Changing from nonimmigrant alien to immigrant

Status
Not open for further replies.
divil,

with all due respect, continuing this conversation does no longer provide any value added to the OP's issue, in my opinion.

For all practical reasons, we are all telling you that as far as firearm ownership is concerned you are in the clear once you have US permanent residency (I-551). That was my case years ago (now a citizen) and my wife's current status. You are not unique in this, trust me.

But of course, if you do not feel like relying on the advice of an internet bulletin board (understandable), the wisest thing to do would be to consult a specialized attorney.

Now if the point of continuing this is to engage on an academic exercise on the merits or the appropriateness of how the language in the law is crafted, that is a different matter.
 
divil,

with all due respect, continuing this conversation does no longer provide any value added to the OP's issue, in my opinion.

For all practical reasons, we are all telling you that as far as firearm ownership is concerned you are in the clear once you have US permanent residency. That was my case years ago (now a citizen) and my wife's current status. You are not unique in this, trust me.

But of course, if you do not feel like relying on the advice of an internet bulletin board (understandable), the wisest thing to do would be to consult a specialized attorney.

Now if the point of continuing this is to engage on an academic exercise on the merits or the appropriateness of how the language in the law is crafted, that is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm at a loss to understand you here. I am the OP. I came here to ask why the common interpretation from the ATF (and everyone else) is what it is, given that it's contradicted by the statute. Continuing the conversation is valuable to me as long as there is still hope of someone answering my question.

My question wasn't based on a belief that I'm unique in this situation. I'm not asking anyone to act as a lawyer here or give me legal advice.
 
divil said:
Lol I'm at my wits end here! I am writing in what I think is plain English, but something is not coming across.

I don't know why you think I'm applying anything retroactively. The law has to be applied to the circumstances that existed at the time the act was committed (the act in question being, possession of a gun or ammunition).

The law says "...being an alien". This is the present tense, relative to when the act was committed.

Next it says "has been admitted". This is the past tense relative to when the act was committed..

(Technically, it's called the "present perfect tense" if anyone wants to be technical, but it obviously refers to past events.)

So, if a person was a citizen when they possessed a gun, then the "being an alien" part excludes them, and they don't need to read any further.

But it at the time they possessed a gun, the person was an alien, and had been admitted (any time in the past) under a nonimmigrant visa, then the law should apply to them. That's what the plain English of it says.
Click to expand...

Immigration lawyer… because I’m actually tired of trying to explain it.

But in a final attempt, you see how you pulled the alien part out from the citizen example above? LPR pulls the non-immigrant aspect out of the same definition. You are no longer a non-immigrant.

When I go to work, and processing travelers… non-immigrants are “admitted” to X date (not going to discuss exceptions, because this has been really has got out of hand). LPR or US citizen hands me their documents… there is no “admit to” date. They are released from the port of entry… not admitted to the US. They are coming home, not “being allowed” to enter the US.

It may seem odd, but unless you are taught the INA, it really is difficult to understand most of the US immigration laws. Where some agencies don’t understand the specific examples of immigration status (ATF really just deals with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives… not immigration/customs; they give CBP responsibility of applying a lot of the customs law related to those), that is actually pretty clear in these points, from my viewpoint. That being said, I still recommend talking to an immigration lawyer… because not only can they confirm there isn’t any deviation to your situation (very much doubt it, because LPR is cut/dry), they are being paid to explain it to you. Us getting frustrated doesn’t mean you are in the wrong, just that it is a concept that might be harder to explain over the internet.

I did pretty well on the immigration aspect of my academy, and have dealt with a few different aspects of immigration that is even more confusing (try figuring out North American Indian status with the Jay Treaty… which was signed 200+ years ago… if you want to really get confused). That being said, I still learn new aspects of the INA regularly.
 
Immigration lawyer… because I’m actually tired of trying to explain it.

But in a final attempt, you see how you pulled the alien part out from the citizen example above? LPR pulls the non-immigrant aspect out of the same definition. You are no longer a non-immigrant.

When I go to work, and processing travelers… non-immigrants are “admitted” to X date (not going to discuss exceptions, because this has been really has got out of hand). LPR or US citizen hands me their documents… there is no “admit to” date. They are released from the port of entry… not admitted to the US. They are coming home, not “being allowed” to enter the US.

It may seem odd, but unless you are taught the INA, it really is difficult to understand most of the US immigration laws. Where some agencies don’t understand the specific examples of immigration status (ATF really just deals with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives… not immigration/customs; they give CBP responsibility of applying a lot of the customs law related to those), that is actually pretty clear in these points, from my viewpoint. That being said, I still recommend talking to an immigration lawyer… because not only can they confirm there isn’t any deviation to your situation (very much doubt it, because LPR is cut/dry), they are being paid to explain it to you. Us getting frustrated doesn’t mean you are in the wrong, just that it is a concept that might be harder to explain over the internet.

I did pretty well on the immigration aspect of my academy, and have dealt with a few different aspects of immigration that is even more confusing (try figuring out North American Indian status with the Jay Treaty… which was signed 200+ years ago… if you want to really get confused). That being said, I still learn new aspects of the INA regularly.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for taking the time to try and explain it, I really do appreciate it and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be difficult on purpose.

