Skipping conditional green card

[Shiran 1,134]

I still fail to fully comprehend the legalise of "out of status" and "permitted stay"  It is rather incomprehensible to me that as US Citizen, you have fewer ID docs than an immigrant. My wife who came on K-1 like barely 2 seconds ago now has her SSN and 5 years driver license. Now granted her SSN has a stamp on it requiring authorization, but people do not carry SSN with them. For all intents and purposes, on her average day about town she has all same IDs that probably 99% of USC have. Most do not have/carry passport or passport cards or birth certificates or certificates of naturalization around. So what if her I-94 expires? Who on earth would see her ID card, and then what? Demand to see NOA1 for I-485? The system is daft for the lack of better word. 

[Crazy Cat 39,630]

1 minute ago, Shiran said:

but people do not carry SSN with them.

I do......and I have since 1971.

[Shiran 1,134]

12 minutes ago, missileman said:

I do......and I have since 1971.

Most don't, and SSA explicitly advises people not to. You also not suppose to laminate it. 

[Crazy Cat 39,630]

1 minute ago, Shiran said:

Most don't, and SSA explicitly advises people not to. You also not suppose to laminate it. 

I carry the SS card I was issued in 1968 as a teenager......still readable.....not laminated.

 

[little immigrant 800]

53 minutes ago, Shiran said:

I still fail to fully comprehend the legalise of "out of status" and "permitted stay"  It is rather incomprehensible to me that as US Citizen, you have fewer ID docs than an immigrant. My wife who came on K-1 like barely 2 seconds ago now has her SSN and 5 years driver license. Now granted her SSN has a stamp on it requiring authorization, but people do not carry SSN with them. For all intents and purposes, on her average day about town she has all same IDs that probably 99% of USC have. Most do not have/carry passport or passport cards or birth certificates or certificates of naturalization around. So what if her I-94 expires? Who on earth would see her ID card, and then what? Demand to see NOA1 for I-485? The system is daft for the lack of better word. 

Not sure in which state you're at. My state specifies the status with the drivers license. You can't get the regular 5 year until you have at least the 10 year GC or a US passport. You'd get a limited term driver's license which expires on the same date as your EAD/2 year GC. 

[Shiran 1,134]

5 minutes ago, little immigrant said:

Not sure in which state you're at. My state specifies the status with the drivers license. You can't get the regular 5 year until you have at least the 10 year GC or a US passport. You'd get a limited term driver's license which expires on the same date as your EAD/2 year GC. 

CA. I was surprised as well, because I thought she would get ID that expires when I-94 expires, but nope, it is good for about 5 years (expires on her Birthday as all state IDs tend to do) Now granted, it is "limited" ID in a sense it is not "Real ID" (Doesn't have golden federal star on it) but Real ID don't even come into picture until some time in 2020. 

[PolskaKielbasia 67]

44 minutes ago, missileman said:

I carry the SS card I was issued in 1968 as a teenager......still readable.....not laminated.

 

Why? Is is that hard to memorize your SSN? The SSA explicitly advises against this.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PolskaKielbasia

[midwinterrose 263]

2 hours ago, Shiran said:

I still fail to fully comprehend the legalise of "out of status" and "permitted stay"  It is rather incomprehensible to me that as US Citizen, you have fewer ID docs than an immigrant. My wife who came on K-1 like barely 2 seconds ago now has her SSN and 5 years driver license. Now granted her SSN has a stamp on it requiring authorization, but people do not carry SSN with them. For all intents and purposes, on her average day about town she has all same IDs that probably 99% of USC have. Most do not have/carry passport or passport cards or birth certificates or certificates of naturalization around. So what if her I-94 expires? Who on earth would see her ID card, and then what? Demand to see NOA1 for I-485? The system is daft for the lack of better word. 

