Abuse victims advised to not seek residency

[N400-2011 24]

But, if an illegal gets married in good faith, and then becomes abused, then I strongly believe that that person should be able to benefit under VAWA - and in fact, they can, and do. The article that I posted talks about what is occurring now after the VAWA petition is approved, when an illegal files to adjust status. I am glad I am not in that position, that I have to worry about deportation when I am finally called in for the interview.

In my mind the difference is that you came here legally with legal intent and are in legal status and are seeking to remain so.

The other person did not, there is nothing to stop that person leaving an abusive situation, and remain in the same status, or lack of it as they have always had.

The question is whether they should benefit from an immigration perspective in moving from illegal to legal, because of abuse, alleged or real.

I really can not think of any good reason why.

So, it's your opinion that aliens that have "unlawful" status and aliens that have "illegal" status should receive different benefits under VAWA?

My two cents.

If illegal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.

If legal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.

If illegal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.

If legal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.

[pushbrk 13,117]

But, if an illegal gets married in good faith, and then becomes abused, then I strongly believe that that person should be able to benefit under VAWA - and in fact, they can, and do. The article that I posted talks about what is occurring now after the VAWA petition is approved, when an illegal files to adjust status. I am glad I am not in that position, that I have to worry about deportation when I am finally called in for the interview.

In my mind the difference is that you came here legally with legal intent and are in legal status and are seeking to remain so.

The other person did not, there is nothing to stop that person leaving an abusive situation, and remain in the same status, or lack of it as they have always had.

The question is whether they should benefit from an immigration perspective in moving from illegal to legal, because of abuse, alleged or real.

I really can not think of any good reason why.

So, it's your opinion that aliens that have "unlawful" status and aliens that have "illegal" status should receive different benefits under VAWA?

My two cents.

If illegal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.

If legal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.

If illegal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.

If legal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.

If you add why, it looks more like a discussion than a vote.

Feel free to answer or just consider my questions rhetorical.

What you wrote boils down to an illegal alien who is otherwise subject to deportation is entitled to the benefit of LPR status because they entered into a marriage in good faith and were abused but an illegal alien subject to deportation who enters into a marriage in good faith and isn't abused, is not entitled to the same benefit. Why? Why should the US grant them LPR status instead of simply rescue, treat if needed, and send them home, then punish the abuser. The non-abused only get sent home because they don't need rescue or treatment or any perpetrator punished. What is it about the abuse that entitles one LPR status?

Is your opinion thought through or more of an emotional response?

The opposing arguments answering these questions and more are what a group of judges will eventually base a ruling on and the rest of us will live with that decision, regardless of our own opinions on the matter.

[N400-2011 24]

Pushbrk, , I just covered cases of DV...of course each case is more complicated than my two-cent versions... And, by the way, love the discussion.

If there is no DV, then there is no need for remedy under VAWA. If there is no abuse, chances are that an AOS may have been filed already and if the immigrant can prove that there was a good faith marriage, then they can apply for a waiver to remove the conditions of their conditional status, if they already have a conditional green card (married under 2 years). If no paperwork was already filed, in the case of no abuse, I have absolutely no idea what the remedies would be under the law (if any exist). I have no experience in that area and would rather not guess.

Emotions, of course will play a part in my answer , but, think of this: if a USC/LPR marries an illegal with no intention of filing papers for their spouse to make them legal. And then, goes further to abuse the illegal, why shouldn't there be some recourse for that illegal to remain in the US? This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR. In the case of the abused, a crime was committed against them by a USC/LPR who wants their spouse to be deported. The attitude of the abusive USC/LPR is usually that they "won" if they get their immigrant spouse deported.

On the other hand, the non-abused, illegal, married to a USC/LPR (in good faith) whose marriage ends just because, had no crime committed against them - if they are then deported, I have no clue. Would love to hear from someone on the board with knowledge in this area. I think it would be fair if a non-abused illegal's marriage in good faith was to dissolve just because...that they would be able to adjust status (maybe not quickly, and through payment of fines, etc, etc) and remain in the US. Their marriage would also have remained viable if it hadn't ended (too many marriages end in divorce now). They wouldn't be able to benefit from VAWA because that covers abuse. Another law would have to be put in place, if none exists.

I think the fundamental difference between the two sets of illegals: abused and not-abused, is this, one group had a crime committed against them, and the other had no crime committed against them. When married in good faith, both groups are treated differently if their marriages end through DV or otherwise.

