Source: https://cliniclegal.org/issues/inadmissibility-and-waivers
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 17:36:06
Document Index: 415395901

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 204', '§ 237', '§ 237', '§ 237', '§ 237', '§ 611', '§ 237', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 611', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 212']

Inadmissibility and Waivers | CLINIC Skip to main content
Search by a particular blog tag. Proposed Guidance on Extreme Hardship
Charles Wheeler The USCIS circulated draft guidance on October 7th interpreting the term “extreme hardship” and explaining how it should be applied to waiver applications. Three of the most common waivers currently require the applicant to establish extreme hardship to a qualifying relative: the three- and ten-year bars due to unlawful presence; fraud or misrepresentation; and criminal conduct. For the first two waivers the qualifying relative must be a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent; if the waiver is for criminal conduct, the qualifying relative could be a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, parent, or child. The guidance sets forth in greater detail and specificity how adjudicators should weigh various hardship factors. The following is a summary.
On November 20, 2014 DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memo directing the USCIS to expand eligibility for the provisional waiver program to include other family-based categories and provide additional guidance on the definition of extreme hardship. The intended purpose of the guidance is to “provide broader use of this legally permitted waiver program.” In addition to clarifying the factors to be considered, the Secretary directed the agency “to consider criteria by which a presumption of extreme hardship may be determined to exist.”
Adjudicators currently require waiver applicants to demonstrate that the qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship in two scenarios: if he or she were to relocate to the applicant’s country, and if he or she were to remain in the United States separated from the applicant. This requirement is set forth in the adjudicator’s training manual (Standard Operating Procedures, or SOP) and is now boilerplate language in every written decision, even though it is not explained to the applicant in the instructions to the Form I-601 or I-601A. One of the most significant proposed changes is to reduce the burden of demonstrating extreme hardship to the qualifying relative. The guidance would allow the applicant to decide whether the qualifying relative would either relocate or remain in the United States, depending on what is “reasonably foreseeable.” The applicant would then only have to establish extreme hardship in one of those scenarios rather than both. Written decisions on unlawful presence waivers reveal that it is easier to establish that the qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship due to relocating to the applicant’s country. Decisions often cite the qualifying relative’s lack of foreign language skills, unfamiliarity with the foreign country, inability to find comparable employment, the stress in relocating to a different culture, and any health-related factors that would be exacerbated by such a move. In most cases it is more difficult to establish that the qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship due to separation from the waiver applicant. The proposed change would likely encourage applicants to show why it is reasonably foreseeable that the qualifying relative would accompany them to the foreign country in order to maintain family unity and why such a move would result in extreme hardship.
Adjudicators are reminded that the hardship factors must be considered in the aggregate and that no single hardship, taken in isolation, needs to rise to the level of extreme. This principle is already set forth in administrative appeal decisions and is codified in the SOP. But emphasizing it in the guidance may encourage applicants to set forth all of possible hardship factors in the event that, taken together, they add up to extreme hardship.
The guidance also explains that widow(er)s whose U.S. citizen spouse had filed an I-130 petition before dying qualify to file a waiver if they were residing in the United States at the time of the death and continue to reside here. The same is true under INA § 204(l) for other family members where the petitioner or principal beneficiary has died after filing an I-130 petition and where they meet the residency requirements. In those cases, the agency will presume extreme hardship and will allow eligibility for the waiver even though the qualifying relative has died.
Hardship to a Non-Qualifying Relative
Children cannot be qualifying relatives under the requirements for waivers for fraud or unlawful presence. Nevertheless, “the hardship experienced by someone who is not a qualifying relative (including the applicant) can itself be the cause of hardship to a qualifying relative.” The guidance encourages applicants to describe the emotional hardship that the qualifying relative parent would experience due to the suffering of a child who must either relocate to a foreign country or remain separated from the applicant. This “derivative hardship” is one of the factors that adjudicators must consider in weighing the totality of the circumstances.
