Killer_Clown_2009

Welcome to the 21century where we are supposed to be intelligent and advanced.

Oh, the irony.

haha ... for sure!

Such sad, sad news. I really think like those who already posted that you need a lawyer.

Charles' sign, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" comes to mind. Lisa must not be wearing her bifocals.

That still doesn't prove he wants kids to starve. Does it?

Let's ask him: Charles, are you advocating children starve?

Only the children of parents who can't afford to feed them - those parents should not have "bred" and the kids should never have been born. Starving those kids to death rectifies the problem.

He probably isn't trying to do away with the lunch program - he probably doesn't even care about it. I think he wanted to get a bunch of people pissed off, knowing full well that all but the most selfish of people would support food for kids who need it. His idea of something "funny".

Well to your credit, you've sure put a lot of time into posting about your relationship here. You've sent a lot of emails, you've tried to track her down throgh her friend/family. No point going flying off into the night trying to find someone when you have no clear idea of where they are. I'd say at this point you're properly upset (and somewhat obsessed, which i consider normal btw). You don't need to go around sobbing all the time (lol like I do when I am upset), just to show that you actually have real feelings.

I'll offer another scenerio - maybe she is still staying with her initial friend who she went to see first. Maybe she just got her friend to say that she was not there and lead you off with the red herring about her being with friends elsewhere.

It doesn't really matter who is to blame in these types of situations, usually that's non-productive, whether you are blaming yourself or the other person. It is what it is and eventually it'll not really matter much.

Maybe that's why his friends warned him off.

Perhaps he is some old guy, with a bunch of failed relationships behind him who has no business with a young virginal, naive, church going, (as he paints her) and his friends knew it.

Someone could get into legal trouble for telling someone how to do something illegal I suppose. Or maybe be some sort of accessory to an illegal activity if they hear about someone who is in the process of commiting an illegal act and don't report it.

I've tried reading through the whole thread but it's kind of long. Perhaps this is a young girl who thought she was ready to get married and then decided that she wasn't. You said she was a virgin when you met her, and also that you had cohabitated with other girls in the past, so I'm thinking that as far as relationships go that you are probably more experienced than her. Maybe she is still a very nice, moral' "church" girl, but also young and prone to make mistakes due to lack of experience. It's not nice fou you though to be the person who gets the short end of her mistake.

I do hope she contacts you to tell you what is going on, it sounds like it's pretty hard on you (as it would be on anyone), not knowing what is going on with her.

Are you filing a motion to reopen or an appeal? I don't think you can appeal a denied AOS in your situation.

And here is how it would apply in this poster's case:

"For example, a person could be out of status as an H1B after having been laid off from work but, unless the INS or the Immigration Judge makes a specific ruling regarding the individual's status, the person is not unlawfully present until the I-94 expires. "

So even with his H1b expired, he while out of status won't be accruing any unlawful presence until the I-94 expires or a judge makes a ruling on his status.

It's really tricky. It can also apply to other situations:

A . Duration of Status Cases: Although most non-immigrants are admitted for a specified period of time, students, exchange visitors, information media representatives ("I" visa holders), and holders of certain diplomatic visas are usually admitted for "duration of status" (D/S). An alien admitted for "duration of status" will begin to accrue unlawful presence only if either:

an Immigration Judge (IJ) finds the alien has violated status and is excludable/deportable/removable, or

the INS, in the course of adjudicating an application for a benefit (e.g., extension of stay or change or adjustment of status), determines that a status violation has occurred.

B. Aliens Admitted Until a Date Certain: In general, an alien admitted until a specified date will begin to accrue unlawful presence either:

when the date on the I-94 (or any extension) has passed, or

if INS or an IJ makes a finding of a status violation, whichever comes first.

http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news729.htm

I know that you aren't. You might want to go read this source: http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_chgstatus.html, maybe that will explain it better. Basically a bar is triggered by "unlawful presence". Anyone with is unlawfully present is the US is also "out of status", but you can be "out of status" without being "unlawfully present". So just being "out of status" alone doesn't result in a bar.

". An alien is deemed unlawfully present if s/he “is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. ” All aliens who are unlawfully present are also out of status, but not everyone who is out of status is unlawfully present. Therefore an alien who is unlawfully present can incur all of the consequences listed above for someone who is out of status. In addition, aliens who are unlawfully present are subject to 3- and 10-year bars from admission to the U.S. That is, any alien who is unlawfully present for over 6 months and then departs the U.S. will be barred from re-entering the U.S. for 3 years. Any alien who is unlawfully present for more than 1 year and then departs the U.S. will be barred from re-entering the U.S. for 10 years ."

In my own situation, I had stayed in the US for more than 200 days past the date that I was supposed to leave. I was considered "out of status", but not unlawfully present as I did not meet the 2 conditions in my earlier post for "unlawful presence". I could have left the US and then reentered without triggering a bar. This doesn't apply to most tourists in the US, because they will fall into unlawful presence once their I-94 expires, but because I did not have an I-94 or definiate departure date, I was considered to be "out of status" only.

It looks pretty understandable to me. What is it that you don't understand? Did you read the above posts about being out of status? I was clarifying that being out of status alone is not enough to trigger a reentry bar.

This is not about parents though is it? It's about making sure that kids get lunch at school whether their parents can afford it or not. Kids aren't to blame for their parent's circumstances.

There is a difference between being out of status and being unlawfully present. Being out of status is not enough for a person to accrue days towards any reentry bar.

