Changing from nonimmigrant alien to immigrant

[Screwball]

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).

[divil]

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?

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)));

...

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.

[mehavey]

I think the legal phrase is... "asked & answered"

[dogtown tom]

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.

Since our responses are unacceptable maybe you should ask ATF.

[Mal H]

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.