Opinion ID: 6275925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Waiver of Admissibility

Text: Argueta further contends that the agency abused its discretion by refusing to consider his application for a U visa, with an accompanying request for an inadmissibility waiver, until there was an adjudication by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on Argueta’s U visa application. To be eligible for a U visa, a petitioner must establish that he: (1) “has suffered substantial physical or mental 12 abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity”; (2) “possesses information concerning criminal activity”; and (3) “has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful” to an investigation or prosecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(b). Argueta applied for a U visa in July 2016, asserting that he was eligible because, in 2006, his cousin stabbed him in the chest, and he fully cooperated with the resulting investigation and prosecution. In December 2018, with his U visa application still pending with USCIS, Argueta requested that the IJ adjudicate his application for a waiver of admissibility. At the hearing, the IJ found that he lacked jurisdiction to grant the waiver. The BIA made the alternate finding that the request was premature until there was a ruling from USCIS and that Argueta had not moved for a continuance to wait for a decision by the USCIS on the U visa. However, on September 24, 2019, after the BIA’s decision, Argueta’s U visa was denied and, on September 25, 2019, Argueta’s waiver of inadmissibility was denied by USCIS. Thus, nothing precludes Argueta from asking the BIA to reconsider this issue on remand now that USCIS has denied a 13 waiver. Accordingly, we need not address this issue at this juncture.