The Hardship Factors
The guidance points out that any factor that the applicant presents should be considered, in addition to the five most common ones: family ties, social and cultural impact, economic impact, health-related issues, and country conditions. It then spells out examples of what hardships might fall within each of the five categories. For example, social and cultural impact could be evidenced by loss of access to U.S. courts, our criminal justice system, and the protection of family law proceedings (protection orders, child support, visitation). It could also be demonstrated by fear of social ostracism and lack of access to social institutions and support networks. Other examples include the more obvious: lack of language skills, quality of educational opportunities, assimilation into U.S. culture, and community ties here versus in the foreign country. The country conditions category could include the designation of TPS, civil unrest or generalized level of crime and violence, and State Department Travel Warnings.
Presumption of Extreme Hardship
Probably the most significant part of the guidance is the last section where the agency identifies five circumstances that “are especially likely to result in findings of extreme hardship.” It is not the same as presumption, but it is edging close to that. Obviously, we will need to pressure the agency to follow the Secretary’s mandate and use that term. According to the draft guidelines, if any of these circumstances exist at the time of filing and at the time of adjudication, or at least at the latter stage, the agency would give them great weight:
If the qualifying relative is an asylee or a refugee from the country of possible relocation
If either the qualifying relative, their spouse, or a member of the household that the qualifying relative is legally responsible for is disabled or suffers from a medical/physical condition that makes travel to the foreign country detrimental to their health or safety
If the qualifying relative is on active duty with any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces
If the Department of State has issued either a country-wide travel warning or one for a region of the country where the applicant or the qualifying relative would likely relocate
If separation would result in the qualifying relative becoming the primary caretaker for the couple’s children or otherwise take on significant parental or other caregiving responsibilities.
The fourth circumstance is particularly significant for applicants from Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador where the State Department has recently issued country-wide or region-specific travel warnings. The fifth circumstance would benefit any applicant or qualifying relative who is responsible for the welfare of a child, regardless of the child’s citizenship or immigration status.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversCLINIC Newsletter: General New and Proposed Rules and Policy Guidance
Fee Waivers (Form I-912)
On July 9, 2015, CLINIC submitted a second round of comments concerning revisions to Form I-912 (initial comments were submitted in May). On August 6, 2015, USCIS met with advocates to discuss further. At that time, USCIS indicated that it had received sufficient feedback on the proposed revision and no further comments were to be collected. Although Form I-912 indicates that it expired May 31, 2015, the May 10, 2013 version or other previous versions may be used until a new version is issued.
Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program
On July 22, 2015. USCIS published a proposed rule that would expand the current provisional waiver program in two significant ways: (1) allowing other immigrant visa applicants and (2) allowing Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) parents and spouses to be “qualifying relatives”. At the present time, only U.S. citizen parents and spouses qualify. (For more information, read our article.) In preparing its comments to the proposed rule, CLINIC collected feedback from affiliates representing all regions of the United States. CLINIC submitted comments on September 18, 2015. CLINIC will continue to monitor the progress of this initiative and is now preparing for the release of policy memoranda that would define the extreme hardship standard.
Board of Immigration Appeals Recognition & Accreditation
On September 17, 2015 the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced a new proposed rule governing recognition and accreditation (R&A). It also issued two final rules, each addressing various aspects of legal representation. The proposed rule is titled Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representatives. The two final rules are titled List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers for Individuals in Immigration Proceedings and Separate Representation for Custody and Bond Proceedings.
On September 21, CLINIC staff hosted a webinar in which it presented each proposed change and explained the implications for nonprofit organizations. CLINIC is soliciting comments for each of the key areas of proposed change and is working actively with its network of affiliates and other national organizations to provide formal written comments to EOIR by the November 30th deadline. CLINIC chairs the BIA R&A liaison group, a forum to discuss comments on the proposed rules. Please submit comments here.
USCIS Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
On Monday, September 28, USCIS announced the extension of a comment request period for proposed revisions to Form N-400. USCIS is requesting comments on its proposed updates to Form N-400, Form N-400 Instructions, Public-facing guidance, and USCIS's proposed online N-400 form. Comments are due by November 12, 2015. (80 FR 58292, 9/28/15). Draft Extreme Hardship Policy Guidance for Waiver Applications
On October 7, 2015, USCIS circulated draft guidance interpreting the term “extreme hardship” and explaining how it should be applied to waiver applications. The proposed policy guidance is in draft form only and has not yet gone into effect.
