Thread: Citizen?

Originally Posted by usaave

"Piolin, who entered the U.S. illegally two decades ago in a car trunk, became a nationalized U.S. citizen last May." ?

How does someone come here illegal and then becomes a national
citizen? Someone please explain. Thank you.

One possibility is the 245i ruling which expired the last day of April 2001. If an individual could get an employer to apply for them they could get an employment based green card. It is feasible that their process went through within three years and now the five years to naturalize has passed.

The 245i ruling is considered a mini amnesty that is not widely known about.

Jean wrote:

Link worked for me MW.

Hmmm.........that's strange. Are you guys using internet explorer?

Originally Posted by MW

Jean wrote:

Link worked for me MW.

Hmmm.........that's strange. Are you guys using internet explorer?

Yes.

Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, but less than one year, who voluntarily depart from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for three years. An alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than one year, who voluntarily departs from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for ten years under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The time in unlawful status before April 1, 1997 is not counted.

The key to interpreting this provision hinges on several terms which consists of "unlawful presence" and "authorized stay by the Attorney General."5 INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(III) exempts these individuals from the above grounds of inadmissibility if they are minors (under 1, asylees (those who have been a bona fide pending application for asylum who have not engaged in unauthorized unemployment), beneficiary of the family unity protection under section 301 of the INA of 1990, battered women and children, alien who has filed a non-frivolous application for change of status, and an immigrant who is a beneficiary of a waiver based upon extreme hardship to the citizen or resident spouse, son, or parent.

An illegal invader who remained in this country for longer than one year, but who voluntarily departs prior to commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for a period of ten years.

I do not know the definition of the word 'inadmissable' as it pertains to INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). However, that definiton is avaliable if I wanted to search for it.

Clearly, if a person who voluntarily departed prior to being officially removed is inadmissible for a period of ten years, then likely a person who has been able to evade authorites for a period of ten years would not be given seemingly preferential considerations in regards to their petition for citizenship. That would only make sense.

However, with that being said, we then have to contend with:

Cancellation of Removal

INA § 240A allows certain permanent residents to make an application for the cancellation of removal proceedings. In order to qualify for this provision, an individual must establish that he or she is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than five years, has resided in the U.S. for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony.8 Also, under INA § 240A, cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent resident allows for an alien to become a permanent resident if he or she has been physically present in the U.S. for more than ten years immediately preceding the date of such application, has been a person of good moral character for such time, has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, and establish that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.

Either Polin has some connections (maybe an employer sponsored him even though his initial entry was illegal), or he was granted a harship waiver whereby he was able to demonstrate that denial of his petition would constitute a undue hardship on an American citizen ( he may have anchor babies or a spouse who is an American citizen).

Point being there are plenty of exceptions/waivers for someone like piolin who probably has connections and resources to slither through.

I'm not an attorney, so of course there are other laws that would pertain to someone like piolin that have not been discussed.

Yes...I know.... I spent way too much time on this question. LOL!

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, but less than one year, who voluntarily depart from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for three years. An alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than one year, who voluntarily departs from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for ten years under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The time in unlawful status before April 1, 1997 is not counted.

The key to interpreting this provision hinges on several terms which consists of "unlawful presence" and "authorized stay by the Attorney General."5 INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(III) exempts these individuals from the above grounds of inadmissibility if they are minors (under 1, asylees (those who have been a bona fide pending application for asylum who have not engaged in unauthorized unemployment), beneficiary of the family unity protection under section 301 of the INA of 1990, battered women and children, alien who has filed a non-frivolous application for change of status, and an immigrant who is a beneficiary of a waiver based upon extreme hardship to the citizen or resident spouse, son, or parent.

An illegal invader who remained in this country for longer than one year, but who voluntarily departs prior to commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for a period of ten years.

I do not know the definition of the word 'inadmissable' as it pertains to INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). However, that definiton is avaliable if I wanted to search for it.

Clearly, if a person who voluntarily departed prior to being officially removed is inadmissible for a period of ten years, then likely a person who has been able to evade authorites for a period of ten years would not be given seemingly preferential considerations in regards to their petition for citizenship. That would only make sense.

However, with that being said, we then have to contend with:

Cancellation of Removal


[quote:3ood3otd]INA § 240A allows certain permanent residents to make an application for the cancellation of removal proceedings. In order to qualify for this provision, an individual must establish that he or she is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than five years, has resided in the U.S. for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony.8 Also, under INA § 240A, cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent resident allows for an alien to become a permanent resident if he or she has been physically present in the U.S. for more than ten years immediately preceding the date of such application, has been a person of good moral character for such time, has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, and establish that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.

