Advance Parole
Idontknow
Thanks in advance to any reply. I would like to know if there is any chance
to leave US with an Advance Parole and not be admitted again at the port of
entry. Is anyone in the same case???
Thanks!
hcj1440
Absolutely. For example, if you have overstayed more than 180 days
in the past.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Folinskyinla
Hi:
When you use advance parole, it is 100% that you will not be admitted at
the port of entry. It is inherent in the very idea of advance parole.
If you have a non-immigrant visa such as a H-1b, H-4, L-1, L-2 or K-3
that does not cancel your adjusment upon departure, then your chances of
re-admission upon return are fairly good. But with advance parole, your
chances of admission at the port of entry are zilch.
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Noorah101
Yes, for example, if your AP expired while you were out of the USA.
Rene
AlmostThere1
> Hi:
>
> When you use advance parole, it is 100% that you will not be
> admitted at the port of entry. It is inherent in the very idea of
> advance parole. If you have a non-immigrant visa such as a H-1b,
> H-4, L-1, L-2 or K-3 that does not cancel your adjusment upon
> departure, then your chances of re-admission upon return are fairly
> good. But with advance parole, your chances of admission at the
> port of entry are zilch.
Question:
"But with advance parole, your chances of admission at the port of entry
are zilch." I am a bit confused here, is this because with AP you
technically are not readmitted(you body in the US but the "spirit" is
technically waiting at the border) or am I missing something here.
Folinskyinla
> Question:
> "But with advance parole, your chances of admission at the port of
> entry are zilch." I am a bit confused here, is this because with AP
> you technically are not readmitted(you body in the US but the "spirit"
> is technically waiting at the border) or am I missing something here.
Hi:
"Admission" and "admitted" is a defined term in the Immigration &
Nationality Act at 101(a)(13). The regulation define "arriving alien"
at 8 CFR 1.1(q) and 1001.1(q).
In relation to adjustment of status, this is currently a hot subject of
litigation this year starting with the January "Succar" decision from
the 1st Circuit, the July "Moulle" decision from the 8th, and the
September "Zheng" decision from the 3rd.
BTW, I'm counsel in the lead case on the issue in the 9th Circuit --
other cases with that issue in the 9th are being held in abeyance
pending my client's case.
This case is truely orwellian in nature. The position of the United
States Government is that my client was brought here in the interests of
national defense, her US Citizen husband of long and current military
service during two "wars" is to be punished for HIS past misdeeds by
having his wife removed from the country, that she can't file for
adjustment becuase she isn't here but is ineligible for K-3 [with waiver
of actual visa issuance] because reliance on the law is "misplaced" and
she is still here and has not departed.
I will admit that the BIA's finding of her not here is stated in page
one in two paragraphs and their finding of her being here and not having
yet departed is on page two of the same decision. "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Emerson, 1841 [which I
quoted in the briefs].
So the meaning of "admission" is very much on my mind these days.
MH
In general, if you have applied for AOS and have gotten Advance Parole, then
your chances are quite good. I went back to visit the folks in Canada with
AP while my I-485 was pending. They let me back in, although they complained
that I should have left my previous entry paper (paper stapled to passport
when I entered with K1) with the airline when I left, not given it back to
them at the border upon re-entry..
I checked my passport/K1 visa at the scanner in Detroit (I flew from
SF->Detroit->Kitchener), and I never did figure out if that was the right
thing, the wrong thing or unnecessary..
I now have my conditional GC, so I'm MUCH less worried about travelling.
Mattias
Folinskyinla
Hi:
Tell that to the client I had a long trial on today in immigration
court. His adjustment is not yet complete, but he traveled on advance
parole while the adjustment was pending. He is now in detention with
bond possible because he travelled on AP.
I'm not kidding when I say that a person with AP is NOT "admitted"
upon return. And that can be a quite poweful thing when it bites you
on the ass.
bantik2005
> Hi:
>
> Tell that to the client I had a long trial on today in immigration
> court. His adjustment is not yet complete, but he traveled on advance
> parole while the adjustment was pending. He is now in detention with
> bond possible because he travelled on AP.
>
> I'm not kidding when I say that a person with AP is NOT "admitted"
> upon return. And that can be a quite poweful thing when it bites you
> on the ass.
Then why they let you have AP???
Folinskyinla
> Then why they let you have AP???
Hi:
There is a demand for it. People want to be able to travel -- even if
it means placing themselves in a worse legal position and paying for the
privilege.