The guidance would set forth, in greater detail and specificity, how adjudicators should weigh various hardship factors in a waiver application. For example, applicants would only have to establish extreme hardship to the qualifying relative if that family member were to relocate with the applicant or remain in the United States separated from the applicant, depending on which is more reasonably foreseeable. Currently, the waiver applicant has to establish extreme hardship under both scenarios. In addition, the guidance lists five special circumstances that strongly suggest the existence of extreme hardship. One of the listed special circumstances is when the State Department has issued a travel warning with respect to a country or a region of a country.
Comments on the draft guidance are due on November 23, 2015. CLINIC will be preparing model comments and circulating them to affiliates. Please see the link below from USCIS to access the text of the draft guidance and contact us at advocacy@cliniclegal.org if you have any specific questions or comments.
Issues: Integration and EmpowermentInadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Federal AdvocacyImmigration AdvocacyPrograms: AdvocacyCLINIC Newsletter: New and Proposed Rules and Policy Guidance USCIS Proposes Expansion of Provisional Waiver Program
Charles Wheeler The USCIS published a proposed rule in the Federal register on July 22, 2015 that would expand the current provisional waiver program in two significant ways. They can be accessed by going to this link: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/07/22/2015-17794/expansion-of-provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers-of-inadmissibility. The agency is allowing the public 60 days to comment on the proposed regulatory change. The provisional waiver program is currently open only to immediate relatives who, upon leaving the United States to consular process, will trigger the three- or ten-year bar for unlawful presence. It allows these immigrant visa applicants to file for a waiver of the unlawful presence bar in the United States prior to departing if they will be found inadmissible only for the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. To have the provisional waiver approved, they must establish that their U.S. citizen parent or spouse will suffer extreme hardship if the waiver is not approved.
The first way that the USCIS proposes expanding the provisional waiver program is to allow other immigrant visa applicants – in addition to immediate relative – access to it. This means that all other beneficiaries of family-based petitions (Form I-130) may apply for the waiver. This would include all preference-based categories (adult or married children of U.S. citizens; siblings of U.S. citizens; and spouses and unmarried children of LPRs). It would also allow access to beneficiaries of approved employment-based petitions (Form I-140), VAWA self-petitions (Form I-360), widow(er) petitions (Form I-360), and special immigrants (Form I-360). It allows access to the derivative spouse and children in the above categories. And it also proposes expanding the program to diversity visa lottery winners. The selection of the person for the diversity visa program would be considered the functional equivalent of having an approved immigrant visa petition.
The second way that the USCIS would prose expanding the program is to allow LPR parents and spouses to be “qualifying relatives.” At the present time, only U.S. citizen parents and spouses qualify.
The USCIS limited eligibility in the current program to immediate relatives who had their interview with the consulate scheduled on or after January 3, 2013. The proposed expanded program would maintain that cut-off date for immediate relatives, even if they became eligible for the program for the first time under broader definition of “qualifying relative.” For all others, the cut-off date will be the effective date of the final regulation. Those who are scheduled for a consular interview before that date will be ineligible to apply for the provisional waiver under the proposed rule. Given the likelihood that the Service will maintain those cut-off dates in the final regulation, practitioners should counsel clients not to pay the immigrant visa fees and complete the Form DS-260 if they want to participate in the provisional waiver program. Those clients who are scheduled for an immigrant visa between now and the date of the final rule will not be able to take advantage of the expanded eligibility criteria.
The proposed rule also included certain statistical information. For the first seven months of the program in 2013, the National Benefits Center approved 64 percent of the applications it adjudicated and denied 36 percent. During fiscal year 2014, the agency’s approval rate increased to 71 percent, which it maintained for the first four months of fiscal year 2015.
