The final step in the marriage-based green card process, the I-130 and I-485 based on marriage to a U.S. Citizen, is the interview. Having represented numerous clients in these cases and also having accompanied clients in these interviews in cities such as:

• Baltimore
• Chicago
• Cleveland
• Columbus
• Cincinnati
• Hartford
• Houston
• Los Angeles
• Newark
• New York
• Seattle

… we thought of compiling a list of questions that may be asked in the future, and to write an informative post about the interview itself.

Please note that these questions are simply guidelines on which topics officers usually focus on, and is not exactly what they ask or a guarantee that these would be asked. They could ask more, and they could ask less. Each case is different.

In terms of how long the interview is, it also depends on the facts of the case and the officer you have. I’ve had some that lasted less than ten minutes, while I’ve also had some that lasted about two and half hours. I’ve had some that were interviewed together, and I’ve had some that were interviewed separately. It depends on several factors – the length of marriage, age difference, etc.

Basic Steps

• Check In: Each office has their own procedure, but typically, you first bring your interview notice to the check-in counter, the officer would ask you to take a seat, and they will call your name. Some offices like Arlington and Chicago have those buzzers (like those you get while waiting for a seat in chain restaurants) that vibrate once your turn is up.

• Oath: The officer administers an oath. “Raise your right hand… do you swear or affirm… truth, whole truth… etc.”

• Identification and Basic Documents: The officer would then ask for identification and basic immigration documents – driver’s licenses, passport for the beneficiary, naturalization certificate or birth certificate for the petitioner, birth certificate for beneficiary, marriage certificate, divorce decrees.

• Forms: The interview itself usually starts with the forms I-130, G-325, and I-485. This is pretty informative. Name, birthday, address, divorce information, entry and visa information, parents’ names, and the yes / no inadmissibility questions on Form I-485 (criminal record, fraud, J-1 waiver, public charge etc.) will be asked.

• Bona Fide Marriage: From there, the officer would then proceed with the relationship itself. The sample questions are below. After the questions are asked, the officer would then ask for any supporting documents you have about your relationship. Joint tax, returns, joint bank statements, joint lease, joint insurance documents, utility bills with both names and a common address, pictures taken in different places with friends or family in it, affidavits, are some examples of documents they typically ask. Note that some offices now require that copies of these be made beforehand, as these documents are to be submitted to the officer.

Sample Bona Fide Marriage Questions

1. When did you meet?
2. Where did you meet?
3. When did you first meet in person?
4. Who introduced you to each other?
5. How did you meet?
6. How long did you talk?
7. What happened after?
8. How often did you talk to each other over the phone after you initially met?
9. How often did you see each other after you met?

Courtship and Dating Questions

10. How soon after you met did you start dating?
11. How often did you go out?
12. How often did you talk on the phone?
13. Give us examples of restaurants you went to?
14. Give us examples of some movies you watched together?
15. Did you ever travel out of town while you were dating?
16. Where did you go?

Proposal

17. How did you decide on getting married?
18. When did he propose?
19. Where did he propose?
20. Did he give you a ring?
21. Where did you buy the ring?
22. How did he propose?

Wedding

23. Did you get married in Court or in Church or both?
24. Which Court did you go to?
25. Around what time was the Court wedding?
26. How many people where with you in Court?
27. What did you do after you got married in Court?
28. Did you eat out after you got married in Court?
29. Where did you eat?
30. Who were with you at the restaurant?
31. Which Church did you go to?
32. Around what time was the Church wedding?
33. How did you get to the Church?
34. How many people attended the Church wedding?
35. Did you have a reception?
36. Where was the reception?
37. Around what time was the reception?
38. Around how many people were in the reception?

Family

39. Have you met your spouse’s parents?
40. What are their names parents?
41. When did you first meet your spouse’s parents?
42. Where did you first meet them?
43. How many brothers and sisters does your spouse have?
44. Have you met your spouse’s brothers and sisters?
45. When did you first meet your spouse’s brothers and sisters?
46. Where did you first meet your spouse’s brothers and sisters?
47. Does your spouse have any kids?
48. What are their names?
49. Where do they live?
50. Where do they go to school?
51. Who takes them to school?
52. How do they go to school?
53. How old are the kids?
54. When was the last time you saw her parents?
55. What was the occasion?
56. When was the last time you saw her brothers and sisters?
57. What was the occasion?

Employment

58. Where does your spouse work?
59. What does your spouse do?
60. What are your spouse’s hours at work?
61. What is your spouse’s salary?
62. How does your spouse get to work?
63. What is your spouse’s position at work?
64. Does your spouse drive, take the subway, bus, or walk to work?
65. Which bus does your spouse take?
66. Which subway does your spouse take?
67. Which subway station does your spouse go to for work?
68. Which subway station does your spouse get off at?
69. How long does it take for your spouse to get to work?
70. How many days per week does your spouse work?
71. What days are they?

Residence

72. Do you live in a house or apartment?
73. How may bedrooms in the apartment?
74. How many bathrooms in the apartment?

Special Occasions

75. What did you do for Christmas, or Thanksgiving, or 4^th of July Weekend, Labor Day Weekend, Memorial Day Weekend etc.?
76. What did you do for her (or his) birthday)
77. Did you give her a gift for her birthday?
78. What gift did you give her?
79. Did you give her a gift for Christmas?
80. What gift did you give her?

Recent Events

81. Did you eat together last night?
82. What time did you eat?
83. What did you eat?
84. Did you sleep together last night?
85. What time did you sleep?

Other

86. Was there any point in your marriage where you did not live together?
87. How long a period was this?
88. What was the reason for not living together for that period?
89. Where did your spouse live during that period?
90. What address?
91. Does your spouse have tattoos?
92. How many tattoos?
93. Where are they located?
94. Does your spouse have criminal records that you know of?
95. What are they?
96. When did they occur?
97. Where did they occur?
98. Did your spouse get hospitalized over the past year?
99. When?
100. Which hospital did he go to?

As mentioned, the answers to these questions or inconsistencies in your answers can lead to more questions. But typically, as to the areas or topics the officers asks, your meeting, courtship, proposal, wedding, family, employment, and residence are going to be questioned.

If you have an questions for me, please fill out the FREE CONSULTATION form below.

{ 0 comments }

The Ninth Circuit in De Osorio v. Mayorkas held that the plain language of CSPA (Child Status Protection Act) unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries.

Before this case, when these beneficiaries aged out prior to their parents becoming permanent residents, a new I-130 petition filed by their parents for them would have a new priority date, which means they would have to wait several years before they can immigrate or apply for a green card, in some cases over ten years. With this decision, the old priority date of the I-130 filed for their parents, for which they were derivative beneficiaries, would be retained. So that new I-130 that the LPR (lawful permanent resident) parent files for the aged-out son or daughter, could have that old 1985 or so priority date, speeding up the immigrant visa or permanent resident (green card) process by over a decade in some categories.

I have come across probably over a hundred consultations over the past three years in which parents have asked about what could be done for their aged-out children. Being Filipino myself, I’ve heard stories from several Filipino F4 (sibling petition) beneficiaries who waited at least twenty two years for their immigrant visas to be approved, only to realize they cannot bring their children, most of whom were just babies when they were first petitioned. In most cases, the honest answer has been to file an I-130 again and wait in line, and “hope” that a new case comes out.

Well, this new case has come out in De Osorio v. Majorkas. The decision in the class-action lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service is a victory for tens of thousands of people who lost their priority status upon turning 21, as their parents faced long waits due to backlogs in the immigration systems. Filipino immigrants for example who were petitioned by their siblings were never able to bring their children with them because the waiting time for priority dates to be current has been over 21 years for a while. So all their children aged-out by the time immigrant visas become available. You can have a one month old child when your brother petitioned for you, wait 22 years for priority dates to be current, and your child will automatically over-age. So you needed to petition your child and wait over a decade again. But with this new case, if that parent files an I-130 for their 25-year old daughter, the I-130 F4 priority date in the 1980s would be retained, which obviously is now current.

