Timeline for Why does US immigration law require foreigners to avoid leaving the country at certain stages of their application?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2021 at 19:55 | comment | added | Dennis | This is better, but I think you are missing some distinctions your first reference makes. K, V, L and H1-B are allowed dual intent by the INA (i.e. the law); immigrant intent is inherent in the 101(a)(15) definitions of K and V status while L and H1-B are explicit exceptions to 214(b). O-1, along with E and P, dual intent instead comes only from their treatment in the regulations. They aren't exempt from 214(b), and have the travel restrictions. I'm not sure why the "full list" includes O-1 but not E or P. Aren't K-1 and K-2 single entry? | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 4:32 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @phoog rewritten my answer entirely | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 4:32 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @Dennis thanks, rewritten my answer from scratch | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 4:32 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2038 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2021 at 15:45 | comment | added | Dennis | The exceptions are the statuses that allow dual intent. You can't be admitted into another non-immigrant status of you have immigrant intent (INA 214(b)), so if you haven't arranged to be paroled in instead you have no way to complete an adjustment of status if you leave while it's pending since you can't come back while it's pending. There is a logic to this, though I guess allowing dual intent in H and L status could be argued to be arbitrary. | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 15:02 | comment | added | phoog | There are other statuses that authorize employment, including TN. But someone adjusting from TN status needs advance parole to be able to leave without abandoning the application. The general rule is "if you leave without AP, you abandon your application," and the specific status exceptions are exceptions. Inferring a general rule for those exceptions just leads to confusion. Attributing "logic" to "the government" is similarly likely to lead to incorrect conclusions. | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 4:16 | comment | added | Mark Johnson | In Germany it is doubful that a border guard would make such a determination themselves. They would only react to a decision made by the issuing authority of the residence permit. | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 2:45 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @phoog btw, still interested in your answer on France/Germany having the same rules. | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 2:41 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @phoog let me know if the new version is better | |
| Jun 17, 2021 at 2:41 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2021 at 2:35 | comment | added | phoog | The first paragraph omits several details and a few nonimmigrant classes. Many of the relevant classes have nothing to do with employment. Accordingly, the summary in the numbered list is incorrect, and the characterization of the who the I-485 is for is incorrect. | |
| Jun 16, 2021 at 21:58 | vote | accept | JonathanReez | ||
| Jun 16, 2021 at 21:58 | history | answered | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |