Iluvus said:
GotPR, arent there exceptions to the rule? like if you marry a USC?
.
As JoeF pointed out, spouse of US citizen is exceptionally allowed to run AOS even though s/he was overstaying or out of status. But your case might be alittle different. You may not be able to do AOS through DV program even though you are married to USC. You probably need to go with IR category.
Here is from 8 CFR Sec 245.
(b) Restricted aliens. The following categories of aliens are ineligible to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident alien under section 245 of the Act, unless the alien establishes eligibility under the provisions of section 245(i) of the Act and Sec. 245.10, is not included in the categories of aliens prohibited from applying for adjustment of status listed in Sec. 245.1(c), is eligible to receive an immigrant visa, and has an immigrant visa immediately available at the time of filing the application for adjustment of status: (Revised 10/1/94; 59 FR 51091)
(10) Any alien who was ever employed in the United States without the authorization of the Service or
who has otherwise at any time violated the terms of his or her admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant, except an alien who is an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) of the Act or a special immigrant as defined in section 101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) of the Act. For purposes of this paragraph, an alien who meets the requirements of § 274a.12(c)(9) of this chapter shall not be deemed to have engaged in unauthorized employment during the pendency of his or her adjustment application. (Added 7/23/97; 62 FR 39417)
Highlighted in red refers to 201(b). 201(b) actually says
(b) Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations. - Aliens described in this subsection, who are not subject to the worldwide levels or numerical limitations of subsection (a), are as follows:
"Alien Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations" is those applying for GC through IR category. If you are applying for AOS through DV, you are still under numerical limitation and in strict sense, you do not come under 201(b).
I did not read all the eligilibity in INA and CFR, and I may be wrong, though.