Parts of the old "entry doctrine" survive -- and in 1996, Congress
legislatively "overruled" a lot of the judicial amelioratoin of the
harshness of that doctrine.
ian-mstm
> Then why they let you have AP???
A/P isn't the issue here... it's the concept of "admission". Many folks
use A/P believing they are being "admitted" to the US but, apparently,
this is a false concept... and there is a world of difference between
the concept of "admission" and "parole".
Ian
ukmancoll
> Hi:
>
> There is a demand for it. People want to be able to travel -- even if
> it means placing themselves in a worse legal position and paying for
> the privilege.
>
> Parts of the old "entry doctrine" survive -- and in 1996, Congress
> legislatively "overruled" a lot of the judicial amelioratoin of the
> harshness of that doctrine.
Hi,
Sorry for being dumb guys, but I don't understand.
I have applied for AP as part of my AOS. Are you saying that I might not
be allowed re-entry into the US even if I have AP?
Or are we just talking about language here.
Sorry, I don't get it.
Elenfair
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for being dumb guys, but I don't understand.
>
> I have applied for AP as part of my AOS. Are you saying that I might
> not be allowed re-entry into the US even if I have AP?
>
> Or are we just talking about language here.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
Apparently. One can get AP and still be turned back at the border once
they try to re-enter.
I, too, am totally confused by this concept.
--
Now married and living in MN... waiting for AOS.
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
DonnaElvira
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for being dumb guys, but I don't understand.
>
> I have applied for AP as part of my AOS. Are you saying that I might
> not be allowed re-entry into the US even if I have AP?
>
> Or are we just talking about language here.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
You are not the only one who doesn't get it. I'm about to start working
as a self-employed consultant, but need to travel back to Blighty
regularly to see my elderly mother.
Question: If the POE officer doesn't ask whether I work and simply
admits me as an H4, do I have to volunteer that I now work?
All these immigration issues confuse the hell out of me - commonsense
seems to have left the USCIS building a VERY long time ago!
jeffreyhy
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for being dumb guys, but I don't understand.
>
> I have applied for AP as part of my AOS. Are you saying that I might
> not be allowed re-entry into the US even if I have AP?
>
> Or are we just talking about language here.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
ukman,
We are talking about language, but 'just' does not apply as the language
is significant. In immigration law, 'admit' and 'entry' have specific
meanings that they do not have in common usage - look the words up in
the INA, not in the dictionary.
Yes, with AP you will be allowed to be physically present in the USA.
But as to your legal rights you will not be in the USA because you were
not admitted in, you were parolled in. Much as a convict who has been
parolled into society, it's much easier so send a parollee back where
they came from than it is to send someone who has been admitted.
Regards, JEff
--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to
befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there.
(Dave Barry)
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Folinskyinla
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for being dumb guys, but I don't understand.
>
> I have applied for AP as part of my AOS. Are you saying that I might
> not be allowed re-entry into the US even if I have AP?
>
> Or are we just talking about language here.
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
Hi:
There had been a lot of litgation over the term "entry" over the years,
the BIG case being the 1963 Supreme's Case of "Rosenberg v Fleuti."
Because of the harsh consequences of the "re-entry doctrine" there had
been extreme judicial reluctance to strictly interpret the meaning of
"entry" and that culminated in Fleuti -- and then following Fleuti,
there had been a lot of litigation of the meaning of a departure which
was "brief, innocent, casual and not meaningfully interruptive".
Expressing dissatisfaction with this body of case law, the 1996
legislation [effective April 1, 1997] abolished the term "entry" from
Immigration lexicon and replaced it with "admitted" or "admission."
If you are talking pre-1997: then yes, use of a parole was not an
"entry." OP's question used current terminology and now if you present
"advance parole", you will NOT be admitted. Period, end of story.
DonnaElvira
> OOOOOOOH. Now I get the concept. So it's all semantics, at this
> point, but as we know, semantics mean a hell of a lot to the USCIS.
>
> Let me see if I get this right.
>
> For the layman: You are in the process of adjusting status after
> having been admitted into the country. Huzzah. You are therefore
> "admitted" and in the country, and all is good.
>
> When you use AP, you leave the country. You are no longer "admitted"
> - when you return, you are "parolled" back in, but no longer have the
> status of being "admitted", per se. Being "parolled" back in is not
> the same as being "admitted" back in, and changes your legal recourse
> I presume, should something go wrong with your AOS... the difference
> being that if you had never left, you would still be considered as
> having been "admitted" into the country, not "parolled" into the
> country.