I looked into it before, and once a K1 immigrant's I-94 expires, they are "out of status"/in "unlawful status" and begin accruing "unlawful presence".  When they file for AOS, they enter a period of "Authorized stay", where they are still "out of status" (and deportable!), but they are no longer accruing "unlawful presence" (which is what they look at when deciding to impose a bar).  However their authorized stay is only until a decision is made on their AOS.  If the AOS is approved, then they are back in "lawful status" and no unlawful presence is deemed to have been accrued during the adjudication of AOS.  If it is denied, then all of the unlawful presence which had been paused during adjudication of AOS is then counted against them as if the period of authorized stay had never existed.  Except that K1 AOSers won't face any bar to AOS because as they are the now the spouse of a USC they receive an exemption as an "immediate relative".

 

I printed out my husband's NOA1 for our AOS which we filed as soon as possible, and a copy of our marriage certificate on waterproof paper for him to carry with him in his wallet just in case.  He's still technically in "unlawful status" until his I-485 is approved, as far as I can tell, but he is not accruing "unlawful presence".  It's the stupidest thing ever, this bizarre grey area.

[Shiran 1,134]

11 minutes ago, radharose said:

 It's the stupidest thing ever, this bizarre grey area.

Exactly. There is a post by Tbone from 4 years ago. 

It is pretty insane. As I said, I am glad we were able to get State ID before I-94 expired, and as far as I am concerned that will tie us over for observable future. In practical terms I am not worried. In theoretical terms, it is blatantly stupid, and should be fixed. Along with crud like K-3, visa that practically no longer exist? And I-751, form that routinely gets ignored while creating another grey area of people having to get passport stamps, which in effect FORCES people to do N-400, even though they might've been perfectly content staying LPRs forever (Among the benefits of being LPR is never having to deal with jury duty or voting) 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Shiran

[SalishSea 16,888]

4 hours ago, little immigrant said:

Not sure in which state you're at. My state specifies the status with the drivers license. You can't get the regular 5 year until you have at least the 10 year GC or a US passport. You'd get a limited term driver's license which expires on the same date as your EAD/2 year GC. 

Washington state, for example, grants drivers' licenses without regard to immigrant status.

[geowrian 22,336]

3 hours ago, radharose said:

When they file for AOS, they enter a period of "Authorized stay", where they are still "out of status" (and deportable!), but they are no longer accruing "unlawful presence" (which is what they look at when deciding to impose a bar).

They are not deportable due to their presence in the US while covered by any period of authorized stay. They can be deportable for other reasons, as applicable, but not due to just being in the US.

Correct on the part about not accruing unlawful presence.

 

Quote

However their authorized stay is only until a decision is made on their AOS.  If the AOS is approved, then they are back in "lawful status" and no unlawful presence is deemed to have been accrued during the adjudication of AOS.  If it is denied, then all of the unlawful presence which had been paused during adjudication of AOS is then counted against them as if the period of authorized stay had never existed.

Not quite. Previous unlawful presence is not erased or forgotten just because AOS is approved. This occurrence only impacts people in specific circumstances, but it does exist.

For example, say somebody came on the VWP and overstayed. They then married a USC, filed for AOS, and got a green card. If they later lose/abandon their permanent residency (voluntarily or otherwise), they are still prohibited ever using the VWP again due to their past overstay. No 3/10 year bar is applied, but there are still immigration consequences.

 

Correspondingly, a denied AOS application does not retroactively apply unlawful presence. This isn't strictly always the case (i.e. if you file an application that grants an authorized stay that is deemed frivolous), but it is the general case.

 

Quote

I printed out my husband's NOA1 for our AOS which we filed as soon as possible, and a copy of our marriage certificate on waterproof paper for him to carry with him in his wallet just in case.  He's still technically in "unlawful status" until his I-485 is approved, as far as I can tell, but he is not accruing "unlawful presence".  It's the stupidest thing ever, this bizarre grey area.

He has no current legal status (which is not the same as having any sort of unlawful status).

He has a period of authorized stay granted by the AG.

He is not accruing unlawful presence.

 

Edit: Also...

He is eligible for work authorization (EAD).

He is eligible to request permission to re-enter the country (AP).

These 2 items are eligible benefits, which are yet again different than any sort of legal status/authorized stay/unlawful presence.

Edited April 27, 2019 by geowrian

[midwinterrose 263]

On 4/27/2019 at 12:38 AM, geowrian said:

They are not deportable due to their presence in the US while covered by any period of authorized stay. They can be deportable for other reasons, as applicable, but not due to just being in the US.

