Source: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-17138/0-0-0-17444.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:02:42+00:00

Document:
40.6.2(c) Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act: Misrepresentation and False Claim to U.S. Citizenship has been superseded in its entirety.
Any alien who is subject to one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6) of the Act is ineligible to receive a visa or to be admitted to the United States.
The grounds of inadmissibility may apply when determining eligibility for benefits such as adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident status, adjustment to temporary resident status, change of nonimmigrant status, extension of nonimmigrant stay, or when applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa abroad with the U.S. Department of State.
Inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6) of the Act may also impact the exercise of discretion for non-status conferring benefits, such as parole under section 212(d)(5) of the Act.
(b) I napplicability of section 212(a)(6) of the Act to Registry Applicants under Section 249 of the Act (Except Section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act).
Inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6) of the Act (other than Section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act) does not make an alien ineligible for Registry under Section 249 of the Act. No separate waiver is required for the alien to apply for and obtain Registry because the statute itself makes inadmissibility under ection 212(a)(6) of the Act irrelevant to the alien’s eligibility.
Note, however, that an alien who is inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act (relating to alien smugglers) is ineligible for Registry.
(c) Overview of Available Waivers .
(1) Nonimmigrants in General .
Section 212(d)(3) of the Act pr ovides broad discretion to admit aliens as nonimmigrants who are inadmissible under most provisions of section 212(a) of the Act, including under section 212(a)(6) of the Act. As a practical matter, relief under section 212(d)(3) of the Act generally would not be of any benefit to an alien, who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. See AFM chapter 40.6.2(a) .
Depending on the particular nonimmigrant category, individuals inadmissible under section 212(a) of the Act, including section 212(a)(6) of the Act, may obtain a waiver of inadmissibility under additional provisions of section 212 of the Act. For example, S nonimmigrant applicants may seek a waiver under section 212(d)(1) or section 212(d)(3) of the Act. If such an individual applies for adjustment of status after having been granted a waiver under section 212(d)(1) or (3) of the Act, as outlined in section 245(j) of the Act a nd 8 CFR 245.11 , the alien does not need to apply for a waiver again. Check the particular nonimmigrant category in 8 CFR 214 to determine additional waiver provisions.
See chapter 40.6.2 of the AFM chapter that discusses the individual grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6) of the Act, and waivers that may be available to immigrants who are inadmissible under that section.
(3) Asylees and Refugees Seeking Adjustment of Status .
Section 212(a)(6) grounds of inadmissibility can be waived for Asylees and Refugees seeking adjustment of status pursuant to section 209(c) of the Act. Th ey may apply for a waiver by filing Form I-602, Applica tion by Refugee For Waiver of Grounds of Excludability.
Under current USCIS policy, however, an adjudicator has discretion to grant the waiver without requiring the filing of Form I-602 , as specified at AFM chapter 41.6(b)(1) .
Normally, waiver applications for refugees are handled overseas before a person is approved for refugee classification. See 8 CFR 207.3 . However, if a ground of inadmissibility arose after the alien’s approval for refugee classification, or if the ground was not known to the officer who approved the waiver, a waiver may be sought and adjudicated as part of the refugee adjustment process. See AFM chapter 23.6 (Asylee and Refugee Adjustment).
(4) Continued Availability of Section 212(c) of the Act for Certain Aliens .
Former section 212(c) of the Act provided broad discretion to waive most grounds of inadmissibility for aliens who had already been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and who had been domiciled in the United States for at least seven (7) years, but who had become subject to removal.
Congress repealed this provision, and the repeal took effect on April 1, 1997. In I.N.S. v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. 289 (2001), however, the Supreme Court held that this repeal did not preclude certain aliens who, before April 1, 1997, had become subject to removal based on certain criminal convictions, from applying for relief und er section 212(c) of the Act.
Relief under section 212(c) of the Act is not available to any alien who incurred inadmissibility under any provision of section 212(a)(6) of the Act, i f the conduct that makes the alien inadmissible occurred on or after April 1, 1997.
An adjudicator may encounter a case in which an alien applies for relief under former section 212(c) ( Form I-191 , Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile) to obtain a waiver for conduct occurring before April 1, 1997, that renders the alien inadmissible under some provision of section 212(a)(6) of the Act.
Unless the alien is also inadmissible on the basis of a criminal conviction that was entered before April 1, 1997, it is not clear whether the alien can claim the benefit of former section 212(c) of the Act. The adjudicator should consult with the appropriate regional or service center counsel concerning the availability of relief under former section 212(c) of the Act in these cases.
(5) Legalization Applicants under Section 245A , Legalization Applicants under Section 1104 of the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act, PL 106-553, and the LIFE Act Amendments, PL 106-554 (December 21, 2000) (Including CSS/LULAC, Zambrano Class Settlements) and subsequent Class Settlements relati ng to Section 245A .
Section 212(a)(6) grounds of inadmissibility may be waived by filing Form I-690 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The waiver may be granted in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), if granting the waiver will serve humanitarian purposes, or assure family unity, or if the waiver is in the public interest. See 8 CFR 245a.2(k)(2) , 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(2) , and 8 CFR 245a.18(c) .