Practitioners are encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed regulation by September 21, 2015. CLINIC plans to submit comments and specific objections to the cut-off dates. Comments should be sent to Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, USCIS, DHS, 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20529. They may also be emailed to uscisfrcommet@dhs.gov. Whichever means you use, be sure to include the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003 in the correspondence. Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC CLINIC Newsletter: General Three Decisions Address Definition of Admission
If you have ever had clients who became an LPR when they weren’t eligible for this status, you may be familiar with INA § 237(a) (1) (H) as a possible option to rescue your client from removal. Under this section, an LPR who obtained status based on a misrepresentation may be eligible to retain residency if they can show that they (a) were inadmissible at the time of admission based on a misrepresentation, whether willful or innocent; (b) are the spouse, parent, son or daughter of a USC or LPR; and (c) are in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise inadmissible at the time of admission. What does the statutory language mean when it refers to inadmissible at the time of admission? That was the issue in Matter of Agour, where an LPR who allegedly adjusted status based on fraudulent evidence of bona fide marriage sought to apply for an INA § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver. The immigration judge determined she was not eligible for this relief, finding that adjustment of status is not an admission for purposes of this statute. On appeal, the Board disagreed with the judge, holding that “an alien’s adjustment of status within the United States constitutes an admission for purposes of the waiver at section 237(a) (1) (H) of the Act.”
Issues: Inadmissibility and Waivers Finally! BIA Gets It Right on 212(h) Bar for LPRs
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Intent is Irrelevant to Unlawful Voting
The Respondent in this case was a lawful permanent resident, who applied for an Illinois driver’s license and signed a voter registration form indicating that she was a United States citizen. In her naturalization application and during her interview, she disclosed that she had registered to vote and had voted in a federal election. Specifically, she voted in a local school board election on a ballot that included candidates for both local office and federal office. The IJ found her removable under INA § 237(a)(6)(A) for unlawful voting and under § 237(a)(3)(D) for false claim to citizenship. Respondent did not dispute that she had voted in a general election involving candidates for federal office and that she was not a U.S. citizen at the time she voted. Instead, the case hinged on whether DHS was required to show that she intended to vote in violation of 18 USC § 611 or whether the act of unlawfully voting in a federal election was sufficient to make her removable under INA § 237(a)(6)(A).
Under 18 USC § 611, it is unlawful for any noncitizen to vote “in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office.” The Respondent argued that she was unaware that she was acting unlawfully by voting, and that DHS failed to meet its burden of proof because it did not show that she had specific intent to violate the law. Relying on a prior Seventh Circuit decision, the BIA held that § 611 is a statute of general intent, which requires only that “the defendant performed the acts that the law forbids, understanding what he was doing.” Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666, 699 (7th Cir. 2012). Under this reasoning, it does not matter that the noncitizen is uninformed that it is unlawful for him to vote. The act of voting alone is sufficient to violate § 611 and trigger deportability. The Ninth Circuit reached a different conclusion in McDonald v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2005), a case involving a lawful permanent resident who voted in a Hawaii state election and was subsequently charged with removability. The Ninth Circuit found that the respondent in this case did not violate Hawaii law because she was unaware that she was not entitled to vote. Noting that it was not bound by Ninth Circuit decisions, the Kimani court distinguished McDonald v. Gonzales, because it involved a state statute with different language, which unlike 18 USC § 611(a), required “proof of an alien’s knowledge that voting [was] forbidden.” Matter of Fitzpatrick, 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) note 4.
Limited exceptions to § 611 apply if the election is 1) held partly for some other purpose; 2) the noncitizen is authorized to participate in the election under state or local law; and 3) voting for such other purpose is conducted in way that allows the noncitizen to vote for a valid state or local purpose, but not the opportunity to vote for a candidate for federal offices. 18 USC § 611(a)(1)-(3). Additional exceptions exist where the noncitizen reasonably believed at the time of voting that he or she was a U.S. citizen. Id. § 611(c).
The BIA found that the statute requires all three criteria of § 611(a) to be met before the exception would be applied. The respondent was unable to meet this requirement, although the election was “held partly for some other purpose,” because she could not demonstrate that she was authorized to vote in the local election and that voting for school board officials was held independently from the voting for federal officials.