Correct on the part about not accruing unlawful presence.

 

Not quite. Previous unlawful presence is not erased or forgotten just because AOS is approved. This occurrence only impacts people in specific circumstances, but it does exist.

For example, say somebody came on the VWP and overstayed. They then married a USC, filed for AOS, and got a green card. If they later lose/abandon their permanent residency (voluntarily or otherwise), they are still prohibited ever using the VWP again due to their past overstay. No 3/10 year bar is applied, but there are still immigration consequences.

 

Correspondingly, a denied AOS application does not retroactively apply unlawful presence. This isn't strictly always the case (i.e. if you file an application that grants an authorized stay that is deemed frivolous), but it is the general case.

 

He has no current legal status (which is not the same as having any sort of unlawful status).

He has a period of authorized stay granted by the AG.

He is not accruing unlawful presence.

 

Edit: Also...

He is eligible for work authorization (EAD).

He is eligible to request permission to re-enter the country (AP).

These 2 items are eligible benefits, which are yet again different than any sort of legal status/authorized stay/unlawful presence.

 

I may be interpreting things differently, but this is straight from the USCIS website:

 

B. Unlawful Immigration Status

A foreign national is in unlawful immigration status if he or she is in the United States without lawful immigration status eitherbecause the foreign national never had lawful status or because the foreign national’s lawful status has ended. 

Foreign nationals in unlawful immigration status generally include:

• Foreign nationals who entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole; ^[13] and

• Foreign nationals whose lawful immigration status expired or was rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated. ^[14] 

C. Time in Unlawful Immigration Status

If in unlawful immigration status, the foreign national’s unlawful status generally begins:

• On the day the foreign national enters the United States without inspection; 

• On the day the foreign national violates the terms or conditions of his or her nonimmigrant status; ^[15] or

• On the day after the foreign national’s authorized status has been violated, has expired, been rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated while he or she is physically present in the United States. ^[16] 

Unlawful immigration status generally ends when either of the following events occur, whichever is earlier:

• The foreign national obtains lawful immigration status, or

• The foreign national departs the United States.

D. Difference between Lawful Immigration Status and Period of Authorized Stay

Lawful immigration status is distinct from being in a period of authorized stay. Periods of authorized stay are only relevant when determining a foreign national’s accrual of unlawful presence for inadmissibility purposes. ^[17] Although a foreign national in a lawful immigration status is also in a period of authorized stay, the opposite is not necessarily true. Those in a period of authorized stay may or may not be in a lawful immigration status.

Officers consider the difference between lawful immigration status and a period of authorized stay when determining whether a foreign national is in lawful immigration status for purposes of the INA 245(c)(2) adjustment bar.

E. Effect of Pending Application or Petition

A pending application to extend or change status (Form I-129 or Form I-539), a pending adjustment application, or a pending petition does not confer lawful immigration status on a foreign national. In addition, a pending application or petition does not automatically afford protection against removal if the foreign national’s status expires after submission of the application. The foreign national may have no actual lawful status in the United States and may be subject to removal proceedings unless and until the extension of stay (EOS) application, change of status (COS) application, adjustment application, or petition is approved. 

 

--------------------------------

 

If a K1 non-immigrant is granted a period of stay of 90 days and those 90 days expire, then their period of lawful status has expired.  It clearly states above that if a foreign national is not in lawful status then they are in unlawful status.  It also clearly states that an application for adjustment of status does not grant them lawful status until it is approved, nor does it afford protection against removal.

[Villanelle 4,121]

1 hour ago, radharose said:

 

I may be interpreting things differently, but this is straight from the USCIS website:

 

B. Unlawful Immigration Status

A foreign national is in unlawful immigration status if he or she is in the United States without lawful immigration status eitherbecause the foreign national never had lawful status or because the foreign national’s lawful status has ended. 

Foreign nationals in unlawful immigration status generally include:

• Foreign nationals who entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole; ^[13] and

• Foreign nationals whose lawful immigration status expired or was rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated. ^[14] 

C. Time in Unlawful Immigration Status

If in unlawful immigration status, the foreign national’s unlawful status generally begins:

• On the day the foreign national enters the United States without inspection; 

• On the day the foreign national violates the terms or conditions of his or her nonimmigrant status; ^[15] or

• On the day after the foreign national’s authorized status has been violated, has expired, been rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated while he or she is physically present in the United States. ^[16] 

Unlawful immigration status generally ends when either of the following events occur, whichever is earlier:

• The foreign national obtains lawful immigration status, or

• The foreign national departs the United States.

D. Difference between Lawful Immigration Status and Period of Authorized Stay

Lawful immigration status is distinct from being in a period of authorized stay. Periods of authorized stay are only relevant when determining a foreign national’s accrual of unlawful presence for inadmissibility purposes. ^[17] Although a foreign national in a lawful immigration status is also in a period of authorized stay, the opposite is not necessarily true. Those in a period of authorized stay may or may not be in a lawful immigration status.

Officers consider the difference between lawful immigration status and a period of authorized stay when determining whether a foreign national is in lawful immigration status for purposes of the INA 245(c)(2) adjustment bar.

E. Effect of Pending Application or Petition

A pending application to extend or change status (Form I-129 or Form I-539), a pending adjustment application, or a pending petition does not confer lawful immigration status on a foreign national. In addition, a pending application or petition does not automatically afford protection against removal if the foreign national’s status expires after submission of the application. The foreign national may have no actual lawful status in the United States and may be subject to removal proceedings unless and until the extension of stay (EOS) application, change of status (COS) application, adjustment application, or petition is approved. 

 

--------------------------------

 

If a K1 non-immigrant is granted a period of stay of 90 days and those 90 days expire, then their period of lawful status has expired.  It clearly states above that if a foreign national is not in lawful status then they are in unlawful status.  It also clearly states that an application for adjustment of status does not grant them lawful status until it is approved, nor does it afford protection against removal.

It actually states (and you highlighted it in blue so I dont understand how you could misquote it?) It states MAY be subject to removal proceedings. A K visa holder who submits an AOS is not subject to removal. 

[payxibka 10,044]

8 minutes ago, username_taken said:

It actually states (and you highlighted it in blue so I dont understand how you could misquote it?) It states MAY be subject to removal proceedings. A K visa holder who submits an AOS is not subject to removal. 

If a K1 non-immigrant is granted a period of stay of 90 days and those 90 days expire, then their period of lawful status has expired.  It clearly states above that if a foreign national is not in lawful status then they are in unlawful status.  It also clearly states that an application for adjustment of status does not grant them lawful status until it is approved, nor does it afford protection against removal.

 

The last sentence above is in conflict with your statement 

[Villanelle 4,121]

14 minutes ago, payxibka said:

If a K1 non-immigrant is granted a period of stay of 90 days and those 90 days expire, then their period of lawful status has expired.  It clearly states above that if a foreign national is not in lawful status then they are in unlawful status.  

I agree.

 

14 minutes ago, payxibka said:

 

It also clearly states that an application for adjustment of status does not grant them lawful status until it is approved, nor does it afford protection against removal.

 

The last sentence above is in conflict with your statement 

Yes and no. I'm not arguing an application for COS grants you lawful status, it doesnt. Nor does it protect you from removal. Im simply pointing out the wording says "may" be subject to removal- not "is absolutely with out question " subject to removal. A pending AOS does not give you any protection from removal but again simply being a K in auth stay is not a deportable offense.

 

Simply being a K visa holder who has an i94 that expired and you have a pending AOS does not make you eligible for removal. 

 

This snippet from USCIS was posted in response to Geowrains post below, I assume as some sort of argument that they are deportable. -Hence my response that the snippet says they may be deportable not that they automatically are. If you are a K in auth stay and commit a crime that can make you deportable the pending AOS will not protect you. But and its a big BUT- but you have to commit a deportable offense .

Quote

They are not deportable due to their presence in the US while covered by any period of authorized stay. They can be deportable for other reasons, as applicable, but not due to just being in the US.