I think this statement is the crux of the issue:

But in a final attempt, you see how you pulled the alien part out from the citizen example above? LPR pulls the non-immigrant aspect out of the same definition. You are no longer a non-immigrant.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying here, and if the statute said that nonmmigrants are prohibited, I would agree with you 100% - in fact, I would not even have started the thread. Because that's a question of status, and as you have correctly said, I am not in nonimmigrant status.

But since the statute doesn't say anything about status, but instead refers to how you were admitted in the past, I can't see a way around it.

BTW, as an aside, just in case anyone thinks that the phrase "has been admitted under a nonimmigrant visa" means exactly the same thing as "is currently a nonimmigrant", I can offer unequivocal proof that it doesn't - see this memo from the justice department:


171 Firearms Disabilities of Nonimmigrant AliensUnder the Gun Control Act

That memo explains that the ATF was wrong in assuming that the prohibition applies to all nonimmigrants; it only applies to those admitted under a visa (so tourists on the visa waiver program for example are exempt). The memo nevertheless still takes the position that current status matters, so it still doesn't answer my question here - I quote it here only to show that the ATF can be wrong about the law, and the exact words do matter, at least sometimes. Just in case anything thinks I'm being pedantic. ;)
 
divil said:
Sorry I'm at a loss to understand you here. I am the OP. I came here to ask why the common interpretation from the ATF (and everyone else) is what it is, given that it's contradicted by the statute. Continuing the conversation is valuable to me as long as there is still hope of someone answering my question.
Click to expand...
Multiple people HAVE answered your question, and you refuse to accept the answer. The answer is that your current status is that you were (past tense) admitted as a permanent resident alien. The 30 times you entered previously on a non-immigrant visa don't have anything to do with it.

Question 21.l.1 asks, "Are you an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?" It is referring to the admission that put you currently in the U.S. It does NOT ask, "Are you an alien who has ever been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?"

But, okay. You don't like that answer, so I'll change mine:

You can't ever possess a firearm in the U.S. unless you maintain a hunting license.

Happy now?
 
You keep saying that it doesn’t say anything about status… but have you read into any of those statues?

18 USC §922(g)(5)(B) and (y)(2) mentions the definition of a non-immigrant visa is the same as 8 USC §1101(a)(26)… which is actually the INA.

Funny thing… 8 USC §1101(a)(27) identifies “special immigrants.” Guess what (A) of that part is… LPRs. So, if you are considered a “special immigrant,” doesn’t that remove the “non-immigrant” designation? Which… is the short of what we all have been saying.

I’m not even touching the VWP, as there is a lot more confusion with that. That program really is a difficult topic, being users of it waive their rights to see an immigration judge… so it is the US’ discretion to deny them entry and require that person to go get a visa (most of those refusals are related to overstays; only granted 90 day stays).
 
Multiple people HAVE answered your question, and you refuse to accept the answer. The answer is that your current status is that you were (past tense) admitted as a permanent resident alien. The 30 times you entered previously on a non-immigrant visa don't have anything to do with it.

Question 21.l.1 asks, "Are you an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?" It is referring to the admission that put you currently in the U.S. It does NOT ask, "Are you an alien who has ever been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?"

But, okay. You don't like that answer, so I'll change mine:

You can't ever possess a firearm in the U.S. unless you maintain a hunting license.

Happy now?
Click to expand...

Multiple people have answered questions that I didn't ask. You seem annoyed that I won't accept it, but I don't think that's fair. Would you accept it?

I never asked anything about what my current status is, or whether I have been admitted as a permanent resident, or any of the questions for the ATF form. I already knew the answers to all those things and I thought that was clear from my original post. Nevertheless I understood that this is what people thought I was asking, and so I thanked them and tried to rephrase my question. To call this "refusing to accept the answer" is a bit strong in my opinion.

Earlier I tried to boil my question down to it's simplest form, but no one replied directly to that post.

The statute plainly says:

...

(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

...
Click to expand...

Several times now, I've asked exactly this question in light of the above quote: have I been admitted under a nonimmigrant visa? I think the answer to this should be yes or no. Yes would mean there must be some other explanation for why the prohibition doesn't apply to me. No would fly in the face of plain English (which I realize is a possibility when it comes to the law, but I would still like an explanation).

But instead of yes or no, what I got each time I asked this was a response that changed the language of my question to something like "you are not currently admitted under a nonimmigrant visa". That's a non-answer, and I just don't think it's fair to criticize me harshly for not accepting it.
 
divil .....But instead of yes or no, what I got each time I asked this was a response that changed the language of my question to something like "you are not currently admitted under a nonimmigrant visa". That's a non-answer, and I just don't think it's fair to criticize me harshly for not accepting it.
Click to expand...
Since our responses are unacceptable maybe you should ask ATF.;)
 
The original question has been correctly answered in post #2.

Note that I could also have said, "The original question is correctly answered in post #2".

In other words, this whole back and forth seems to be confusion over the semantics of the two verbs underlined above. In the context of the law, they are synonymous.

divil - you are reading far too much into "has been". You are also a person who has been a child in the past. So as a child you are not allowed to purchase or own a handgun. Do you see that that is not logical?

Case closed. Any further discussion on this matter needs to be between you and the BATFE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top