Thank you for all decent comments. Yes, it was a bad idea for my
friend to leave the country for the interview. He was confused by a
few facts:
We know 4 guys coming back with the green card from DV interviews
under similar circumstances within the past two years (probably
overlooked situations).
There was an article in the New York Times in 1991, I know it was very
long ago, explaining the primary purpose of the DV program as giving a
chance for legalization for at least some of the illegal immigrants
already living here.
Adjustment of status was possible within the U.S. for DV program
winners even for illegals before 1996, and in one or two other
particular years afterwards (some fine had to be paid for
overstaying).
All the above somehow suggested that overstaying regulations are not
so strictly enforced.
For you guys, trying to criminalize my friend, please look up the
legal determination of the word: criminal. In your view, I'm a serious
criminal myself as well. I broke the law not once, but 4 times within
the past 15 years. I got 2 parking tickets for getting back to the
meter a minute after expiration, once for J walking, and once for
crossing a park with my dog where a visible sign displayed "no dogs".
Friend of mine only broke the law once. He tried to settle in a new
home in a new country, so he overstayed. He worked hard and paid at
least sales taxes on purchased goods, (would have been very happy for
being able to pay income taxes as well). He never applied for or
received any public assistance either, no harm to the government or
society.
Thanks again for the responses (for the ones providing information
instead of bashing the poor guy),
Chuck
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:04:50 -0800, Joe Feise wrote:
>Olivier Wagner wrote on 12/16/05 16:31:
>
>> Wrong. Only those who entered without inspection have to leave, your friend
>> could have gotten the green card if she stayed.
>
>
>Nope. Overstays are only forgiven if the paerson marries as US citizen.
>And the provisions of INA 245(i) are not in effect at this time.
>Furthermore, form I-601 doesn't apply in this case, unless the person is the
>spouse or child of a US citizen or PR and there would be extreme hardship (see
>INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v):
>"(v) Waiver.-The Attorney General has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the
>case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States
>citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is
>established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of
>admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the
>citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien. No court shall have
>jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the Attorney General regarding a
>waiver under this clause."
>
>-Joe
|