Five Things We Have Learned about the I-601A Provisional Waiver Program

<p><a href=”http://vimeo.com/39267368″>Don’t Think Twice It’s Alright [Bob Dylan 1962]</a> from <a href=”http://vimeo.com/user8051179″>Dan Pick</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a&gt;.</p>

Last week, we had another I-601A provisional waiver approved.  This makes us 6 for 6, so far, with a few more pending.  We have learned quite a bit in the past 18 months or so that we have done provisional waivers.

1. Don’t underestimate your own hardship.  We think that people endure a lot of hardship and have grown accustomed to it and accepted it as the normal state of affairs rather than recognizing that things could be better.  We think that many people living with an undocumented spouse have come to accept the anxiety  surrounding the risk of separation, financial ruin and uncertainty.  Of course, this is a common human coping mechanism.  As Bob Dylan sang, “I’ve never gotten used to it, I just learned to turn it off.”  Many people that come into our office states that they can not point to any specific hardship that they would suffer if their spouse were forced to remain in their home country; they just know it would be bad.  We have found that the sense merely scratches the surface and that by digging, speaking, and, most importantly, listening, the details of the hardship can be identified.  Extreme hardship may be financial, emotional or health and safety related.  It can be a combination of these factors or it can be the presence of a single form of hardship.  The bottom line here is that too many people wrongly assume that they do not have the hardship to meet the standard and a honest and open conversation with an attorney can reveal hardship that an individual may have learned to turn off.
2. The availability of the provisional waiver changes the game in removal proceedings. Many cases where the only relief has been a long-shot cancellation of removal are now strong provisional waiver cases.  We have found that the government is willing to terminate and reopen cases where a good claim to a provisional waiver case can be made to ICE.  These practices change from office to office, in fact, from ICE attorney to ICE attorney, but, as a general rule, we have found tremendous flexibility in removal proceedings for people who qualify for provisional waivers.
3. The family is alive and well.  Back in 2012, when DACA came out, we were heartened to see all the young people who came to our office with their parents to discuss how DACA could change their lives.  The parents were always apprehensive and elated simultaneously to see the possibility that the dreams they had for their children being realized, if only partially.  we decided then that the family is alive and well in America.  With the provisional waiver, we are meeting all sorts of people who are raising families under the trying circumstances of one of the spouses lacking legal status.  The lives that people have been able to build despite this challenge are impressive.  However, the opportunity of obtaining lawful status opens up so many doors for families and removes the anxiety and stress of uncertainty over immigration.
4. The National Visa Center remains a hold-up.  The NVC has been good at putting a hold on immigrant visa processing where a provisional waiver has been filed.  However, once the provisional waiver is approved, the NVC reverts to its standard practice of being an impediment, rather than a facilitator of orderly processing of immigrant visas.  For example, one challenge we have seen relates to police clearances from El Salvador.  According to the State Department, those police certificates must be obtained by the applicant in person in El Salvador.  That’s fine, except for the case of provisional waivers, where the applicant is in the U.S.  Since the NVC will not schedule an appointment until it has all the documents, this issue could force an applicant to return to El Salvador and wait several months for an interview, undermining the benefit of certainty that the provisional waiver is supposed to provide.  We are working on this specific issue and will update this blog as circumstances merit.
5. There is nothing better than solving this situation.  When an individual goes to the Embassy, gets the visa, and returns to the U.S. as a permanent resident, we are lucky to be the first ones called.  We share the joy and relief of our clients and can immediately see the reduction in tension in their lives.  Getting to be a part of and a witness to that transformation is one of the great things about being an immigration lawyer.

Think you or someone you know may qualify for the provisional waiver? Contact us at consults@benachragland.com or 202-644-8600.

EXECUTIVE REFORMS TO IMMIGRATION: Top Six Changes

The President’s executive reforms to the U.S. immigration system make a number of very positive changes that have the potential to help millions of people.  Although we have written about various components of the reforms individually, we have summarized six major portions here in one place.

Benach Ragland will be offering several free community meetings throughout December and will be offering reduced fee consultations for people who may benefit from these reforms.  To get the latest information about where we will be, please “like” us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter: @benachragland.  To schedule a reduced fee consultation, please email: consult@benachragland.com or call 202-644-8600.

