Archive | Regulations RSS feed for this section

The Great Green Card Procurement Announcement Internet Freak-Out of October 2014.

23 Oct

Kim Jong un

In the past two months, North Korean despot Kim Jung-un disappeared and reappeared.  And earlier this week, the U.S. government sought bids on a potential government contract.  Both events caused massive speculation but little information regarding critical policy issues.

Those who watch the immigration issue with obsessive scrutiny noticed this week that the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service put out a request for bids for a contractor who could provide supplies to produce up to 34 million work permits.  Anti-immigration outlets quickly picked up on this obscure notice and sounded the alarm that the administration was preparing for “amnesty.”  Likewise, immigrant advocates were heartened and thought that this requisition orderCards was evidence that the administration planned to “go big” and announce expansive administrative measures to relieve the suffering caused by our merciless immigration laws.  The speculation grew so hot that White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest felt the need to tamp down expectations.  Yesterday, Earnest said, “I think those who are trying to read into those specific orders about what the president may decide are a little too cleverly trying to divine what the president’s ultimate conclusion might be. What I would caution you against is making assumptions about what will be in those announcements based on the procurement practices of the Department of Homeland Security.”

If people are “a little to cleverly trying to divine what the president’s ultimate conclusion might be,” the blame lies squarely with the White House.  On a topic of immense policy importance, the White House has been extraordinarily tight-lipped about that it plans to do or not do.  After resisting administrative action for several years while presiding over the most efficient deportation machine this country has ever known. the President raised hope of executive action in June 2014, announcing that he would take action on administrative reform by the end of the summer.  He charged the Secretary of Homeland Security with offering plans as to what steps the administration could take to relieve the suffering his removal policies have caused.  Of course, proposals for administrative reform have been around since before the President took office in 2009.  That deadline was scuttled to assuage skittish and vulnerable Democrats facing election in November.  So, the President announced that he would hold off on reform until after the elections.

Meanwhile, the tension mounts.  The anti-immigrant crowd is screeching about “Obama’s lawless amnesty” and the “ISIS-ebola-unaccompanied minor” threat.  Families continue to be torn apart and many Latino leaders are calling on people to sit out this election.  Everyone is waiting on the President to announce his plan.  The lack of information about what the President may do is what causes the internet to go berserk over “the procurement practices of the department immigration-protest-your-handsof Homeland Security.”  In the absence of real information, speculation and hysteria will fill the void.

Last month, the world engaged in speculation that North Korean despot Kim Jong-un had been overthrown because he had not been seen in weeks.  Reports of injuries to the dictator filled the airwaves until he reappeared in public.  Of course, such speculation makes complete sense in a country that tightly controls its media and in a government that operates by power and secrecy.  People interested in those affairs have learned how to divine what may be happening through little clues.  Just like in the Soviet era, insiders would try to figure out who was in and who was out by where they were seated at Party Congresses.

The internet freak-out caused by the White House’s lack of information about its plans and a cannily-timed procurement request can only be expected where the administration behaves more like the secretive cabal in North Korea than an American administration genuinely interested in solving a real problem.

What Might Executive Action on Immigration Look Like?

26 Aug

As Facebook is crowded with pictures of kids going back to school, we must face the inevitable end of summer.  However, for immigrants, it is possible that the end of summer will bring long-awaited administrative relief from the Obama administration.  In June, President Obama went to the Rose Garden to state that, in the absence of legislation from Congress, he was going to use his executive power to address the harshness of U.S. immigration laws.  He stated that he instructed Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to present recommendations for changes that the administration could make to existing interpretations of immigration law that would ameliorate the inhumane consequences of current immigration policy.  The Secretary was instructed to produce his recommendations and plan by the end of summer.  With the President returning from vacation soon and the traditional end of summer holiday of Labor Day approaching, expectations are sky high that the President will announce meaningful administrative actions in the coming weeks.  Washington is awash in rumors, speculation, leaks, and hopes as to what the nature of immigration relief might look like.  In this blog, we take a look at some of the common possibilities that keep popping up in reports.  We have written in the past about steps that the President could take to make U.S. immigration laws less harsh.  This post is about those measures that have been commonly reported in the media.

  • Parole-in-place.  This would be the most ambitious use of presidential authority.
    • WHAT IT IS: The Immigration & Nationality Act gives the administration the ability to parole any immigrant into the U.S. if the administration determines that it would be in the national interest.  Ordinarily, parole is granted to allow someone to enter the U.S. from abroad.  However, parole-in-place is a mechanism to parole those already in the U.S. who have not been admitted, such as those who entered unlawfully.
    • WHAT IT WOULD DO:  By paroling those who entered illegally, parole-in-place would have the effect of making them eligible for adjustment of status to permanent residence based upon the petition of an immediate relative, such as a U.S. citizen spouse or a child over 21.
    • WHO IT WOULD HELP: Those who entered unlawfully and have close U.S. citizen family ties.  This could be more expansive than those who can benefit from the provisional waiver as the provisional waiver is not available to those who are inadmissible on criminal grounds or fraud grounds.  Conceivably, parole in place would allow immigrants to seek adjustment of status with the opportunity to apply for all of the waivers that are available to other adjustment applicants.
  • Deferred Action.   Conventional wisdom is that the President will utilize the deferred action method used for young people in 2012 which would provide no stable or durable status, but would provide a reprieve from removal and the ability to obtain employment authorization.
      • WHAT IT IS: in June 2012, the President created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which formalized a policy that the government was not interested in seeking the removal of young people who entered as children, stayed in school, and, generally, avoided trouble.  The President could expand the Deferred Action program to include other favored groups, such as the parents of U.S. citizen or the parents of DACA recipients.
      • WHAT IT WOULD DO: By granting deferred action, the administration would be formally recognizing that the individual is not a priority for removal and would not be sought for removal.  Deferred action comes with work permits, allowing individuals to live without fear of removal, to work legally, obtain social security numbers and driver’s licenses.
      • WHO IT WOULD HELP: This is hard to say.  The administration could create a class of individuals who would qualify for expanded deferred action.  There is general legal consensus that he may not grant deferred action to all undocumented individuals. Commonly discussed potential classes include the parents of U.S. citizens and the parents of DACA grantees.  Another broad class would be deferred action for those immigrants who would benefit under the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in 2013.   It is likely that, like DACA, any deferred action grant would have eligibility requirements relating to length of time in the U.S, work history, an the lack of a criminal record.Deferred Action.  The President could simply expand Deferred Action beyond the DREAMers.  He could identify classes of individuals who the administration identifies as low priorities for removal from the U.S.
  • Recapture of visa numbers.  This is among proposals favored by the business community.  It would not necessarily apply to individuals without status, but would help fix the extraordinary backlog in employment-based visas.  Some individuals do fall out of status waiting for their spot in the backlog to become available to them.
    • WHAT IT IS: The Immigration & Nationality Act makes a limited number of visas (green cards) available every year and divides them among various categories.  Sometimes, because of the way the visas are allocated, many of those visas go unused every year.  This contributes to horrendous backlogs that hurt employers’ ability to retain key personnel.
    • WHAT IT WOULD DO: By changing the way visas are counted and allocated, this change would shorten lines for visas in the employment-based categories, shortening the time it takes for a foreign employee to obtain residence.
    • WHO IT WOULD HELP: Employment-based immigrants, their families, and their employers.  Reduction in the amount of time necessary to sponsor an immigrant through work could help many people who could seek residence through employment and fall out of status while waiting in the backlog.
  • Work authorization for H-4 Visa Holders.  This is another of the priorities for the business community.
    • WHAT IT IS: Individuals admitted in H-4 status are the spouses and children under 21 of H-1B visa holders, who may enter the U.S. to work for a U.S. employer in a professional capacity for up to six years.  Under current law, an individual admitted into the U.S. in H-4 status is not allowed to accept employment in the U.S.
    • WHAT IT WOULD DO: Administrative change could make H-4 visa holders eligible to apply for employment authorization.  Since the Immigration & nationality Act does not prohibit such employment authorization, regulatory change could create a category to allow H-4s to work.  There is precedent for this as changes to the law allowed L-2 visa holders, the spouse and children under 21 of L-1 intracompany transferees to obtain employment authorization.
    • WHO IT WOULD HELP: The spouses and children of H-1B visa holders and their families.  Businesses want this change because international candidates sometimes turn down offers to work in the U.S. because their spouse can not work.