>
> So - for most of us, with uncomplicated, run of the mill AOS pending
> adjustment, this shouldn't be a problem. If, however, something were
> to cause problems with the AOS, it would be better to have stayed put,
> in "admitted" mode than be "parolled into the country".
>
> Right?
You are probably right. To me, it all seems so unfair. Why should
someone like myself be put at a disadvantage, simply because I have to
leave the US for short periods every now and again?
:(
ukmancoll
> OOOOOOOH. Now I get the concept. So it's all semantics, at this
> point, but as we know, semantics mean a hell of a lot to the USCIS.
>
> Let me see if I get this right.
>
> For the layman: You are in the process of adjusting status after
> having been admitted into the country. Huzzah. You are therefore
> "admitted" and in the country, and all is good.
>
> When you use AP, you leave the country. You are no longer "admitted"
> - when you return, you are "parolled" back in, but no longer have the
> status of being "admitted", per se. Being "parolled" back in is not
> the same as being "admitted" back in, and changes your legal recourse
> I presume, should something go wrong with your AOS... the difference
> being that if you had never left, you would still be considered as
> having been "admitted" into the country, not "parolled" into the
> country.
>
> So - for most of us, with uncomplicated, run of the mill AOS pending
> adjustment, this shouldn't be a problem. If, however, something were
> to cause problems with the AOS, it would be better to have stayed put,
> in "admitted" mode than be "parolled into the country".
>
> Right?
That is an excellent summarisation. Thanks. Just hope that someone
confirms the accuracy of your statement.
MH
That's why I said "quite good". It's NOT a 100% thing.
However, there MUST be more to this than "Oh, he travelled on AP, let's fry
his ass!".
Mattias
Folinskyinla
> You are probably right. To me, it all seems so unfair. Why should
> someone like myself be put at a disadvantage, simply because I have to
> leave the US for short periods every now and again?
>
> :(
Hi:
This does NOT apply to U.S. Citizens or nationals, it applies only to
aliens. The law has long distinquished between those two groups and the
Supreme Court has allowed the distinction to exist.
DonnaElvira
> This is analogous to an inmate who is parolled back into society - it
> is a reintroduction with severe consequences if you screw up. When you
> are parolled (or reintroduced) in "advance" you have an obligation not
> to screw up but *and this is the important bit* there is no obligation
> to let you back in. Still, it seems to work most of the time! :)
>
> Ian
So going to see my nearly 90-year-old mother every now and again is a
'crime' or at least equivalent to 'screwing up'?
Oh, the absurdity of it!
[Not getting at you, Ian - just thoroughly pi$$ed of with USCIS... ;)]
DonnaElvira
> Hi:
>
> This does NOT apply to U.S. Citizens or nationals, it applies only to
> aliens. The law has long distinquished between those two groups and
> the Supreme Court has allowed the distinction to exist.
Fair enough, but I was referring to the distinction between aliens who
have applied for AOS (A) who do not leave the US, versus (B) those who
leave the US for short periods.
Why in god's name should Group B be at a disadvantage compared to Group
A?
No doubt there is a 'logical' legal explanation that makes sense in a
legal sense. But it sure as hell does not make any common sense. Plus it
creates a lot of unnecessary anxiety and potential misery.
Who first said that the law is a "hoofed mammals of the
genus equus"? (No disrespect intended, Mr. F., but our family's
experience of the immigration system is a major factor in my
disaffection with your country; the Patriot's Act and that obscene war
being the others - but let's not go there...)
Matthew Udall
> Hi:
>
> There is a demand for it. People want to be able to travel -- even if
> it means placing themselves in a worse legal position and paying for
> the privilege.
>
> Parts of the old "entry doctrine" survive -- and in 1996, Congress
> legislatively "overruled" a lot of the judicial amelioratoin of the
> harshness of that doctrine.
Exactly! I recall having a discussion with someone (could have been the
director of the CSC, or perhaps the District Director for SF or perhaps
LA... its been so long now that I can't remember for sure). It was at a
time when they liberalized the reasons one must have when applying for
AP, and the comment I received was something to the effect of, "well,
the need to travel must be pretty important if that person is willing
to put themselves in a worse legal position". While I can't remember
for sure who told that to me, the message conveyed came through loud
and clear.
Seanus
> Exactly! I recall having a discussion with someone (could have been
> the director of the CSC, or perhaps the District Director for SF or
> perhaps LA... its been so long now that I can't remember for sure). It
> was at a time when they liberalized the reasons one must have when
> applying for AP, and the comment I received was something to the
> effect of, "well, the need to travel must be pretty important if that
> person is willing to put themselves in a worse legal position". While
> I can't remember for sure who told that to me, the message conveyed
> came through loud and clear.