(6) Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) Applicants .
Section 212(a)(6) grounds of inadmissibility may be waived pursuant to section 210(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and 8 CFR 210.3(e) , by filing Form I-690 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility Under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 CFR 210.3(e)(2) . The waiver may be granted in the discretion of the Secretary, if granting the waiver will serve humanitarian purposes, assure family unity, or if granting the waiver is in the public interest. See id.
(7) Applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Pursuant to Section 244 of the Act .
TPS applicants may apply for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6) of the Act. Th e waiver may be granted in the exercise of discretion, if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that granting the waiver will serve humanitarian purposes, or assure family unity, or if granting the waiver would be in the public interest. The application is filed on Form I-601 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. See 8 CFR 244.3(b) .
While section 244(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act ind icates that the Secretary or Attorney General (AG) may waive certain secti ons of 212(a) of the Act, section 244(a)(5) of the Act indicates that an alien cannot be denied TPS on account of his or her immigration status. Therefore, USCIS deems section 212(a)(6)(A) of th e Act to be inapplicable to TPS applicants; if an individual is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Act, he or she is not required to file a waiver application.
(a) INA Section 212(a)(6)(A): Alien Present Without Admission or Parole or Who Arrives at Undesignated Time or Place.
(1) General . INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) contains two closely related inadmissibility grounds. The first ground relates to the alien who is "present in the United States without being admitted or paroled." This inadmissibility ground generally covers those who entered the United States without inspection (and are still in the United States).
The second inadmissibility ground in section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) relates to the alien "who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the [Secretary of Homeland Security]." Where the first inadmissibility ground leaves off, this one picks up. Using the present tense ("arrives"), it covers the alien who is in the process of entering U.S. territory without inspection.
The two inadmissibility grounds contained within section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) are thus complementary. Together, they capture aliens who have already achieved entry without inspection and those who are in the process of attempting such entry.
Parole. An alien who is paroled under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) will no longer be inadmissible under the first ground in section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (present without being admitted or paroled), because the person has been paroled. And since that alien arrived in the United States only in the past, the second inadmissibility ground in section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) is already inapplicable (even without the parole), because the alien is not one who "arrives" (present tense) at an undesignated time or place. It is not a question of parole curing or erasing the second inadmissibility ground. Rather, the alien who arrived in the past is already outside the ambit of that second ground; past arrivals are the subject of the first ground. Thus, an alien who entered the United States without inspection, but subsequently receives parole, is not inadmissible under either of the two inadmissibility grounds contained in section 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
For an alien who entered without inspection, a grant of parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) affects at least two of the eligibility requirements for adjustment of status. First, adjustment of status requires that the person be "admissible." INA § 245(a)(2) . As discussed above, parole eliminates one ground of inadmissibility, section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Second, adjustment of status requires that the alien have been "inspected and admitted or paroled." INA § 245(a). The grant of parole overcomes that obstacle as well. The alien must still, however, satisfy all the other requirements for adjustment of status. One of those requirements is that, except for immediate relatives of United States citizens and certain other exempt categories listed in INA section 245(c)(2) , the person has to have "maintain[ed] continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States." Parole does not erase any periods of prior unlawful status or any other applicable grounds of inadmissibility. An alien who entered without inspection will therefore remain ineligible for adjustment, even after a grant of parole, unless he or she is an immediate relative or falls within one of the other designated exemptions. Moreover, even an alien who satisfies all the statutory prerequisites for adjustment of status additionally requires the favorable exercise of discretion.
Alien A arrives in the United States at the port of entry at Sweet Grass, Montana. He is denied admission and detained. He escapes from detention, however, and makes his way into the interior of the United States. He is not inadmissible under the second part of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, since he arrived through an open port of entry. However, he is inadmissible under the first part of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act because he is present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled.
Alien B arrives in the United States by crossing the border undetected 25 miles east of the port of entry at Sweet Grass, Montana. Alien B is inadmissible under both parts of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, since Alien B arrived other than at a port of entry and is present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled.
Alien C arrives in the United States by crossing the border undetected 25 miles east of the port of entry at Sweet Grass, Montana. Some time after the alien’s arrival, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer takes Alien C into custody.
Because of the specific facts of this case, DHS determines as a matter of discretion that urgent humanitarian reasons justify Alien C’s parole into the United States under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act. Once paroled, Alien C is no longer inadmissible under the first part of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act because the alien has been paroled under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act. However, Alien C remains inadmissible under the second part of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act since he or she had arrived other than at a port of entry.
Alien D arrives in the United States by crossing the border undetected 25 miles east of the port of entry at Sweet Grass, Montana. Some time after his or her arrival, a CBP officer takes custody of Alien C and places him/her in removal proceedings.
DHS determines that Alien D may be released from custody on posting a bond pursuant to section 236 of the Act (conditional parole). Alien D seeks a bond hearing before the immigration judge, who reduces the amount of the required bond. Alien D remains inadmissible under both prongs of Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act.
