Posted by: Galactus September 15, 2021
Login in to Rate this Post:
1 
? 
Liked by
?
Liked by
Nepal123
You are correct in saying that reentering the US using parole doesn't violate the continuous physical presence requirement for maintaining your TPS. But the bill in question isn't concerned with you maintaining your TPS. The language explicitly says for a TPS recipient to be eligible, he/she
"has been continuously physically present in the United States for not less than 3 years."
So the argument is that you will not break the continuous physical presence to remain TPS eligible if you use advance parole but may exclude you from applying for residency under the bill for not being physically present in the United States for 3 years. It's a slightly different thing, but I could be wrong.
You are correct in saying that reentering the US using parole doesn't violate the continuous physical presence requirement for maintaining your TPS. But the bill in question isn't concerned with you maintaining your TPS. The language explicitly says for a TPS recipient to be eligible, he/she
"has been continuously physically present in the United States for not less than 3 years."
So the argument is that you will not break the continuous physical presence to remain TPS eligible if you use advance parole but may exclude you from applying for residency under the bill for not being physically present in the United States for 3 years. It's a slightly different thing, but I could be wrong.