Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Immigration/70827578-Chapter-2-inadmissibility-deportability-waivers-and-relief-from-removal.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:57:14+00:00

Document:
Download "CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal"
2 24 ESSENTIALS OF IMMIGRATION LAW The law provides a long list of persons who are either prohibited from entering or are to be removed should their presence be discovered in the United States. The grounds of inadmissibility are laid out at Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 3 212(a), and the deportability grounds at INA 237. Each of the grounds was incorporated into the immigration laws as Congress thought of situations calling for the exclusion or removal of a particular group of people. At the same time that the law prohibits the admission and requires the removal of broad categories of persons, there are provisions allowing the waiver of these grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. 4 The inadmissibility and deportability grounds can be described as falling into seven general categories: (1) health-related; (2) economic; (3) criminal; (4) security and foreign policy; (5) immigration violations; (6) quasi-criminal; and (7) miscellaneous. The deportability grounds nearly mirror the inadmissibility provisions and will be described under a separate section within each of the above six categories. 5 The descriptions later in this chapter give the statute more order and make it easier to understand. That section will explore the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability, as well as the criteria for obtaining waivers from those provisions. APPLICATION OF THE INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY PROVISIONS There is often a great deal of confusion between inadmissibility and deportability because of changes made to the immigration law by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). 6 Current law provides for the removal of a wide range of individuals. In this context, removal means the ejection of a person from the United States. Included in the INA is a long list of inadmissibility and deportability provisions. 7 The deportability provisions are applied 3 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No , 66 Stat. 163 (codified as amended at 8 USC 1101 et seq.) (INA). 4 In addition to the ameliorative forms of relief that may be available, immigration authorities have considerable prosecutorial and other discretionary authority to allow a person to be admitted notwithstanding his or her inadmissibility or to remain even though he or she is deportable. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999). 5 The grounds also are summarized in Charts 1 and 2 at the end of this chapter. 6 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996 (H.R. 3610), Pub. L. No , 110 Stat (IIRAIRA). 7 See 8 USC 1182 and 1227, INA 212 and 237.
3 CHAPTER 2 INADMISSIBILITY, DEPORTABILITY, 25 WAIVERS, AND RELIEF FROM REMOVAL to a person who has been formally admitted to the United States and the inadmissibility grounds are applied to those who have not been legally admitted to the country (or who seek a new status that is the equivalent to a request for admission). The procedure for ejecting or removing any person, irrespective of whether they have been legally admitted is termed a removal hearing. Prior to 1996, the immigration statute provided that questions involving the application of the inadmissibility and deportability provisions were, as a general rule, governed by whether a person had gained entry into the United States. 8 The proceedings for those seeking admission were called exclusion hearings, and for those who had managed to enter, deportation hearings. In exclusion hearings, the immigration judge (IJ) determined the applicability of the inadmissibility provisions. In deportation hearings, the IJ would determine the application of the deportability provisions. With the enactment of IIRAIRA, a different framework was established, at least insofar as the hearing was concerned. Exclusion and deportation hearings are no longer separate and distinct, but are unified as one procedure a removal hearing for all persons, irrespective of whether the person seeks admission or the government tries to eject him or her following admission. Whether the inadmissibility or deportability provisions are applicable in a given situation will depend on whether an individual has been admitted to the United States or is seeking admission. A person who has been admitted faces the deportability grounds, and a person seeking admission must overcome the inadmissibility grounds. 9 In addition to creating a unified procedure for removal, IIRAIRA limited a person s ability to avail him- or herself of constitutional protections by placing persons physically present in the United States in the posture of an applicant for admission. 10 The question of whether a person has made an entry or has been admitted is significant in terms 8 In situations where a person is allowed to physically enter under parole, he or she would be confronted with having to overcome grounds of inadmissibility. Parole is discussed later in this chapter. 9 The definition of admission is contained in the statute at 8 USC 1101(a)(13), INA 101(a)(13), and will be explored further in this section. 10 As is explored in greater detail, infra, the statute also authorizes the application of expedited removal to certain persons who are unable to prove that they have been in the United States for a certain period of time. See 67 Fed. Reg (2002); 69 Fed. Reg (2004). Under 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(A), INA 101(a)(13)(A), a person not yet admitted, by definition, remains an applicant for admission.
