Ingo Pakleppa

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.

Tim Keating

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.

Ingo Pakleppa

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?

Tim Keating

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.us-
    >doj.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.

    >$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.
    >>>>>In reality, many H-1Bs stay in the US for far less than the six years
    >>>>>(those who go for a GC will typically get it in three to four years),
    >>>>>and the quota hasn't always been reached. So my guess is that we
    >>>>>currently have between 300,000 and 400,000 H-1Bs in the country.
    >>>>>Nobody knows the exact number.
    >>>> Since we don't have any exit requirements, the INS can't tell who left
    >>>> or who stayed.
    >>>Sure we can. Just look at how many H-1B petitions are currently active,
    >>>and subtract the number of people who get a Green Card through
    >>>employment. That will give you a good approximation.
    >>>An exit tracking system wouldn't tell you much about H-1Bs because they
    >>>go on vacations or business trips, too.
    >> But, if they are out of country for more than three(3) months.
    >> It would be a good bet that they're no longer employed, and time to
    >> review the visa. .
    >Actually, that's not necessarily a valid assumption. I know H-1Bs who have
    >been on long assignments in other countries.
    >INS actually has a different criterion: the employee must not have any
    >ties to the employer. This is particularly important when measuring when
    >the six year limit starts and ends. Keeping accurate statistics isn't
    >exactly INS most important job in life, especially since approximations
    >are often quite sufficient.
    >>>>>> Most of the data has comes from the INS, which is known for sparse
    >>>>>> press announcements and publications.. (Takes a lot digging to find
    >>>>>> data points by alternate methods, INS staffing/ budget estimates,
    >>>>>> DOL budget projections, Retraining account balance, etc..)
    >>>>>> Initially the last INS demographic announced was back in 00, which
    >>>>>> had india using ~47.5% of all H1-B's visas. But the ratio has
    >>>>>> since reported too be as high as 74%.
    >>>>>44% is the number I am familiar with. I'm sure it depends on exactly
    >>>>>which year you are looking at, but I would be extremely surprised if
    >>>>>it was much higher than that.
    >>>> Actually started out 45.9% to 49.5% for FY 98.. with 27.8% specified
    >>>> as other countries. (Based on random sample of 3%, errors often cause
    >>>> visa's to be classified in the other category.)
    >>>> For Fy 00, it's 48.5% with 16.1% specified in the other category.
    >>>That is "other" as in "not one of the top twenty or so countries,"
    >>>right?
    >> Provinces are often mistaken for countries..
    >What do you mean? INS and Department of State have a pretty clear concept
    >of what countries are and what provinces are.
    >>>> 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 $1000 fee (and who have been counted before).
    >> You assume.. unwisely..
    >So - under which category are you saying that the vast majority of the
    >non-quota H-1Bs fall?
    >>>>>> Also added 1 year visa extension, if GC application pending.. I.E.
    >>>>>> No effective H1-B visa limits. (tech crash ensues)..
    >>>>>The one-year extension only applies to people who were already counted
    >>>>>in the past, so it is irrelevant for you. It is also not all that
    >>>>>many, most people get their GCs well before the six years are up
    >>>>>(right now, it typically takes two to three years).
    >>>>>> FY 2001, 357,000+
    >This number actually includes extensions and transfers.
    >>>>>I think your number is the total quota, not how many H-1Bs actually
    >>>>>came. I remember that the regular quota for H-1Bs (195k in that year)
    >>>>>was barely reached.
    >>>> No.. the uncounted categories numbered quite a bit.. 1,000$ per head
    >>>> is incentive enough to get them classified as uncounted.
    >>>See above. It is very difficult, near impossible even for truly
    >>>qualified organizations, to get this fee waived.
    >> Another claim with no facts.
    >> Again the immigration lawyers know the loopholes. Hell.. we just had one
    >> indicted for massive immigration fraud.
    >> Brought in 1000's of people.. Used random employer names..
    >> http://www.miami.com-
    >> /mld/miamiherald/news/3729439.htm
    >> "Massive immigration-fraud scheme alleged?"
    >And that has to do with non-profit fee excemptions how? This was a crook
    >who broke the law.
    >>>>>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-1BProcessi-
    >ng.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. Same goes goes for transfers.. 4,731 admended
petitions without extension for 1st nine(9) months of FY 2001.

Less than 5% of total H1-B visas for both catagories summed together.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not even worth trying to factor out.

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)..

N.A.A.. I'm not here to go round and round , trying to add or remove a
few % of the visa claims.. The numbers are fairly close and given
the time lags in processing, there probably as good as they are going
to get.

Until the INS responds to my FOIA requests for the databases, no one
will really know the truth.

Tim Keating

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 07:06:28 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
wrote:

    >On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:56:34 -0700, alexy wrote:
    >> Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
    >>>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.
    >> You are understanding the nature of creative purposeful statistics.
    >;-) Never trust a statistic you didn't manipulate yourself!
    >>>> Since we don't have any exit requirements, the INS can't tell who left
    >>>> or who stayed.
    >>>Sure we can. Just look at how many H-1B petitions are currently active,
    >>>and subtract the number of people who get a Green Card through
    >>>employment. That will give you a good approximation.
    >> But I think that Tim's point, which is a valid one, is that we don't
    >> have any way of knowing how many of those people stayed on as illegal
    >> immigrants. Of course, I doubt if there are many IT workers being paid
    >> in cash like lettuce pickers, so I would suspect that not many stayed on
    >> illegally. But we have no mechanism for knowing that.
    >You are right. H-1Bs have a lot more to lose and a lot less to gain by
    >overstaying. On the other hand, sometimes immigration law forces people to
    >become illegal.
    >Did you know that there actually was (until about two years ago) a
    >situation where somebody could become an illegal immigrant by LEAVING the
    >United States? If staying, he would have remained perfectly legal.
    >>>Zazona.com has a track record of false and misleading information,
    >>>verify everything you read there
    >> or anywhere else...
    >>> before you believe it. In this case, a
    >>> non-profit who lends out H-1Bs would be destroying its non-profit status
    >>> because this is clearly a for-profit activity.
    >>>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-1BProcessi-
    >ng.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..
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.

Tim Keating

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
wrote:

    >Tim Keating wrote:
    >>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>wrote:
    >>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >> Yes.. absolutely..
    >I'm still not convinced.
    >>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >> Nope..
    >I still think so.
    >>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>http://antaoandchuang.com/-
    >>articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >> the FY 2001 cap?
    >> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    > I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >were filed during that time frame."
    >I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >1:
    >" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >fiscal year. "
    >Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >not what the law says!

You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..

Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
your position holds any water?

Tim Keating

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...

    >>>>>>>>>> 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.

Now this thread is clearly in the context of H1-B program.

Your claims was false, and your attempts to show US citizens could
somehow avoid the consequences of law are also false !!!

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:
    >>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >>> Yes.. absolutely..
    >>I'm still not convinced.
    >>>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >>> Nope..
    >>I still think so.
    >>>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>>http://antaoandchuang.com-
    >>>/articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >>> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >>> the FY 2001 cap?
    >>> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >>> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >>> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    >> I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >>"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >>after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >>September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >>were filed during that time frame."
    >>I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >>1:
    >>" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >>annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >>fiscal year. "
    >>Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >>This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >>generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >>I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >>procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >>not what the law says!
    >You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..
No opinion. I was just observing what the lawyers wrote. And was
wondering if you had any basis for your conclusion, which goes well
beyond what they wrote, that the key is the application date for all
years.


    > Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
    > processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
    > of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
    > your position holds any water?

Not may position -- what the lawyers say that the law says. Guess we
need to look at section 214(g) to see if they accurately paraphrased
it, or if it says what you have said instead.

