You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Conference call scheduled for 07/29/05
- Thread starter windywd
- Start date
windywd said:As I said, INA replaces the interim code of federal register.
Second, INA is pending amendment by Congress. That particular section, many parts become outdated or ineffective, including the 10,000 annual cap.
stop making fun of yourself. The INA is a law and the code of federal regulations is a regulation. One cannot replace the other.
Read the REAL ID Act for the current version of this section.
Again making fun of yourself and lead people to question your basic intelligence.
windywd said:This is insane.
It seems that I am the person who oppose backdating. Or, it is not in my interest to have it backdated. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
All right, I am leaving, have a nice weekend.
THis just shows that you are hopeless ignorant, no offense just the reality.
This is ridiculous. The person who starts this thread is frankly DUMB AND STUPID.
First of all, ever since 1980 asylee green card is backdated by one year. This is provided in the immigration law, NOT NOT an INS "discretion." The federal regulations issued in 1981 reflected this fully. It could not be otherwise because federal regulations cannot overturn a federal law, which clearly mandates the backdate process.
The regulation was amended 1998 because the INS wanted to change the process by which person applied for adjustment. Previously all asylee cases were filed with local office. From that point on, they are to be filed with a service center. The statement that "INA replaces the interim code of federal register" is absurd.
That person further claims that the section is invalid because the word attorney general appears because the USCIS is now under homeland security. This is super stupid. Since most of the INA provisions refer to the attorney general, does that mean the INS is now void? Is Congress that stupid. Of course not. Congress has already stated when the DHS was created that the DHS secretary assumed all the authority previously exercised by the AG except as those related to the EOIR. So the word attorney general means DHS secretary in immigration provisions except for those dealing with the EOIR. To make matter even more crystal clear when the READ ID was passed a few months back, Congress changed the world attorney general to DHS secretary. So the claim that the backdating is discretionary because of the word DHS is dumb.
And what the hell does "Second, INA is pending amendment by Congress. That particular section, many parts become outdated or ineffective, including the 10,000 annual cap" mean??????????????????
First of all, ever since 1980 asylee green card is backdated by one year. This is provided in the immigration law, NOT NOT an INS "discretion." The federal regulations issued in 1981 reflected this fully. It could not be otherwise because federal regulations cannot overturn a federal law, which clearly mandates the backdate process.
The regulation was amended 1998 because the INS wanted to change the process by which person applied for adjustment. Previously all asylee cases were filed with local office. From that point on, they are to be filed with a service center. The statement that "INA replaces the interim code of federal register" is absurd.
That person further claims that the section is invalid because the word attorney general appears because the USCIS is now under homeland security. This is super stupid. Since most of the INA provisions refer to the attorney general, does that mean the INS is now void? Is Congress that stupid. Of course not. Congress has already stated when the DHS was created that the DHS secretary assumed all the authority previously exercised by the AG except as those related to the EOIR. So the word attorney general means DHS secretary in immigration provisions except for those dealing with the EOIR. To make matter even more crystal clear when the READ ID was passed a few months back, Congress changed the world attorney general to DHS secretary. So the claim that the backdating is discretionary because of the word DHS is dumb.
And what the hell does "Second, INA is pending amendment by Congress. That particular section, many parts become outdated or ineffective, including the 10,000 annual cap" mean??????????????????
Last edited by a moderator:
windywd said:Sorry, there is no "backdate" section in Real ID ACT.
Have you ever read it? Or your English is not good enough. Ask your Congressman to make a law to print all the context of laws in Russian.
This againn shows how dumb you are. The REAL ID Act was the last time Congress amended section 209. So when someonw reads the pertinent portion of the REAL ID Act he or she can get the CURRENT section 209 to defeat your stupid claims.
Since you cannot do basic legal research. I have done your work for you. Below is the CURRENT section 209 of the INA (as amended by the REAL ID):
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, in the Secretary's or the Attorney General's discretion and under such regulations as the Secretary or the Attorney General may prescribe, may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum who -
(1) applies for such adjustment,
(2) has been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum,
(3) continues to be a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) or a spouse or child of such a refugee,
(4) is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, and
(5) is admissible (except as otherwise provided undersubsection (c)) as an immigrant under this Act at the time of examination for adjustment of such alien. Upon approval of an application under this subsection, Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General shall establish a record of the alien's admission for lawful permanent residence as of the date one year before the date of the approval of the application.