Below is a quoted section from the 9th Circuit in their decision, providing you with their summary and the relevant portion of the case.

“Appellants became lawful permanent residents and immigrated to the United States. However, due to visa quotas and a serious backlog, by the time Appellants received their family-sponsored visas, their children were no longer eligible to accompany them as recipients of derivative visas, which are available only to children under the age of twenty-one. Their children had “aged out” of eligibility.

‘The question before us is whether these children are entitled to relief under the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h). The CSPA provides, among other things, that when certain aged-out aliens apply for visas under a new category for adults, they may retain the filing date of the visa petition for which they were listed as derivative beneficiaries when they were children. This ensures that visas are available quickly, rather than requiring the now-adult aliens to wait many more years in a new visa line.

‘The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Appellants’ requests for priority date retention under the CSPA. USCIS relied on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision in Matter of Wang, 25 I. & N. Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) that the CSPA does not apply to all derivative beneficiaries. The district court, deferring to the BIA’s interpretation, granted summary judgment to USCIS in two separate cases. We reverse.

‘We conclude that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. The BIA’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the plain language of the CSPA, and it is not entitled to deference.”

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

Family

The Philadelphia Inquirer had a piece on the hardships families with deported parents and U.S. citizen children face. They talked about Chon and Ibed, a Mexican couple with three U.S. Citizen children, telling their story from how they met as two illegal immigrants to eventually having a family, to Chon’s recent deportation. It is a story that is typical in the field of immigration, one that is similar to most families with a deported parent and U.S. citizen children.

Around four million U.S.-born children have at least one parent with no immigration status, based on the findings of the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington. They also found that the proportion of adults who entered the border illegally, get deported, and try to cross again is growing. The current immigration policy has led to an increase in female-headed households, with mothers being forced to support their families since their husbands got deported, affecting thousands of U.S. citizen children in the process.

According to the Applied Research Center, an think tank organization in New York that recently analyzed Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, from 2000 to 2010, 8 percent of all deportees had U.S. Citizen children.

Tuition

A federal judge ruled that children of undocumented immigrants cannot pay higher out-of-state tuition in Florida just because their parents are illegal, based on this report by the Miami Herald. Judge K. Michael Moore held that the policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by forcing these U.S. Citizen students to pay three times more than Florida residents. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Florida U.S. Citizen students denied in-state tuition because they could not prove their parents’ legal status. This would provide thousands of students greater access to an education. At the University of Florida for example, in-state tuition costs $205 per credit hour, while out-of-states costs $947 per hour. Based on a Florida International University law professor’s analysis of the U.S. Census, nearly 9,000 children of undocumented immigrant parents are enrolled in Florida public colleges and universities in a given year.

Other states had similar rulings recently. In New Jersey, a state appeals court ruled that U.S. born student whose parents could not prove valid immigration status was wrongly denied financial aid. In California and Colorado, similar rulings were made.

Politics

CBS News summarized the Democratic and Republican immigration agendas based on recent convention speeches by members of both parties. The Democrats are committed to helping some undocumented immigrants get a “path toward citizenship”, “learn English and pay taxes”, and have a visa system that meets the country’s “economic needs, keeps families together and enforces the law. The Deferred Action Program illustrates this theme, and would likely be continued with an Obama reelection.

The Republican platform on the other hand is against any form of amnesty for those who intentionally violated immigration laws. They called for the Justice Department to stop their lawsuits against states with tough immigration laws. They also intend to deny federal funding to schools that provide lower in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. An increase in “show-me” laws such as those in Arizona and a possible repeal of the Deferred Action Program are possible repercussions of a Romney presidency.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

Some people can apply for a green card despite overstaying their status, such as those who are legal entry overstays who apply for a green card based on marriage to a US Citizen, or those who are applying based on employment, overstayed their status, but benefit from Section 245i. When you have a green card application pending, you may apply for advance parole, a travel document that in theory permits you to travel and reenter the United States. So those who overstayed and applied for a green card usually still obtain advance parole.

Prior to Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), which we shall discuss in a bit, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) position was that those who departed the U.S. on an advance parole, after incurring unlawful presence of six months or more, would be subject to either the three or ten year bars, and are thus inadmissible. Because of this position, a lot of people who have approved advanced paroles after incurring years of unlawful presence (marriage to a U.S. Citizen or those eligible for adjustment due to INA 245i) were not able to return to the United States due to either the three or ten year bar. Why does the I-131 advance parole get granted when the applicant will be inadmissible anyway? Who knows. Those applicants would’ve been better off had the I-131 been denied, because at least it would have prevented them from traveling abroad. It was a tricky and deceiving aspect of advance paroles and adjustment of status applications for those with unlawful presence issues, especially for those who did not seek legal advice.

But in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, the Board finally held that a departure under an approved advance parole is not a “departure” for purposes of INA § 212(a)(9)(B) which triggers the three and ten year bars. Thus, those who have over six months of unlawful presence, who are eligible to adjust status in the United States, would now be able to come back on the advance parole without being inadmissible anymore. This is a big decision for those employment-based 245i green card cases by applicants with six or more months unlawful presence. Since visa retrogression has delayed a lot of green card applications, those applicants with unlawful presence issues but are 245i eligible can now apply for advance parole and visit their home countries, without being subject to the three or ten year bars that the DHS used to impose on them upon return prior to this BIA decision.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

Legal Entry Overstay

This is the most common marriage-based fact pattern: foreigner enters the United States legally on a non-immigrant visa such as a tourist or student, has an I-94, overstays and /or violates their status by working illegally, but later falls in love and marries a U.S. Citizen in good faith. Those people can be petitioned by their spouse and file for a green card in the United States.

But what if you entered illegally by crossing the border? Say you crossed through Canada, rode a van and was let in without inspection, or you managed to cross the US-Mexico border in California, Texas, or Arizona without inspection, and you married a U.S. Citizen, can you still get a green card based on marriage without leaving the United States?

This law called INA § 245(i) allows these people to apply for a green card. The law’s application comes in two important petition deadlines which will be explained below, January 14, 1998 and April 30, 2001. We assume that there are no other basis for inadmissibility other than illegal work and illegal entry. So if you are convicted of certain crimes or committed fraud in certain contexts, such as misrepresenting in a job application or I-9 form that you are a U.S. Citizen, inadmissibility may still apply.

Beneficiary of a Petition Filed Before January 14, 1998

If you had a labor certification or an I-130 visa petition filed on your behalf on or before January 14, 1998, even if you entered without inspection to the U.S. at any time, INA § 245(i) protects you in the sense that you can file for a green card in the United States through marriage to a U.S. Citizen. “I-130 visa petition filed on your behalf” includes those petitions in which you were a derivative beneficiary. Let’s say your US Citizen uncle filed an I-130 sibling petition for your mom or dad in 1997 and you were under 21, then you will be considered as having an “I-130 visa petition filed on your behalf.” Take note that the law only states that a petition or labor certification has to be filed, it does not even need to be approved.

The U.S. Citizen spouse files the I-130 Immigrant Petition and you simultaneously file the I-485 Adjustment of Status application, but unlike the typical marriage case, you also have to file this together with Supplement A to the I-485 with an extra $1000 fee. All basic documents that go along with a marriage case should be filed, but in addition to that, proof that you were a beneficiary of a labor certification or immigrant petition should also be included, such a copy of an I-130 receipt or approval notice with a January 14, 1998 receipt date or earlier, or a labor certification receipt proof on those dates.