• Deferred Action for the Parents of U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents

The centerpiece of the President’s immigration reforms announced yesterday is the expansion of deferred action to cover certain foreign national parents of United States citizens. Here are the details:

The U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service will give deferred action and employment authorization to individuals who:

• As of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
• Entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010
• Are not in lawful status as of November 20, 2014
• Are not an enforcement priority
• Do not present other factors that weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion

People who fall within the DHS’ new enforcement priorities will be ineligible for deferred action.  With a new memo issued today, November 20, 2014, the DHS has revised the enforcement priorities for the agency.  The new enforcement priorities are divided into three levels of priority of decreasing priority.  Presumably, those not within the enforcement priorities memo are not enforcement priorities and should qualify for benefits and not be subject to efforts to seek removal. We have summarized the new enforcement priorities memo here.

Applicants will be required to provide fingerprints and undergo national security and criminal background checks.  The filing fee will be $465.  CIS has been directed to begin accepting applications no later than 180 days from the date of the announcement (May 19, 2015).  Work permits will be valid for three years and individuals granted deferred action can also seek advance parole to travel internationally.

• Expanded eligibility for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Another significant development coming out of the Presidential reforms announced yesterday is the expansion of DACA beyond its original parameters established in 2012.  For descriptions of the original DACA requirements, please see here. 

The executive reforms announced yesterday make the following reforms to the DACA program:

• The date of entry for DACA eligibility has been changed from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010.  Individuals who entered the U.S. prior to their 16th birthday and prior to January 1, 2010 can qualify for DACA under the revised guidelines.

• The age cap has been eliminated.  Originally, DACA was limited to individuals under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012.  The upper age limit has been eliminated and those who entered the U.S. before January 1, 2010 and were under the age of 16 will qualify regardless of their current age.

• DACA work authorization will now be valid for three years as opposed to two.

These reforms will be implemented within 90 days. The other DACA requirements regarding education and criminal issues remain unchanged.  The new parole provisions should also assist DACA grantees.

• The New Enforcement Priorities Memo

As part of the executive actions reforms announced by the administration yesterday, the administration has redefined the enforcement priorities for Immigration & Customs Enforcement.  Briefly, any law enforcement agency with limited resources can not realistically enforce the law against everyone who may have broken it.  Law enforcement agencies must pick and choose how to allocate their limited resources and where to expend their efforts.  The new enforcement priorities memo provides very clear guidance to ICE as to who their efforts ought to be focused upon.  Groups of people have been classified into three priorities for enforcement, in declining orders of priority.  Individuals not within this memo are, presumably, not priorities, and should be eligible for benefits and not subjected to enforcement actions like detention and removal.  The three classes of priority are as follows:

Priority 1 (Most serious)

• individuals suspected of terrorism, espionage or who are otherwise a threat to national security
• individuals apprehended at the border while trying to enter the country illegally
• individuals involved in gangs or gang activity
• individuals convicted of a felony unless the essential element of the offense is the individual’s immigration status
• individuals convicted of an aggravated felony

Priority 2 (Medium serious)

• individuals convicted of three or more misdemeanors, not including traffic offenses or offenses where an essential element is the individual’s immigration status
• individuals convicted of a “significant misdemeanor”, which is defined as: an offense of domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation, burglary, unlawful possession or use of a firearm, drug trafficking or distribution, driving under the influence, or any offense not included above for which the individual was sentenced to 90 days or more in custody (unlike in most immigration situations, a suspended sentence does not count)
• those who have entered the U.S. unlawfully after January 1, 2014
• significant visa or visa waiver abusers

Priority 3 (Less serious)

• Individuals with a final order of removal entered after January 1, 2014, unless there are other factors that suggest that the individual should not be a priority for enforcement.

Once again, presumably, an individual not on any of these lists should not be considered a priority for removal and ICE is directed not to expend resources of seeking their detention and removal.  We will be watching ICE to see how the agents in the field respond to these revised priorities.

• Clarifications and increased use of Advance Parole

Another positive change to the immigration laws announced last night is the Secretary of Homeland Security’s instruction that DHS counsel should prepare a legal memorandum forthcoming that departures pursuant to advance parole will not trigger the three and ten year bars.  This memo is to ensure that all departures on advance parole are treated consistently across the country for unlawful presence purposes.

Individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days who then depart the U.S. are subject to a three year bar on returning.  Individuals with a year or more of unlawful presence face a ten year bar after departure.  In Matter of Arrabally and Yerabelly, 25 I.&N. Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that individuals who departed on an advance parole granted due to a pending application for adjustment of status have not made a “departure” for purposes of triggering the three or ten year bars.  while this was a welcome decision, there was confusion and disagreement whether this applied to all departures on advance parole or only to those who departed on advance parole issued to applicants for adjustment of status.  For example, DACA recipients can get advance parole and it was unclear whether their departure would subject them to a bar to return due to unlawful presence they may have accrued prior to DACA’s existence.

The new memo is to clarify that any departure from the U.S. under advance parole no matter why that parole was granted would not be considered a departure for purposes of triggering the three and ten year bars.  This means that people with advance parole, perhaps as a result of DACA, or through the new “DAP” program, for parents of U.S. citizens, will be able travel to visit family abroad without having to lose everything they have achieved in the U.S.

• Expansion of the Provisional Waiver

Another positive development is the proposed expansion of the provisional waiver program, which the President initiated in 2013.  The provisional waiver, as initially introduced allowed the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to seek a waiver of inadmissibility for the three and ten year bars due to unlawful presence to seek a waiver in the U.S. rather than after proceeding abroad to seek a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.  This program has been successful and we have had several provisional waivers approved and been lucky to witness reunions made possible by the provisional waiver.

The provisional waiver was initially limited only to spouses and children of American citizens.  The new memo instructs CIS to “expand access to the provisional waiver to all statutorily eligible classes of relative for whom an immigrant visa is immediately available.”  This will clearly include the spouses and children of permanent residents, but could also potentially include a larger group of  individuals such as the adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.

Also, for tremendous significance, the Secretary of Homeland Security has directed the CIS to “clarify the factors that are considered by adjudicators in determining whether the “extreme hardship” standard has been met.  Most importantly, the Secretary has directed CIS to consider whether a legal presumption of extreme hardship may be determined to exist.  The creation of the presumption of hardship would reduce the burden on applicants seeking to show extreme hardship.  We particularly love this idea, because we suggested it here while pointing out the legal authority for such a move. 

• Parole in Place for family members of those seeking to enlist in the military

The package of reforms introduced by the President includes new policies on the U.S. of parole-in-place or deferred action for the family members of those seeking to enlist in the military.

Parole in place is a function of the Department’s discretionary authority to parole anyone into the U.S.  Parole in place is a mechanism to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to parole an individual into the U.S., providing that individual with legal status and the ability to seek adjustment of status.  Recently, the government has used parole in place to allow the undocumented spouses, parents and children of Servicemembers, including Veterans, to adjust status.  We discussed this process here in August.

The new policy builds on this use of parole in place.  The Secretary of Homeland Security has instructed the CIS to work with the Department of Defense to “address the availability of parole in place and deferred action to the spouse, parent or child of a U.S. citizen or resident who seeks to enlist in the armed forces.

The “seeks to enlist” criteria is a major expansion of this authority and may provide residence to the close family members of those who want to join the military.

These reforms present many exciting opportunities for immigrants. In connection with other parts of the law, it may be possible to achieve more than a work permit.  We are excited about the possibilities for so many immigrants and look forward to the chance to serve you.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

 

EXECUTIVE REFORMS: Expansion of I-601A Provisional Waiver Program

Another positive development included in the President’s administrative reforms to U.S. immigration laws is the proposed expansion of the provisional waiver program, which the President initiated in 2013.  The provisional waiver, as initially introduced allowed the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to seek a waiver of inadmissibility for the three and ten year bars due to unlawful presence to seek a waiver in the U.S. rather than after proceeding abroad to seek a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.  This program has been successful and we have had several provisional waivers approved and been lucky to witness reunions made possible by the provisional waiver.

The provisional waiver was initially limited only to spouses and children of American citizens.  The new memo instructs CIS to “expand access to the provisional waiver to all statutorily eligible classes of relative for whom an immigrant visa is immediately available.”  This will clearly include the spouses and children of permanent residents, but could also potentially include a larger group of  individuals such as the adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.