Release under conditional parole pursuant to section 236 of the Act is not parole. See (2)(ii) below for an explanation why conditional parole under section 236 of the Act is not equivalent to a parole under section 212(d)(5) of the Act . Thus, even after Alien D’s release, it remains the case that Alien D arrived at a place other than an open port of entry and that Alien D has not been admitted or paroled.
Section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act defines “admission” and “admitted” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” The provision also makes clear that “parole” is not admission.
IIRIRA provided, in section 235(a) of the Act , that an alien who is present without admission is deemed an applicant for admission, and thus is subject to removal as an inadmissible, not a deportable, alien. IIRIRA also added section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act , which provides the relevant inadmissibility ground.
Parole is the discretionary decision, under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act , to permit an inadmissible alien to leave the inspection facility free of official custody, so that, although the alien is not admitted, the alien is permitted to be in the United States. By statutory definition, parole is not admission. See section 101(a)(13)(B) of the Act . An alien, who has been paroled under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act “[is] still in theory of law at the boundary line and [has] gained no foothold in the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber , 357 U.S. 185, 188-189 (1958), quoting Kaplan v. Tod , 267 U.S. 228 (1925).
Parole may be granted for “urgent humanitarian reasons” (humanitarian parole) or for “significant public benefit.” Deferred inspection, 8 CFR 235.2 , and advance parole, 8 CFR 212.5(f) , are types of parole, as are individual port of entry paroles and paroles authorized while the person is overseas. For purposes of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act, the reason for the grant of parole is irrelevant. For more information on parole pursuant to section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act , see AFM chapter 54 .
Only parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act qualifies as parole for purposes of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. In an April 1999 Memorandum, and an August 1998 legal opinion (Legal Opinion No. 98-10, August 21, 1998), legacy INS suggested that a release pursuant to section 236 of the Act (conditional parole) could also be considered parole for purposes of adjustment of status under t he Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA).
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has rejected this interpretation in at least one unpublished decision. See Matter of Ortega-Cervantes, 2005 WL 649116 (BIA, January 6, 2005). The Ninth Circuit confirmed the BIA’s decision and held that release under section 236 of the Act is not parole for purposes of adjustment of status. See Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir. 2007).
DHS, moreover, no longer adheres to the 1998 INS opinion’s indication that release under section 236 of the Act is the same as parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act .
DHS/Office of General Counsel (OGC) reconsidered that aspect of the 1999 memorandum, and the related 1998 legal opinion. On September 28, 2007, DHS/OGC issued a memorandum stating that release under section 236 of the Act is not deemed to be a form of parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act. See September 28, 2007, Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, Clarification of the Relation Between Release Under Section 236 and Parole Under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act .
Adjudicators, therefore, may not find that release under section 236 of the Act qualifies as parole under section 212(d)(5) of the Act.
(i) After April 1, 1997 .
The effective date for section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Act was April 1, 1997. Section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Act does not apply to applications for admission or adjustment of status adjudicated by an immigration judge in deportation or exclusion proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997.
(ii) Only Applies to Individuals Present in the United States .
Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act only applies to individuals who are present in the United States in violation of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. Inadmissibility does not continue after the alien has departed the United States. Therefore, section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act does not apply to individuals who apply for a visa; however, these individuals may be inadmissible under sections 212(a)(9)(B) or (C)(i)(I) of the Act.
If an alien is granted TPS, he or she is in lawful status for adjustment of status purposes pursuant to section 244(f) of the Act. However, despite section 244(f) of the Act, the requirements of section 245(a) of the Act still apply at the time of adjustment of status. See Virtue, General Counsel Opinion, No. 91-27, March 4, 1991. Section 244(f)(4) of the Act does not make lawful the alien’s unlawful entry or presence in the United States prior to granting TPS. See id .
For example, an alien who is granted TPS after having entered without being admitted or paroled, will be inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act at the time of adjustment of status despite the wording of section 244(f) of the Act.
(4) Exemptions and Waivers .
· Asylum ( Sections 208(a)(1) and (2) and 208(b)(2) of the Act ; 8 CFR 208.13(c) ).
There are no waivers available to applicants inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) other than the waivers (or inapplicabilities) described in AFM Chapter 40.6.1(b) or (c). As stated in AFM Chapter 40.6.2(a)(1), however, an alien paroled under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) is not inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
(5) Citing References and Additional Materials .
Any alien who, without reasonable cause, fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to determine the alien’s inadmissibility or deportability, and who seeks admission to the United States within five (5) years of such alien’s subsequent departure or removal is inadmissible.
(i) Effective on or after April 1, 1997 .
Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act does not apply to an alien placed in deportation or exclusion proceedings before April 1, 1997, even if the alien’s hearing was held after April 1, 1997. The provision applies only to individuals who are placed in removal proceedings beginning April 1, 1997.
An alien who failed to attend an exclusion proceeding under former section 236 of the Act, or a deportation proceeding under former section 242 of the Act is, therefore, not inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
(ii) Only Applicable to Aliens Who Departed or Who Were Removed .
