for all those who have a misguided belief the democrats are somehow imm friendly

unitednations said:
SFMARS, I think you are waging a losing battle.

The hierarchy of the laws isn't very complex but it is a pyramid. Top is immigration nationality act then there are the USC rules and then code of federal regulations, there are a few other floors to the pyramid. The code of federal regulations is how they are going to apply said laws.

The problem is that when they try to come up with code of federal regulations to apply said laws; they cannot resolve the conflicts between the floors of the pyramid. Because of this they always come up with interim guidance (memos) but leave some things to readers imagination because of the conflicts between the laws. They don't address specific issues on purpose. Trust me they analyse, write, re-analyze it pretty throughly before they issue them.

Just about every one of their memos issue; always ends with "until final regulations are promugulated" then follow this memo. However, they haven't come out with regulations ever since the public laws amending INA came out.

Everything I know is that they would have a hard timing coming up with the regulations because of the conflicts that need to be resolved first. Unfortunately, it is not a high priority for them.

The part of extending h-1b beyond six years has been there since ac21 came out and not in 2002. They have been issuing memos every since always making them more liberal (employee friendly).
Click to expand...

UN,

Too many words and zero facts.

I can say kind of the same, what TheRealCanadian said, please provide the exact text of the law dated with Dec 2000.

Speaking on your language: Until you do not provide real text of the law I have not lost the battle yet.

GotPR said more accurately when specifically mentioned memo but not the law.

USCIS may have hard time with trials only when they issue something which is against immigrants and lawyers can get benefits of it.
 
unitednations said:
106 th Congress

October 17, 2000

114 Stat. 1251
Click to expand...

That is very good. Could you be so kind to provide the web link ?
It would more concised and more reliable than cut and paste.

This document does not say that individual can get H1B increment beyond of 6 year staying if LC is pending more than 365 days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sfmars said:
That is very good. Could you be so kind to provide the web link ?
It would more concised and more reliable than cut and paste.

This document does not say that individual can get H1B increment beyond of 6 year staying if LC is pending more than 365 days.
Click to expand...

sfmars,

Are you really this dumb or is your ego not allowing you to accept it?

If you still want proof, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html.

Search under the 106th congress for S.2045 and see under section 106(a).

It is very clear that you lost this point and the one on Senate Majority. Just accept it instead of putting more mud on yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sfmars said:
That is very good. Could you be so kind to provide the web link ?
It would more concised and more reliable than cut and paste.

This document does not say that individual can get H1B increment beyond of 6 year staying if LC is pending more than 365 days.
Click to expand...

http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh121st.html


The 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act amends AC21 to grant H1B status holders extensions beyond the normal six-year limit in cases of lengthy adjudication of either labor certifications or employment-based (EB) immigrant petitions (I-140). Under AC21, eligibility arises when 365 days or more have passed since the filing of both the labor certification and the I-140 petition or of the I-140 petition, alone. The 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act extended the benefit of being able to file H1B extensions beyond six years to those who merely filed a labor certification that has been pending for 365 days or longer. The Yates Memo provides that, in order for the person to benefit under the labor certification filing requirement, the individual must qualify on or after November 2, 2002.


The 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act was released in 2002
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whatever

unitednations said:
item in blue pretty much stated that labor should be older then 365 days
Click to expand...

See my previous post.

This says how attorneys and AILA understood AC21
 
sfmars said:
How about yourself ? Just think twice before asking something simular



This document does not have the date and not from USCIS site.
Click to expand...

The Library of Congress is the most authoritative source of all laws passed in this country and section 106 clearly states that H1-B can be extended if 365 days have elapsed since the filing of labor certification.

As for the date, here is the info that you want - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02045:@@@R

In case the link doesn't work, it clearly states that this bill was signed by the president on 10/17/2000.

Again stop putting mud on yourself.
 
end_the_wait said:
The Library of Congress is the most authoritative source of all laws passed in this country and section 106 clearly states that H1-B can be extended if 365 days have elapsed since the filing of labor certification.

As for the date, here is the info that you want - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN02045:@@@R

In case the link doesn't work, it clearly states that this bill was signed by the president on 10/17/2000.

Again stop putting mud on yourself.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatelly different people have different understanding of the most authoritative source of all laws.
 
Back to the title of the thread

Just to get back to the title of this thread.
I do not think it is a slam dunk that the Dems. will push something through this legislative session. Damn politics could get in the way.
However there are a few hopeful signs. Firstly, you get the feeling the grand old veteran of the party Sen Kennedy is truly behind CIR. He is bound to weign in during their internal deliberations.

Next, the FACT is the old "Majority of the Majority" republicans made their stand and stood immovably with it despite all sorts of pressure. They had their chance with legal immigration provisions S1932 in 2005 and with CIR in 2006 and rebuffed change both times. Any immigrations reformers have to realise negotiating with them would only have led to a dead end and a lot of run around.

I for one, would like to reserve judgement and see. Atleast there is an option to hope for change, previously there was none.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sfmars said:
Unfortunatelly different people have different understanding of the most authoritative source of all laws.
Click to expand...

The Library of Congress is the record keeper of all legislative activity in this country. Most authoritative or not, do you atleast accept that it really passed in 2000 or are you going to claim that I cooked up this thomas.loc.gov website.

Sheesh!! Some people know when to cut their loss. Others just keep digging a bigger hole.
 
end_the_wait said:
The Library of Congress is the record keeper of all legislative activity in this country. Most authoritative or not, do you atleast accept that it really passed in 2000 or are you going to claim that I cooked up this thomas.loc.gov website.

Sheesh!! Some people know when to cut their loss. Others just keep digging a bigger hole.
Click to expand...

I know the time when the original AC21 was released. I never argued that AC21 date was other than the end of 2000.

The issue was raised only when TheRealCanadian said that provision for H1B people with pending LC more than 365 days was the part of the oroginal AC21.

My point is that became part of AC21 after 2002.
 
unitednations said:
Therefore, in 2000 it was there that a person is not subject to h-1b cap or six year limitation if they have a labor older then 365 days. Many other things were silent.

The amendment in 2002 expanded it.

However, to be able to extend beyond six years has been there since 2000
Click to expand...

However I have been working for government non-profitable organization and lawyers of our institution started to file the extensions for LC only pending more than 365 days, only after that amenment was approved in 2003.

We have thousands of H1B people.

That change in 2002 the law allowed people who had to leave the country to return and to use the benefit of the law.

The problem is that nobody out of the people who argued with me did not participate in the BEC forums. There are a lot of people their and nobody claimed that he/she on 11th year of H1B.

Make your own calculation.
 
sfmars said:
I know the time when the original AC21 was released. I never argued that AC21 date was other than the end of 2000. The issue was raised only when TheRealCanadian said that provision for H1B people with pending LC more than 365 days was the part of the oroginal AC21. My point is that became part of AC21 after 2002.
Click to expand...

And yet you have been told numerous times, and had the relevant statute quoted to you, that this was part of the AC21 law from the very beginning. How much more do we need to do?

If you claim that there has been a change in the law, please cite the relevant bill number so that we can examine. Right now all you are doing is repeating wrong information and being stubborn out of pride and ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top