qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
TheRealCanadian said:Note the date. When was Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) added to the INA?
Very good, so you got it now.
Revoke GC?
- Thread starter dynobuoy
- Start date
Very good, so you got it now.
usnycus said:
Check following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/n...cada6b3a58266c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
harvydonald
Registered Users (C)
My previous employer filed for bankruptcy, and then shut down. My I-140 has just been filed ( this was in the days before concurrent filing)
I was laid off, found a new job, and started the GC process all over again.
Nothing happened to the people who had already received their GCs through the company.
In my opinion if the company had the ability to pay when the paperwork was filed, then there is no fraud.
I was laid off, found a new job, and started the GC process all over again.
Nothing happened to the people who had already received their GCs through the company.
In my opinion if the company had the ability to pay when the paperwork was filed, then there is no fraud.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
qwertyisback said:Very good, so you got it now.
Exactly. The IIRA of 1996 supercedes the 5 year rule.
usnycus said:
This 'chinese woman case' was very special and direct threat to National Security.
The nature of the crime was GRAVE involved in espionage charges and even Secrateryof state involved.
....
Ms. Gao had been arrested at the Beijing airport, tried in secret on seemingly dubious espionage charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell publicly expressed dismay over her case, and members of Congress called for her release. To soothe relations with Washington, the Chinese put Ms. Gao on a plane after she served six months.
But since then, Ms. Gao and her husband have pleaded guilty to federal offenses and have been sentenced to prison terms.
Ms. Gao is being held without bail in an immigration bureau jail in Virginia as she fights the government's effort to deport her to China.
She had already served seven months in federal prison for illegally exporting militarily useful high-tech goods to China. Now, despite the urging of the Justice Department, she is being deported as a felon who endangered national security.
Her husband, Dong Xue, an American citizen, has been ordered to start a 12-month prison sentence on May 23, for evading taxes on the income from her exports.
A spokesman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dean Boyd, was unapologetic.
"She admitted to a very serious crime, the export of sensitive electronic equipment to entities affiliated with the Chinese military," Mr. Boyd said. "And she is not a citizen of the United States. People with convictions of this type are subject to immediate deportation on completion of their sentences."
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
TheRealCanadian said:Exactly. The IIRA of 1996 supercedes the 5 year rule.
Does that section say something like that?? NO. Then it don't supersedes 5 year rule.
And whatever in LAW, Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256]. is imporatant nothing else.And case http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1453p.txt, validates it,judge rules that explicitly...
" V. Conclusion
We hold that the running of the limitation period contained in § 246(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a), prohibits the INS from initiating deportation proceedings based exclusively on fraud in obtaining the adjustment of status."
Hope it clears any confusion anybody have whatsoever
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
qwertyisback said:
Wrong. The IIRA of 1996 was passed after the situation described in this case. Therefore it supercedes the law you cite. Even immigration attorneys who got their law degrees in a cereal box know this.
Why don't you pull out some more decisions, from the 1960s and 1970s, while you're at it?
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
TheRealCanadian said:Wrong. The IIRA of 1996 was passed after the situation described in this case. Therefore it supercedes the law you cite. Even immigration attorneys who got their law degrees in a cereal box know this.
Why don't you pull out some more decisions, from the 1960s and 1970s, while you're at it?
Just because it passed in 1996, don't mean it supersedes other law. It has to mention explicitly about it....Does that section say something like that?? NO. Then it don't supersedes 5 year rule.And whatever in LAW, Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256]. is imporatant nothing else.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
qwertyisback said:
No it doesn't. If it conflicts with earlier law, then the later law will override any earlier laws. This is statute law 101, qwerty. Or is this another one of your "special cases" that you seem to make up as you see fit?
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
TheRealCanadian said:No it doesn't. If it conflicts with earlier law, then the later law will override any earlier laws. This is statute law 101, qwerty. Or is this another one of your "special cases" that you seem to make up as you see fit?
This is NOT statute law 101, its guesswork by you and other lemons. It has to be specifically mentioned by lawmaker. Period. And why you forget this so called statute law 101 for AC-21??? Does AC-21 supercedes intent part of GC???
You can't just use laws at your convinience... which supports your guesswork?? Law is law, Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256] says explicitly and court has upheld that law... Period. Whats written in law is imporatant not guesswork by bunch of lemons.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
qwertyisback said:
However, since that court upheld the law, the law changed.
By the way, did Section 246 explicitly override the previous law that did not call for a 5 year grace period? Since it didn't explicitly state that it overrode the previous law, it must not be valid according to you.
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
TheRealCanadian said:
WHY?? Because you say so?? Wake up?? Its not changed . You are just making bizzare 101 lemon guesswork.
. Something is messed up in your mind, supercede it with content of Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256] law, and make it permenant. Law don't just get changed arbitarily, it has to mentioned explicitly by lawmaker. Does AC-21 supercedes intent part of GC??? (clue , search for 2 letters "NO"
) Are you still searching your 101 to get the answer??Geez , take a break and wake up qwertyisback said:
You are only guy who is keep guessing even though you are aware that you are perfectly wrong.
qwertyisback said:And why you forget this so called statute law 101 for AC-21??? Does AC-21 supercedes intent part of GC???
Yes, it supersedes only that part that conflicts with earlier law. In earlier law the intent with working original sponsorer must be present at the time of granting GC. But with AC-21 a person can change his/her intent after 180 days, even though he/she is not granted GC yet. Intent is still there, but changed (and that's why there is condition for "similar job").
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
pralay said:
I am quoting law and whats in the law thats count not lemon guesswork by you(BTW which has been proven wrong on many occasions e.g intent etc
).I post it again, supercede it in your mind.
case http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1453p.txt, validates it,judge rules that explicitly...
" V. Conclusion
We hold that the running of the limitation period contained in § 246(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a), prohibits the INS from initiating deportation proceedings based exclusively on fraud in obtaining the adjustment of status."
qwertyisback said:WHY?? Because you say so?? Wake up?? Its not changed . You are just making bizzare 101 lemon guesswork.
Hmmm, that means, as 1964 or 1960 civil right acts does not reference or explicitly mentioned any specific discriminatory laws of the past, those discriminatory laws must be valid till today. Great logic!
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
pralay said:
Completely WRONG lemon guesswork!!!! AC-21 allows to change job in similar field. Thats it. Everything else is your lemon guesswork
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
pralay said:
That's qwerty for you.
qwertyisback
Registered Users (C)
pralay said:
Again more lemon guesswork?? huhh. No more lemons please