Since the ground of inadmissibility applies to aliens, who “seek admission to the United States within five (5) years of such alien’s subsequent departure or removal …,” only those aliens, who actually departed or were removed from the United States after failing to attend or to remain in attendance at their removal proceedings are inadmissible. Aliens, who remained in the United States after failing to attend their hearing, are not inadmissible under this provision.
(iii) Only Applies to Aliens Seeking Admission During the Five (5)-Year Bar .
This ground of inadmissibility does not apply to aliens who seek admission to the United States more than five (5) years after their departure or removal from the United States.
In order to be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act, the alien must actually have been in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act . A section 240 removal proceeding is initiated by the filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862 , with the immigration court. See 8 CFR 1003.14(a) . Even if the alien was served with the Notice to Appear, the alien will not be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act unless the NTA was actually filed with the immigration court.
Also, even if the NTA has been filed, an alien cannot be found to have “failed to appear” unless the alien had notice of the proceeding and of the obligation to appear. If the record shows that the alien had actual notice of the date and time of the removal hearing, and that the alien failed to appear, these facts would generally be sufficient to show the alien’s inadmissibility. See Matter of G- Y- R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001) .
The alien may also be inadmissible if the alien had adequate constructive notice. An alien is on constructive notice if he or she is deemed to have been on notice because the notice of hearing was sent to the alien at the address that the alien provided as required by section 239(a)(1)(F) of the Act . See id.
In short, the alien will be found inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act only if the alien failed to appear after there was notice that would be sufficient to support the entry of an in absentia removal order. This notice requirement does not mean that the alien can be found inadmissible only if there is an in absentia removal order. Even if the immigration judge did not enter such an order, the alien is inadmissible if the alien failed to appear after receiving proper notice of the proceedings.
(v) Effect of an In Absentia Order .
An alien who failed to attend or remain in attendance at a removal may have received an in absentia order of removal under section 240(b)(5) of the Act . As noted, an alien who fails to appear after proper notice, may be inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act even if the immigration judge did not enter an in absentia order.
If the immigration judge did enter an in absentia order, that order will generally be sufficient to establish that the alien had sufficient notice of the proceeding and that the alien can be found to have failed to attend the proceeding. Thus, an alien’s departure after entry of an in absentia removal order will generally establish that the alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
If the alien departs while an in absentia order is in effect, the alien may also be inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act.
(3) Exceptions and Waivers .
(i) “ Reasonable Cause” Exception .
In addition to the general exceptions to inadmissibility noted in 40.6.1(b) or 40.6.1(c) of this AFM chapter, an alien who establishes that there was a “reasonable cause” for failing to attend his or her removal proceeding is not inadmissible under Section 212(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
“Reasonable cause” is defined neither in the statute nor in regulations; however, case law has provided some guidance on what constitutes “reasonable cause.” In general, “reasonable cause” is something that is not within the reasonable control of the alien. See case law summary in section 40.6.2(b)(4) of this AFM chapter.
It may also be helpful to compare the alien’s circumstances to the higher standard of “exceptional circumstances” required for the rescission of a removal order, as defined in section 240(e) of the Act .
However, the standard of “exceptional circumstances” is a standard more stringent than the “reasonable cause” standard. In order to justify rescission of a removal order, an alien must establish that “exceptional circumstances” prevented his or her attendance at the removal proceeding.
Section 240(e) of the Act defines exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien, such as: (1) battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent of the alien; (2) serious illness of the alien; or (3) serious illness or death of the alien’s spouse, child, or parent.
Whether the alien can meet the burden of proving “reasonable cause” for failure to attend the removal proceeding is determined by the officer adjudicating an application for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, for admission to the United States, for adjustment of status, change of status, or extension of stay, or any other benefit under the immigration laws.
The officer determines the issue based on evidence that the alien presents in support of the pending application; no separate application (such as a Form I-601 ) is needed. In all cases, the burden of proving that the person had reasonable cause not to attend the removal proceedings rests with the alien.
There are no waivers available for this ground of inadmissibility, other than the exceptions or waivers described in 40.6.1(b) or 40.6.1(c) of this AFM chapter.
(4) Citing References and Additional Materials .
Wijeratne v. I.N.S. , 961 F.2d 1344, 1346-47 (7 th Cir. 1992) – The fact that the alien had moved after proceedings were commenced did not provide for reasonable cause to justify the alien’s failure to appear at the removal hearing.
Wellington v. I.N.S. , 108 F.3d 631, 635 (5 th Cir. 1997) – The error of an applicant’s counsel in misplacing the hearing notice does not constitute “reasonable cause” for the applicant’s failure to appear.
Matter of Cruz-Garcia , 22 I&N Dec. 1155, 1159 (BIA 1999) – An alien who asserted for the first time on appeal that her failure to appear at a deportation hearing was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, but who failed to comply with the requirements for such a claim, has not shown “reasonable cause” that warrants reopening of the proceedings.
Matter of N-B- , 22 I&N Dec. 590, 593 (BIA 1999) – Reasonable cause” is a standard less stringent than the one of “exceptional circumstances;” the alien had provided sufficient and credible evidence that supported the applicant’s contention that she was suffering from a serious illness, which necessitated surgeries later on.
Matter of S-A- , 21 I&N Dec. 1050, 1051 (BIA 1997) – An applicant’s general assertion that he was prevented from reaching his hearing on time because of heavy traffic does not constitute reasonable cause that would warrant reopening of his in absentia exclusion proceedings.
Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 260, 262 (BIA 1985) – Filing a request for a continuance is not a reasonable cause for the alien’s failure to appear.
Matter of Ruiz , 20 I&N Dec. 91, 93 (BIA 1989) – Illness, properly documented by a physician’s letter, was a valid excuse for the failure to appear.
(c) Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act: Misrepresentation and False Claim to U.S. Citizenship.
Chapter 40.6.2(c), Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act: Misrepresentation and False Claim to U.S. Citizenship, has been superseded in its entirety.
(d) Section 212(a)(6)(D) of the Act: Stowaways.
An alien who is a stowaway is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(D) of the Act.
Section 101(a)(49) of the Act defines stowaways as “any alien who obtains transportation without the consent of the owner, charterer, master, or person in command of any vessel or aircraft through concealment aboard such vessel or aircraft.” A passenger who boards with a valid ticket is not to be considered a stowaway.
(i) A Stowaway Is Not An Applicant for Admission .
Pursuant to section 235(a)(2) of the Act , a stowaway is not an applicant for admission and may not be admitted to the United States.
A stowaway shall be ordered removed upon inspection by an immigration officer. If during this inspection, the alien indicates that he or she intends to apply for asylum, the inspector should refer the alien for a credible fear interview.
A stowaway may only apply for asylum if the stowaway is found to have a credible fear during this interview. In no case may a stowaway be considered an applicant for admission or be eligible for a hearing under section 240 of the Act (Removal proceedings).
(ii) Ineligible to Adjust Status under Section 245 or Section 245(i) of the Act or to Change Status under Section 248 of the Act .
As a practical matter, this ground of inadmissibility usually applies to aliens who are encountered at the time of an attempted entry into the United States. However, this ground of inadmissibility also applies to an alien who traveled to the United States as a stowaway, entered the United States, and is attempting to adjust status to lawful permanent residence or to change status while in the United States.
Section 245(i) of the Act provides authority to grant adjustment to certain aliens who are not eligible for adjustment of status because they are unable to meet the requirements of section 245(a) of the Act or are subject to the bars of section 245(c) of the Act .
Namely, certain eligible aliens, despite having entered without inspection (under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act ) or despite ineligibility according to the grounds listed in section 245(c) of the Act, may apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act.
Nothing in section 245(c) of the Act , however, applies specifically to stowaways, and stowaways, as noted, are inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(D) of the Act . Thus, a stowaway is not eligible for adjustment under section 245(i) of the Act.
(iii) Ineligible for Removal Proceedings under section 240 of the Act .
Even if the alien has been found to have a credible fear after the credible fear interview and is allowed to file an application for asylum, the stowaway is ineligible for proceedings under section 240 of the Act.
(4) Waivers And Exceptions .
· seek adjustment of status under section 245(h) of the Act .
(ii) Exception for Returning Legal Permanent Residents .
The only exception to the summary removal provision of stowaways is the provision providing relief to lawful permanent residents returning from a brief, temporary absence. See section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act.
Other than the ones noted in 40.6.1(c) of this AFM chapter, there is no waiver available.
(e) Section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Act: Smugglers.
Any alien, who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of the law, is inadmissible.
For section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Act to apply, the alien must “knowingly” encourage, induce, or assist an illegal alien to enter the United States.
The term “knowingly” means that the alien must be aware of facts sufficient that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would conclude that his or her encouragement, inducement, or assistance could result in the illegal entry of the alien into the United States.
Furthermore, the smuggler must encourage, induce, or assist with the intent that the alien achieve the illegal entry. The mistaken belief that the alien was entitled to enter legally can be a defense to inadmissibility for suspected smugglers.
In Tapucu v. Gonzales , 399 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2005), the alien drove his friends from Canada to the United States. He knew that one (1) of them was not a U.S. citizen or national, and that this friend had been living in the United States illegally. However, at the time of the trip, the alien believed that the friend’s pending adjustment of status application made it lawful for the friend to return to the United States. The court held that he did not knowingly assist the friend to reenter illegally.
In Altamirano v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005), the applicant was a guest rider in a car. During the ride, she knew that someone was hiding in the trunk. The court found that, even though the individual had knowledge of the presence of the illegal alien, she was not inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act because she herself did not perform any affirmative act to aid or abet the alien smuggling.
(ii) Encourage, Induce, Assist, Abet, or Aid .
Filing an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa petition for an alien, knowing that the alien does not have the necessary qualifying relationship to the individual (for a family-based petition) or (for an employment-based petition) that the petition does not rest on a bona fide job offer, investment plan, or other set of circumstances that qualifies the alien for the immigrant or nonimmigrant classification that is sought.
