I751 ROC CPR ..new executive order

[f f 725]

I think what might save most people is that to be removed you either have to be removable based on the categories described OR be deportable for another reason AND have done one of the things listed. and since the petty crimes exemption is written into the law it would still protect you from falling into 212 a 3. so unless you have done something else or are deportable for a different reason you are fine.

 

the critical part was

"as well as removable aliens who"

 

good luck

Edited February 14, 2017 by f f

[Transborderwife 4,666]

This is incredibly confusing. So say for example one is out of status and detained, it used to be that they could usually AOS through a qualifying relative.  Is that no longer the case?

 

should out of status k1s be afraid of interviews now?

[cinti_confsd 0]

17 minutes ago, f f said:

e of the things listed. and since the petty crimes exemption is written into the law it would still protect you from falling into 212 a 3. so unless you have done something else or are deportable for a different reason you are fine.

thank you , i had no other option but to take disorderly conduct , which is not a deport able offense. i know another  guy who got in to same situation , falsely accused of the same thing. 

he been extending his GC and is able to travel . (not sure of his latest travel ) but my ex was really vindictive and not so stable person .

it is not fault of mine and i was not at home. some people do that to others.
thats the truth . wish i knew her rage when we were dating.any ways .. waiting for 
CSC to get to my file. 

 

 

[cinti_confsd 0]

14 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

This is incredibly confusing. So say for example one is out of status and detained, it used to be that they could usually AOS through a qualifying relative.  Is that no longer the case?

 

should out of status k1s be afraid of interviews now?

i am sorry but i do not know. 

[f f 725]

12 minutes ago, cinti_confsd said:

thank you , i had no other option but to take disorderly conduct , which is not a deport able offense. i know another  guy who got in to same situation , falsely accused of the same thing. 

he been extending his GC and is able to travel . (not sure of his latest travel ) but my ex was really vindictive and not so stable person .

it is not fault of mine and i was not at home. some people do that to others.
thats the truth . wish i knew her rage when we were dating.any ways .. waiting for 
CSC to get to my file. 

 

 

please keep in mind some crimes can make a person inadmissible but not deportable. so they won't kick you out but they won't let you back in if you leave. so stay inside the us. just mentioning this to make everything more confusing.

[cinti_confsd 0]

i know i am holding off my travel for a while now .. its hard.. once i get the decision i will travel ..

have to.. thank you .. much appreciated .. hope it gets better .. 

do you mind when you filed ? what service center .

right now all CSC is processing is applications from May 2016. 

i filed in July 2016.

[f f 725]

8 minutes ago, cinti_confsd said:

i know i am holding off my travel for a while now .. its hard.. once i get the decision i will travel ..

have to.. thank you .. much appreciated .. hope it gets better .. 

do you mind when you filed ? what service center .

right now all CSC is processing is applications from May 2016. 

i filed in July 2016.

roc in July of 2016 at CSC still waiting.

[cinti_confsd 0]

ok thank you . 

[Villanelle 4,122]

So heres the thing about Section 5 of the Order-

It use to be there was this Prioritized Enforcement (under Obama). Nearly 90% of undocumented people were safe from deportation. Now under Trumps orders the wording suggests that anyone who is deportable or inadmissible is going to be a priority for deportation. (now that means anyone- legal or undocumented).  Also anyone who is undocumented (and entered w/o inspection) can possibly be removed for illegal entry. 

 

It helps to look at the definitions of the codes used in the Section:

These 3 are inadmissibility:
(a)(2)[criminal-related inadmissibility grounds],

(a)(3)[security-related inadmissibility grounds], and
(a)(6)(C)[misrepresentation inadmissibility grounds],

 

This is for people who try to enter but are inadmissible-

235 [expedited removal of inadmissible arriving noncitizens], 

 

This is for people who are legal

237(a)(2)[criminal deportability grounds]

(4) [security-related deportability grounds] of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2),(a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)),

 

Then it goes on to say "as well as removable aliens who"

 

This does not apply to legal status holders- its the phrasing of 'removable aliens who" that means to have a-g apply you must be 'removable'. 
a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not
been resolved;
c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any
official matter or application before a governmental agency;
e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with
their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public
safety or national security.

