Pjiang, my words are not only intended for you.

They are also intended for people who need help. So it does not matter whether you like them or not. My purpose is to correct your misleading statements and I hope that persons who seek opinions from you should be very alerted.

Jerry Zhang is wrong because he shares the same opion with you (H-1>using AP>no H-1status). No one denies that using AP will put the user in parole status. The exception for H-1/L-1 is that they can keep their H/L status even if they use AP to enter US if their H/L petition is still valid. There is no conflict between parole status and H/L status.

Do not think I simply take the opinion from others. Let me give you my reasoning here: nonimmigrants have no right to work in US unless they obtain some kind of work authorization. H/L visa is a kind of work authorization that allows the holder to legally work in the US.

There are different kinds of AP (maybe over 10). AP for persons with H/L visa and I-485 pending is just one of them. Being paroled into US under other APs gives the paroles no right to work in US. Similarly, for H/L holders, but for the validity of their H/L visa, they would not be allowed to work just because they are paroled to US (assuming they do not have I-485 derived EAD).

Further, you would not argue with me that persons mentioned above would have trouble to seek "extend" their H/L status, right? Then let me ask you this question: if the person enters by AP and he is no longer in H/L status, how can he seek extention? If the H/L status breaks becasue of AP, it is hard to believe that they can seek extend, rather than apply a new H/L status.

Yes, I did a lot of homework before I speak here. I hope you can also do some homework before making any statements. Law is law, not supposed to be abused by some layperosns like you. Without any research and sensible analysis and simpely insisting that you are on the side of USCIS does not give you more credit. I believe Jerry Zhang did not do enough research when writting those words. he would change his stands if he has read the same book I read (if he wants to defend his reputation as a leading immigration lawyer)

By the way, it is very laughable to attack the authority of Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman and Stephen Yale-Loehr. And if you want to raise some real-life example to boost your opinion, please give me the exact USCIS opinion acompanying the decision. Examples from this board without the words from USCIS have no weight to prove USCIS position.

And You keep saying that I do not understand you, then why not re-state your position here. Do not point to your misleading blogs!

所有跟帖： 

• Leave PJiang alone -fishfinder- ♂ (463 bytes) () 07/02/2008 postreply 11:49:22

• 回複：Leave PJiang alone -seaview11- ♂ (11 bytes) () 07/02/2008 postreply 12:08:03

• 回複：Pjiang, my words are not only intended for you. -seaview11- ♂ (316 bytes) () 07/02/2008 postreply 12:06:57

• To people who are angry at me: -mylawyer- ♂ (1299 bytes) () 07/02/2008 postreply 13:27:38