..
    >>>>>No. The vast majority of the uncounted H-1Bs are transfers, which do
    >>>>>pay the $1000 fee (and who have been counted before).
    >>>> Do you have data that confirms this?
    >>>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BProc-
    >>>essing.htm
    >>>Second paragraph:
    >>>Individuals counted against the H-1B cap comprise less than half of the
    >>>total number approved for H-1B employment. The primary reason is that
    >>>persons seeking extensions or modifications to current H-1B employment
    >>>are not counted against the cap. In addition, persons working for
    >>>employers statutorily exempt from the cap (such as institutions of
    >>>primary, secondary, or higher education, or nonprofit research
    >>>organizations) are not counted. Workers may have multiple petitions
    >>>submitted on their behalf during the course of their H-1B employment (up
    >>>to a maximum period of six years); however, they are only counted once
    >>>against the cap if working for non-exempt employers, or never if always
    >>>working with exempt employers.
    >>>Sorry, I don't think that any breakdown is available yet. The concept of
    >>>exempt employers is brand-new, I think FY 2002 actually was the first
    >>>year that it even existed.
    >> http-
    >> ://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    >> Wrong, a lot of it started with Fy 2001.
    >> But, there were exempt employers before SB 2045..
    >Can you tell me which employers were exempt before? I am not aware of any
    >category of employer.

My statement may have been in error.. Sorry..
I was thinking about the automatic qualification status given to
certain H1-B applicants.

    >> Which added to number a catagories..
    >> And a trend line shows dramatic increasing usage. 17.8% of all
    >> I-129/H1-B applications by Q3 of FY01.

Before SB2045.. filing&visa fees + $500(retraining fee)

After SB 2045.. exempt filing&visa fees.
or non-exempt filing&visa fees+$1000(retraining fee). Subject to cap

Only a $1000 difference per head.
Should be chump change when compared to the salaries paid.
Yet the category shows yet another alarming trend..

    >Given that, as you just said, non-profits and schools qualified first in
    >FY01, that should hardly be surprising!

No.. they were qualified before SB 2045, except they had to pay the
$500 retraining fee and be subject to the cap..

Tim Keating

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >> wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:32:29 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>The annual quota on H-1Bs has been between 65,000 and 115,000 per
    >>>>>>>year since the quota was imposed in the early 1990s (the quota was
    >>>>>>>195,000 for
    >>>>>> The H1-B program didn't exist before the 1990's.. Prior to 1991 it
    >>>>>> was known as H-1... and required a minimum salary of 60K/yr.
    >>>>>Actually, the H-1 program was split at the time into H-1A (nurses) and
    >>>>>H-1B (everybody else who used to qualify for an H-1). So is your
    >>>>>argument that we should undo this and reintroduce the H-1 as it
    >>>>>existed from the 1950s to 1991?
    >>>>>There never was a general minimum salary for H-1s or for H-1Bs. In the
    >>>>>contrary, initially the H-1 program didn't specify anything about
    >>>>>wages at all. Today, H-1Bs must be paid at least the prevailing wage.
    >>>>>How much that is depends on both the specific job and the city.
    >>>> Come to think about it.. 60K$/yr was the minimum to get around a bunch
    >>>> of administrative hurdles. Otherwise you had to prove you advertised
    >>>> the position, etc.. plus Lots of other hurdles..
    >>>Actually, this $60k/year limit is a brand-new thing, and IIRC, it
    >>>actually didn't even go into effect because INS didn't issue regulations
    >>>about it.
    >>>>>>>2002), only about half the quota was used. Since H-1Bs generally
    >>>>>>> cannot
    >>>>>> That remains to be seen as publish figures aren't out yet.. and The
    >>>>>> uncounted categories number as much as the capped/counted
    >>>>>> categories.
    >>>>>If you count transfers, you are right. Those are people who have
    >>>>>already been counted against the quota. Counting them again would be
    >>>>>like counting how many guests a bar has by how many bottles of beer
    >>>>>they sell and ignoring that many guests order two or three: it would
    >>>>>artificially inflate the numbers.
    >>>> I wouldn't count on your theory.
    >>>> Starting in FY 01, transfers where no longer charged application
    >>>> fees.
    >>>INS fees for H-1Bs are (according to
    >>>http://www.ins.-
    >>>usdoj.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm     as of today,
    >>>10/19/2002):
    >>>$130 application fee (form I-129); everybody must pay it $1000 training
    >>>fee (form I-129). This must be paid for the first H-1B an employer files
    >>>for a person, and for the first renewal. Most importantly, if the
    >>>beneficiary changes jobs, the new employer must again pay that fee. The
    >>>training fee is waived for certain non-profits and educational
    >>>institutions.
    >> As I recall their are some additional visa surcharges in the ~85$ range.
    >> Add in the I-94 form $6.
    >Yes, that's right. These are visa and inspection fees and apply to anybody
    >who wants to get a US visa, whether it's a tourist visa or an H-1B.
    >The visa fee actually is $65 (to be raise to $100), plus a reciprocity
    >fee. The reciprocity fee depends on the nationality of the applicant and
    >is designed to be the same as what his country charges US citizens for a
    >comparable visa.
    >The I-94 fee actually is $7 if you cross by a land border. If you fly into
    >the US, the fee is built into the airfare; in this case, everybody,
    >including US citizens, pay it.
    >>>$1000 premium processing fee (form I-907). This is optional. Paying this
    >>>fee guarantees a decision within three weeks. If you choose not to pay
    >>>it, then you have to wait with the "huddled masses," often two to four
    >>>months.
    >>>I think what you may be thinking of is the premium processing fee. This
    >>>is not required by anybody. Typically, employers will pay it for the
    >>>first H-1B to get the person hired quickly. For an extension or
    >>>transfer, there is plenty of time, so there is no need to pay this fee.
    >>>It is a bit confusing that the training fee and the premium fee just
    >>>happen to be the same amount, but they are completely separate.
    >>>>>>>This year was indeed special. In addition to the regular quota,
    >>>>>>>those slots that had gone unclaimed in previous years because of INS
    >>>>>>>processing delays were added. But, again, those slots were mostly
    >>>>>>>unused because there just wasn't enough demand for them. They were
    >>>>>>>carried over to 2002 (where they again went unused, and will now be
    >>>>>>>carried to 2003, etc.)
    >>>>>>>> FY 2002, 159,000*4/3 = 212,000? (Year end projection)
    >>>>>>>What is this 4/3? FY 2002 is over already, and the latest numbers I
    >>>>>>>have (from around June, three quarters into the fiscal year)
    >>>>>>>indicate that there were well less than 100,000 H-1Bs requested.
    >>>>>> Time lag.. The Fed's are real slow.. we'll be lucky to see Q4
    >>>>>> numbers before Dec..
    >>>>>Still, where does the number come from?
    >>>> First three quarters of applications, projected to end of year..
    >>>> I.E. 9months *4/3 == (Year end projection)..
    >>>According to
    >>>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BProc-
    >>>essing.htm    ,
    >>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs, plus
    >>>another 18,000 pending.
    >>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
    >>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
    >> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
    >> http-
    >> ://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    >> As a representative sample..
    >> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
    >> months of FY 2001.
    >The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The

