> After a quarrel with a friend (I believe there was jealousy over a
> girl involved), the "friend" turned him into the INS. He has no
> criminal record either here or elsewhere in the world. He was
> arrested by local authorities at the request of the INS and held until
> he could be put into INS custody and held before deportation. He had
> no state or federal (INS) court hearing during which time he could
> have been offered the choice to leave voluntarily.
>
> After copious reading, I am trying to tell the difference between
> being charged under 9(A)(ii) and 9(B)(ii) -- my friend entered the
> country in late 1994 and was arrested mid-April 1997. Had he been
> arrested and deported in March of 1997, the charge would have been the
> same -- an overstay exceeding a year. However, as of March of 1997,
> the ban would have been one of five years. In April that changed to
> ten years -- and the government tried to get it to apply even to
> people who'd been deported *prior to the 1996 law being enacted*. So
> if you'd been deported in 1990, and subject to the old five year ban,
> you could have come back in 1995, only to find you were suddenly
> unwelcome from 1997-2000!
>
> The key to this seems to be the difference between 9(A)(ii) and
> 9(B)(ii). Under 9(B)(ii) the overstay "clock" didn't start until the
> enactment of the law, or April 1, and by this clock my friend could
> not have been charged with even a short (three-year ban) overstay.
"He had no state or federal (INS) court hearing during which time he
could have been offered the choice to leave voluntarily."
Just to clarify this one point. People admitted under the visa waiver
program don't get voluntary departure because the judge doesn't decide
if they can stay in the US. The visa waiver form waives their right to
judicial review for anything other than asylum claims.
Hopefully your friend can sort this out.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |