Denied AP in Atlanta
Jun 21st 2002, 3:21 pm
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
> You failed to see the point of my post. If the examiner at the POE had checked his
> computer data base from the INS and found that INS had marked your AOS abandoned
> because of failure to attend the interview, he was within his rights to deny you
> entry into the US. Your abandonment of the AOS would have also voided your A/P.
>
> That you were lucky that this did not occur and in all likelihood the chances of it
> occuring are slim because the updating of the data base for INS is very lax.
I disagree with you still. I think they knew about it from how they handled the
parole, and INS's databases and updating are not as incompetent as INS wants everyone
to think. When the primary inspection looked for her name in the computer, it was in
a different place than he expected and they did seem to have a small amount of
resentment and a funny look on their face about what they were doing. Further, my
understanding is advance parole for adjustment applicants is normally granted
indefinitely (i.e. until the adjustment interview), but in our case we were only
given 1 year. The authorization from the district director commands the inspector
only to examine prima facie eligiblity for adjustment, and they did their job
correctly.
The fact that adjustment is abandoned does not cancel an Advance Parole
authorization. The instructions on Form I-131 clearly states that a travel document
is only invalidated if found to be obtained by material misrepresentation or
concealment in the application or if you are ordered deported or removed. Abandonment
of adjustment is a denial without prejudice to re-filing. A denial at an adjustment
interview, however, is different and constructively cancels an Advance Parole because
they will take the document away from you so you cannot depart and return to escape
removal proceedings.
Besides, it is perfectly acceptable to miss your adjustment interview appointment
notice and interview because you are abroad (although, as our case demonstrates, that
isn't even necessary).
CP
> computer data base from the INS and found that INS had marked your AOS abandoned
> because of failure to attend the interview, he was within his rights to deny you
> entry into the US. Your abandonment of the AOS would have also voided your A/P.
>
> That you were lucky that this did not occur and in all likelihood the chances of it
> occuring are slim because the updating of the data base for INS is very lax.
I disagree with you still. I think they knew about it from how they handled the
parole, and INS's databases and updating are not as incompetent as INS wants everyone
to think. When the primary inspection looked for her name in the computer, it was in
a different place than he expected and they did seem to have a small amount of
resentment and a funny look on their face about what they were doing. Further, my
understanding is advance parole for adjustment applicants is normally granted
indefinitely (i.e. until the adjustment interview), but in our case we were only
given 1 year. The authorization from the district director commands the inspector
only to examine prima facie eligiblity for adjustment, and they did their job
correctly.
The fact that adjustment is abandoned does not cancel an Advance Parole
authorization. The instructions on Form I-131 clearly states that a travel document
is only invalidated if found to be obtained by material misrepresentation or
concealment in the application or if you are ordered deported or removed. Abandonment
of adjustment is a denial without prejudice to re-filing. A denial at an adjustment
interview, however, is different and constructively cancels an Advance Parole because
they will take the document away from you so you cannot depart and return to escape
removal proceedings.
Besides, it is perfectly acceptable to miss your adjustment interview appointment
notice and interview because you are abroad (although, as our case demonstrates, that
isn't even necessary).
CP
Jun 21st 2002, 3:21 pm
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
> However, I am not convinced that "Advance Parole" can be lumped together with just
> "parole". Indeed, in the INA, I could not find any generalized section detailing
> the rights or commonality of all parollees, rather, the different type of paroles
> were specified in different sections of the law, and the AP section did not make
> any such sweeping guarantee of entry despite being inadmissible.
The law provides general parole authority to the Attorney General at INA 212(d)(5).
Regulations provide the implementation for this and invent the concept of Advance
Parole for pre-authorizing a parole.
Since the law at INA 212(d)(5) also specifically states that parole is not to be
considered admission, there can be no doubt that this aspect of parole is common to
all types of parole available through the INS.
CP
> "parole". Indeed, in the INA, I could not find any generalized section detailing
> the rights or commonality of all parollees, rather, the different type of paroles
> were specified in different sections of the law, and the AP section did not make
> any such sweeping guarantee of entry despite being inadmissible.
The law provides general parole authority to the Attorney General at INA 212(d)(5).
Regulations provide the implementation for this and invent the concept of Advance
Parole for pre-authorizing a parole.
Since the law at INA 212(d)(5) also specifically states that parole is not to be
considered admission, there can be no doubt that this aspect of parole is common to
all types of parole available through the INS.
CP
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 pm
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
Rete <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> You failed to see the point of my post. If the examiner at the POE had checked his
> computer data base from the INS and found that INS had marked your AOS abandoned
> because of failure to attend the interview, he was within his rights to deny you
> entry into the US. Your abandonment of the AOS would have also voided your A/P.
>
> That you were lucky that this did not occur and in all likelihood the chances of it
> occuring are slim because the updating of the data base for INS is very lax.
Further thoughts for you to think about - in my case, it doesn't matter even if they
decided not to parole because the adjustment application that the authorization was
based upon had been abandoned, because every possible outcome leads right back to
being paroled anyway:
- If they decided the Advance Parole travel document was invalid, they could
independently decide to parole instead.