(iii) With Regard to a Visa Application .
As noted in the discussion of section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, an alien who gave a materially false statement in support of another alien’s application for an immigration benefit would not incur inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act.
A materially false statement in support of another alien’s application could, however, make the alien inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act for having knowingly “assisted, abetted, or aided” the other alien’s unlawful entry.
The person whom the alleged smuggler “encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided” must have been an alien at the time of the smuggling. That is, the person must not have been a citizen or a non-citizen U.S. national.
(v) Enter or Try to Enter . . . in Violation of Law .
An alien may be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act as a result of “encourag[ing], induc[ing], assist[ing], abet[ing] or aid[ing]” another alien’s entry into the United States without inspection at a port-of-entry or by “encourag[ing], induc[ing], assist[ing], abet[ing] or aid[ing]” the other alien in obtaining admission or parole at a port-of-entry by fraud.
(i) Inadmissible Even for Smuggling Close Family Members .
Under the pre-1990 version of 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Act, an alien was not inadmissible, if he or she smuggled close family members based on a motive of close affection and not for financial gain. This version was eliminated with the passing of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90) . Under current section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act , an alien will be inadmissible even if an alien assists or causes close family members to enter the United States illegally and regardless of his or her motivation. However, to alleviate some of the harshness of the provision, a waiver is available under section 212(d)(11) of the Act . See 40.6.2(e)(4) of this AFM chapter below.
(ii) Motives of the Smuggler Are Irrelevant .
Under section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Act , it is irrelevant what motives caused the smuggler to induce, encourage, assist, abet, or aid the alien.
(iii) “Gain” Is No Longer Required .
Under former section 212(a)(31) of the Act, alien smuggling made an alien inadmissible only if the smuggling was done “for gain.” See section 212(a)(31) of the Act (1988) or Title 8, United States Code (U.S.C.), 1182(a)(31) (1988). “Gain” is no longer an element under current section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act.
(i) Statutory Exception In Section 212(a)(6)(E)(ii) of the Act for Family Reunification (Family Unity).
· the smuggling occurred before May 5, 1988.
In addition to the waivers described above in section 40.6.1(c) of this AFM chapter , section 212(a)(6)(E)(iii) of the Act allows individuals applying for a visa to apply also for a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(d)(11) of the Act .
· He or she encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided the unlawful entry only of an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter, and the alien has not encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided the unlawful entry of any other individual.
The application is filed on Form I-601 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. This waiver may be granted in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
(f) Section 212(a)(6)(F)(i) of the Act: Subject of Civil Penalty.
An alien who is the subject of a final order imposing a civil penalty for violation of section 274C of the Act , is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(F)(i) of the Act .
What constitutes a “final order” under section 274C of the Act depends on how a violation of section 274C of the Act was adjudicated.
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues a notice of intent to fine under section 274C of the Act, the person has sixty (60) days to request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the person does not request a hearing, the DHS decision to impose a civil penalty under section 274C is the final order. See 8 CFR 270.2(g) and (h) .
If the person does make a timely request for a hearing before an administrative law judge, the administrative law judge’s order imposing a fine is the final order unless the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer of the Executive Office for Immigration Review modifies or vacates the order, or unless the case is referred to or accepted for review by the Attorney General. See section 274C(d)(4) of the Act , 8 CFR 270.2(f) an d 28 CFR 68.
(ii) section 274C of the Act .
(C) use, or attempt to use any document lawfully issued to a person other than the possessor (including a deceased individual); for the purpose of or in order to satisfy any requirements of the Act. See section 274C(a)(1) through (3) of the Act.
It is also unlawful to knowingly accept or receive any document lawfully issued to a person other than the possessor (including a deceased individual) for the purpose of complying with section 274A(b) of the Act or obtaining a benefit under the Act. See section 274C(a)(4) of the Act .
Section 274C(a)(5) of the Act prohibits the preparation, filing, or assistance to another in preparing or filing any application for benefits under the Act, or any document required under the Act, or any document submitted in connection with such application or document, with knowledge or in reckless disregard of the fact that such application or document was falsely made or, in whole or in part, does not related to the person on whose behalf it was or is being submitted.
Finally, section 274C(a)(6) of the Act makes it unlawful for a person or an entity to knowingly present before boarding a common carrier for purposes of coming to the United States a document, which relates to the alien’s eligibility to enter the United States, and to fail to present such document to an immigration officer upon arrival at the United States port of entry.
Section 212(a)(6)(F) of the Act became effective on June 1, 1991; an alien subject to a final order imposing civil penalties under section 274C of the Act on or after that date is ineligible for adjustment and was subject to exclusion (pre-1996), or removal proceedings (post-1996).
(ii) Effect of Administrative Appeal or Judicial Review .
If DHS issues a final order because the person did not request a hearing, the DHS order is final and is not subject to any administrative or judicial review. See section 274C(d)(2)(B) of the Act .
