Green card holders and overstays

[Harsh_77 718]

The GC is USCIS property, they can terminate it at anytime. Even your USC can be taken away if found that you didn't earn it the right way.

If they found out the GC shouldn't been approved, they can cancel it at anytime.

Yes you are right GC is property of USCIS and can be revoked if the applicant has lied or falsified the information while obatianing the GC or Citizenship.

If applicant did everything right and then USCIS screws up, applicant might get some benefit.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

You're correct on this one. There are some things which are specifically defined as inadmissible crimes in the INA, such as drug use, prostitution, human trafficking, acts of terrorism, etc. For these things, it does not matter whether the acts were illegal in the jurisdiction where they occurred. For acts that might be covered by the moral turpitude clause, the act must be illegal in the jurisdiction where it occurred. The determination as to whether the act involves moral turpitude is based on prevailing moral standards of the US, though.

For what it's worth, the Adjudicators Field Manual chapter on crimes of moral turpitude has been redacted in the public version, but the Foreign Affairs Manual, chapter 40.21, is very clear on this.

Not sure I understand your post correctly, Jim.

An adult having sex with a minor automatically qualifies as "Statutory Rape" in the US, even if the age of consent is lower in another country. So if in a jungle nation it's perfectly fine for 60 year-old men to introduce 10 year-old girls into sexuality, Uncle Sam doesn't like it nonetheless.

Please clarify for me.

[Little_My 464]

Pink Camaro - that was not the issue here. The question is whether or not the ban for overstaying "disappears to thin air" after AOS. And it doesn't. My understanding is that, for example in your case, if you two got divorced and you decided to move back to the Philippines and give up your GC, once your LPR status was no longer valid and you left the US, you could actually still trigger then 10 yr ban for overstaying your previous visa for five years. Your overstay did not prevent you from becoming a legal permanent resident, because immediate family members of USCs are allowed some privileges, I suppose. But if you seize to be an LPR, for whatever reason, those privileges no longer apply.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Little_My

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Not sure I understand your post correctly, Jim.

An adult having sex with a minor automatically qualifies as "Statutory Rape" in the US, even if the age of consent is lower in another country. So if in a jungle nation it's perfectly fine for 60 year-old men to introduce 10 year-old girls into sexuality, Uncle Sam doesn't like it nonetheless.

Please clarify for me.

For crimes involving moral turpitude:

Step 1: It must be a crime in the jurisdiction where it occurred. If so...

Step 2: Prevailing moral standards of the United States will determine whether it's a crime involving moral turpitude.

9 FAM 40.21(a) (see page 6):

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86941.pdf

Acts must constitute a crime under criminal law of jurisdiction where they occurred.

A Consular Officer may make a finding of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)) based upon an alien's admission of the commission of acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude,

only if the acts constitute a crime under the criminal law of the jurisdiction where they occurred

. However, a Consular Officer must base a determination that a crime involves moral turpitude upon the moral standards generally prevailing in the United States.

In some Islamic countries (Brunei, Kuwait, Yemen) the minimum age for marriage is generally set at puberty.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

For crimes involving moral turpitude:

Step 1: It must be a crime in the jurisdiction where it occurred. If so...

Step 2: Prevailing moral standards of the United States will determine whether it's a crime involving moral turpitude.

9 FAM 40.21(a) (see page 6):

http://www.state.gov...ation/86941.pdf

Acts must constitute a crime under criminal law of jurisdiction where they occurred.

A Consular Officer may make a finding of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)) based upon an alien's admission of the commission of acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude,

only if the acts constitute a crime under the criminal law of the jurisdiction where they occurred

. However, a Consular Officer must base a determination that a crime involves moral turpitude upon the moral standards generally prevailing in the United States.

In some Islamic countries (Brunei, Kuwait, Yemen) the minimum age for marriage is generally set at puberty.

Thanks, Jim,

but still not much more than the answer of a politician. Let's play this out, shall we?

60 year-old Saudi bangs 13 year-old, nubile girl. Not a crime in his kingdom. It's a crime of moral turpitude in the US, however. How does the Consular Officer adjudicate his CR-1 visa petition?

[pink_camaro 0]

Pink Camaro - that was not the issue here. The question is whether or not the ban for overstaying "disappears to thin air" after AOS. And it doesn't. My understanding is that, for example in your case, if you two got divorced and you decided to move back to the Philippines and give up your GC, once your LPR status was no longer valid and you left the US, you could actually still trigger then 10 yr ban for overstaying your previous visa for five years. Your overstay did not prevent you from becoming a legal permanent resident, because immediate family members of USCs are allowed some privileges, I suppose. But if you seize to be an LPR, for whatever reason, those privileges no longer apply.

wow. Way to be a debbie downer and a pessimist. I know you just said those things as an example, but . I just think that was inappropriate. I waited for a thousand years to be LPR, I wouldn't let it go that easily. And so you know, divorce is not in my dictionary. I was trying to share my story and comforting those who have cases like mine.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Thanks, Jim,

but still not much more than the answer of a politician. Let's play this out, shall we?

60 year-old Saudi bangs 13 year-old, nubile girl. Not a crime in his kingdom. It's a crime of moral turpitude in the US, however. How does the Consular Officer adjudicate his CR-1 visa petition?

Sorry, I didn't see this until just now. I don't always make it back to threads I commented in previously. Not enough time, I guess...

First things first. Extra-marital sex is illegal under Sharia law. It would be a crime in Saudi Arabia no matter how old the girl was. I specifically mentioned the legal age of marriage in some countries which have adopted some form of Islamic law.

Now, if the 60 year-old Saudi were married to the 13 year-old girl (there is currently no minimum marriageable age in Saudi Arabia) then sex between them would be legal. Not a violation of the law in that jurisdiction, and therefore cannot be a crime involving moral turpitude.

On the other hand, if the 60 year-old Saudi had sex with a 13 year-old outside of marriage then that would be a crime in Saudi Arabia, and would also involve moral turpitude under US law. The reality is that the 60 year-old Saudi would likely never get a chance to apply for the visa as he would be the star attraction at a public execution, whether the girl was 13 or 30.

Both factors must exist; it must be a crime in the jurisdiction where it occurred, and it must involve moral turpitude according to prevailing US moral standards.

[Little_My 464]

wow. Way to be a debbie downer and a pessimist. I know you just said those things as an example, but . I just think that was inappropriate. I waited for a thousand years to be LPR, I wouldn't let it go that easily. And so you know, divorce is not in my dictionary. I was trying to share my story and comforting those who have cases like mine.

My intent was not to be a "debbie downer" at all - I was just pointing out why it is slightly incorrect to say that "overstay is forgiven" for spouses of US citizens. I was not implying that you and your spouse are getting a divorce or that you would ever give up your LPR status - but some people actually do, and often are surprised to find out that their previous overstay comes back to haunt them when they leave the US. I don't personally think it was inappropriate at all, but if that is how you felt, my apologies. Maybe I should have used "person X" as an example, in stead of you. Again, did not mean to offend you or your marriage.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Thanks, Jim.

Excellent explanation, as always!