Very interesting thread. A bit confusing at first with all the legal
terminology.
Whatever the case may be, when you receive your AP you would like to
think that when it comes time and you choose to use it, that it is going
to work for you and you will be PAROLED back into the country, and
ultimately that your AOS process will run smoothly until granted PR
status, so as to not have jeopardized yourself when you came back and
are now only 'paroled' and not 'admitted' which in the worst case
scenario would be a stuff-up if your AOS is denied.
Damn!
DonnaElvira
> Me too!
Me three!!! ;)
Daniel Conroy
position" that use of the AP document puts you in?
I applied for one as part of my I-485 - I hope I wont have to use it before
the green card is issued, but if I do - what am I letting myself in for?
Daniel.
"Seanus" <member39597@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:35$327115$2812833$11274...@britishexpats.com...
Seanus
> Does the bitten ass have the right to a motion to reopen while
> remaining on the territory, if not in the tusks, of the ass biter?
L.M.'bitten'.A.O!
Seanus
> Hi:
>
> By definition, you still have to be "in" the US to file the motion.
> If your departure is enforced, you are then probably SOL. [There may
> be rare circumstances where this might not be true -- but it would be
> heavy litigation in such a case].
Thanks for the clarification Mr F.
SOL = Sh*t out of luck, right? ;)
anti-climacus
> Thanks for the clarification Mr F.
> SOL = Sh*t out of luck, right? ;)
If Stuart Folinsky's answer is clear to you, please clarify it for me.
By my lights, the question is addressed but left unanswered. Sure, the
motion to reopen can be filed solely within the country which the
enforced departure will prevent. The query remains: Within the framework
of the US immigration law, does the "paroled" rather than "admitted"
petitioner in the case of AOS denial have a right to remain in the
country via filing for a motion to reopen or is he/she immediately
ordered, and possibly enforced, to leave?
Seanus
> If Stuart Folinsky's answer is clear to you, please clarify it for me.
> By my lights, the question is addressed but left unanswered. Sure,
> the motion to reopen can be filed solely within the country which the
> enforced departure will prevent. The query remains: Within the
> framework of the US immigration law, does the "paroled" rather than
> "admitted" petitioner in the case of AOS denial have a right to remain
> in the country via filing for a motion to reopen or is he/she
> immediately ordered, and possibly enforced, to leave?
After reading this thread over and over and forming my own opinion...
MY UNDERSTANDING of this is that if you are paroled back into the
country, and your AOS case is subsequently denied, then no, you are
"SOL" and cannot file to re-open being a parolee. But hell, this thread
has been so confusing from the start now I'm even starting to question
myself! WTG
Folinskyinla
> If Stuart Folinsky's answer is clear to you, please clarify it for me.
> By my lights, the question is addressed but left unanswered. Sure,
> the motion to reopen can be filed solely within the country which the
> enforced departure will prevent. The query remains: Within the
> framework of the US immigration law, does the "paroled" rather than
> "admitted" petitioner in the case of AOS denial have a right to remain
> in the country via filing for a motion to reopen or is he/she
> immediately ordered, and possibly enforced, to leave?
Hi:
"Right"?? Who has "rights"?? As a parolee, you do have some rights,
but they are quite little -- the Supremes said so in the 1903 Yamata v
Fisher, aka "The Japanese Immigrant Case." [It is actually listed under
both names -- go figure].
You are entitled to "renew" your application before an immigration
judge, IF you should happen to be placed in proceedings. If your intial
entry before the AP was under visa waiver [note: although Canadians are
visa exempt, this is not a visa waiver], then you do NOT get a hearing.
If you are still in the US and are NOT in removal hearings, then you can
file an MTR. If you are in removal hearing, it depends upon where you
are -- In Boston, Puerto Rico, or Philadelphia [e.g. 1st & 3rd
Circuits], you CAN file while in proceedings. If you should be in the
8th Circuit [St. Louis & St. Paul], then you are out of luck.
BTW, the "rights" [better term is "ability"] to pursue that adjustment
while in proceedings is a current "hot" issue. BTW, I'm counsel on
the lead case on the issue in the 9th Circuit. I happen to be working
on that case TODAY. Further BTW, my client has done nothing wrong,
been a Navy wife for over 20 years and was brought into the US by the
US Air Force.
And you want a clear, easy answer? I told you its a complicated issue.