This decision illustrates the importance of educating clients about who is eligible to vote and counseling them on the harsh penalties for unlawful voting.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Seventh Circuit Finds IJs Have Jurisdiction of 212(d)(3) Waivers for U Nonimmigrants
A recent decision in the 7th Circuit, L.D.G. v. Holder, No. 13-1000 , (7th Cir. 2014), opens the door for immigration judge jurisdiction over non-immigrants waivers under INA § 212(d)(3). In L.D.G., a respondent in removal proceedings sought a continuance while she pursued U status. Because the applicant was also inadmissible on multiple bases, including crime-based inadmissibility, she filed an application for a waiver, which was denied by USCIS, resulting in the denial of U status. The respondent then asked the immigration judge to independently consider her application for a waiver of inadmissibility and the judge determined that he lacked jurisdiction to do so. On appeal, the Board upheld the decision of the immigration judge, and L.D.G. appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
The court's decision notes that there are two inadmissibility waiver provisions under INA § 212(d) that are potentially available to U status applicants and only one of them limits jurisdiction to USCIS. By statute, only USCIS may grant the special waiver under § 212(d)(14) available to U applicants, but the inadmissibility waiver at § 212(d)(3)(A) vests the authority to waive inadmissibility to the Attorney General, which includes immigration court as part of the Department of Justice. Reviewing the statutory language, the court concluded that 212(d)(14) and 212(d)(3)(A) waivers "can and do co-exist, and...the IJ has jurisdiction to grant a waiver of inadmissibility to a U visa applicant..." As a result, the court remanded the case back to the IJ to consider the respondent's application for a waiver.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC New BIA Decision Expands LPR EligibilIty for 212(c) Waivers By Susan Schreiber
If you represent LPRs in removal proceedings, you will want to take a close look at the Board's recent decision in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014), which presents a new framework for analyzing LPR eligibility for INA § 212 (c) waivers. It will likely result in more LPRs qualifying for this relief.
In Abdelghany, an LPR with a conspiracy to commit arson conviction was charged with deportability on aggravated felony grounds and requested relief under 212(c). Relying on the "comparable grounds" test, an immigration judge found Mr. Abdelghany to be ineligible for this waiver because the aggravated felony deportability ground did not have a "statutory counterpart" in the grounds of inadmissibility. Although Mr. Abdelghany's underlying conviction would most likely trigger inadmissibility as a crime of moral turpitude, the comparable grounds test, as applied by the Board, precluded 212(c) eligibility where the charged deportability ground covers more or fewer offenses than any inadmissibility ground. Since Mr. Abdelghany was charged with deportability for an aggravated felony, not a crime of moral turpitude, the immigration judge found that the comparable grounds test barred his eligibility for relief.
During the pendency of the appeal, however, the Supreme Court, in Judalang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011), invalidated the Board's comparable grounds test, characterizing it as "arbitrary and capricious." The Court directed the Board to fashion another policy regarding eligibility for 212(c) relief. That new policy, set forth in the Abdelghany decision, represents the Board's attempt to establish 212(c) eligibility rules that do not lead to deportable LPRs being declared ineligible for relief "on the basis of mechanical distinctions arising from the structure of the immigration statute" Abdelghany at 259.
Which LPRs are eligible under the new Board analysis? First, the decision abandons the comparable grounds test and concludes that all otherwise qualified applicants may apply for 212(c) relief to waive any ground of deportability, unless the applicant is subject to the certain security and international child abduction inadmissibility grounds found at INA § 212(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), or (E), and INA § 212(a)(10)(C). Second, the Board removes any 212(c) eligibility distinction based on whether the LPR pled guilty or was found guilty after trial. Note, however, that LPRs still remain subject to other statutory provisions precluding 212(c) eligibility. This includes LPRs deportable based on certain specified deportability grounds in Section 440(d) of AEDPA, and LPRs convicted of aggravated felonies between November 29, 1990 and April 24, 1996, who served a term of imprisonment of five years or more. Nevertheless, the Abdelghany decision represents a major expansion of the availability of 212(c) relief from removal for long-term LPRs.
