tRuthvalue

The legislation of December 2000 that extended the amnesty for out of status people
to April 30, 2001 is identified as, I believe, 235-I. I have a nanny friend with a B1
visa that has been successfully renewed every six months for about 2 years through
the sponsorship of the family she lives with. Friends have told her she made a big
mistake by not allowing herself to go out of status so she could have applied under
235-I. They think she would have been able to get a green card independantly if she
had. This seemed ridiculous to me, given the wording that I saw in 235-I. It looked
to me like it only helped people who either arrived here illegally, or those who were
out of status for some reason but who "OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR CHANGE TO IMMIGRANT
STATUS". I understand that domestic servants holding B1's have only ONE path to a
green card, marriage to a citizen.

1) Am I correct in my assumptions above?
2) If I'm not completely correct, what conceivable way could these people think that
235-I was a ticket to permanent residency for my friend?

Please help me document the truth, whatever it is. I'm tired of being accused of
ruining her chances by telling her 235-I didn't apply to her.

Thanks...

Andy Platt

Firstly you are completely incorrect in your assumptions but so are the friends. She
would have had to have had someone to file a petition to take advantage of 245i (not
235i) and I don't see that coming from anywhere in your message. I know of nannies
that have successfully adjusted status using 245i with an employment-based greencard
(not as a nanny though because that pushes you into category 4).

Anyway, if she is serious about wanting to stay in the US it would be worthwhile
buying a book or even getting a consulation with an immigration attorney to find out
what her options are.

One thing that is true is that without either leaving the US or marrying a US citizen
pronto she won't be able to do stay here without going out of status.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

    >
status
    >
nanny
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
have
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

tRuthvalue

Thanks Andy,

    >
    >
    >

Her current employers would have filed for her, but she was/is NOT OUT OF STATUS. She
has a SS# and has status that allows her to work as the caretaker of this family's
children. Is it not true that 245i applies to those who are out of status, or
illegal? If so, how could she have applied under 245i?

I think we are both missing something here! Anyone else have a comment?

    >
    >
that
    >

How did they do this?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > The legislation of December 2000 that extended the amnesty for out of[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > people to April 30, 2001 is identified as, I believe, 235-I. I have a[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > friend with a B1 visa that has been successfully renewed every six[/usenetquote2]
months
[usenetquote2]> > for about 2 years through the sponsorship of the family she lives with. Friends[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > have told her she made a big mistake by not allowing herself to[/usenetquote2]
go
[usenetquote2]> > out of status so she could have applied under 235-I. They think she[/usenetquote2]
would
[usenetquote2]> > have been able to get a green card independantly if she had. This[/usenetquote2]
seemed
[usenetquote2]> > ridiculous to me, given the wording that I saw in 235-I. It looked to[/usenetquote2]
me
[usenetquote2]> > like it only helped people who either arrived here illegally, or those[/usenetquote2]
who
[usenetquote2]> > were out of status for some reason but who "OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR[/usenetquote2]
CHANGE
[usenetquote2]> > TO IMMIGRANT STATUS". I understand that domestic servants holding B1's[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > only ONE path to a green card, marriage to a citizen.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 1) Am I correct in my assumptions above?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 2) If I'm not completely correct, what conceivable way could these[/usenetquote2]
people
[usenetquote2]> > think that 235-I was a ticket to permanent residency for my friend?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Please help me document the truth, whatever it is. I'm tired of being accused of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > ruining her chances by telling her 235-I didn't apply to her.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks...[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

Andy Platt

[usenetquote2]> > Firstly you are completely incorrect in your assumptions but so are the friends.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > She would have had to have had someone to file a petition to[/usenetquote2]
take
[usenetquote2]> > advantage of 245i (not 235i) and I don't see that coming from anywhere[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > your message.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

There are two parts to any immigrant application - the petition by someone (or some
organization) saying "give this alien an immigrant visa number" - and an application
by the alien to use that visa number either to get an actual visa (at a consulate) or
by adjusting status in the US by filing an I-485. In some limited instances these
steps are combined. Section 245(i) concerns the filing of the I-485 but in order to
take advantage you need to have been "enabled" by the appropriate filing of the first
petition. The important thing is that you need not have been in the US illegally when
the petition was filed to use section 245(i) later.

Specifically, if her employer had filed an I-140 prior to April 30th she could, when
that was approved and a visa number was available, file the I-485 even if she was out
of status at that point because the filing of the I-140 would have "grandfathered"
her in. If, by some chance, she was not out of status she would just submit the I-485
paperwork and not worry about
245(i) at all.

It looks highly likely that 245(i) will be briefly reinstated this year so all
is not lost.

[usenetquote2]> > I know of nannies that have successfully adjusted status using 245i with an[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > employment-based greencard (not as a nanny though because[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > pushes you into category 4).[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >

A couple of them exactly as above using the previous version of 245(i); one of them
was long enough ago that they were able to return to the consulate for processing
since the 3/10 year bans weren't in effect.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

Alvena Ferreira

tRuthvalue wrote:
    >

Illegal and out of status may be two different things:
http://www.americanlaw.com/aos.html

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/ho...ligibility.htm

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/howdoi/Appproc.htm (pan down to " information for
your alien relative"

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/fo...orms/i-485.htm Specifically, read the
instructions on the I-485 form (link on above URL) about who is NOT eligible to
adjust status.

alvena I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, this is a pointer to resources
and is to be used for the purpose of discussion.

Betastar

    >
    >
    >

Then she doesn't have a B1. A B1/B2 visa is for non-immigrants visiting on business
or pleasure, but not a visa that allows you to work in the US, getting you a SS#
and all that.

Check what her visa is again - you might find its something else.

Are the people who employ her US Citizens?

    >

See above

Andy Platt

Actually, you can use a B1 in certain situations exactly as stated but, good point,
the employers almost certainly are not US citizens. Also at some point they are going
to say, enough is enough.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

    >

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >Her current employers would have filed for her, but she was/is NOT OUT OF STATUS.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >She has a SS# and has status that allows her to work as the caretaker of this[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >family's children.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >I think we are both missing something here! Anyone else have a comment?[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >

Betastar

    >
    >
    >

Thanks - the reason I asked if the employers weren't US Citizens was because I
figured that maybe the B1 is being in the US on business purposes to come with the
non-US Citizen employers and watch after their kids... but I've never heard of
getting a SSN with the B1. It just seems odd.

Betastar also odd

tRuthvalue

    >

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >Her current employers would have filed for her, but she was/is NOT OUT OF STATUS.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >She has a SS# and has status that allows her to work as the caretaker of this[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >family's children.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
No, it IS a B1. I saw some paperwork. She was their nanny in a foreign country and
the man was returned to the states. They got her a B1 because he was to leave the
states again soon thereafter. However, his company is keeping him here longer than
expected, so I presume they are managing to extend her B1 because they are eventually
going to leave again.

    >
Yes.

[usenetquote2]> >I think we are both missing something here! Anyone else have a comment?[/usenetquote2]

I still think there is a misunderstanding here based on the responses to my posts. I
was told by a lawyer that 245(i) was AMNESTY for out of status or illegal aliens who
OTHERWISE would have qualified for permanent residency. For example, a Mexican who
had crossed the border illegally, and therefore had NO legal status, but was able to
marry a citizen while here - 245(i) would have applied to him/her. My friend is here
legitimately.

Thanks for your insights, tRuthValue