5 CHAPTER 2 INADMISSIBILITY, DEPORTABILITY, 27 WAIVERS, AND RELIEF FROM REMOVAL mission. 14 Prior to IIRAIRA, the government had the burden of proof in cases where a person was arrested within the United States. 15 When are the inadmissibility provisions triggered? The issue of inadmissibility arises initially when a person appears before a U.S. consul overseas seeking permission to come to the United States usually a request for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa or a parole document (see discussion, infra). 16 It arises again when the person arrives at the port of entry (airport, sea port, or land port) seeking admission. At this point, the person is subject to inspection, whereby a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer considers whether the person is admissible. There are a number of different outcomes to the inspection process the person can be detained; returned quickly under expedited removal ; granted deferred inspection ; paroled; or admitted. Where the person arrives under the Visa Waiver Program, he or she can be summarily denied admission, paroled, or admitted. 17 As long as a person has not been formally admitted into the country, he or she remains subject to the inadmissibility grounds. Moreover, the question of inadmissibility remains relevant, in certain circumstances, even if the person initially is admitted to the United States. For example, if the person later seeks lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, or leaves the United States and attempts to return, or is placed in removal proceedings because the government believes that he or she was inadmissible at the time of the last admission, the person must be prepared to establish admissibility. 18 What immigration posture triggers deportability? If the person, after initial entry, remains in the United States, there is a presumption that his or her status is lawful, and the government will have the initial burden when challenging the person s status. That is, once admitted, a person can only be removed through the removal process upon a showing of 14 8 USC 1229a(c)(2)(A) and (B); INA 240(c)(2)(A) and (B). 15 See, e.g., Zhang v. Slattery, 55 F.3d 732, 751 (2d Cir. 1995). 16 See 8 USC 1182(d)(5) and 1229b, INA 212(d)(5) and 240A(b)(4)(A). 17 A person who seeks admission under the Visa Waiver Program, who is found inadmissible, and who expresses a desire to apply for asylum will not be subject to expedited removal. See Matter of Kanagasundram, 22 I&N Dec. 963 (BIA 1999); 8 CFR 235.3(b)(10). 18 As will be seen later, inadmissibility at entry is a burden that the government must meet since it actually is a deportability provision. The charge means that the government believes that at the time of the person s last admission, the person, in fact, should not have been admitted.
7 CHAPTER 2 INADMISSIBILITY, DEPORTABILITY, 29 WAIVERS, AND RELIEF FROM REMOVAL Whether one of the underlying principles of the Fleuti doctrine, that LPRs are entitled to greater protections upon their return to the United States, has survived IIRAIRA still may be in question. 25 While treating certain LPRs as persons seeking re-admission, courts also have acknowledged constitutional concerns, not normally recognized for other returning noncitizens. 26 Parole Parole is an important concept that allows the physical entry of a person into the United States without considering him or her to actually have been admitted to the country. Thus, parole is a legal fiction. The use of parole also acts to preclude the person from asserting a legal right to admission even though he or she may be physically within the border of the United States. From its earliest usage in the 19th century, this device has been used as a convenient way to allow otherwise inadmissible persons to be free from detention while their formal admission was under consideration, or to permit them physically to gain admission. Parole has been used over the years to deal with humanitarian situations, both on a large scale and in individual cases. Since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, 27 the use of parole has been significantly curtailed. That is, one of the reasons for passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 was to regularize the admission process for refugees, which included using refugee visas instead of parole as the preferred way of dealing with a humanitarian crisis. Pre-Hearing Detention Beginning in 1988, Congress began to focus a great deal of attention on dealing with noncitizens in the United States who had been convicted of crimes. The Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 called for mandatory that would have otherwise rendered him inadmissible. 25 In Matter of Collado-Muñoz, 21 I&N Dec (BIA 1997), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the Fleuti doctrine was no longer applicable. See also Tineo v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 382, 397 (3d Cir. 2003) (BIA s interpretation of 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C), INA 101(a)(13)(C) was entitled to Chevron deference). 26 In Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982), the Court, while allowing the application of inadmissibility provisions to a returning LPR, noted that once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly. See also Ferraras v. Ashcroft, 160 F. Supp. 2d 617, 627 (S.D. N.Y. 2001). 27 Pub. L. No , 94 Stat. 107.
No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. ERNESTO GALARZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, LEHIGH COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Case: 12-3991 Document: 003111232631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2013 No. 12-3991 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ERNESTO GALARZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEHIGH COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.