Issues: Inadmissibility and Waivers CLINIC Newsletter - February 2014 - VOL. XVIII No. 2
Visa Bulletin Download a PDF of this newsletterIssues: Program ManagementBIA Recognition and AccreditationState/LocalInadmissibility and WaiversAsylum, Refugee and Other Humanitarian ReliefResources by type: NewsletterNewsletters: CLINIC Newsletter Archive Recent Decisions on Immigration Law and Crimes
Silva-Trevino v Holder, No. 11-60464 (5th Cir. 2014)
In 2008, the U.S. Attorney General issued a BIA precedent decision, Matter of Silva Trevino, 24 I&N Dec 687 (BIA 2008), which radically changed the analysis used to determine when an offense is considered a crime of moral turpitude. Prior to the AG's decision, moral turpitude was analyzed based on the crime as described by the statute , with consideration of the record of conviction permitted where the statute was deemed to be "divisible," i.e. including multiple sections where some but not all sections described turpitudinous conduct. The AG Silva Trevino decision departed from that analysis by allowing for the consideration of extrinsic evidence – evidence outside the record of conviction – to determine if an offense involves moral turpitude. Since then, the AGs analysis has been rejected in the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 11th circuits, with the 7th and 8th circuits deferring to the AG's approach. Now the 5th Circuit, hearing Mr. Silva-Trevino's case, has vacated the AG decision and rejected the analysis allowing for the consideration of extrinsic evidence. This is important news in the “crimm-imm” field because the Silva-Trevino AG decision allowed for a dramatic expansion of crime-based inadmissibility and deportability based on crimes of moral turpitude. It is likely that we will see more developments on this issue, perhaps including a new BIA precedent decision.
1. Negrete- Ramirez v Holder, No. 10-71322 (9th Cir. 2014)
INA § 212(h), the waiver available for certain crime-based inadmissibility grounds, was amended in 1996 to limit LPR eligibility for this waiver. Under the terms of the statute, no waiver may be granted to an alien "previously admitted to the U.S." as an LPR if that individual was either convicted of an aggravated felony or does not have seven years of continuous lawful residence in the U.S. before being placed in removal proceedings. Although this statutory language may initially seem unambiguous, advocates have argued that the limitation, as written, applies only to those who entered as LPRs at the border, and not to those LPRs who adjusted status after arrival in the United States.
What does the BIA say? In two different decisions, two years apart, the BIA has upheld the applicability of the 212(h) LPR bar to all LPRs, regardless of status at entry. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010); Matter of E.W. Rodriguez, 25 I&N 784 (BIA 2012). The BIA's analysis of the statute, however, was not persuasive to the Ninth Circuit, which joined the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 11th circuits in finding that the 212(h) bar does not apply to an LPR who adjusted status in the U.S. It remains to be seen whether this significant rejection of the BIA's analysis of 212(h) may persuade the Board to revisit this issue. 2. Orabi v. Attn'y Gen., 738 F.3d 535 (3rd Cir. 2014)
When is a conviction final for immigration purposes? Can a noncitizen be charged with inadmissibility or deportability based on a conviction that is on direct appeal? Since the enactment of IIRAIRA in 1996 and the inclusion of a definition of conviction in the INA at section 101(a)(48)(A), courts in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits, have determined that the statutory definition eliminated the finality requirement. In the recent Orabi decision, however, the court disagreed with sister circuits, holding that the principle that a conviction does not attain sufficient finality for immigration purposes until a direct appeal has been waived or exhausted is "alive and well" in the Third Circuit. This is good news for those in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the districts covered by the Third Circuit.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Programs: National Legal Center for Immigrants DHS and DOS Announce New TRIG Exemptions
On February 5, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) announced two new exemptions from the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) found at INA§ 212(a)(3). TRIG aims to exclude individuals who have or will engage in terrorist activities, such as providing material support to terrorist organizations or their members. Material support includes providing transportation, communications, funds, explosives, or training, among other activities. Terrorist organizations are divided into three categories or ‘tiers.’ Tier I organizations are known as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Tier II organizations are those found in the DOS Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). Tier III organizations, which are groups of two or more individuals engaged in terrorist activities, are undesignated and do not appear on a published list. See 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA.