Yes, Pushbrk...the courts will decide what they think is best and we will have to live with it.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Vawa-2006

[C and J 1]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

Edited January 11, 2008 by C and J

[athena_ny 1]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

You are incorrect.

My spouse overstayed his visa by four years, along with countless other on these boards, and as long as intent when entering the country was not to marry and adjust status, then the I-130 filed concurrently with I-485 will allow the alien to adjust status given they have not committed any crimes of moral turpitude and everything else is in line with their application. My husband and I did so, and had not one kink during the entire process. Overstay and unauthorized work is automatically forgiven at AOS based on the marriage to a USC.

I'm of the opinion that we need to find a new term other than "illegal" - people use illegal to encompass an entire spectrum of situations, where an EWI is far different from an overstay, is far different from someone who enters the country and files AOS after marrying spur of the moment while in status.

[C and J 1]

You are incorrect.

My spouse overstayed his visa by four years, along with countless other on these boards, and as long as intent when entering the country was not to marry and adjust status, then the I-130 filed concurrently with I-485 will allow the alien to adjust status given they have not committed any crimes of moral turpitude and everything else is in line with their application. My husband and I did so, and had not one kink during the entire process. Overstay and unauthorized work is automatically forgiven at AOS based on the marriage to a USC.

I'm of the opinion that we need to find a new term other than "illegal" - people use illegal to encompass an entire spectrum of situations, where an EWI is far different from an overstay, is far different from someone who enters the country and files AOS after marrying spur of the moment while in status.

This thread has generally been directed at those that entered the country illegally in the first place, I have not seen anyone differ from that train of thought and that was the type of person I was referring to in my response However, I am in the group that would put over-stays and illegal entry into the same category. Marrying on a spur of the moment, without intent, is a different scenario and does not involve "flouting the law".

Imho, an overstay is along the same lines as entering illegally. If a person is here for a set amount of time and, decides (for whatever reason) to ignore the leaving date, they are there illegally. It's not jumping a fence somewhere, but it is ignoring the rules in which that person was first let into the country. Too black and white? Probably. But whatever way they become illegal/out of status (whatever term you would like to use), it is the same result. They are no longer legally in the country.

[rebeccajo 14]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

You are incorrect.

My spouse overstayed his visa by four years, along with countless other on these boards, and as long as intent when entering the country was not to marry and adjust status, then the I-130 filed concurrently with I-485 will allow the alien to adjust status given they have not committed any crimes of moral turpitude and everything else is in line with their application. My husband and I did so, and had not one kink during the entire process. Overstay and unauthorized work is automatically forgiven at AOS based on the marriage to a USC.

I'm of the opinion that we need to find a new term other than "illegal" - people use illegal to encompass an entire spectrum of situations, where an EWI is far different from an overstay, is far different from someone who enters the country and files AOS after marrying spur of the moment while in status.

The term 'illegal' we are hearing in the media is a reference to those who entered without inspection (EWI). Because we hear it in the media it becomes a 'catch phrase' and it's also misunderstood. Entering without inspection is the behavior that requires an immigrant to return home while a legal adjustment is in the works. Meow mix husband entered legally but was 'out of status' - his behavior was 'illegal' but he had different remedies because he was adjusting through marriage to a USC. Likewise, the illegal entrant can adjust based upon a good faith marriage that ended due to proven abuse.

Edited to add - an individual may be 'illegally in the country' but the law gives them different remedies based upon other behaviors and situations. As equitable law should.

Edited January 11, 2008 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 13,117]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

I'll begin as well by clarifying that by "illegal", I mean illegal entry.

An illegal who is a victim of any other crime (violent or not) besides DV, is not compensated with an avenue to LPR status. DV is a bad thing. I abhore it but there are honorable ways to assist crime victims, where needed, besides LPR status. Their injuries are treated an they are given shelter and comfort during recovery. Then, if their illegal status is known, they are dealt with according to the law. I don't see anything special about DV that justifies a greater remedy than other crimes.

However, as I've been thinking about this more, I do understand that the purpose of VAWA providing this remedy is to remove an obstacle to the victim reporting the crime. The thought is that if they fear removal from the US, they will remain in the DV relationship. Remove this fear and they get out. I completely disagree though with the notion that there is some inherent right to LPR status because of abuse so that "why not" is a reason "why". I don't operate under an entitlement mentality but rather one of independent self support where rewards are earned.