I'll check later and post what I find.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Alexy

alexy wrote:

    >Tim Keating wrote:
    >>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
    >>wrote:
    >>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >>>> Yes.. absolutely..
    >>>I'm still not convinced.
    >>>>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >>>> Nope..
    >>>I still think so.
    >>>>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>>>http://antaoandchuang.co-
    >>>>m/articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>>>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >>>> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >>>> the FY 2001 cap?
    >>>> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >>>> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >>>> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>>>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>>>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    >>> I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >>>"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >>>after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >>>September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >>>were filed during that time frame."
    >>>I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >>>1:
    >>>" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >>>annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >>>fiscal year. "
    >>>Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >>>This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >>>generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >>>I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >>>procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >>>not what the law says!
    >>You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..
    >No opinion. I was just observing what the lawyers wrote. And was
    >wondering if you had any basis for your conclusion, which goes well
    >beyond what they wrote, that the key is the application date for all
    >years.
    >> Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
    >> processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
    >> of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
    >> your position holds any water?
    >Not may position -- what the lawyers say that the law says. Guess we
    >need to look at section 214(g) to see if they accurately paraphrased
    >it, or if it says what you have said instead.
    >I'll check later and post what I find.

Just checked, and not surprisingly, the lawyers were right and Tim
wrong in their interpretation of the law. It speaks about limits on
the numbers granted in each fiscal year:

"(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)-

Then, in the American Competitiveness Act, Section 102, it provides
the exception for those whose application was received before
September 1, 2000:

"(B) 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. Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, the total number of aliens who
may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in fiscal year 2000 is
increased by a number equal to the number of aliens who may be issued
visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status who filed a petition
during the period beginning on the date on which the limitation in
such section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) is reached and ending on August 31,
2000.

Cites are
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/-
inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214
and
http://www.ins.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw/p-
ublaw-22323/publaw-22345?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm

Just noticed one clue that should have tipped us off to the nature of
this exception: It does not relate to a fiscal year, but talks about
applications received through August 31 (rather than September 30) of
2000.

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

Tim Keating

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:29:59 -0400, alexy
wrote:

    >alexy wrote:
    >>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>>>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>>>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >>>>> Yes.. absolutely..
    >>>>I'm still not convinced.
    >>>>>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >>>>> Nope..
    >>>>I still think so.
    >>>>>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>>>>http://antaoandchuang.c-
    >>>>>om/articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>>>>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >>>>> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >>>>> the FY 2001 cap?
    >>>>> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >>>>> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >>>>> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>>>>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>>>>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    >>>> I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >>>>"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >>>>after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >>>>September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >>>>were filed during that time frame."
    >>>>I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >>>>1:
    >>>>" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >>>>annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >>>>fiscal year. "
    >>>>Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >>>>This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >>>>generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >>>>I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >>>>procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >>>>not what the law says!
    >>>You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..
    >>No opinion. I was just observing what the lawyers wrote. And was
    >>wondering if you had any basis for your conclusion, which goes well
    >>beyond what they wrote, that the key is the application date for all
    >>years.
    >>> Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
    >>> processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
    >>> of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
    >>> your position holds any water?
    >>Not may position -- what the lawyers say that the law says. Guess we
    >>need to look at section 214(g) to see if they accurately paraphrased
    >>it, or if it says what you have said instead.
    >>I'll check later and post what I find.
    >Just checked, and not surprisingly, the lawyers were right and Tim
    >wrong in their interpretation of the law. It speaks about limits on
    >the numbers granted in each fiscal year:
    >"(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)-
    >Then, in the American Competitiveness Act, Section 102, it provides
    >the exception for those whose application was received before
    >September 1, 2000:

You left out a very important SECTION heading to your quote:

(b) ADDITIONAL VISAS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999 AND 2000-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
    >"(B) 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. Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alex do you know the definition of "Not withstanding"...