If the person does request a hearing, the administrative law judge’s decision is the final decision unless the case is before the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer or the Attorney General for review. See section 274C(d)(4) of the Act.
If the person files a timely petition for review of a final order with the appropriate court of appeals, the order is not deemed final while the petition for review remains pending. See section 274C(d)(5) of the Act .
(iii) Other Inadmissibility Grounds May Be Applicable .
Check whether other grounds of inadmissibility under section 212 of the Act exist. It is possible that an alien who is subject to a civil penalty under section 274C of the Act , may be subject to other grounds of inadmissibility, such as section 212(a)(6)(C) [Misrepresentation] or 212(a)(6)(E) [Smugglers] of the Act. If the alien was also convicted in a criminal proceeding, the conviction could make the alien inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the Act .
(iv) Effect of a Waiver under Section 212(i) of the Act .
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that if an alien is in removal proceedings, a waiver under section 212(i) of the Act may not be used to waive section 212(a)(6)(F) for document fraud in violation of section 274C of the Act . See Matter of Lazarte-Valverde , 21 I&N Dec. 214 (BIA 1996).
In Matter of Lazarte-Valverde, the BIA rejected the position stated in General Counsel Opinion 93-33, issued by the General Counsel of the former INS in 1993. USCIS adjudicators are bound by the BIA’s decision, and must not follow the General Counsel Opinion 93-33. See 8 CFR 1003.1(g) (Board precedents bind USCIS officers).
(4) Exceptions and Waivers .
After a final order is entered pursuant to section 274C of the Act , a nonimmigrant seeking entry may be eligible to apply for advance permission to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant despite the inadmissibility, pursuant to section 212(d)(3) of the Act . The application is filed on Form I-192 , Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.
(ii) Waiver for Immigrants and Adjustment of Status Applicants under Section 212(d)(12) of the Act .
(C) Committed the offense that resulted in the civil money penalty solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and not another individual).
The relationship to the supported individual had to exist at the time of the fraud, not only at the time of the waiver application. The waiver application must be filed on Form I-601 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. Also, there is no judicial review of a decision denying this waiver.
The legislative history of a prior version of the bill that became IIRIRA suggests that this waiver is also available to employment-based immigrants. See H. Conf. Rep. 104-828 at 227 (1996).
This report, however, directly contradicts the actual terms of the statute on this point. The report cannot be relied on to grant a waiver to someone who is not eligible for it under the terms of the statute. Thus, an alien who is not already a lawful permanent resident (LPR) may seek the waiver under section 212(d)(12) of the Act only if the alien is seeking to immigrate as an immediate relative or as a family-based immigrant.
(iii) No Other Waivers or Exceptions Available .
Other than stated in this section or section 40.6.1(b) or 40.6.1(c) of this AFM chapter , there is no other waiver or exception available to an alien who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(F) of the Act.
Also, as noted, the conduct that made the person subject to the civil penalty under section 212(a)(6)(F) of the Act may also make the alien inadmissible under other provisions of the Act. Just as a waiver under section 212(i) of the Act does not waive section 212(a)(6)(F) of the Act, see Matter of Lazarte-Valverde, supra , a waiver under section 212(d)(12) of the Act would not relieve the alien of inadmissibility under some other ground. The alien would have to apply for each separate waiver for each relevant ground of inadmissibility.
(5) References and Other Materials .
(g) Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act: Student Visa Abusers.
An alien who obtains the status of nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act as a student, and who violates a term or condition of such status under section 214(l) of the Act [now section 214(m) of the Act ] is inadmissible until the alien has been outside the United States for a continuous period of five (5) years after the date of the violation.
Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act refers to the violation of conditions of admission as imposed under section 214(l) of the Act . Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act, and the related section 214(l) of the Act, were enacted by section 625 of IIRIRA, PL 104-208 . Section 671(a)(3)(A) of the same law, however, had redesignated section 214(k) of the Act, as added by PL 103-416, to be section 214(l) of the Act.
There was already a section 214(k) of the Act when PL 103-416 was enacted. Its enactment resulted in two (2) sections 214(k) of the Act. Once PL 104-208 was enacted, there were now two (2) sections 214(l) of the Act. The version of section 214(l) of the Act referred to in section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act was subsequently redesignated as section 214(m) of the Act by section 107(e)(2) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, PL 106-386 (October 28, 2000). section 214(m) of the Act , therefore, is the provision that relates to Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act .
Section 214(m)(1) of the Act specifies that an alien may not be accorded F-1 student nonimmigrant status to study at a public elementary school or in a publicly funded adult education program. Study at a public secondary school is allowed as long as the aggregate period of study does not exceed twelve (12) months and the alien has reimbursed the local educational agency for the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of his or her education at the school.
· undertakes a course of study at a public elementary school, in a publicly funded adult education program, in a publicly funded adult education language training program, or at a public secondary school (unless the requirements of section 214(m)(1)(B) of the Act are met).
Therefore, in order to be deemed a student visa abuser under Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act for being in violation of section 214(m)(2) of the Act, both conditions (1 and 2) must be fulfilled. The alien cannot be held to be a student visa abuser for being in violation of section 214(m)(2) of the Act, if only one condition is met. see below, section (g)(3) of this update .