Executive action seems all but assured.  The questions is not “if,” but “exactly what” and “when.”  The President has waited far too long to take this actions.  Millions have suffered in a cynical attempt to pacify the House GOP and enforcement-lust.  The President has returned from vacation and it is time for everyone to get back to the important work of addressing the colossal failure of U.S. immigration law and the even more contemptible failure of Congress to deal with it.

Confidentiality of Asylum Applications at Risk

21 May

If the internet is good for anything, it is exposing a person to articles and information one ordinarily would not encounter.  So it was when I stumbled across this article on Fox News Latino.  The article discusses the Mexican government’s statement that Gaston Azcarraga, the former owner of the defunct Mexicana Airlines was in the Unit109-mexicana-airlinesed States and seeking asylum.  At BR, we know nothing about Mr. Azcarraga’s claim to asylum or whether it is likely to succeed.  But we do know that asylum applications are supposed to be confidential and that it is particularly important that a claim to asylum not be revealed to the government of the country where the applicant fears persecution.  To see a Mexican government official state that an Mexican national is seeking asylum in the United States is inimical to the entire concept of asylum and undermines the trust in the asylum system that confidentiality is supposed to enhance.

I have been to hundreds of asylum interviews.  They all begin the same way with the asylum officer informing the applicant that asylum applications are confidential and that the information provided by the applicant will not be shared with the applicant’s home country.  The reason for this promise of confidentiality is obvious.  If an asylum applicant is not confident that her information will be kept secret, she is unlikely to be able to tell the full story of why she is seeking asylum.  Because a grant of asylum is anything but guaranteed and there is a good chance that an asylum applicant will be returned to the country where she fears persecution, without the promise of secrecy, an asylum applicant will understandably be reticent to tell the full story.

The requirement of confidentiality is enshrined into the asylum regulations.  The regulations provide that the information in an application for asylum, including the fact that an individual applied for asylum, shall be kept confidential.  There is an exception for disclosure to U.S. government officials under limited circumstances.  There is also an exception that allows for disclosure “at the discretion of the Attorney General.”  While that latter exception may seem wide enough to drive a truck through, such an exercise of discretion has been rare.  If the Attorney General is increasingly exercising his authority to disclose the fact of an asylum application, that abuse of discretion would undermine the entire regime of confidentiality.  It appears that this is a growing problem.  Friend of Benach Ragland (FOBR) Jason Dzubow wrote last fall that U.S. Embassy officials in China routinely violate the confidentiality provisions of the law. And, of course, some rogue official revealed a few years ago that President Obama’s aunt had applied for asylum.

In rare circumstances, the unlawful disclosure of an application for asylum has been found to generate a new basis to seek asylum.  In an unpublished opinion last year, the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened asylum proceedings based upon a breach of confidentiality.  The BIA wrote:

The respondent’s motion alleges that a United States official advised her that in obtaining the respondent’s travel documents, for the purpose of removal, he communicated by email with the Chinese Consulate in such a way as to breach the confidentiality requirements at 8 C.F .R. § 1208.6.  According to the respondent, she asked the official for copies of the emails, and he advised her that he deleted them. The respondent has proffered evidence of her attempts to obtain copies of the emails as well as other evidence concerning information supplied to the Chinese Consulate. The respondent asserts that circumstances in China have changed based in part on the government’s awareness that the respondent is a failed asylum seeker.  While the DHS has filed a statement of opposition to the motion, the DHS does not dispute the respondent’s claims that confidentiality requirements may have been breached.  We find it appropriate to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and remand the record to the Immigration Judge for proceedings on whether the respondent is eligible for withholding of removal under the Act or protection under the Convention Against Torture in light of the new evidence in this matter.

