-
Example 4: An alien is admitted as a nonimmigrant until January 10, 2011. On March 15, 2009, DHS places the alien in removal proceedings, claiming that the alien had violated a condition of admission.
Because the alien was in "violation of status" (eg "violated a condition of admission", like H-1B does not work for his sponsor employer), it causes him out of staus, and brings him "in removal proceedings". The above alien is not "legal to stay in US" as you said.
-I think "violated a condition of admission" means "entered US without inspection,
- If you paid attention to the 1st statement of the example, you would not have arrived at the point. I have read your every post in this thread, and it gives me an impression that you might not be very clear on the concepts of "lawful presence", "unlawful presence", " authorized status" and "authorized stay". Also you might not have a good understanding on "violation of nonimmigrant status". Because of that, it looks to me that the distinction of " unlawful presence" and "violation of nonimmigrant status" might not be that clear to you. The former only occurs at the expiration of I-94 with aspect to bar, while the latter may happen within/beyond I-94 validity thus may or may not be related to bar (eg unlawful presence) but it is a very important factor for EOS/COS.
-Yes, maybe I misunderstood this example, but if this example is true, why 245(k) allow people with violation of status to adjust status to green card holder, instead of removal? The 245(k)is the immigation law and it seems it conflicts with this example. Also, we have already seen a lot of H1 holders who lost job, but were not deported, and they still reinstated their H1 by getting the H1 visa. Also USCIS have already knew they lost job when they filed a new H1 petition without paycheck stubs, but their H1 petition still be approved though it had no I-94 and they were still not be deported. As we know if a person is under removal, it is nearly impossible to adjust status or difficult to get the visa to enter US.
Why I am so confused as you think is because I only can find the law which states that authorized stay = I-94 duration, and I have not found the law which states that violation of status results in unlawful presence even if the I-94 does not expire. If you can find such law, please give me the link.
Here is the unlawful presence definition:
From: Section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html#0-0-0-2629
ii) Construction of unlawful presence.-For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
........