And then I think some more and wonder just how much different is the mugging victim who doesn't report their attack because it occurs on the route they must walk to and from their illegal job every day. Just how do we treat criminals when they are also crime victims?

[rebeccajo 14]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

I'll begin as well by clarifying that by "illegal", I mean illegal entry.

An illegal who is a victim of any other crime (violent or not) besides DV, is not compensated with an avenue to LPR status. DV is a bad thing. I abhore it but there are honorable ways to assist crime victims, where needed, besides LPR status. Their injuries are treated an they are given shelter and comfort during recovery. Then, if their illegal status is known, they are dealt with according to the law. I don't see anything special about DV that justifies a greater remedy than other crimes.

However, as I've been thinking about this more, I do understand that the purpose of VAWA providing this remedy is to remove an obstacle to the victim reporting the crime. The thought is that if they fear removal from the US, they will remain in the DV relationship. Remove this fear and they get out. I completely disagree though with the notion that there is some inherent right to LPR status because of abuse so that "why not" is a reason "why". I don't operate under an entitlement mentality but rather one of independent self support where rewards are earned.

And then I think some more and wonder just how much different is the mugging victim who doesn't report their attack because it occurs on the route they must walk to and from their illegal job every day. Just how do we treat criminals when they are also crime victims?

I'm thinking the law wasn't written implying an 'inherent right' to LPR status to domestic violence victims. As VAWA-2006 mentioned, an illegal entrant in a non-abusive, good faith marriage MIGHT be able adjust, although they would have had to go home to do so. I think what 'balls people up' on this issue is the abused EWI doesn't have to return home to adjust, and there's a conception of unfairness with that.

As far as the EWI who becomes a victim of other crimes and doesn't report them due to immigration status - that's a really interesting point and could lead to a lively social discussion. I think it's safe to say it's a very good example of how the life of an 'illegal' in this country is very inequitable. They may be 'benefitting' from our society and our economy, but there's no true safety for them as they fly beneath our radar.

Edited January 11, 2008 by rebeccajo

[athena_ny 1]

This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

You are incorrect.

My spouse overstayed his visa by four years, along with countless other on these boards, and as long as intent when entering the country was not to marry and adjust status, then the I-130 filed concurrently with I-485 will allow the alien to adjust status given they have not committed any crimes of moral turpitude and everything else is in line with their application. My husband and I did so, and had not one kink during the entire process. Overstay and unauthorized work is automatically forgiven at AOS based on the marriage to a USC.

I'm of the opinion that we need to find a new term other than "illegal" - people use illegal to encompass an entire spectrum of situations, where an EWI is far different from an overstay, is far different from someone who enters the country and files AOS after marrying spur of the moment while in status.

The term 'illegal' we are hearing in the media is a reference to those who entered without inspection (EWI). Because we hear it in the media it becomes a 'catch phrase' and it's also misunderstood. Entering without inspection is the behavior that requires an immigrant to return home while a legal adjustment is in the works. Meow mix husband entered legally but was 'out of status' - his behavior was 'illegal' but he had different remedies because he was adjusting through marriage to a USC. Likewise, the illegal entrant can adjust based upon a good faith marriage that ended due to proven abuse.

Edited to add - an individual may be 'illegally in the country' but the law gives them different remedies based upon other behaviors and situations. As equitable law should.

I know "illegal" was originally meant to mean just an EWI, but like you said, it's become a catchphrase used to encompass all situations, as easily witnessed in the OT forum. Personally, I hate that we've turned an adjective into a noun, for lack of a better way to put it, but that's for reasons I have a hard time putting into words.

And I agree with the rest.

[N400-2011 24]

First, let me say that everything that I have written in this thread has been my opinion.

By illegals, I was referring mostly to EWIs and not out of status persons - which, is a common misconception since both groups have no legal status to be in the US. I have no personal experience with being an EWI or out of status person because I was neither.

If a person enters into the country without inspection and subsequently gets married in good faith, the next step would usually be for that person to become an LPR. If this person is instead abused, VAWA can be used as a remedy for them to become an LPR without the aid of their spouse. If the marriage had remained viable they would have become an LPR. But, because of acts of domestic violence they then lose the chance to obtain legal status through their marriages. I don't think they should lose that right, and VAWA addresses that. And, no, I don't see it as an inherent right - situations differ, so do circumstances. When everything is factored in USCIS makes their decision. DV is a crime which occurs behind closed doors, it is about power, control and causing fear. Out of status persons or EWI's who have crimes committed against them, and who are not married, have few remedies (I believe that the U Visa is one) because they were not on a path to become legal residents of the US in the first place.