There are no Second extensions.
Initial term Three(3) years, extension term(3) years.. max time
limit on H1-B visa six(6) years..

    >first extension does cost the fee. The number is so small because usually,
    >people will get an H-1B for three years, and then either already have
    >their Green Card, or extend it once for the full six years. The
    >seventh-year extension is rarely needed.

Automatic seventh year extension is not filed under form I-129.
(GC application).

    >> Same goes goes for transfers.. 4,731 admended petitions without
    >> extension for 1st nine(9) months of FY 2001.
    >What does an amended petition have to do with a transfer? An amended
    >petition is required if, for instance, an H-1B goes from part-time to
    >full-time, or vice versa.

It also includes changing jobs.. If 90 to 95% of workers from
particular country lied on application, and a employer knows that
fact, then they are hardly in a position to switch jobs.

    >> Meanwhile notice the increasing trend of exempt
    >> (N/P,education,affilliated/gov) catagory visa applications..
    >> Which had climbed to ~17.8% for all applications submitted for
    >> Fy01'Q3.. (Looks like the immigration lawyers handiwork to me)..
    >The only trend I saw was that the number of H-1B teachers increased as the
    >new school year approached, and similar seasonal effects. Other than that,
    >it looked like very steady numbers to me.

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:59:43 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:
    >Alex,
    >Tell us this, why in the world an administrative procedure,
    >(processing time), be allowed to subvert the intent of any law.

It shouldn't, but it is, all of the time.
    > According to Alex's dumb little theory
(by this, I assume you mean the theory about following the law and
regulations to limit those who are granted H-1B status in a given
year?)

    > you, increasing the I-129
    > processing time from the current 1 to 6 months* to 12 months should
    > cut off the H1-B program in it's entirety!!!

Now there's an idea! In fact, they could extend the processing time to
24 months, thus providing for a two year period with no new visas and
no new workers, thus solving all of the countries economic woes, at
least for a couple of years! All H-1B apps held for two years before
the INS approves any additional workers. Seems that You would like
this.

    >You have got a lot to learn about our government..
And a lot I don't want to know!


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Arthur E. Sowers

Thursday, Oct 17, 2002, _The News Journal_ (Wilmington, DE)

"Drug firm is leaving Delaware"

by Estaban Parra and Luladey B. Tadesse

"Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. said Wednesday it will shut down its remaining
operations which once were part of DuPont Pharmaceuticals, as the drug
company consolidates its research and development efforts in New Jersey
and Connecticut".

The article goes on to describe that 589 jobs will disappear by December
this year and that 55 of those jobs are administrator jobs. The rest are
scientist (doctoral and technician level).

Many reasons were given including drugs going off patent protection and
loss of investment in Imclone, investigation by the SEC (accounting
practices and restatement of earnings), and a glut of inventory. The
article goes on to state that there has been a trend of job loss in this
area (Pharmaceuticals) for some years now.

Numerous other labs have closed and downsized in recent years (Roche, for
example), as scientific work grows in very high-risk biotech start ups.
Another biotech, in Maryland, is also in serious trouble with no product
and mass resignations by upper management.


Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| [url="http://www.magpage.com/~arthures"]http://www.magpage.com/~arthures[/ur-
| l] |
-----------------------------------------

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >wrote:
    >>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:

    >>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>> wrote:

    >>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:

    >>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs, plus
    >>>>another 18,000 pending.
    >>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
    >>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.

    >>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
    >>> htt-
    >>> p://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    >>> As a representative sample..
    >>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
    >>> months of FY 2001.
    >>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
    >There are no Second extensions.

My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:

"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for
certain administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply
to employers that are:
• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
Higher Education Act of
1965;
• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with
an institution of higher
education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965;
• non-profit and Government research organizations;
****************Note this one*************************
• filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of stay for a
particular alien;
************************************************** ****
• filing an amended petition without a request to extend the
nonimmigrant stay of the alien
beneficiary;
• filing a petition to correct an INS error;
• primary or secondary education institutions; or
• non-profit entities engaging in established curriculum-related
clinical training of students
registered at any such institution.


And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and
by nature of exemption, we have this line:

Employer is filing a second (or
higher) extension of stay for an
H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489

I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months
of FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Tim Keating

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
wrote:

    >Tim Keating wrote:
    >>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs, plus
    >>>>>another 18,000 pending.
    >>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
    >>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
    >>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
    >>>> ht-
    >>>> tp://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    >>>> As a representative sample..
    >>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
    >>>> months of FY 2001.
    >>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
    >>There are no Second extensions.
    >My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
    >"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for
    >certain administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply
    >to employers that are:
    >• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
    >Higher Education Act of
    >1965;
    >• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with
    >an institution of higher
    >education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
    >1965;
    >• non-profit and Government research organizations;
    >****************Note this one*************************
    >• filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of stay for a
    >particular alien;
    >************************************************* *****
    >• filing an amended petition without a request to extend the
    >nonimmigrant stay of the alien
    >beneficiary;
    >• filing a petition to correct an INS error;
    >• primary or secondary education institutions; or
    >• non-profit entities engaging in established curriculum-related
    >clinical training of students
    >registered at any such institution.
    >And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and
    >by nature of exemption, we have this line:
    >Employer is filing a second (or
    >higher) extension of stay for an
    >H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
    >I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months
    >of FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
    >unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.

Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
processed.

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:
    >>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs, plus
    >>>>>>another 18,000 pending.
    >>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
    >>>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
    >>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
    >>>>> h-
    >>>>> ttp://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
    >>>>> As a representative sample..
    >>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
    >>>>> months of FY 2001.
    >>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
    >>>There are no Second extensions.
    >>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
    >>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for
    >>certain administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply
    >>to employers that are:
    >>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
    >>Higher Education Act of
    >>1965;
    >>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with
    >>an institution of higher
    >>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
    >>1965;
    >>• non-profit and Government research organizations;
    >>****************Note this one*************************
    >>• filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of stay for a
    >>particular alien;
    >>************************************************ ******
    >>• filing an amended petition without a request to extend the
    >>nonimmigrant stay of the alien
    >>beneficiary;
    >>• filing a petition to correct an INS error;
    >>• primary or secondary education institutions; or
    >>• non-profit entities engaging in established curriculum-related
    >>clinical training of students
    >>registered at any such institution.
    >>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and
    >>by nature of exemption, we have this line:
    >>Employer is filing a second (or
    >>higher) extension of stay for an
    >>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
    >>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months
    >>of FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
    >>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
    >Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
    >bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
    >fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
    >position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
    >head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
    >processed.

"Should"? Assume what you like. They have provided inadequate
information. I will assume that they report logically, counting such
multi-person petitions as multiple petitions in these counts. But I
have no more basis for my assumption than you do for yours.

BTW, saw one other thing in the INS report you cited, which might be
of interest:

"The petition must be approved before a visa is granted or an alien is
provided nonimmigrant status."

That language sounds familiar. I wonder why it is? Oh! Here it is in
214(g):

"(g)(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 1992)-
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Unix

"Carlos Antunes" wrote:

    >Well, the guy doesn't want to allow US companies to hire whoever they want.
    >Why? Because the guy doesn't want to compete with *more* people. Note that
    >the question he was referring to is about *immigrants*, not temporary
    >workers.
I don't think anyone has a problem with companies hiring who they
want. I have issues with companies that lie to Congress to say there's
a labor shortage when there is not. Then Congress allows more H1-B to
come in while Americans get layed off. Do you see the problem with
that?

Carlos Antunes

Your concern is a valid one. It happens everytime politicians are involved
to solve economic problems. My solution would be to abolish the H1-B program
and allow more immigrants outright, as long as these are law-abiding people.
This way, the Government gets out of the loop except to guarantee the safety
of all Americans.

wrote in message
news:e6l8ruc293f7rrdhioabe46-
[email protected]...
    > I don't think anyone has a problem with companies hiring who they
    > want. I have issues with companies that lie to Congress to say there's
    > a labor shortage when there is not. Then Congress allows more H1-B to
    > come in while Americans get layed off. Do you see the problem with
    > that?