Many people dont realize this but there is estimated to be one million people in the country who have deportation orders against them but havent left. 2/3rds of them - 750,000 people have no criminal convictions. Many have been allowed to 'check in' periodically. Obama was fine with them ignoring the deportation order and remaining in the country as long as they didnt commit crimes.  Now under Section 5- they will not be ignored anymore and will be deported. I actually just read an article about an elderly woman who went to 'check in' as she had a deportation order against her- and when she did she was detained and swiftly deported out of the country and back to Mexico. Its sad for the family but its hard to have a lot of sympathy for someone who was ordered to leave by a judge a long time ago and then didnt. 

None of this really applys to cinti-confused. He is a legal LPR. A disorderly conduct charge isnt something that makes him as an LPR deportable or inadmissible. If he was NOT an LPR then section 5 would be a problem for him- if he was undocumented and convicted of a crime.

 

Many people are worried about the undocumented people who have not committed any crimes being swept up. Theoretically they can be charged with illegal entry if they have no proof of legal entry. There is also nothing from stopping law enforcement from charging an illegal with a criminal offense which would trigger their deportation (even if they entered legally). 

 

For people that entered legally- like on the K visa, and havent filed for AOS causing them to be out of status- they can fall into trouble. If arrested during that time and charged with something- anything- they would be deported. So it just makes it more important to file AOS in a timely fashion when entering on the K visa. 

 

As stated though this is all new and hasnt been fully worked out yet. 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

5 minutes ago, Damara said:

So heres the thing about Section 5 of the Order-

It use to be there was this Prioritized Enforcement (under Obama). Nearly 90% of undocumented people were safe from deportation. Now under Trumps orders the wording suggests that anyone who is deportable or inadmissible is going to be a priority for deportation. (now that means anyone- legal or undocumented).  Also anyone who is undocumented (and entered w/o inspection) can possibly be removed for illegal entry. 

 

It helps to look at the definitions of the codes used in the Section:

These 3 are inadmissibility:
(a)(2)[criminal-related inadmissibility grounds],

(a)(3)[security-related inadmissibility grounds], and
(a)(6)(C)[misrepresentation inadmissibility grounds],

 

This is for people who try to enter but are inadmissible-

235 [expedited removal of inadmissible arriving noncitizens], 

 

This is for people who are legal

237(a)(2)[criminal deportability grounds]

(4) [security-related deportability grounds] of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2),(a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)),

 

Then it goes on to say "as well as removable aliens who"

 

This does not apply to legal status holders- its the phrasing of 'removable aliens who" that means to have a-g apply you must be 'removable'. 
a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not
been resolved;
c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any
official matter or application before a governmental agency;
e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with
their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public
safety or national security.

Many people dont realize this but there is estimated to be one million people in the country who have deportation orders against them but havent left. 2/3rds of them - 750,000 people have no criminal convictions. Many have been allowed to 'check in' periodically. Obama was fine with them ignoring the deportation order and remaining in the country as long as they didnt commit crimes.  Now under Section 5- they will not be ignored anymore and will be deported. I actually just read an article about an elderly woman who went to 'check in' as she had a deportation order against her- and when she did she was detained and swiftly deported out of the country and back to Mexico. Its sad for the family but its hard to have a lot of sympathy for someone who was ordered to leave by a judge a long time ago and then didnt. 

None of this really applys to cinti-confused. He is a legal LPR. A disorderly conduct charge isnt something that makes him as an LPR deportable or inadmissible. If he was NOT an LPR then section 5 would be a problem for him- if he was undocumented and convicted of a crime.

 

Many people are worried about the undocumented people who have not committed any crimes being swept up. Theoretically they can be charged with illegal entry if they have no proof of legal entry. There is also nothing from stopping law enforcement from charging an illegal with a criminal offense which would trigger their deportation (even if they entered legally). 

 

For people that entered legally- like on the K visa, and havent filed for AOS causing them to be out of status- they can fall into trouble. If arrested during that time and charged with something- anything- they would be deported. So it just makes it more important to file AOS in a timely fashion when entering on the K visa. 

 

As stated though this is all new and hasnt been fully worked out yet. 

Do you think that people who have overstayed will have difficulty aosing?  It seems vague and I'm curious.

[f f 725]

36 minutes ago, Damara said:

So heres the thing about Section 5 of the Order-

It use to be there was this Prioritized Enforcement (under Obama). Nearly 90% of undocumented people were safe from deportation. Now under Trumps orders the wording suggests that anyone who is deportable or inadmissible is going to be a priority for deportation. (now that means anyone- legal or undocumented).  Also anyone who is undocumented (and entered w/o inspection) can possibly be removed for illegal entry. 

 

It helps to look at the definitions of the codes used in the Section:

These 3 are inadmissibility:
(a)(2)[criminal-related inadmissibility grounds],

(a)(3)[security-related inadmissibility grounds], and
(a)(6)(C)[misrepresentation inadmissibility grounds],

 

This is for people who try to enter but are inadmissible-

235 [expedited removal of inadmissible arriving noncitizens], 

 

This is for people who are legal

237(a)(2)[criminal deportability grounds]

(4) [security-related deportability grounds] of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2),(a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)),

 

Then it goes on to say "as well as removable aliens who"

 

This does not apply to legal status holders- its the phrasing of 'removable aliens who" that means to have a-g apply you must be 'removable'. 
a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not
been resolved;
c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any
official matter or application before a governmental agency;
e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with
their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public
safety or national security.

Many people dont realize this but there is estimated to be one million people in the country who have deportation orders against them but havent left. 2/3rds of them - 750,000 people have no criminal convictions. Many have been allowed to 'check in' periodically. Obama was fine with them ignoring the deportation order and remaining in the country as long as they didnt commit crimes.  Now under Section 5- they will not be ignored anymore and will be deported. I actually just read an article about an elderly woman who went to 'check in' as she had a deportation order against her- and when she did she was detained and swiftly deported out of the country and back to Mexico. Its sad for the family but its hard to have a lot of sympathy for someone who was ordered to leave by a judge a long time ago and then didnt. 

None of this really applys to cinti-confused. He is a legal LPR. A disorderly conduct charge isnt something that makes him as an LPR deportable or inadmissible. If he was NOT an LPR then section 5 would be a problem for him- if he was undocumented and convicted of a crime.

 

Many people are worried about the undocumented people who have not committed any crimes being swept up. Theoretically they can be charged with illegal entry if they have no proof of legal entry. There is also nothing from stopping law enforcement from charging an illegal with a criminal offense which would trigger their deportation (even if they entered legally). 

 

For people that entered legally- like on the K visa, and havent filed for AOS causing them to be out of status- they can fall into trouble. If arrested during that time and charged with something- anything- they would be deported. So it just makes it more important to file AOS in a timely fashion when entering on the K visa. 

 

As stated though this is all new and hasnt been fully worked out yet. 

I've never read a better explanation of a legal document on these forums kudos to you.

 

 

[cinti_confsd 0]

36 minutes ago, f f said:

1 hour ago, Damara said:

 

For people that entered legally- like on the K visa, and havent filed for AOS causing them to be out of status- they can fall into trouble. If arrested during that time and charged with something- anything- they would be deported. So it just makes it more important to file AOS in a timely fashion when entering on the K visa. 

 

As stated though this is all new and hasnt been fully worked out yet. 

I've never read a better explanation of a legal document on these forums kudos to you.

seriously , yes .. never seen any body .. not even lawyers .. no offence ..

out of status might still be able to AOS , i heard of a rule that says , if you are married to USC, illegal stay is not an issue. i dont  know its hear say..

 

[f f 725]

when you come on a k1 marry and do not aos you still get overstay it is just when your aos is approved that overstay is not held against you. if you married and left the us for some reason after you had been out of status for some time you would still receive a 3 or 10 year bar if it applied to you.

[Hypnos 6,578]

The tl;dr here is to apply for US citizenship as soon as you become eligible--assuming you're from a country which doesn't make you relinquish your original citizenship when you acquire another. 

 

The culture right now in much of the US is decidedly anti-immigrant--legal and illegal. I actually ran into this this week to a very small degree, and I'm still smarting about it. 

 

Protect yourself by becoming a US citizen because who the knows what crazy is coming out of the White House and the orange one next.

[mindthegap 2,606]

30 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

The culture right now in much of the US is decidedly anti-immigrant--legal and illegal. I actually ran into this this week to a very small degree, and I'm still smarting about it. 

Care to share? Surprising if you are from the Uk.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by mindthegap