And I am sure the person who started would not have the slightest idea, but anybody who has some legal common sense will. The word "shall" means this is mandatory. They will use the word may if it is discretionary,
thankful said:This againn shows how dumb you are. The REAL ID Act was the last time Congress amended section 209. So when someonw reads the pertinent portion of the REAL ID Act he or she can get the CURRENT section 209 to defeat your stupid claims.
Since you cannot do basic legal research. I have done your work for you. Below is the CURRENT section 209 of the INA (as amended by the REAL ID):
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, in the Secretary's or the Attorney General's discretion and under such regulations as the Secretary or the Attorney General may prescribe, may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum who -
(1) applies for such adjustment,
(2) has been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum,
(3) continues to be a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) or a spouse or child of such a refugee,
(4) is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, and
(5) is admissible (except as otherwise provided undersubsection (c)) as an immigrant under this Act at the time of examination for adjustment of such alien. Upon approval of an application under this subsection, Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General shall establish a record of the alien's admission for lawful permanent residence as of the date one year before the date of the approval of the application.
Do Not Be Silly.
You Are Debating If 2+2=4 Or 5.
This Is Common Knowledge. Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated One Year From The Date Of Approval And Those Of Refugees Are Backdated To The Date Of Admission To The Usa.
Stop Arguing. 2+2 Is Not 5 And Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated As A Matter Of Law. It Is Not Subject To Anybody's Discretion
You Are Debating If 2+2=4 Or 5.
This Is Common Knowledge. Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated One Year From The Date Of Approval And Those Of Refugees Are Backdated To The Date Of Admission To The Usa.
Stop Arguing. 2+2 Is Not 5 And Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated As A Matter Of Law. It Is Not Subject To Anybody's Discretion
But in the Real ID Act, it clearly says it is "at the discretion of AG or SHS". They "may" do so.
frombasra said:Do Not Be Silly.
You Are Debating If 2+2=4 Or 5.
This Is Common Knowledge. Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated One Year From The Date Of Approval And Those Of Refugees Are Backdated To The Date Of Admission To The Usa.
Stop Arguing. 2+2 Is Not 5 And Asylee Green Cards Are Backdated As A Matter Of Law. It Is Not Subject To Anybody's Discretion
Throwing so many derogtory words to your fellow asylee is the full explanation of your charater.
Even in the "law" you quoted, it obvious says "in somebody's discretion, we MAY do so."
You are just dumber.
Even in the "law" you quoted, it obvious says "in somebody's discretion, we MAY do so."
You are just dumber.
thankful said:This is ridiculous. The person who starts this thread is frankly DUMB AND STUPID.
First of all, ever since 1980 asylee green card is backdated by one year. This is provided in the immigration law, NOT NOT an INS "discretion." The federal regulations issued in 1981 reflected this fully. It could not be otherwise because federal regulations cannot overturn a federal law, which clearly mandates the backdate process.
The regulation was amended 1998 because the INS wanted to change the process by which person applied for adjustment. Previously all asylee cases were filed with local office. From that point on, they are to be filed with a service center. The statement that "INA replaces the interim code of federal register" is absurd.
That person further claims that the section is invalid because the word attorney general appears because the USCIS is now under homeland security. This is super stupid. Since most of the INA provisions refer to the attorney general, does that mean the INS is now void? Is Congress that stupid. Of course not. Congress has already stated when the DHS was created that the DHS secretary assumed all the authority previously exercised by the AG except as those related to the EOIR. So the word attorney general means DHS secretary in immigration provisions except for those dealing with the EOIR. To make matter even more crystal clear when the READ ID was passed a few months back, Congress changed the world attorney general to DHS secretary. So the claim that the backdating is discretionary because of the word DHS is dumb.
And what the hell does "Second, INA is pending amendment by Congress. That particular section, many parts become outdated or ineffective, including the 10,000 annual cap" mean??????????????????