    >the Immigration and Nationality Act, the total number of aliens who
    >may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
    >section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in fiscal year 2000 is
    >increased by a number equal to the number of aliens who may be issued
    >visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status who filed a petition

.................................................. ...................^^^^^^^^^-
^^^^^^^^^^

Ahemm.... That's the wording giving amnesty for the OVER THE LIMIT
visa's issued in both FY 99, 00..

    >during the period beginning on the date on which the limitation in
    >such section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) is reached and ending on August 31,
    >2000.

Looks like your interpretation IS WRONG....

    >Cites are
    >[url="http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=-[/q1]
[q1]>templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214"]http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.dl-
    >l/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214[/u-
    >rl]
    >and
    >http://www.ins.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw-
    >/publaw-22323/publaw-22345?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
    >Just noticed one clue that should have tipped us off to the nature of
    >this exception: It does not relate to a fiscal year, but talks about
    >applications received through August 31 (rather than September 30) of
    >2000.

Wrong again.. You're looking at an amnesty clause.. because the INS
has a problem counting I-129 applications.. Probably because one
application form can be used to import multiple workers!!

(Retroactively increasing the FY'00 and FY'99 limits to match the INS
counting problems. )

Tim Keating

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:29:59 -0400, alexy
wrote:

    >alexy wrote:
    >>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>>>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>>>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >>>>> Yes.. absolutely..
    >>>>I'm still not convinced.
    >>>>>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >>>>> Nope..
    >>>>I still think so.
    >>>>>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>>>>http://antaoandchuang.c-
    >>>>>om/articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>>>>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >>>>> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >>>>> the FY 2001 cap?
    >>>>> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >>>>> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >>>>> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>>>>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>>>>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    >>>> I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >>>>"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >>>>after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >>>>September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >>>>were filed during that time frame."
    >>>>I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >>>>1:
    >>>>" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >>>>annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >>>>fiscal year. "
    >>>>Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >>>>This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >>>>generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >>>>I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >>>>procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >>>>not what the law says!
    >>>You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..
    >>No opinion. I was just observing what the lawyers wrote. And was
    >>wondering if you had any basis for your conclusion, which goes well
    >>beyond what they wrote, that the key is the application date for all
    >>years.
    >>> Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
    >>> processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
    >>> of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
    >>> your position holds any water?
    >>Not may position -- what the lawyers say that the law says. Guess we
    >>need to look at section 214(g) to see if they accurately paraphrased
    >>it, or if it says what you have said instead.
    >>I'll check later and post what I find.
    >Just checked, and not surprisingly, the lawyers were right and Tim
    >wrong in their interpretation of the law. It speaks about limits on
    >the numbers granted in each fiscal year:
    >"(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)-
    >Then, in the American Competitiveness Act, Section 102, it provides
    >the exception for those whose application was received before
    >September 1, 2000:

You left out a very important SECTION heading to your quote:

(b) ADDITIONAL VISAS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999 AND 2000-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
    >"(B) 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. Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alex do you know the definition of "Not withstanding"...

    >the Immigration and Nationality Act, the total number of aliens who
    >may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
    >section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in fiscal year 2000 is
    >increased by a number equal to the number of aliens who may be issued
    >visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status who filed a petition

.................................................. ...................^^^^^^^^^-
^^^^^^^^^^

Ahemm.... That's the wording giving amnesty for the OVER THE LIMIT
visa's issued in both FY 99, 00..

    >during the period beginning on the date on which the limitation in
    >such section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) is reached and ending on August 31,
    >2000.

Looks like your interpretation IS WRONG....

    >Cites are
    >[url="http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=-[/q1]
[q1]>templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214"]http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.dl-
    >l/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214[/u-
    >rl]
    >and
    >http://www.ins.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw-
    >/publaw-22323/publaw-22345?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
    >Just noticed one clue that should have tipped us off to the nature of
    >this exception: It does not relate to a fiscal year, but talks about
    >applications received through August 31 (rather than September 30) of
    >2000.