The reviewing agency has discretion to grant exemptions. Individuals seeking immigration benefits must meet other requirements, including passing background and security checks. They must fully disclose information about the circumstances of any material support. In addition, the given agency must be satisfied that such individuals merit an exemption under the totality of circumstances. Implementation directives have followed after announcements of other TRIG exemptions, so stay tuned for further developments on this matter. Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC CLINIC Newsletter - December 2013 - VOL. XVII No. 12
In this issue… Advocacy Updates States, Cities, and Counties Across the U.S. Limit Cooperation with ICE
BIA Accreditations New Member
Network Profile Law and Practice Feature Parole in Place: Administrative Relief for Military Families Immigration Law Updates
Visa Bulletin Issues: BIA Recognition and AccreditationInadmissibility and WaiversFamily-based ImmigrationResources by type: NewsletterNewsletters: CLINIC Newsletter Archive Adjustment for Visa Waiver Entrants
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Newsletter Webinar: Waiving Crimes Away: All About 212(h) Waivers
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Webinars CLINIC Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court in CSPA Challenge
CLINIC's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court The above document is a copy of the amicus brief that CLINIC filed with the US Supreme Court in a case challenging the government’s interpretation of a part of the CSPA.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Federal Advocacy New Policy on Minors and False Claims to U.S. Citizenship
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Programs: National Legal Center for Immigrants BIA Affirms Effect of Entry with False Claim of Citizenship
The BIA held that a woman who procured a U.S. passport by fraud and used it to gain entry to the United States was not considered “inspected and admitted,” and therefore is subject to the grounds of inadmissibility when placed in removal proceedings. The Board had held more than 30 years ago that where an alien gained admission to the United States through a false claim of citizenship, it was considered entry without inspection. Matter of Arequillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980). The basis of that ruling came from a Supreme Court decision that found that U.S. citizens are not subject to the same level of scrutiny by border inspectors as non-citizens. Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975). The Court treated a person who enters through a false claim of citizenship as “comparable to that of a person who slips over the border and who has, therefore, clearly not been inspected.” In this case the BIA found the woman to have entered without inspection, to have been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (procuring a passport by fraud), and in its discretion to not merit a grant of voluntary departure. Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013).
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Programs: National Legal Center for Immigrants Update from the NBC on Provisional Waivers
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Programs: National Legal Center for Immigrants CLINIC Letter to Director Mayorkas on Provisional Waiver Denials
On August 5, CLINIC sent a letter to Director Mayorkas regarding what we believe to be the improper implementation of USCIS's regulations governing the provisional waiver for unlawful presence.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Federal AdvocacyPrograms: Advocacy Board Rejects Stand-Alone 212(h) Waiver
Imagine two brothers who immigrate together in 1998. In 2001, both brothers are convicted of petit larceny offenses in Florida on two separate occasions. Some years later, both brothers travel abroad and return separately. Brother A is stopped at the border and, because of his convictions, is treated as an LPR seeking admission. He is paroled back into the United States, charged with crime-based inadmissibility in removal proceedings, and is eligible to apply for a "stand-alone" 212(h) waiver, i.e. a waiver filed without a concurrent application for adjustment of status. Meanwhile, Brother B is readmitted back into the United States and his crimes do not come to the attention of DHS until later. At that point, since he is already in the United States, his removal proceedings are based on a charge of crime-based deportability. Is Brother B eligible to apply for a stand-alone 212(h) waiver too?
According to a recent BIA decision, Matter of Rivas, 26 I&N Dec. 130 (BIA 2013), the answer is no. In the Board's view, a stand-alone waiver is only available to arriving aliens seeking re-admission; all others are eligible for a 212(h) waiver only if also applying for adjustment of status. Since the LPR in Rivas was not eligible to seek adjustment, the Board concluded he did not qualify for a 212(h) waiver.
In the underlying case before the immigration judge, Rivas had successfully argued that he qualified for a "nunc pro tunc" waiver, pointing out that, due to his travel, he had been admitted when he was not in fact admissible. Relying on Matter of Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 1980), which held that a 212(h) waiver may be granted nunc pro tunc to a returning LPR charged with deportability, Rivas argued that because he had traveled abroad after being convicted, nunc pro tunc waiver approval would resolve the issue of his inadmissibility at the time he was erroneously readmitted. The Board rejected this argument, noting that (a) unlike with Rivas, the LPR in the Sanchez case had also applied for adjustment of status, and (b) the statutory language of 212(h) has been modified since the Sanchez decision, limiting waiver availability to situations where the noncitizen is applying or reapplying "for a visa, for admission to the U.S. or adjustment of status." INA § 212(h)(2). The Board also reasoned that allowing for stand -alone nunc pro tunc waivers would provide a mechanism to avoid the requirement that an adjustment application be filed concurrently with the waiver request.
