回複：主要問題是說AOS超過180天485被拒就3年不得入境的問題。

Why do you drag the 1996 law 3-year or 10-year bar into this? It has nothing to do with this memo. To trigger the bars above, the first subclause is "unlawful PRESENCE", which has nothing to do with what we discuss here, don't confuse it.

The issue here is ineligibility to invoke 245k. You need to have (let's limit to only subclause A here) no more than 180 days of "unlawful STATUS" since last admission (thus excluding AP entry) or other parole (not AP, but other paroles, there are several type of immigration paroles) So AOS only with no valid non-immigrant status is not a legal "STATUS" but only a legal "PRESENCE", so you will not be able to file EB I-485 again unless you re-enter with a non-immigrant visa to reset the clock.

I said this is not a new interpretation because this language of "STATUS" in 245k (A) and it's difference with legal stay/presence has been discussed between USCIS and AILA a couple of years ago already.

所有跟帖： 

• 也許你的解釋是對的，問題是USCIS以及國務院是不是按你說的做。 -yeeha- ♂ (59 bytes) () 07/31/2008 postreply 10:26:43