AP lawfully present Arrabally

[seth2013 39]

It's my understanding that unlawful presence starts accruing after you've overstayed 180 days- it's what my lawyer said to me, and it's what this case here describes: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/101176p.pdf

In the case of an overstay of that amount of time, you cannot use Advance Parole. In fact, the lawyer I talked with said it's up to border control if they want to admit you with even 1 day of overstay (Funny story, my then-boyfriend, now husband, and I left America 1 day before his previous F-1 visa expired. When we tried to come back in, the border officer didn't want to let him in again, and we had to get the supervisor to allow him back into America. From Canada!! Even though he had a ticket heading back to Japan from Seattle the next week.)

I don't think that's what happened to the OP though, I think their officer made a mistake.

[newacct 688]

You are so very wrong on this.

For the reentry ban to take effect, the person would have 180 days of overstay. They cannot be out of status for years and then come back on their visa. Absolutely not. Your attempt at hair splitting misses the mark by a mile. I have seen people be denied AOS for using AP and triggering their ban.

Which part of it is "wrong"? What I said was being out of status does not by itself trigger unlawful presence for the purposes of the ban. That is perfectly supported by State Department and USCIS rules. See here

It must be emphasized that the accrual of unlawful presence neither begins on the date that a status violation occurs

And the Example 3 here should make it even clearer:

An alien is admitted for “duration of status” as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. One year later, the alien drops out of school, and remains in the United States for one year after dropping out.

The alien’s status became unlawful when she dropped out of school. Neither USCIS nor an IJ ever makes a finding that the alien was out of status; therefore, she never accrues any unlawful presence for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B ) of the Act.

[Sandra G. 5,116]

As decided by the Board of Immigration appeal in the matter of Arrabaly "An alien who leaves the United States temporarily pursuant to a grant of advance parole

does not thereby make a “departure . . . from the United States” within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) (2006, but the unlawful presence bar does not apply to dimagos's case.

[Hypnos 6,579]

USCIS have not yet issued guidance with regards to how Arrabally and Yerrabelly will affect other people, so the only two people that they benefit are those two petitioners themselves.

[dimago 0]

As I understand Matter of Arrabally is suppose to help persons who were unlawfully present more then 180days/1 year and by travelling with AP, triggered 3/10 year ban, as a result I-485 were denied?