However, because of the wording of section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act [which refers to 214(m) of the Act in its entirety), the individual may be deemed to be a student visa abuser for being in violation of section 214(m)(1) of the Act .
Abandon : To desert, surrender, forsake, or cede. To relinquish or give up with intent of never again resuming one’s right or interest. To give up or to cease to use. To give up absolutely; to forsake entirely; to renounce utterly; to relinquish all connection with or concern in; to desert. It includes the intention, and also the external act by which it is carried into effect. See Lee v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2008) ; referring to Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed., 1990).
Public Elementary School : Kindergarten through eighth (8th) grades.
Public Secondary School : Ninth (9th) through twelfth (12th) grades (also known as “high school”).
Publicly-Funded Adult Education Programs : Publicly funded adult education programs means education, training, English-as-Second-Language (ELS) or other intensive English programs operated by, through, or for a local public school district, system, agency, or authority, regardless of whether such program charges fees or tuition.
Terminate : To put to an end; to bring to an end; to end or to conclude. See Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).
Only Applicable to Individuals Seeking F-1 Nonimmigrant Student Status after November 30, 1996 .
Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act only applies to aliens seeking F-1 status after November 30, 1996, or aliens, whose status was extended on or after that date. It does not apply to aliens attending public schools or programs while in other nonimmigrant status (e.g. F-2, E, H-4, J, or B-2), or to individuals out-of-status or with no status at all.
· abandons or terminates enrollment in an approved school and attends a public elementary school, a publicly funded adult education program, or a publicly funded adult education language training program, or a public secondary school, in violation of the requirements of section 214(m)(1) of the Act.
See AFM 40.6.2(g)(2) (iv) concerning the impact of the closure of a school.
These prohibitions do not apply to post-secondary schools such as public community or junior colleges, which receive public funds but charge full non-resident tuition to foreign students.
(iii) Burden of Proof .
The alien bears the responsibility of documenting that a school is not considered to be a public school. The school is responsible for determining what amount constitutes the “unsubsidized per capita cost of education,” and the school’s estimate of its per student expenditure of public revenues (federal, state, and local). The later figure is not necessarily the school’s nonresident tuition rate.
(iv) Effect of Closure of a School .
In Lee v. Mukasey , 527 F.3d 1103, 1107 (10th Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that an alien who quit attending his or her approved school, and enrolled in a different school in violation of section 214(m) of the Act was not inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act . The basis for the Court’s conclusion is that the reason the alien had left the approved school was that it had closed.
USCIS has decided to follow the Lee decision nationwide. An alien will not be found inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act and under section 214(m) of the Act, solely because he or she is no longer at the school for reasons that can be attributed to th e school only (such as a school’s permanent closing).
However, a lthough ceasing to attend the approved school because it has closed will not make the alien inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act, this fact does not mean that the alien is still in a lawful nonimmigrant status. This nonimmigrant status will have ended, and the alien will be subject to removal under section 237(a)(1) of the Act , unless the alien transfers to another approved school.
The student and the new school will still have to comply with the requirements imposed by sections 101(a)(15)(F) and 214(m)(1) of the Act, as well as 8 CFR 214.2(f) , in order for the alien to maintain valid nonimmigrant status. See Matter of Yazdani , 17 I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1981)(An alien who, without first securing the Service’s permission, transfers to a school other than that which she was authorized, is in breach of the condition of the student’s status). The alien student may be subject to section 245(c)(2) of the Act or any other provisions imposing adverse consequences on aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.
In relat ion to the grant of reinstatement or a student’s transfer request under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8) and 8 CFR 214.2(f)(16) , the adjudicator should consider every relevant circumstance. If the adjudicator encounters difficulties, the adjudicator should contact his or her supervisor or local counsel.
An alien whose enrollment at an approved school ends because the school has closed will also be in an unlawful status for purposes of sections 245(c)(2) , (7) and (8) of the Act. Thus, even if the alien is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act, the alien may be precluded from adjustment of status.
The decision to remain in the United States cannot be excused as a violation “through no fault of one’s own” because, although the alien may not have had control over the closure of the school, the alien would also have the option of complying with the law, either by transferring to a school that the alien is permitted to attend under section 214(m) of the Act, or by leaving the United States.
Leaving the United States and returning does not cure one’s adjustment ineligibility under section 245(c)(2) of the Act. See 8 CFR 245.1(d)(3) .
(v) Individuals to Whom Section 212(a)(6)(G) of the Act Does Not Apply .
· Aliens who violate the terms and conditions of their F-1 nonimmigrant student status in other ways, such as non-attendance at their approved school, working without authorization, or not maintaining a full-course of study.
(4) Exceptions and Available Waivers .
Other than the general exceptions and waivers to inadmissibility noted in sections 40.6.1(b) and 40.6.1(c) of this chapter , there are no exceptions or waivers to inadmissibility for aliens who are student visa abusers.

References: v. 
 § 212
 § 245
 § 245
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.