Now that Mexican officials are aware of the application, it seems that Mr. Azcarraga’s claim has grown stronger.  There is widespread acknowledgement of the heavy hand of Mexican law enforcement.  Ironically, the desire to punish Mr. Azcarraga may have grown and his claim approved as a result of  this revelation and the embarrassment of the Mexican government.

Good News on I-601A Provisional Hardship Waiver Applications!

18 Mar

VisaToday, the US Citizenship & Immigration Service announced a fix to one of the more serious problems with the provisional waiver process for unlawful presence.  As you may know, the CIS instituted the I-601A provisional waiver process last year to allow immigrants who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens but are also ineligible to seek residence in the U.S. due to unlawful entry to seek a provisional waiver of inadmissibility in anticipation of seeking a visa at the U.S. embassy abroad.  The provisional waiver, sought on form I-601A, only waives inadmissibility due to unlawful presence (i.e., entering without inspection and remaining more than 6 months in the U.S.).  The waiver does not waive any other ground of inadmissibility such as inadmissibility due to criminal convictions or fraud.  To address this issue, the CIS decided early on that where another ground of inadmissibility may be present, such as due to criminal convictions, the CIS would deny such applications because there was a reason to believe that inadmissibility might apply.  This approach left a lot of people out of eligibility for the provisional waiver, many of whom are not, in fact, inadmissible despite having criminal convictions.  This is because not all convictions create inadmissibility.  The largest class of crimes that cause inadmissibility are those that are considered to involve “moral turpitude.”  Crimes involving moral turpitude are those offenses that are inherently base, vile, or depraved.  They usually involve theft, dishonesty, or violence.  However, many crimes, such as trespass, disorderly conduct, or a simple driving under the influence, clearly do not involve moral turpitude.  In addition, there is an exception to inadmissibility for “petty offenses.”  A petty offense is one in which the maximum possible sentence does not exceed one year and the individual is sentenced to less than 180 days in prison.  A crime involving moral turpitude that falls within the petty offense exception does not cause inadmissibility.  However, under the reason to believe standard, CIS was denying waiver applications simply because an offense could create inadmissibility, which was patently unfair to those who were not, in fact, inadmissible.

In an email today, U.S. CIS stated that on January 24, 2014, it issued Field Guidance to its offices instructing officers not to find a reason to believe someone might be inadmissible where the applicant is clearly not inadmissible.  The Field Guidance provides:

USCIS officers should review all evidence in the record, including any evidence submitted by the applicant or the attorney of record. If, based on all evidence in the record, it appears that the applicant’s criminal offense: (1) falls within the “petty offense” or “youthful offender” exception under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) at the time of the I-601A adjudication, or (2) is not a CIMT under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) that would render the applicant inadmissible, then USCIS officers should not find a reason to believe that the individual may be subject to inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) at the time of the immigrant visa interview solely on account of that criminal offense. The USCIS officer should continue with the adjudication to determine whether the applicant meets the other requirements for the provisional unlawful presence waiver, including whether the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.
The CIS has also agreed to reopen, on its own motion, cases that were denied on “reason to believe” to determine whether an applicant denied was, in fact, inadmissible.  If not, the CIS would proceed to consideration of the merits of the I-601A provisional waiver application.
This is a tremendous improvement from the previous position that CIS took.  It is a credit not only to CIS but to the many individuals and groups who pushed CIS on this issue.

Stateside Waivers Have Arrived

4 Mar

Sixty agonizingly long days after final regulations were published, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) this morning released Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, and its accompanying instructions. In previous posts, we discussed many aspects of the stateside waiver process (see here, here, and here). In this post, we’ll discuss some basic filing-related details.