Wrong again.. You're looking at an amnesty clause.. because the INS
has a problem counting I-129 applications.. Probably because one
application can be used to import MULTIPLE workers!!

(Retroactively increasing the FY'00 and FY'99 limits to match the INS
counting problems. )

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:29:59 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:
    >>alexy wrote:
    >>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:50:14 -0400, alexy
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:03:08 -0400, alexy
    >>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
    >>>>>>>> the 02'cap.
    >>>>>>>Are you sure about that? I thought it applied to the limit for the
    >>>>>> Yes.. absolutely..
    >>>>>I'm still not convinced.
    >>>>>>>year in which the visa was granted.
    >>>>>> Nope..
    >>>>>I still think so.
    >>>>>>here is some lawyers take on the subject..
    >>>>>>http://antaoandchuang.-
    >>>>>>com/articles/ac21-faq.html
    >>>>>>Q3: How does INS plan to adjust its current counting method so that
    >>>>>> any petitions filed prior to September 1, 2000 will not count against
    >>>>>> the FY 2001 cap?
    >>>>>> A3: The Service already electronically captures the date a petition
    >>>>>> was received by INS. Therefore, our ability to electronically separate
    >>>>>> cases file before 09/01/00 is already in place.
    >>>>>>Public law 106-313 also made provisions for recapturing/reissuing
    >>>>>>anew any H1-B visa's which were revoked.
    >>>>> I read their release differently. I Q&A 2, they say:
    >>>>>"In addition, the FY 2001 cap does not include H-1B petitions filed
    >>>>>after INS reached the FY 2000 cap on March 22, 2000 but before
    >>>>>September 1, 2000. INS estimates that approximately 30,000 petitions
    >>>>>were filed during that time frame."
    >>>>>I read this as a one-time exemption to the general rule stated in Q&A
    >>>>>1:
    >>>>>" Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) sets an
    >>>>>annual limit on the number of aliens that can receive H-1B status in a
    >>>>>fiscal year. "
    >>>>>Which clearly refers to when the H-1B status was granted.
    >>>>>This might be sloppy wording on their part, but law firms are
    >>>>>generally pretty careful not to screw up something so basic.
    >>>>>I'd be interested if you had any information that this was the general
    >>>>>procedure. Certainly makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that it's
    >>>>>not what the law says!
    >>>>You have your opinion.. I'm not here trying to change it..
    >>>No opinion. I was just observing what the lawyers wrote. And was
    >>>wondering if you had any basis for your conclusion, which goes well
    >>>beyond what they wrote, that the key is the application date for all
    >>>years.
    >>>> Given the INS is roughly takes ... select a random number for
    >>>> processing time.. ranging from 1 to 6 months, depending on which one
    >>>> of four(4) processing centers gets the application. .. do you really
    >>>> your position holds any water?
    >>>Not may position -- what the lawyers say that the law says. Guess we
    >>>need to look at section 214(g) to see if they accurately paraphrased
    >>>it, or if it says what you have said instead.
    >>>I'll check later and post what I find.
    >>Just checked, and not surprisingly, the lawyers were right and Tim
    >>wrong in their interpretation of the law. It speaks about limits on
    >>the numbers granted in each fiscal year:
    >>"(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)-
    >>Then, in the American Competitiveness Act, Section 102, it provides
    >>the exception for those whose application was received before
    >>September 1, 2000:
    >You left out a very important SECTION heading to your quote:
    >(b) ADDITIONAL VISAS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999 AND 2000-
Nice addition. That was exactly the point I was making. It does _NOT_
apply to FY 2002, as you tried to do in the statement that I
originally questioned, in which you say:

"Note: Applications received during fiscal year 02 are charged against
the 02'cap.