Either Polin has some connections (maybe an employer sponsored him even though his initial entry was illegal), or he was granted a harship waiver whereby he was able to demonstrate that denial of his petition would constitute a undue hardship on an American citizen ( he may have anchor babies or a spouse who is an American citizen).

Point being there are plenty of exceptions/waivers for someone like piolin who probably has connections and resources to slither through.

I'm not an attorney, so of course there are other laws that would pertain to someone like piolin that have not been discussed.

Yes...I know.... I spent way too much time on this question. LOL![/quote:3ood3otd]

Having a spouse or children who are American citizens is not considered a hardship.

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days, but less than one year, who voluntarily depart from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for three years. An alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than one year, who voluntarily departs from the U.S. prior to the commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for ten years under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The time in unlawful status before April 1, 1997 is not counted.

The key to interpreting this provision hinges on several terms which consists of "unlawful presence" and "authorized stay by the Attorney General."5 INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(III) exempts these individuals from the above grounds of inadmissibility if they are minors (under 1, asylees (those who have been a bona fide pending application for asylum who have not engaged in unauthorized unemployment), beneficiary of the family unity protection under section 301 of the INA of 1990, battered women and children, alien who has filed a non-frivolous application for change of status, and an immigrant who is a beneficiary of a waiver based upon extreme hardship to the citizen or resident spouse, son, or parent.

An illegal invader who remained in this country for longer than one year, but who voluntarily departs prior to commencement of removal proceedings is inadmissible for a period of ten years.

I do not know the definition of the word 'inadmissable' as it pertains to INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). However, that definiton is avaliable if I wanted to search for it.

Clearly, if a person who voluntarily departed prior to being officially removed is inadmissible for a period of ten years, then likely a person who has been able to evade authorites for a period of ten years would not be given seemingly preferential considerations in regards to their petition for citizenship. That would only make sense.

However, with that being said, we then have to contend with:

Cancellation of Removal


[quote:240faspk]INA § 240A allows certain permanent residents to make an application for the cancellation of removal proceedings. In order to qualify for this provision, an individual must establish that he or she is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than five years, has resided in the U.S. for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony.8 Also, under INA § 240A, cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent resident allows for an alien to become a permanent resident if he or she has been physically present in the U.S. for more than ten years immediately preceding the date of such application, has been a person of good moral character for such time, has not been convicted of an aggravated felony, and establish that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.

Either Polin has some connections (maybe an employer sponsored him even though his initial entry was illegal), or he was granted a harship waiver whereby he was able to demonstrate that denial of his petition would constitute a undue hardship on an American citizen ( he may have anchor babies or a spouse who is an American citizen).

Point being there are plenty of exceptions/waivers for someone like piolin who probably has connections and resources to slither through.

I'm not an attorney, so of course there are other laws that would pertain to someone like piolin that have not been discussed.

Yes...I know.... I spent way too much time on this question. LOL!

Having a spouse or children who are American citizens is not considered a hardship.[/quote:240faspk]

Did I saw it was? If you read what I said a little more carefully, you would have noticed that I said:

Either Polin has some connections (maybe an employer sponsored him even though his initial entry was illegal), or he was granted a harship waiver whereby he was able to demonstrate that denial of his petition would constitute a undue hardship on an American citizen ( he may have anchor babies or a spouse who is an American citizen).

Finally, i'm not saying it. The law is saying under INA 240A.

Originally Posted by usaave

"Piolin, who entered the U.S. illegally two decades ago in a car trunk, became a nationalized U.S. citizen last May." ?

How does someone come here illegal and then becomes a national
citizen? Someone please explain. Thank you.

This comes directly from USCIS form N-400. Only question #15 covers coming here illegally.

15. Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?

23. Have you ever given false or misleading information to any U.S. government official while applying for any immigration benefit or to prevent deportation, exclusion or removal?

24. Have you ever lied to any U.S. government official to gain entry or admission into the
United States?

25. Are removal, exclusion, rescission or deportation proceedings pending against you?

26. Have you ever been removed, excluded or deported from the United States?

27. Have you ever been ordered to be removed, excluded or deported from the United States?

28. Have you ever applied for any kind of relief from removal, exclusion or deportation?

Depending on what happens between the time you came here illegally and the time you apply for legal residence, then naturalization, minor offenses are usually forgiven if you have been "good" since then. Being here illegally I guess is considered a minor offense.