The Rivas decision is in accord with three circuit court decisions that similarly construe 212(h) as not allowing for stand-alone waiver submissions unless the non-citizen is an arriving alien. Poveda v U.S. Att'y Gen., 692 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2012); Cabral v Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011); and Klementanovsky v Gonzales, 501 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2007). In effect, these court and BIA decisions allow for the disparate treatment of noncitizens based on whether they departed the United States and are put in proceedings upon return.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Supreme Court Revives the Categorical Approach
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC All About Fee Waivers
This webinar training focuses on how to obtain a fee waiver for a naturalization applicant who is unable to pay the USCIS application fee. We discuss the fee waiver eligibility criteria, the application process with the Form I-912, and the documentation requirements. We also discuss problems or pitfalls that may arise and how to avoid these, as well as special considerations for completing fee waiver applications at naturalization group processing workshops.
Held on March 7, 2013.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: WebinarsPrograms: Center for Citizenship and Immigrant Communities CIR Planning & Preparation: Budgeting and Resource Development
Early planning and preparation for CIR implementation includes budgeting and resource development. This webinar introduces resources to help CLINIC affiliates in these processes. Included in the webinar is a newly-released CIR Preparation Checklist for program directors to guide their planning, webinar slides on budgeting decisions and several resource development tools including a proposal template, budget narrative and work plan to seek external funding.
Back to CLINIC's CIR Resource Page
cir_prep_checklist_budgeting_resource_development_4-2-2013.pptIssues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: WebinarsPrograms: Center for Citizenship and Immigrant CommunitiesProjects: Citizenship and Integration National Capacity Building Project The New Unlawful Presence Waiver Adjudication Process: Uniting Families Safely and Boosting Naturalization
Held February 25, 2013.
The USCIS will start accepting provisional waivers for unlawful presence on March 4, 2013. This new procedure can help your program promote naturalization as well as family-based immigration. More clients will want to file I-130 petitions and initiate consular processing if they can file the unlawful presence in the United States and wait here for a decision. Clients will be turning to your program to help them file the waiver. More clients will be motivated to naturalize if it will convert their spouse to an immediate relative. In this webinar we will cover eligibility for the provisional waiver as well as how your program can gain the maximum advantage for your clients. Join CLINIC staff members Jack Holmgren and Charles Wheeler as they discuss both the substance of the law and how to prepare for an increase in demand for services.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Webinars Update on Provisional Waivers for Unlawful Presence Webinar
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversProvisional WaiversResources by type: WebinarsPrograms: National Legal Center for Immigrants USCIS Finalizes Regulation on Provisional Waivers for Unlawful Presence
On January 3, 2013, the USCIS finalized its regulation regarding the adjudication of waivers for those who are consular processing and would be triggering the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. The rule provides a process by which the agency will adjudicate these waivers before the applicants leave for their immigrant visa interview. The procedure would be available only to immediate relatives who are inadmissible based on unlawful presence – and no other grounds – and who can establish extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen spouse or parent. To be eligible, the applicant would need to have an approved I-130 or I-360 petition and have paid the immigrant visa fee bill.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversProvisional WaiversResources by type: Articles by CLINIC Programs: National Legal Center for Immigrants Comments on Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives
On January 9, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced its intention to change its current process for filing and adjudicating certain applications for waivers of inadmissibility filed in connection with an immediate relative immigrant petition. On April 2, 2012, the agency issued proposed regulations to allow certain applicants to apply for and receive a provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to departing the U.S. for the Immigrant Visa (IV) interview. Click here to see CLINIC’s comments on the proposal.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: Federal Advocacy Update and Next Steps on Pre-Adjudication of Waivers
The USCIS has published its proposed regulation on stateside pre-adjudication of unlawful presence waivers. CLINIC staff conducted a free webinar to affiliates that covers all aspects of this proposed change. The webinar includes a summary of the proposed regulation, the potential impact on your caseload, and the steps you might take to prepare for it. CLINIC will be developing community education handouts and other materials, as well as model comments to the proposed regulation. Presenters include Maria Odom, CLINIC's Executive Director, and staff from the Capacity Building, Advocacy, and Training and Legal Support sections.
Held on May 3, 2012.
Issues: Inadmissibility and WaiversResources by type: WebinarsPrograms: National Legal Center for Immigrants Our Mission