How to adjust on overstay visa

[Caladan 19]

why dont you bother to read the instructions on the I-485. There are several classes of people who cannot file for AOS. EWI's. K holders who married someone other than the orig petitioner, C-D visa holders, and on.

This is done for a very good reason. It is so easy to get a job on a cruise ship, or on some banana boat, fishing boat, etc. that everyone from 3rd world countries would sign on and jump ship at the first US POE.

It doesnt matter if this guy is the beneficiary of a petition submitted by Hillary herself....he CANNOT adjust status within the US.;

Now you may continue to advise ppl that it is possible, and see a law3yer, and find the loop hole, and spend a fortune and lose. I can find the answer in five minutes in the INS code.

I did read the instructions. Section 10 (where the crewman's visa is mentioned) starts off with a list of people who are ineligible to file, which includes crewmen & tourists & anyone who has worked illegally. If you look at the format of the list, it is 6 bullet pointed items, a semicolon, and then a big list of exceptions which seem to apply, grammatically, only to point F. But we know that entering on a tourist visa, or having worked illegally, or being out of status, are not bars to adjustment. The instructions themselves don't line up with the legal code.

Hence, I recommend that the guy see a lawyer not because I am hoping there is a loophole (I don't think there is, because there'd be no reason to single out the crewman & for the banana boat reasons you mention), but that I'm not comfortable recommending a course of action (leaving the country) that triggers a 10-year ban WITHOUT a lawyer's consult, especially since VJ doesn't have a whole lot of experience with C and D visas.

[rebeccajo 14]

fwaguy....I found this for you. It is dated Feb 2007.

http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=129&a=18055

Caladan - There is a loophole. It is 245(i) of the INA but as the 'plain language' essay above indicates, many people don't fit through the loophole.

Edited December 3, 2007 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

Right because it is crystal clear and in black and white, it is the law, they will not be allowed to adjust on a crewman overstaying a visa, they will not be allowed to do this.

First of all, when dealing with such a complicated, convuluted set of laws, rules and regulations hardly anything is CRYSTAL clear. Secondly, I am glad that you are so well versed in this particular section of the INA as to be able give such clear cut guidance.

It is a dirty job but someone on here has to do it!

Yeah?

[payxibka 10,044]

fwaguy....I found this for you. It is dated Feb 2007.

http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=129&a=18055

Caladan - There is a loophole. It is 245(i) of the INA but as the 'plain language' essay above indicates, many people don't fit through the loophole.

I read that too, unfortunately it appears to be fairly date range specific....

[rebeccajo 14]

fwaguy....I found this for you. It is dated Feb 2007.

http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=129&a=18055

Caladan - There is a loophole. It is 245(i) of the INA but as the 'plain language' essay above indicates, many people don't fit through the loophole.

I read that too, unfortunately it appears to be fairly date range specific....

Yes. It means the loophole is pretty much closed now.