- Or, they could defer inspection to the district office, at which place you would
file a new adjustment application and they would parole you there.
- Or, they could initiate Section 240 proceedings, and you would re-file for
adjustment and the application would be considered by the immigration judge at the
hearing as a means of discretionary relief.
- Section 235 expedited removal proceedings would not be applicable to you because
you arrived with proper travel documentation and without making any willful
misrepresentations.
CP
news:<[email protected]>...
> You failed to see the point of my post. If the examiner at the POE had checked his
> computer data base from the INS and found that INS had marked your AOS abandoned
> because of failure to attend the interview, he was within his rights to deny you
> entry into the US. Your abandonment of the AOS would have also voided your A/P.
>
> That you were lucky that this did not occur and in all likelihood the chances of it
> occuring are slim because the updating of the data base for INS is very lax.
Further thoughts for you to think about - in my case, it doesn't matter even if they
decided not to parole because the adjustment application that the authorization was
based upon had been abandoned, because every possible outcome leads right back to
being paroled anyway:
- If they decided the Advance Parole travel document was invalid, they could
independently decide to parole instead.
- Or, they could defer inspection to the district office, at which place you would
file a new adjustment application and they would parole you there.
- Or, they could initiate Section 240 proceedings, and you would re-file for
adjustment and the application would be considered by the immigration judge at the
hearing as a means of discretionary relief.
- Section 235 expedited removal proceedings would not be applicable to you because
you arrived with proper travel documentation and without making any willful
misrepresentations.
CP
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
"Chris Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > However, I am not convinced that "Advance Parole" can be lumped together with
> > just "parole". Indeed, in the INA, I could not find any
generalized
> > section detailing the rights or commonality of all parollees, rather,
the
> > different type of paroles were specified in different sections of the
law,
> > and the AP section did not make any such sweeping guarantee of entry
despite
> > being inadmissible.
>
> The law provides general parole authority to the Attorney General at INA 212(d)(5).
> Regulations provide the implementation for this and invent the concept of Advance
> Parole for pre-authorizing a parole.
OK, I see that. And I see the creation of the concept of Advance Parole in the regs.
And I also see where the authority of granting parole is made (i.e. by the AG,
delegated downwards to the local DD). And I see that in theory, the AG->DD could
decided that "rare cicumstances" or "urgent humanitarian reasons" could be defined as
anyone who is pending AOS. A stretch of the law, perhaps, but doable.
And since someone who is pending AOS can be granted AP, which is derived from parole
status by AG->DD, anyone with AP should be permitted to be paroled into the U.S. even
with a ground of inadmissibility. Trust me - I want to believe you - after all,
that's what I maintained in the first place.
What I can't work out is all of the INS documents stating that AP is not a guarantee
of entry, and that you may be found inadmissible at the POE. Documents and forms
aren't law, I know, but it is still a significant inconsistency.
Perhaps the AP document itself could be considered just like a visa. You could hold a
visa, issued correctly or incorrectly by a Consular Official. However, the visa is
not a guarantee of entry. The POE official can (re)decide if you qualify for the
visa, and if not, they can still deny you entry.
So, the same with AP. You have been correctly or incorrectly granted an AP document.
But the POE official has the authority to redecide at the POE whether you should be
paroled into the U.S. And perhaps the AG->DD have told the POE officials that
(advance) parole authority can and should be revoked at the POE in the event of an
overstay ban.
Is anyone buying my logic?
Paulgani
news:[email protected]...
> > However, I am not convinced that "Advance Parole" can be lumped together with
> > just "parole". Indeed, in the INA, I could not find any
generalized
> > section detailing the rights or commonality of all parollees, rather,
the
> > different type of paroles were specified in different sections of the
law,
> > and the AP section did not make any such sweeping guarantee of entry
despite
> > being inadmissible.
>
> The law provides general parole authority to the Attorney General at INA 212(d)(5).
> Regulations provide the implementation for this and invent the concept of Advance
> Parole for pre-authorizing a parole.
OK, I see that. And I see the creation of the concept of Advance Parole in the regs.
And I also see where the authority of granting parole is made (i.e. by the AG,
delegated downwards to the local DD). And I see that in theory, the AG->DD could
decided that "rare cicumstances" or "urgent humanitarian reasons" could be defined as
anyone who is pending AOS. A stretch of the law, perhaps, but doable.
And since someone who is pending AOS can be granted AP, which is derived from parole
status by AG->DD, anyone with AP should be permitted to be paroled into the U.S. even
with a ground of inadmissibility. Trust me - I want to believe you - after all,
that's what I maintained in the first place.
What I can't work out is all of the INS documents stating that AP is not a guarantee
of entry, and that you may be found inadmissible at the POE. Documents and forms
aren't law, I know, but it is still a significant inconsistency.
Perhaps the AP document itself could be considered just like a visa. You could hold a
visa, issued correctly or incorrectly by a Consular Official. However, the visa is
not a guarantee of entry. The POE official can (re)decide if you qualify for the
visa, and if not, they can still deny you entry.
So, the same with AP. You have been correctly or incorrectly granted an AP document.