"There is a critical difference between being "out of status" and being "unlawfully present." There are innumerable ways to go out of status. Any violation of nonimmigrant status puts the alien "out of status." For example, if an alien is in a nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B or TN, that requires him to work exclusively for the petitioning employer, and he either works for an additional employer or changes employers all together without prior authorization from USCIS, then he goes out of status upon the first such violation. An alien who ceases employment with the petitioning employer (other than an H-1B employee who is benched with pay) is also out of status. The dependent child of a nonimmigrant who turns twenty-one (and is therefore no longer eligible for dependent status as a "child"), is out of status.

"Unlawful presence," on the other hand, has a very specific meaning. An alien begins to accrue unlawful presence only when:

(1) her I-94 has expired and she failed to timely file a non-frivolous request for extension or change of nonimmigrant status.

If she has timely filed an extension of stay or change of status, then she does not accrue any unlawful presence, even after her I-94 expires, for as long as the petition remains pending. If that petition is ultimately approved, then she never acquires any unlawful presence. If it is ultimately denied, then she accrues unlawful presence starting on the date the denial notice is issued; or

(2) USCIS or an Immigration Judge finds that the alien has violated her status."

Source: http://www.usvisahelp.com/art_thebras.html

Im working in my community to eliminate the program.

Then you are an ###...good luck with that one buddy.

Is your greencard also going to be issued in your married name? If you are telling USCIS that your legal name is your maiden name and then telling SSN that your married name is your legal name, then I doubt that SSN will issue you a card in the married name.

That's right, 30/60/90 day is not something that USCIS uses. Also, Immigration case law (and also guides that they DO use) show that USCIS doesn't deny a marriage based AOS application on intent to immigrate alone. Are you sure she was not denied for marriage fraud? Meaning they did not think that her marriage was legitimate. Still it's odd they would not have her in for an interview.

It's 180 days/per 12 month period and it is cummlative, so a Canadian can come and go several times, but spend no more than 180 days in the US over the past 12 month period.

So you couldn't come to the US in July and stay until December and then come back in January and stay for another 6 months, because that'd be more than 6 months out of the past 12 month period.

The unlawful presence starts accruing from the date that an immigration judge or DHS tells the person who is out of status that they are violating their status - so seeing as he is no longer out of status (he's pending AOS), I don't think that he could be considered unlawfully present and he would not accrue any unlawfully present time in the US.

Though I do agree with you, if there is even a remote chance that he can face a bar, he shouldn't leave the US. I don't even know if I'd trust an immigration lawyer, I'd probably want to confirm that it's ok for him to leave and that no bar would apply from several sources.

Hopefully he gets his greencard before November and it's not an issue.

You really should talk it over with an immigration lawyer who deals with a lot of Canadians.

I had consulted an immigration lawyer about this I was considering returning to Canada after being in the US for a little over a year and was worried about a bar. I never did leave the US (on AP or before applying for my green card),so I have not had personal experience with this situation, just what I was told by my lawyer and the information I could find online.

My lawyer advised me that I would be considered "out of status", but not "unlawfully present" because I did not have a definate depature date or an I-94 that had expired. You can find bits and pieces of the law online, but it's hard to narrow a websearch down to just Canadian issues.

Basicallt "unlawful presence" doesn't occur until an I-94 expires (and the person is still in the US) or an immigration officer or judge states that a status violation has occured.

So even though a Canadian has violated his/her status by remaining in the US beyond 180 days, they are NOT considered "unlawfully present" (like someone who has an expired I-94), unless someone with the authority to do so deems them to be out of status.

Here is what I found on one site:

Persons such as Canadian tourists, who enter without visas or I-94s, may also be addressed since such people occasionally enter the U.S. and remain for many years without ever triggering the “unlawful presence” provisions. (The reason for this is that, without an I-94, there is no date from which to count unlawful presence unless the person comes to the attention of INS or the Immigration Court.)

source: http://www.murthy.com/news/UD02unpr.html

Canadians who overstay are not subject to a bar on re-entry like people from other countries. It has something to do with not being given an I-94 and therefore not having a definate depature date. Their entries and exits from to and from the US are not recorded in the same way as those who have an I-94.

I can look for a source for you online that explains it. Also, you can probably get this information from a decent immigration lawyer for free if you want to double check.

Ok. But for those who do relate and wish to contribute, should they be 'shooed' off?

I didn't really read the entire thread so don't know exactly what is going on. It looked like someone complained/commented about this being a duplicate type thread, then someone else said if you don't like it don't read it (which is pretty ironic ). Then I saw your Q and just wanted to offer an answer :) (because I like those kinds of questions).

I think everyone is pretty much responsible for what they say, so it all works out in the end. I personally don't think someone making a comment, a suggestion , a critical type question or just commenting should be shooed off.

What's the big deal? I really don't care who starts what topic. I sometimes see a person post the same topic 6 times - I don't care! Let these people have their own thread. If you don't feel it is important or even relevant, don't read it. Geez, this is ridiculous.

And I have to agree that the people in this thread are in a different scenario than the regular July filers. Some of the others can't relate because they are in a different situation.

As one of the apparent 'denizens', I still fail to understand why the July filers thread can't be used for the same purpose? Are there not end of July people in there who you can talk with/compare timelines?

I'm just wondering if it's impossible to relate to a person lying bleeding in the road if one also doesn't happen to be lying bleeding in the road at the exact same time.

The short answer is no, it is not impossible - but not everyone is going to relate. Some people might even lean over and rob the guy, not feel a twinge of guilt (let alone relate) and walk off leaving the guy to bleed to death.

Why are people going into threads not related to them, that they don't need toread and crabbing about them. There are lots of threads. Maybe start a new thread ie: I am pissed off about the (insert name of thread here) thread because and then yak on about it in the new thread, leaving a popular and helpful thread such as this one unmolested and pure for those who find it useful.