I believe that persons who were married in good faith, and on a path to become LPRs, whose marriages ended because of abuse or not, should have some way to still pursue legal status depending on circumstances, and regardless of prior status. Not every situation is the same, and all scenarios cannot be painted with one brush. There may be different remedies under the law, of which VAWA is only one.

[pushbrk 13,117]

First, let me say that everything that I have written in this thread has been my opinion.

By illegals, I was referring mostly to EWIs and not out of status persons - which, is a common misconception since both groups have no legal status to be in the US. I have no personal experience with being an EWI or out of status person because I was neither.

If a person enters into the country without inspection and subsequently gets married in good faith, the next step would usually be for that person to become an LPR. If this person is instead abused, VAWA can be used as a remedy for them to become an LPR without the aid of their spouse. If the marriage had remained viable they would have become an LPR. But, because of acts of domestic violence they then lose the chance to obtain legal status through their marriages. I don't think they should lose that right, and VAWA addresses that. And, no, I don't see it as an inherent right - situations differ, so do circumstances. When everything is factored in USCIS makes their decision. DV is a crime which occurs behind closed doors, it is about power, control and causing fear. Out of status persons or EWI's who have crimes committed against them, and who are not married, have few remedies (I believe that the U Visa is one) because they were not on a path to become legal residents of the US in the first place.

I believe that persons who were married in good faith, and on a path to become LPRs, whose marriages ended because of abuse or not, should have some way to still pursue legal status depending on circumstances, and regardless of prior status. Not every situation is the same, and all scenarios cannot be painted with one brush. There may be different remedies under the law, of which VAWA is only one.

Well, this may reveal the source of your misunderstanding. An EWI who marries a USC, does not have the same path to LPR status as someone with an overstay or with lawful status, even when their marriage is in good faith and joyful. If that were the case, then certainly it would be ridiculous to take that path away because they were abused. What you indicate you prefer, is to confer an additional benefit, not just a matter of retaining one.

[N400-2011 24]

First, let me say that everything that I have written in this thread has been my opinion.

By illegals, I was referring mostly to EWIs and not out of status persons - which, is a common misconception since both groups have no legal status to be in the US. I have no personal experience with being an EWI or out of status person because I was neither.

If a person enters into the country without inspection and subsequently gets married in good faith, the next step would usually be for that person to become an LPR. If this person is instead abused, VAWA can be used as a remedy for them to become an LPR without the aid of their spouse. If the marriage had remained viable they would have become an LPR. But, because of acts of domestic violence they then lose the chance to obtain legal status through their marriages. I don't think they should lose that right, and VAWA addresses that. And, no, I don't see it as an inherent right - situations differ, so do circumstances. When everything is factored in USCIS makes their decision. DV is a crime which occurs behind closed doors, it is about power, control and causing fear. Out of status persons or EWI's who have crimes committed against them, and who are not married, have few remedies (I believe that the U Visa is one) because they were not on a path to become legal residents of the US in the first place.

I believe that persons who were married in good faith, and on a path to become LPRs, whose marriages ended because of abuse or not, should have some way to still pursue legal status depending on circumstances, and regardless of prior status. Not every situation is the same, and all scenarios cannot be painted with one brush. There may be different remedies under the law, of which VAWA is only one.

Well, this may reveal the source of your misunderstanding. An EWI who marries a USC, does not have the same path to LPR status as someone with an overstay or with lawful status, even when their marriage is in good faith and joyful. If that were the case, then certainly it would be ridiculous to take that path away because they were abused. What you indicate you prefer, is to confer an additional benefit, not just a matter of retaining one.

Not a misunderstanding...as I said, MY OPINION. Feel free to disagree.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

First, let me say that everything that I have written in this thread has been my opinion.

By illegals, I was referring mostly to EWIs and not out of status persons - which, is a common misconception since both groups have no legal status to be in the US. I have no personal experience with being an EWI or out of status person because I was neither.

