> 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
[QUOTE=Chuck]....no harm to the government or society....QUOTE]
Well Chuck, I guess since by your admission he worked, he did do some
harm to society as he took a job that could have been filled by a legal
employee who would have paid taxes. Anyway, let's not dick around here,
your friend was caught red handed overstaying his welcome, and like it
or not, the law was applied. It really pisses me off to hear this kind
of whimpering, and you will get no sympathy from this board, whose
members have spent many years, lots of $$ and plenty of heartache to
come here legally.
Have a great day
- Tim
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