Beneficiary of a Labor Certification or Visa Petition Filed After January 14, 1998, but on or before April 30, 2001

Beneficiaries of a labor certification or visa petition filed on their behalf after January 14, 1998 but on or before April 30, 2001 can also get a green card through INA § 245(i) through marriage to a U.S. Citizen but only if they were physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000. So in addition to the forms and fees of a typical marriage-based green card case, proof that you were the beneficiary of a petition or labor certification filed on or before April 30, 2001 plus proof that you were here on December 21, 2000 should be submitted. You don’t have to have a document with December 21, 2000 specifically on it. School records, tax returns, driver’s licenses, pay stubs, utility bills, insurance documents, bank statements etc. with a 2000 and 2001 date would suffice, as long as it can be implied based on those that you were here on December 21, 2000. Supplement A to I-485 plus the extra $1000 fee should also be included.

245(i)

The two scenarios described above falls under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(i). Immigration lawyers, judges, officers, in dealing with people who crossed the border in marriage to U.S. citizen cases, simply ask if he or she “has 245(i)”. It is a shortcut way of asking whether you are a beneficiary of a petition filed on or before January 14, 1998, or the beneficiary of a petition filed on or before April 30, 2001 who also meets the December 14, 2000 physical presence requirement.

Simple Examples

For all examples, B is the foreigner who enters without inspection and eventually gets married to a US Citizen.

1. Can Get a Green Card Through Marriage

a. U.S. Citizen Brother files an I-130 petition for B brother in 1996. B crosses the Mexican border in 1997 without inspection. B marries a US Citizen in 2009. In this case, Section 245(i) protects B. B can apply for a green card through marriage. B was the beneficiary of a petition filed on or before January 14, 1998.

b. B crosses the Mexican border in 1997 without inspection. U.S. Citizen Brother files an I-130 petition for B in March 2001. B marries a U.S. Citizen in 2009. Section 245(i) protects B. B can apply for a green card through marriage. B was the beneficiary of a petition filed on or before April 30, 2001 and was physically present here on December 21, 2000.

c. U.S. Citizen Brother files an I-130 petition for B in November 1997. B crosses the Mexican border without inspection in January 1998. B married a U.S. Citizen in January 2009. Section 245(i) protects B. B can apply for a green card. B was the beneficiary of a petition filed on or before January 14, 1998, thus no need to show December 21, 2000 physical presence.

2. Can’t Get a Green Card in the U.S. Even Through Marriage

a. U.S. Citizen Brother files an I-130 petition for B in January 1999. B illegally crosses the border on January 2001. B marries a U.S. Citizen in January 2009. Section 245(i) does not protect B. B cannot apply for a green card. B was the beneficiary of a petition filed after January 14, 1998 but on or before April 30, 2001, but B does not have physical presence in the U.S on December 21, 2000.

b. B crosses the Mexican border without inspection in 1995. B married a U.S. Citizen in January 2009. Nobody ever petitioned for B. Section 245(i) does not protect B. B cannot get a green card through marriage.

c. B crosses the Mexican border without inspection in 1995. B’s U.S. Citizen brother files an I-130 petition for him on May 1, 2001. B marries a U.S. Citizen in 2009. Section 245(i) does not protect B. B cannot get a green card through marriage. The I-130 was filed after April 30, 2001.

{ 1 comment }

On July 20, 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that K-4 visa holders could only adjust status based on the I-130 filed by the K visa petitioner, and not on the basis of her own subsequent marriage to a U.S. Citizen.

In Matter of Valenzuela, 25 I&N Dec. 867 (BIA 2012), the respondent came to the U.S. with K-4 visa as a derivative of her mother’s K-3 visa (as the spouse of a United States citizen).  Her mother adjusted her status to that of a lawful permanent resident based on her marriage to the K visa petitioner (U.S. Citizen husband). The respondent also sought to adjust her status based on the visa petition filed on her behalf by the K visa petitioner (Respondent’s step-father).  However, the I-130 petition was denied as a result of the Respondent’s failure to attend the interview. Later, she married her U.S. citizen husband, and she sought to adjust her status again based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.  However, the Immigration Judge denied her adjustment application because she is ineligible to adjust her status on any basis other than I-130 filed by the K visa petitioner (her step-father in instant case).