But the POE official has the authority to redecide at the POE whether you should be
paroled into the U.S. And perhaps the AG->DD have told the POE officials that
(advance) parole authority can and should be revoked at the POE in the event of an
overstay ban.
Is anyone buying my logic?
Paulgani
Jun 21st 2002, 5:20 pm
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
Trust me, in this subthread, you are LITERALLY beating a (long) dead horse.
Jun 22nd 2002, 9:21 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Denied AP in Atlanta
> What I can't work out is all of the INS documents stating that AP is not a
> guarantee of entry, and that you may be found inadmissible at the POE. Documents
> and forms aren't law, I know, but it is still a significant inconsistency.
People aren't always who they say they are, and photographs on passports, visas and
travel documents aren't always of the people carrying them and can be used
fraudulently. Even U.S. citizens are subject to inspection and can be refused
admission if INS determines they are using stolen or fraudulent passports or the
bearer acted while abroad in a manner as to relinquish U.S. citizenship. That's how
come the government could even detain a U.S. citizen who they accuse of conspiring
from abroad to plant a dirty bomb in the U.S.
I say they print the statement of inadmissibility on the AP's obtained by adjustment
applicants to remind them that a departure using the document may trigger an
inadmissibility which will affect the ability to receive an immigrant visa from
abroad or to receive approval of an adjustment application after they return to the
U.S. As for a finding of inadmissibility at the POE, well that could mean either you
fail to pass the inspection for prima facie eligibility for adjustment, and/or they
will mark your passport at the POE as "inadmissible until ..." to alert adjudications
later while also allowing you to enter. I don't know anyone who has fallen into that
mishap yet, and it is less likely to happen since INS is trying to deny AP's to
people who have been unlawfully present for more than 180 days before filing for
adjustment to simplify things, but it is nevertheless possible, particularly because
the period of time between abandonment of adjustment and departure is unlawful
presence, but I'm sure the lawyers do know some cases where this happened.
> Perhaps the AP document itself could be considered just like a visa. You could hold
> a visa, issued correctly or incorrectly by a Consular Official. However, the visa
> is not a guarantee of entry. The POE official can (re)decide if you qualify for the
> visa, and if not, they can still deny you entry.
AP obtained through fraud or willful misrepresentation are invalid, that much is
true. POE officials confirm visa authenticity and determine admissibility based upon
its terms, not re-qualification for receiving the visa.
> So, the same with AP. You have been correctly or incorrectly granted an AP
> document. But the POE official has the authority to redecide at the POE whether you
> should be paroled into the U.S. And perhaps the AG->DD have told the POE officials
> that (advance) parole authority can and should be revoked at the POE in the event
> of an overstay ban.
On my AP, the DD told the POE to parole contingent on prima facie eligibility. They
asked her how long she has been married.
CP
The horse is dead. End-of-thread
> guarantee of entry, and that you may be found inadmissible at the POE. Documents
> and forms aren't law, I know, but it is still a significant inconsistency.
People aren't always who they say they are, and photographs on passports, visas and
travel documents aren't always of the people carrying them and can be used
fraudulently. Even U.S. citizens are subject to inspection and can be refused
admission if INS determines they are using stolen or fraudulent passports or the
bearer acted while abroad in a manner as to relinquish U.S. citizenship. That's how
come the government could even detain a U.S. citizen who they accuse of conspiring
from abroad to plant a dirty bomb in the U.S.
I say they print the statement of inadmissibility on the AP's obtained by adjustment
applicants to remind them that a departure using the document may trigger an
inadmissibility which will affect the ability to receive an immigrant visa from
abroad or to receive approval of an adjustment application after they return to the
U.S. As for a finding of inadmissibility at the POE, well that could mean either you
fail to pass the inspection for prima facie eligibility for adjustment, and/or they
will mark your passport at the POE as "inadmissible until ..." to alert adjudications
later while also allowing you to enter. I don't know anyone who has fallen into that
mishap yet, and it is less likely to happen since INS is trying to deny AP's to
people who have been unlawfully present for more than 180 days before filing for
adjustment to simplify things, but it is nevertheless possible, particularly because
the period of time between abandonment of adjustment and departure is unlawful
presence, but I'm sure the lawyers do know some cases where this happened.
> Perhaps the AP document itself could be considered just like a visa. You could hold
> a visa, issued correctly or incorrectly by a Consular Official. However, the visa
> is not a guarantee of entry. The POE official can (re)decide if you qualify for the
> visa, and if not, they can still deny you entry.
AP obtained through fraud or willful misrepresentation are invalid, that much is
true. POE officials confirm visa authenticity and determine admissibility based upon
its terms, not re-qualification for receiving the visa.
> So, the same with AP. You have been correctly or incorrectly granted an AP
> document. But the POE official has the authority to redecide at the POE whether you
> should be paroled into the U.S. And perhaps the AG->DD have told the POE officials
> that (advance) parole authority can and should be revoked at the POE in the event
> of an overstay ban.
On my AP, the DD told the POE to parole contingent on prima facie eligibility. They
asked her how long she has been married.
CP
The horse is dead. End-of-thread