Also, for tremendous significance, the Secretary of Homeland Security has directed the CIS to “clarify the factors that are considered by adjudicators in determining whether the “extreme hardship” standard has been met.  Most importantly, the Secretary has directed CIS to consider whether a legal presumption of extreme hardship may be determined to exist.  The creation of the presumption of hardship would reduce the burden on applicants seeking to show extreme hardship.  We particularly love this idea, because we suggested it here while pointing out the legal authority for such a move. 

Benach Ragland is offering reduced fee consultations for individuals who may be covered by any of these reforms.  To schedule an appointment, please call 202-644-8600 or email msanchez@benachragland.com.  You can learn the latest news on this blog, on our Facebook page and can follow us on Twitter: @BenachRagland.

Five Things We Have Learned About I-601A Provisional Waivers

Nearly two years since the announcement of the provisional waiver of inadmissibility, known as the I-601A extreme hardship waiver, we have learned quite a bit about the people that need this waiver and the way the government is processing them.  Here are the top five things we have learned:

1. The process has transformed lives.  We have witnessed families emerge from desperation and hopelessness to seize the opportunity to take charge of their lives.  Freed of the fear that a trip to a consulate abroad would mean a lengthy separation, families are empowered and made optimistic that their dreams can be realized and that the law and the U.S. recognize their value.
2. CIS has gotten better at this.  When the program started in April 2013, I-130 petitions became very backlogged, with delays of over a year.  Since then, the government has significantly reduced the processing time for I-130 petitions to about five months, as of the time of this blog.
3. People should never presume that their hardship is not enough.  This point reminds us of the Bob Dylan line “I have never gotten used to it, I just learned to turn it off.”  People who live with many forms of pain have become so used to it that they think it is normal or appropriate.  Detailed conversations with compassionate counsel can elicit many factors relevant for an extreme hardship determination.  Extreme hardship is never the same from one person to another.  There is no substitute for taking the time to learn about people and what makes them tick.  Documenting extreme hardship is the most personal of tasks and requires the time and compassion necessary to understand where people are coming from.
4. We are reminded why we love our job.  Facebook has given us a front seat view of the process.  We now can watch through photos, videos and status updates the thrill that a client has when they return home after several years of not seeing their family.  We can see the happy reunions and the good luck wishes from friends in the U.S.  We see grandparents meeting their grandchildren for the first time.  We share the client’s nerves as they prepare to enter the Embassy.  And we get to see the moment that they return to the U.S. on their immigrant visas.  It does not end there however.  We get to hear about their lives, buying a house, changing jobs,having a baby, and returning home for the holidays for years to come.
5. Expanding the provisional waiver would be great.  The provisional waiver only applies to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.  Expanding it to be available for the spouses and children of permanent residents, for example, or the adult children of citizens, as has been suggested in some reports, would multiply the benefit that has been given through the provisional waiver.

Visa Granted at U.S. Embassy in Brazil after I-601A Provisional Waiver Approved!

First, let us state outright: the inclusion of this Motley Crue video was done only at the suggestion of the client.  Benach Ragland is not, and never has been, a fan of Motley Crue.  But, as dedicated counselors, we will tolerate hair metal for the needs of the client.

 

We are happy to report that today we received our first visa at a U.S. Embassy abroad for an individual who required an I-601A provisional waiver.  Our clients received the passport with the immigrant visa in the mail from the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro.  The clients left the U.S. last month for the visa application after we obtained approval of an I-601A provisional hardship waiver.  This required the leap of faith that they would be able to return.  While inadmissibility due to unlawful presence had been waived, if the consulate were to find any other inadmissibility, our client would not be able to return.  we carefully scoured his record and determined that there was no other ground of inadmissibility.  The clients then took the risk based upon our advice.  Gulp.  After some typical bureaucratic miscues, such as the physician failing to deliver the report and a request for a document that the consulate had returned, the visa was issued today.

Our client got to see his family for the first time in over a decade.  His parents met their U.S. citizen granddaughter.  Husband, wife and child will return after a month spent reconnecting with family in Brazil solid in the knowledge that U.S. immigration law should never require their separation again.

Congratulations dear friends.

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

Today, 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.