The issue was whether a derivative of a K visa (K-4 visa holder) may adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident based on her own subsequent marriage to a U.S. citizen.  The BIA concluded that the statute clearly bars the adjustment of K visa derivative through a different petition.  The BIA held that “if the respondent were correct that a K visa derivative beneficiary is eligible to adjust through a different petitioner, then a K visa derivative would be in a better position than the principal K visa holder.”  The BIA also added that they cannot presume that one type of petitioner may be substituted for another in order to make an alien eligible for adjustment of status.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano, issued a memorandum on new prosecutorial discretion standards pertaining to certain illegal aliens. She started by stating that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children “lacked the intent to violate the law” and pose few national security risks.  If the individual meets the following criteria, that person will not be deported or removed from the United States as a result of the prosecutorial discretion.

• Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present  in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• Is not above the age of thirty.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

Our Associate Attorney, Sung Hee (Glen) Yu, Esq. was invited to talk about the practice of immigration law practice and his professional experience at the Third Annual Case Western Midwest APALSA (Asian Pacific American Law Students’ Association) Conference last February 18, 2012.

This year’s conference entitled “Building Your Niche: Creating a Professional Identity in Practice and Beyond,” was designed by law students in light of the challenging employment market. APALSA members sought to put on a conference that focused on the expansive opportunities that a Juris Doctor can open up for students, law related or otherwise.  Over twenty-five attorneys, professors, and other professionals were invited to attend and share their experiences. More than 80 law students attended this all day conference.

Mr. Yu, a Case Western Law School alum, was invited to speak at the Immigration Law Breakout sessions with two other immigration attorneys.  He discussed various issues common to the practice of immigration law and shared his experiences in handling employment-based, family-based, and deportation and removal cases. He also offered advice on how to find internships and employment in immigration law firms and other jobs related to the field.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 0 comments }

On November 29, 2011, Congress passed H.R. 3012 (The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrant Act) by a vote of 389-15 with no additional amendments.  The measure now moves on to the Senate for consideration. The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrant Act was introduced on September 22, 2011 by Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) to eliminate the employment-based per-country cap entirely by fiscal year 2015 and raises the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7% to 15%.

This passed Bill aims to move away from the current law, under which immigrants from an individual country who are in the U.S. on an employment visa such as an H1-B cannot apply for more than seven per cent of the 140,000 green cards issued annually by the State Department. The Act ultimately eliminates this per country percentage cap. What this implies is that countries that are facing the highest demand-supply mismatch for green cards, among which India ranks first and China second, then Mexico and the Philippines will see a benefit in terms of prospective green card issuance (shorter waiting time for priority dates to be current), whereas the waiting time for other nations would be significantly longer.

Therefore, the Act greatly will improve the processing times for Indian and Chinese green card applicants.  However, an unintended consequence of the Act likely would be the slower processing times for natives of other countries.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 1 comment }

The Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Security established a high-level joint DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ) working group to conduct a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 cases pending before the immigration courts, Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the federal court of appeals. Those cases that are identified as “low priority” will be administratively closed and the respondents will be eligible to apply for work authorization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). Because of this policy, additional resources can be focused on “high priority “ cases such as those individuals who pose a threat to public safety.

The DHS has stated that its enforcement priorities are national security, public safety, border security, and repeat immigration law violators. As to what constitutes “low priority cases, the DHS has made clear that no category of cases will receive a blanket exercise of favorable discretion, but they have identified certain categories of individuals that may receive particular attention. These include: veterans, long-time permanent residents, minors and the elderly, individuals who have been present since childhood, individuals with serious disabilities or health issues, women who are nursing or pregnant, and victims of domestic violence or other serious crimes. As to negative factors, serious felons, repeat offenders, and individuals with a lengthy criminal record would most likely not be given prosecutorial discretion.

Administrative closure is a procedural convenience used to temporarily remove a case from the immigration court’s docket. The case remains pending, though inactive. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys and officers have been asked to consider all cases in light of the DHS enforcement priorities. These requests should be made in writing and should include as much supporting documentation as possible.

If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately. 

{ 2 comments }