    >>"(B) 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. Notwithstanding section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) of
    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >Alex do you know the definition of "Not withstanding"...
I'm not sure the purpose of your underlining. Of course I understand
that; it is exactly the point I was making. This is an exception to
the general rule of 214(g). That is what I was saying, since I did
indeed understand what notwithstanding meant.
    >>the Immigration and Nationality Act, the total number of aliens who
    >>may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under
    >>section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act in fiscal year 2000 is
    >>increased by a number equal to the number of aliens who may be issued
    >>visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status who filed a petition
    >................................................. ....................^^^^^^^^^^-
    >^^^^^^^^^
    >Ahemm.... That's the wording giving amnesty for the OVER THE LIMIT
    >visa's issued in both FY 99, 00..
While you are still wrong, you appear to be beginning to catch on. The
language I quoted was an exception for FY 2000. It was paragraph A
under the title you posted that referred to FY 1999. The paragraph
quoted above re FY00 is the paragraph referred to in the law firm's
notice that you claimed as justification of your interpretation of
what would happen in FY 2002.

    >>during the period beginning on the date on which the limitation in
    >>such section 214(g)(1)(A)(iii) is reached and ending on August 31,
    >>2000.
    >Looks like your interpretation IS WRONG....
Nope. What "interpretation" are you claiming is wrong.

    >>Cites are
    >>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/lpBin/lpext.-
    >>dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-2999?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act214-
    >>
    >>and
    >>http://www.ins.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publ-
    >>aw/publaw-22323/publaw-22345?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
    >>Just noticed one clue that should have tipped us off to the nature of
    >>this exception: It does not relate to a fiscal year, but talks about
    >>applications received through August 31 (rather than September 30) of
    >>2000.
    >Wrong again.. You're looking at an amnesty clause.. because the INS
    >has a problem counting I-129 applications.. Probably because one
    >application form can be used to import multiple workers!!
Exactly. Now what clause are you looking at that says that the limits
are counted on the basis of the date the application is filed rather
than, as the law says, the number of visas granted in each fiscal
year? This is what you originally cited as authority for your
erroneous position, when you cited Q&A3 of that law firm's page.

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

    >(Retroactively increasing the FY'00 and FY'99 limits to match the INS
    >counting problems. )
Yep.


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

Alexy

Tim Keating wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:29:59 -0400, alexy
    >wrote:

See reply to first version posted. If this is any different, please
point out any differences needing separate response.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Tim Keating

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.. .

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.

Check out 8 USC 1184..

"(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) -
(A) under section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, may not
exceed -
(i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal year 1999;
(ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001;
(v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002;
(vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and
(vii) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year; or
(B) under section 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of this title may not
exceed 66,000.

(2) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1) shall only apply
to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children of such
aliens.

(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..


-------- 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?WAISd-
ocID=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.


" (A) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants, excluding those
involved in Department of Defense research and development projects or
coproduction projects, may not exceed:
(4) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
(5) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(6) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
(7) 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.
(F) Procedures. (A)
(G) 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 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"

"a petition is denied, the number(s) originally assigned to the
petition shall be returned to the system which maintains and assigns
numbers. "

B.A.. 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..

Tim Keating

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.. .

In case you haven't discovered, that congress rarely replaces an
entire section.. It admend's it with a paragraph or two in appropriate
places.

Check out 8 USC 1184..

"(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) -
(A) under section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, may not
exceed -
(i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal year 1999;
(ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001;
(v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002;
(vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and
(vii) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year; or
(B) under section 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of this title may not
exceed 66,000.

(2) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1) shall only apply
to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children of such
aliens.

(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..


-------- 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?WAISd-
ocID=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.


" (A) Aliens classified as H-1B nonimmigrants, excluding those
involved in Department of Defense research and development projects or
coproduction projects, may not exceed:
(4) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;
(5) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(6) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
(7) 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.
(F) Procedures. (A)
(G) 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 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"

"a petition is denied, the number(s) originally assigned to the
petition shall be returned to the system which maintains and assigns
numbers. "

B.A.. 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..