Lifted Lamp’s Top Ten Blog Posts for 2013 & Poll for Topics for 2014

Looking back on what turned out to be a disappointing 2013 for the lack of progress on meaningful immigration reform and on the continuing pace of removals, we have tried to figure out what articles and stories most appealed to our readers.  Turns out that our readers were not as interested in the minute-by-minute accounts of progress, but rather came to Lifted Lamp for information about developments in the law that had a real impact upon their lives.  The provisional waiver, DACA, the de Osorio litigation were topics that continually received interest from our readers.  We hope to use this information to make this blog more useful and interesting to our readers.

We have compiled our 2013 Top Ten Blogposts and provide some thoughts on them after they have been written, published and we have received feedback.

10.  Leave it to controversy to be popular.  Our tenth most popular blog of 2013 is just over a month.  On November 25, we wrote about the young man who challenged the President to halt removals while waiting for immigration reform.  In “Does the President Have the Power to Stop All/Most Removals?“, we discussed whether the President can use his executive power to halt all deportations.  We decided that the President probably could not halt all deportations, but he could definitely stop a whole lot more.

9.   The provisional waiver, which has allowed the spouses of U.S. citizens to seek the required waiver of the ten year bar before traveling abroad, has been a continually popular topic on this blog.  In February 2013, we asked “Should I Apply for a Provisional Waiver or Wait for Immigration Reform?”  We answered that the provisional waiver was likely the better bet.  Turns out we were right.  Hundreds of people have received their residence through the provisional waiver, whereas immigration reform remains stuck in the quagmire of today’s politics.  While there is lots of talk about the prospects for reform in 2014, we continue to place our bet on the provisional waiver.

8.  The de Osorio litgation regarding the interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act has generated a lot of interest on this site.  We have chronicled the litigation from our submission of an amicus brief on behalf of undocumented youth at the 9th circuit and celebrated the victory in the 9th Circuit decision.  We implored the administration not seek review of the 9th Circuit’s decision in the Supreme Court and  shared our disappointment in the government’s decision to seek certiorari review in “Opportunity Lost: Administration Seeks Supreme Court Review of de Osorio.”  The Court heard arguments on December 12, 2103 and a decision is expected by June 2014.

7.  Also, in January 2013, we sought to explain some basics of immigration law as the popularity of the “go to the back of the line” school of thought dominated discussion of immigration reform.  In “What’s The Deal with the Immigration Line?“, we discussed how the visa numbers and quotas work and, more often, don’t work.  We had a lot of fun with this post and are glad that it was so well received.

6.  In February 2013, we highlighted a piece of legislation proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called the I-Squared Act.  In “Immigration Reform 2013: Understanding the I-Squared Act,” we described Senator Hatch’s proposals to modernize and improve the visa process for high tech workers.  Much of Senator Hatch’s bill was folded into the Senate bill which passed the Senate in June 2013 and remains languishing in the House of Representatives.

5.  A surprise for number 5!  In March, we wrote about Congress’ belated re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  In “Congress Reauthorizes VAWA But Falls Short on Immigration Provisions,” we discussed the history of the VAWA, improvements made in the 2013 reauthorization, and disappointments in the bill.  One of the bigger disappointments was Congress’ failure to raise the cap on U visas, a failure that has proven to be significant as the U visa cap for 2013 was reached in December.

4.  In January 2013, we discussed the development and roll-out of the provisional waiver process.  The provisional waiver has been one of the most popular topics on our blog.  And for good reason, the provisional waiver is one change to the immigration laws that has directly benefited immigrants in 2013.  While immigration reform has stalled, the provisional waiver has proven to be a way out of the catch-22 of ineligibility for adjustment in the U.S. and the ten year bar triggered by traveling abroad.  In “Q&A on I-601A Provisional Waivers,” we reported on the procedures that CIS would use in executing the provisional waiver process.

3.  The provisional waiver dominates the top three spots.  In “The Provisional Waiver and Removal Proceedings,” we discussed the process of seeking a provisional waiver for individuals in removal proceedings.  This topic still draws interest as I took a call yesterday from a lawyer who wanted our thoughts on a government motion to terminate removal proceedings so that the client could seek the provisional waiver.

2. Again, the provisional waiver draws a lot of interest.  In this post, “What is Extreme Hardship?“, we used our years of experience preparing applications for waivers to help illuminate this very subjective and squishy standard.  One of our most popular posts, this post is very similar to many of the consultations we do where we help people identify relevant hardship factors before applying for waivers.