How much will it cost?

The filing fee for Form I-601A is $585 plus $85 for biometrics for applicants under age 79. No waivers are available for either fee. The check or money order should be made payable to “U.S. Department of Homeland Security” (not DHS).

Where should Form I-601A be filed?

According to USCIS’ website, Form I-601A should be filed with the Chicago Lockbox. Before filing their forms, applicants should double-check the website or call the National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283.

What must be filed with Form I-601A?

All applicants must submit a copy of the approval notice (Form I-797) for the immigrant visa petition showing they are the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, as well as a copy of the fee receipt from the State Department for the immigrant visa processing fee. All applicants would also be wise to submit evidence in support of their claims of extreme hardship that would be suffered by a qualifying relative. (Examples of such documentation are listed in the instructions.)

What other materials must be filed with Form I-601A may vary based on applicants’ prior criminal and immigration histories. For example, applicants who are currently in removal proceedings must provide a copy of the Notice to Appear (NTA) along with an order demonstrating that their case has been administratively closed. Applicants who have ever been arrested or detained (for any reason other than a traffic violation) must provide information about the incident. Applicants who have been charged with a crime must provide certified court dispositions showing the outcome of proceedings, even if the relevant records are sealed or have been expunged. And applicants who were arrested but not charged must provide documents from the arresting or prosecuting authority demonstrating that charges were not filed.

Does the granting of a provisional waiver make me “legal”?

No. The approval of a Form I-601A will not affect an individual’s immigration status in any way. It does not provide employment authorization or any other interim benefits, and does not stop the accrual of unlawful presence. Nor does it eliminate the requirement that applicants depart the country to obtain an immigration visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate, nor guarantee that an immigrant visa will actually be issued.

What if my request for a provisional waiver is denied?

Applicants whose requests for a provisional waiver are denied have two options. First, they can re-file Form I-601A with the required filing and biometric fees. Second, they can seek a regular waiver of unlawful presence using the standard Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, after attending an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate.

Do I need an attorney to file Form I-601A?

We think so. Visit us at BenachRagland.com or check with your local bar or the American Immigration Lawyers Association to find qualified attorneys to assist you.

Should I Seek a Provisional Waiver or Just Wait for Immigration Reform?

13 Feb

bird-in-handThe optimism and hope that have been generated by all of the hype around immigration reform has been intense.  Every day, a new prominent political figure comes out in favor of immigration reform.  Look, Sean HannityCondoleeza Rice!  Was that closet really big enough for Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes? Eric Cantor and John Boehner now support the DREAM Act after voting against it in 2010!  It is enough not only to induce whiplash, but it is creating a frenzy of anticipation that often manifests itself in odd ways in the privacy of a consultation with an immigration lawyer. Specifically, many people are now asking, should I just wait for immigration reform?

For the past couple of years, the last resort of the hopeless case was the possibility of immigration reform.  The whiff of a chance of a possibility of potential reform was the only bit of hope that we could muster for some folks who came into our offices.  After we explained that the law did not provide them with any practical options, we were able to console the client with the hope that someday the political system will come to their rescue. As the day becomes more and more visible, the number of people considering doing nothing and hoping for the best appears to have increased.

Frankly, that has always been a pretty decent option for many people.  People who entered the U.S. illegally and had few significant family ties generally had little opportunity to fix their immigration situation.  Sure, we could do some long shot application with little chance of success that would cost a lot of money.  But we often advised people not to spend their money on quixotic ventures and to sit back and see whether the law will develop in a way that could benefit them.  Wait and see was really the best advice.

Now, we seem to be on the verge of the “see” portion of wait and see.  Immigration reform seems imminent and the incentive to wait and see has increased.  But, even though the promise of immigration reform seems within our grasp, real changes that will help untold numbers of people have taken effect now. It is unwise to avoid these measures in the hope that immigration reform will save the day.