If a person enters into the country without inspection and subsequently gets married in good faith, the next step would usually be for that person to become an LPR. If this person is instead abused, VAWA can be used as a remedy for them to become an LPR without the aid of their spouse. If the marriage had remained viable they would have become an LPR. But, because of acts of domestic violence they then lose the chance to obtain legal status through their marriages. I don't think they should lose that right, and VAWA addresses that. And, no, I don't see it as an inherent right - situations differ, so do circumstances. When everything is factored in USCIS makes their decision. DV is a crime which occurs behind closed doors, it is about power, control and causing fear. Out of status persons or EWI's who have crimes committed against them, and who are not married, have few remedies (I believe that the U Visa is one) because they were not on a path to become legal residents of the US in the first place.

I believe that persons who were married in good faith, and on a path to become LPRs, whose marriages ended because of abuse or not, should have some way to still pursue legal status depending on circumstances, and regardless of prior status. Not every situation is the same, and all scenarios cannot be painted with one brush. There may be different remedies under the law, of which VAWA is only one.

Well, this may reveal the source of your misunderstanding. An EWI who marries a USC, does not have the same path to LPR status as someone with an overstay or with lawful status, even when their marriage is in good faith and joyful. If that were the case, then certainly it would be ridiculous to take that path away because they were abused. What you indicate you prefer, is to confer an additional benefit, not just a matter of retaining one.

I tend to agree with VAWA-2006, in that abused unlawful aliens should have the same opportunities available to them as any other alien that has fallen out of status, regardless of how their presence became unlawful. The problem exists in the specific requirement that an alien that is an EWI must meet prior to being able to secure permanent residency, as the statute clearly indicates that an EWI must return to his or her homeland rather than to adjust while in the USA.

That may not be an issue for some battered aliens that entered without inspection, but it does become an issue for a battered alien that married a USC after entering without inspection, but that has remained in the USA for a period of more than 180 days. In the case of abuse, at the hand of a controlling USC spouse, it is not uncommon to hold the alien hostage. Remaining in the country for a period of 180 days, unsure about what remedy is available, or worse yet, afraid to turn to authorities for fear of what could happen to them, I would imagine, occurs frequently.

If the EWI alien were to leave the counrty to comply with regulation and attempt to return, a bar would be imposed, and there exists, currently, no way to overcome that bar. With an alien that has accrued unlawful status, that penalty does not exist.

I guess it is a matter of opinion whether the situation with aliens sneaking over the border is more grave than those that disregard the duration of status noted on their I-94. I'm not sure I feel that way; certainly not with regard to EWIs that enter into bonafide marriages and attempt to correct their prior wrongs. If I were to sum up my viewpoint it would be that EWIs are a hazard when USCIS has no knowledege of how many there are and who and where they are. Clearly, in the instant case, that would not be an issue, as to pursue a legal remedy would place USCIS on notice of their whereabouts and identity and any inadmissible issues would come into play in any success or failure on thier part to legalise. Unless CBP institutes better regulations with regard to departure records and collects I-94 cards from every visitor exiting the country (which to date I believe is sadly remiss to the tune of approximately 20% of all visitors to this country) what difference is there really between the two in terms of the disregard for US visa process?

[pushbrk 13,117]

I guess it is a matter of opinion whether the situation with aliens sneaking over the border is more grave than those that disregard the duration of status noted on their I-94. I'm not sure I feel that way; certainly not with regard to EWIs that enter into bonafide marriages and attempt to correct their prior wrongs. If I were to sum up my viewpoint it would be that EWIs are a hazard when USCIS has no knowledege of how many there are and who and where they are. Clearly, in the instant case, that would not be an issue, as to pursue a legal remedy would place USCIS on notice of their whereabouts and identity and any inadmissible issues would come into play in any success or failure on thier part to legalise. Unless CBP institutes better regulations with regard to departure records and collects I-94 cards from every visitor exiting the country (which to date I believe is sadly remiss to the tune of approximately 20% of all visitors to this country) what difference is there really between the two in terms of the disregard for US visa process?

Therein lies the rub. Applying VAWA to an EWI seems to take the inadmissible issues out of play. The result is a benefit granted under VAWA that would not be afforded to other EWI female crime victims.

Personally, I consider the EWI to have criminally and intentionally violated US law, while the overstay is a sin of ommission, not commission. Our laws, whether immigration related or otherwise, provide for differing penalties for "commited" crimes than they do for failures to obey laws.

Edited January 11, 2008 by pushbrk