1.  Our most popular post is “10 Facts About the Provisional Waiver Process.”  This is, by far, our most popular post.  It was our first post of 2013.  We are a bit curious as to its popularity given how many developments there have been in the provisional waiver process, but this post remains an informative introduction to the provisional waiver, what it means to accomplish, and the mechanics of seeking a waiver.

Thanks to all of our readers.  We have studied these results and will use this information to make this blog more interesting and useful to you.  Happy new year to all!

Immigration Briefing Publishes Dree Collopy’s Article on I-601A Provisional Waivers

In June 2013, Immigration Briefings, a West publication serving lawyers, published Dree Collopy’s article entitled “I-601A Provisional Unlawful  Presence: A Practitioner’s Guide for Preserving Family Unity.” (June2013_IB)  Intended to help attorneys navigate the new legal landscape of the I-601A provisional waiver, Dree’s article demonstrates Dree’s expertise in hardship waivers and skill in getting the most for her clients.  (PS- That’s Dree in the middle, getting an award!)

The article identifies the problems that the I-601A provisional waiver was meant to solve and the practical step lawyers should follow to ensure that they prepare a proper application.  Moreover, Dree provides a detailed discussion of the nature of “extreme hardship” and provides suggestions to show how applicants can meet their burden of establishing extreme hardship.

The complexities of the new I-601 provisional waiver process and the subjectivity of the extreme hardship standard are challenging issues for even the most seasoned practitioners.  Dree’s briefing gives lawyers the practical knowledge they need to serve their clients.

Congratulations on a great article Dree!

Some Provisional News on Provisional Waivers

It has been four months since the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) began stateside adjudication of I-601A Applications for Provisional Waivers of inadmissibility due to unlawful presence.  In those four months, we have learned a few things about how U.S. CIS is implementing this new program.  Initially, the U.S. CIS has received over 7,000 I-601A provisional waiver applications.   Many have been already been decided and CIS states that it has a six month processing goal.

Many applications have already approved but a significant portion have been denied.  By far, the most common reason for denial is that the CIS found “reason to believe”  that a person might be found inadmissible by the consulate on a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence.  As background, the provisional waiver is meant to waive unlawful presence for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.  In regulations, the CIS stated that if an adjudicator has reason to believe that the consulate might find another ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence, the adjudicator should deny the application.  This has had the most obvious impact in cases where an FBI rap sheet shows that an applicant for a provisional waiver has been arrested.  Although not every arrest leads to inadmissibility, CIS appears to be taking the position that an arrest is sufficient “reason to believe” that a consulate might find inadmissibility on criminal grounds.  of course, this is highly over-inclusive.  Individuals are, generally, inadmissible due to convictions and not due to charges.  While many arrests do not result in convictions, the CIS approach treats many arrests as the equivalent of convictions.  Thus, even if a person is found to be not guilty of an offense, the fact that she was charged with a crime can be sufficient to create a “reason to believe.”  In addition, another situation in which the “reason to believe” standard frustrates the intentions behind the provisional waiver is where an individual is convicted of an offense that does not, under any circumstances, cause inadmissibility.  Not all convictions result in inadmissibility and certain convictions are very clearly and beyond a doubt not crimes which create inadmissibility.  The CIS is not entertaining arguments that the individual applicant is not inadmissible.  Rather, it is concluding that the bare fact of conviction is enough “reason to believe” that the consulate might find inadmissibility.  Thus, the CIS denies the provisional waiver, leaving the applicant and her U.S. citizen family members to the same Catch-22 they faced before the provisional waiver was introduced to eliminate that dilemma.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other advocacy groups have raised this issue in liaison meetings and have asked CIS to revisit this over-inclusive policy.

It appears that, for now, the provisional waiver should only be sought by those with no previous encounters with law enforcement or the immigration authorities.  While CIS has stated that those denied will, generally, not be referred to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) for removal proceedings, the filing of a provisional waiver is expensive and cumbersome process and one’s resources and hopes should only be spent where there is a realistic chance of success.  At this moment, we can not state that there is a realistic chance of success for those with any previous law enforcement contact, no matter how minor or insignificant.

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

The 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 Hannity!  Condoleeza 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.