The biggest example of this is the I-601A provisional waiver.  The government has changed the process of seeking waivers of inadmissibility for those spouses of U.S. citizens who are only inadmissible due to unlawful presence.  By allowing the couple to seek a waiver of inadmissibility in the U.S. before making an uncertain trip to the U.S. embassy in their home country, the administration has removed a formidable obstacle to legalization of thousands of immigrants married to Americans who are unwilling to take the risk of being separated from their families for up to a decade. This procedural change has the potential to allow thousands of people to legalize their status.

Yet, just as these very important and welcome changes take effect, people are pulling back.  Why should I try to seek a waiver when Obama is going to legalize everyone anyway?  The answer is the old cliche about the bird in hand.  The provisional waiver is the bird in hand and, as much as we believe it is going to happen, and as much as we want it to happen, immigration reform is not a done deal and can collapse.  It has happened before.  There are forces assembled to fight immigration reform tooth and nail.  They will find a ready audience in much of the Republican caucus in the House, always fertile ground for anti-immigrant sentiment.  Even if Congress passes immigration reform, there is no guarantee it will include a path to citizenship.  The Senate plan offers applicants a temporary status that will last until a border commission says that the border is secure, an automated entry and exit system is imposed, and the entire backlog is cleared.  Senator Dick Durbin, one of the most pro-immigrant Senators, said that that temporary status could last as long as ten years!  At the end of those ten years, applicants can seek residence!  To paraphrase the Beatles, the path to citizenship is the long and winding road.  If it even happens!

The provisional waiver is law.  It is really happening and people can use it to fix their status and obtain residence.  No temporary status.  No watching committees and reading the tea leaves of pundits and politicians.  It is in the Code of Federal Regulations and there is a form.  Nothing in immigration is real until there is a form and the provisional waiver has a form- the I-601A.

The provisional waiver is not perfect.  It needs to be available more widely.  But it has the advantage of being law.  A bird in hand.  Over years in immigration law, we have learned that one must take the opportunities presented to you.  The government fails to bring conviction records to a hearing, move to terminate removal proceedings.  The government fails to oppose a motion to reopen, file a notification of non-opposition.  Seek an extension of work authorization even though the residence interview is in two weeks.  Immigration law is so stacked against the immigrant that we must take those opportunities presented to us when they are presented.  They may not come again.

The Provisional Waiver and Removal Proceedings

17 Jan

 

Over the last few weeks we have answered dozens of questions about the provisional waiver.  One group of questions keeps appearing- questions about how people in removal proceedings or with a removal order can qualify for the provisional waiver.  Whereas, the initial rule announced by the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the provisional waiver would be unavailable to people in removal proceedings, the final rule is somewhat more forgiving.  The final rule states that an individual in removal proceedings can not seek a provisional waiver with the Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) unless proceedings have been administratively closed or terminated.

brockes-600

As Julie Andrews sang, let’s start at the very beginning as it is a very good place to start.  Removal proceedings are initiated when the DHS issues a charging document known as a Notice to Appear (NTA) and lodges it with the Immigration Court.  Any of the three immigration agencies, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Citizenship & Immigration Services and Customs & Border Protection has the authority to issue NTAs.  Usually, the time between DHS issuing an NTA and filing it with the court is close to simultaneous.  However, on occasion, the NTA is issued and not filed with the court for days, weeks, months or even years.  An individual is not “in removal proceedings” until an NTA has been filed with the court.  Until the NTA is filed with the court, DHS has exclusive authority to choose not to bring removal proceedings against an individual.  In cases where an NTA has been issued and not filed with the court, that individual is not in removal proceedings and should remain eligible for the provisional waiver.  Removal proceedings continue until the immigration judge grants relief and terminates the case or the person departs the U.S. either under an order of voluntary departure or an order of removal.  In cases where there is a final order of removal, but the individual has not been removed yet, even though there are no more proceedings before the court, that individual is still “in proceedings” and would be ineligible for the provisional waiver.