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
Uniller said:But in the Real ID Act, it clearly says it is "at the discretion of AG or SHS". They "may" do so.
Except that the law says the they "shall" backdate the card if they grant the application for adjustment of status. They can impose discretionary requirements for approving or disapproving an application in exercise of authority vested in them by the first part of section 209. But once they exercise the positive discretion to approve a case, the backdate requirement is mandatory. They "shall" do so. They cannot exercise their discretion not to backdate the card. The last sentence of the section strips the DHS secretary explicitly of that power.
Alternatively, to the extent that the backdating is discretionary, the agency needs to as a matter of law spell out clear guidlines to do so in the regulations. However, CFR 209.2 the DOJ/INS/USCIS stipulate that they must backdate the green card. So insofar as they can not backdate the card in the exercise of discretion they have decided not to use that discretion.
The backdating is mandatory as a matter of law and as a matter of regulations.
Last edited by a moderator:
michaelsoft
Registered Users (C)
Backdated requirement is mandatory
Hi All,
No more fighting. Backdated requirement is clearly written in Sec. 209. [8 U.S.C. 1159], and it is still valid. Hope everyone gets green card backdated one year before his approval date.
By the way, Hampton8844 brings up good argument and references. He deserves for good complimentary.
Michaelsoft
Hi All,
No more fighting. Backdated requirement is clearly written in Sec. 209. [8 U.S.C. 1159], and it is still valid. Hope everyone gets green card backdated one year before his approval date.
By the way, Hampton8844 brings up good argument and references. He deserves for good complimentary.
Michaelsoft
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree. My point is that regardless of whether it is mandatory or not, all of us will fight for it, including me and Windy (I am sure.) So why fight?
I just don't like someone's nasty wording. I bet he will never say this even to a 800 call operator in immigration. His behavior is just distasteful.
I just don't like someone's nasty wording. I bet he will never say this even to a 800 call operator in immigration. His behavior is just distasteful.
windywd said:...What is the underlying reason to shorten the RTD from 2 years to 1 year? (Someone is STILL pissed off by that!)...
All the other issues are important for sure and it is good that we keep putting pressure; however, the RTD duration is an important one too.
Was RTD valid for longer period of time (2 years) in the past? Anybody here ever had one of those?
Issues concerning how they gonna adjust to permanent status are to be main topics of the discussion, but if there isn’t a valid reason for them to give us more time (2 years) on our RTDs, we should definitely get it; especially if RTDs were valid for 2 years in the past.
henri97 said:All the other issues are important for sure and it is good that we keep putting pressure; however, the RTD duration is an important one too.
Was RTD valid for longer period of time (2 years) in the past? Anybody here ever had one of those?
Issues concerning how they gonna adjust to permanent status are to be main topics of the discussion, but if there isn’t a valid reason for them to give us more time (2 years) on our RTDs, we should definitely get it; especially if RTDs were valid for 2 years in the past.
When exactly was the RTD valid for two years?
Last edited by a moderator:
michaelsoft
Registered Users (C)
Asylee only gets one year RTD
Hi,
If you are a permanent resident as a direct resulf of your refugee or asylee status in the US, you will get only one year RTD (Refugee Travel Document).
Reenry permit is valid for two years, but it is for regular permanent resident or conditional permanent resident to apply. You may read the instruction on form I-131 with regarding this information.
Michaelsoft
Hi,
If you are a permanent resident as a direct resulf of your refugee or asylee status in the US, you will get only one year RTD (Refugee Travel Document).
Reenry permit is valid for two years, but it is for regular permanent resident or conditional permanent resident to apply. You may read the instruction on form I-131 with regarding this information.
Michaelsoft
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
michaelsoft said:Hi,
If you are a permanent resident as a direct resulf of your refugee or asylee status in the US, you will get only one year RTD (Refugee Travel Document).
Reenry permit is valid for two years, but it is for regular permanent resident or conditional permanent resident to apply. You may read the instruction on form I-131 with regarding this information.
Michaelsoft
actually they give reentry permit to former asylees who are now permanent residents. i just got one.
so we basically have two choices; rp or rtd.