scrubbedexpat099

The issue was her Government subsidised flat, not that she had lived in the UK very long in that 27 years. But human rights etc.

scrubbedexpat099

It was na I 130 interview, not a GC interview.

Pulaski

It was a pretty big deal in 1812!

The ease of transport by car and truck across desert areas has changed the game over the past century on the Mexican border - rather fewer people would even try the journey if it had meant hiking on foot or riding a mule. Improved access to vehicles and roads further south from central America have just fuel the numbers making the journey.

scrubbedexpat099

Probably more significant in the Sahara, article in the Graun said there was a million plus heading for the Med.

Rete

B visas could always adjust status. It is the VWP that does not allow it but is waived for those who are married to USC.

Pulaski

I didn't know that the US has a border in the Sahara.

nun

Yes, I did not want to get into the weeds.......the I-130 is the adjustment of status form required in the GC process. Now that ICE is ignoring the route to adjustment of status for undocumented aliens in the US I expect that there will be law suits filed. These cases and "The Dreamers" are certainly an interesting test of both US legislation and maybe the soul of America.

Rete

You do have to be careful about using the term "undocumented". In the past, those who were inspected at entry to the US but overstayed and lived and worked in the US and then found a USC to marry could adjust status without issue.

However, the undocumented alien who crossed the border without inspection could never adjust status in the US regardless of their marital relationship to a USC.

BTW the I-130 is not the adjustment of status form. The I-485 is. The I-130 is only the form that allows them to file the I-485. Normally, within the US they are filed at the same time and the I-130 and the I-485 are adjudicated at the same time.

nun

That's interesting. But in the case of the people in Lowell until recently they would have been able to adjust status and get a green card, however, ICE policy has now changed....how does this relate to the LIFE act?

S Folinsky

This is a hot topic in immigration lawyer chat boards FB groups, etc.

As noted, the arrests have been of people with I-130 interviews but having a final order of removal. That has always been dangerous. Perhaps having an I-246 filed with ICE beforehand might be a good idea [although it requires a valid Passport]. Perhaps preemptive contact with ICE ERO before the interview might be in order with the interview notice in hand and the motion to reopen drafted. Perhaps initial contact with ICE District Counsel. Who the hell knows? But legal advice from experienced immigration counsel might be in order. Walking in with a quiver of legal arrows ready might be a good idea.

BTW, the applicant in Matter of Yauri was arrested out of her adjustment interview. I was there. Due to lack of detention space for female non-criminal non-citizens, she was released OR that day. Although I was happy for Ms. Yauri, the actual decision upset me -- it was issued on a moot case and the procedural aspects sucked. I was tickled pink when the 9th Circuit issued it decision in Singh v Lynch. In Singh, the 9th relied on much of the authority I had cited to the Board of Immigration Appeals. At least in the 9th Circuit, the part of Yauri on reopening for "arriving aliens" is no longer good law.

mrken30

A little off topic, but I only recently found out Anne Frank was refused refugee status by the US. We all know what happened in that case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c473287caa78

mikelincs

and the Tzar and Tzarina, the Rpmanoffs, were refused refugee status by the British Government because of the perceived effect on the Royal Family's popularity, and we all know what happened to them..

mrken30

I knew about that one. The reason for not allowing the Royal family into the UK was more political from what I can remember.

Rete

Here is what I found out about the LIFE Act.

The LIFE Act had four major provisions:[3][2]
1.The USCIS would overlook unlawful entry and unlawful presence when considering some Adjustment of Status applications for people whose Form I-130 or Form I-140 had been filed by April 30, 2001 (with a number of additional caveats).
2.A new V visa was introduced for Form I-130 beneficiaries (primarily, spouses of United States lawful permanent residents) whose Form I-130 had been filed by December 21, 2000 and had waited for at least three years.
3.The K-3/K-4 visa category was introduced for spouses of citizens to be able to enter the United States, with authority to work and study, while their Form I-130 was still pending.
4.Persons who filed before October 1, 2000, for class membership in one of three "late amnesty" lawsuits (CSS v. Meese, LULAC v. INS, and Zambrano v. INS) and who are eligible under the LIFE Act's amended legalization provisions may apply to adjust status during a 12-month period that begins once regulations are issued. Spouses and unmarried children of the class action claimants will be protected from certain categories of removal and will be eligible for work authorization if they entered the United States before December 1, 1988 and resided in the United States on that date.

Overlooking of unlawful presence if other conditions for obtaining a Green Card are met[edit]

The LIFE Act allows some people to obtain Green Cards (i.e., adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status) regardless of the following factors that might otherwise create bars to obtaining Green Cards:[1]
The manner they entered the United States
Working in the United States without authorization
Failing to continuously maintain lawful status since entry

The Act only applies to people who already had an approved petition that they had applied for by April 30, 2001. Explicitly, the following conditions need to all be satisfied:
The applicant must be the beneficiary of a qualified immigrant petition (Form I-130 or Form I-140) or application for labor certification (necessary for some Form I-140) filed on or before April 30, 2001.
In the case that the petition was filed between January 15, 1998 and April 30 , 2001, the applicant must have been physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000. There is no requirement of physical presence for petitions filed earlier (which were already covered by previous versions of the ruling).
The applicant is currently the beneficiary of a qualifying immigrant petition (either the original Form I-130 or Form I-140 or a subsequently filed immigrant petition).
The applicant has a visa number immediately available. In the case of numerically limited categories, this means that the applicant's Priority Date must be current.
The applicant is admissible to the United States.
The qualifying petition or qualifying application for labor certification must have been "properly filed", i.e., signed and submitted with the corrected fees) and "approvable" (meritorious based on the facts and "non-frivolous") when filed.

In order to apply under this provision of the LIFE Act, one must file Supplement A along with Form I-485 for Adjustment of Status.

It is also important to note that the petition used for Adjustment of Status may be different from the original petition with a date prior to April 30, 2001 that is used as a basis for being eligible for the LIFE Act.[1]

There is also a penalty fee for the convenience of being able to adjust status without having to physically leave the United States that must be included as part of the application.[1]

Relation with removal proceedings[edit]

It is important to note that protection from removal proceedings (as well as from summary removal procedures such as reinstatement of removal) kicks in only after the Form I-485, along with Supplement A, has been properly filed and a visa number is available to the applicant.

Until then, removal proceedings may be initiated against the person for unauthorized entry or unlawful presence. If the person eligible under this provision of the LIFE Act departs the United States after accruing unlawful presence, the person may be subject to a 3-year or 10-year bar to re-entry (depending on the extent of unlawful presence) despite the fact that, had the person continued to stay in the United States, the person could have applied to adjust status.[

nun

The UK Government ultimately left the decision up to the King. He decided not to offer the Russian royal family asylum because he was scared about the public's reaction. A generous interpretation was he did it to protect the monarchy another was he did it to protect his own ass.....the same thing I suppose just different justifications.