Once a person is in removal proceedings, the provisional waiver rule is clear that those proceedings must be administratively closed or terminated before that individual can seek the provisional waiver.  Termination of removal proceedings can happen in one of two ways.  First, proceedings are terminated where the immigration judge grants relief, allowing an individual to remain in the U.S. in some sort of legal status.  Second, and this is the rarer form of termination, ICE may elect to terminate proceedings because it has decided that seeking removal in a particular case is no longer in the interests of the government.  Although the DHS has exclusive authority to issue and to decide whether to file a Notice to Appear in immigration court,  once proceedings have been initiated, DHS becomes a party to litigation and only the immigration judge has the authority to terminate removal proceedings.

Administrative closure is a tool of convenience for immigration courts.  Administrative closure allows the court to take a case off an active docket and place it into “hibernation.”

clipart_sleepingbearBy administratively closing a case, the case remains pending before the immigration court, but it is taken off the active calendar.  When a case is pending before the court, it is on an active calendar and at the end of each hearing another hearing must be calendared.  When a case has been administratively closed, it is not on any calendar and no hearings are scheduled.  The case remains before the court, but the court is not acting on the case.  In order to get the case back on the active docket, one of the parties must file a “motion to recalendar” the case.  Cases can be administratively closed for months or years at a time.  Either party may request administrative closure and the immigration judge has authority to grant it.  Until recently, the law required the concurrence of both the foreign national and the government to allow for administrative closure.  However, last year, in Matter of Avetisyan, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an immigration judge may grant administrative closure over the objection of one of the parties.  In other words, DHS can not unilaterally deny the foreign national’s  ability to obtain administrative closure.

People currently in removal proceedings who would otherwise qualify for the provisional waiver can seek both termination and administrative closure.  We expect that ICE, who represents the government in removal proceedings, will be fairly accommodating to requests to terminate or administratively close cases where the foreign national can present a prima facie case for eligibility for the provisional waiver.  In these cases, your lawyer ought to prepare a motion to terminate or administratively close demonstrating that you qualify for the provisional waiver and that the pending removal proceedings are the only impediment.  These individuals should be able to demonstrate that they are the spouse, parent or children of a U.S. citizen and that their only violation of law relates to entering illegally.  By presenting evidence to the government of qualification for the provisional waiver and readiness to file it, it seems that ICE would exercise its discretion to administratively close the case to allow the applicant to file the provisional waiver application.  Upon approval, termination seems appropriate.  If the case is not approved, it is reasonable to expect that ICE would seek to recalendar the case and proceed with removal proceedings.  Should the government refuse to join a motion for administrative closure, the immigration judge has the authority under Matter of Avetisyan to close the case nonetheless upon the motion of the foreign national.

People with old orders of removal who have not yet departed the United States would need to reopen removal proceedings so that removal proceedings can be administratively closed or terminated.  This is a heavy lift.  If the removal order is more than 90 days old, a foreign national will, generally, need the government to agree to reopen for the purpose of closing.  Makes sense, right?  However, there may be circumstances where the hardship is so clear and extreme and the facts are so compelling that the government agrees to this.  By asking the government to join a motion to reopen, an individual with a final order of removal, who may or may not be on the government’s radar screen for removal, makes herself vulnerable to enforcement of the removal order should the government prove unwilling to join in reopening.  While there are limited circumstances in which an immigration judge can reopen on his own motion, those instances are rare and should not be, generally, relied upon.

Finally, people who have been deported or departed the U.S. under an order of voluntary departure or removal are ineligible for the provisional waiver and must seek the waiver through the traditional means at the consulate in their home country.

The provisional waiver has the potential to help thousands of people in removal proceedings.  Many of them may be waiting for hearings on cancellation of removal which requires a much higher level of hardship than the provisional waiver’s standard of extreme hardship.  It is not really conceivable that anyone can navigate this thicket without experienced counsel.  Visit us at BenachRagland.com or check with your local bar or the American Immigration Lawyers Association to find qualified attorneys to assist you.