Tag Archive for: 2024

Cyrus Mehta

Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Aguilar Hernandez Provides Glimpse of How Statutes and Regulations Will Be Interpreted Without Deference to Government

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On January 31, 2024, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision in Matter of Aguilar Hernandez.

Mr. Aguilar Hernandez, a noncitizen from Mexico, had been served a Notice to Appear (NTA) in 2019 that did not list the date and time of his individual hearing. He objected that this NTA was defective at both his individual hearing and moved to terminate the removal proceedings against him, but the Immigration Judge denied his motion. In October 2022, Mr. Aguilar Hernandez again moved to terminate the removal proceedings due to the defective NTA. The Department of Homeland Security objected, arguing that the IJ had the discretion to allow it to cure the defective NTA rather than terminating removal proceedings. DHS filed a Form I-261 containing the date and time of the next hearing, and also listing the date and time of the original hearing, and served this form on Mr. Aguilar Hernandez. Over Mr. Aguilar Hernandez’s objections, the IJ denied his motion to terminate once again, without issuing a decision concerning DHS’ submission of the Form I-261. Mr. Aguilar Hernandez then appealed to the BIA.

The BIA held that “DHS cannot remedy a notice to appear that lacks the date and time of the initial hearing before the Immigration Judge by filing a Form I-261 because this remedy is contrary to the plain text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez.” In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 160-62 (2021), the Supreme Court held that DHS cannot cure a defective NTA by issuing a hearing notice that contains the date and time of the initial hearing in removal proceedings. The BIA also cited to Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2015 (2018), in which the Supreme Court held that the “stop-time rule” at INA 240A(d)(1) is not triggered by an NTA that does not contain the time and place of a hearing in removal proceedings. The BIA reasoned that “The plain text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 does not support DHS’ argument, because it does not allow amendment of the date and time on the notice to appear by using a Form I-261. See, e.g., Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019) (requiring agencies to follow the plain language of a regulation).” The BIA noted that the Supreme Court had held that INA 239(a)(1) requires one “single document” in Niz-Chavez, and rejected the idea that DHS could provide adequate notice by issuing multiple successive documents containing the relevant information. See Niz-Chavez, 593 U.S. at 160-61.

Matter of Aguilar Hernandez is a victory for noncitizens seeking to terminate removal proceedings on the basis of a defective NTA, but it is interesting for another reason, as well – it represents one of the rare instances in which the BIA has cited Kisor v. Wilkie. As prior blogs have noted (here, here, and here) Kisor v. Wilkie laid out a three-step test for how it would view an agency’s interpretation of its own  genuinely ambiguous regulation.. Under this test,  the court must determine (i) that the regulation is “genuinely ambiguous” — the court should reach this conclusion after exhausting all the “traditional tools” of construction; (ii) if the regulation is genuinely ambiguous, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable; and (iii) even if it is a reasonable interpretation, whether it meets the “minimum threshold” to grant Auer deference, requiring the court to conduct an “independent inquiry” into whether (a) it is an authoritative or official position of the agency; (b) it reflects the agency’s substantive expertise; and (c) the agency’s interpretation of the rule reflects “its fair and considered judgment.” In Kisor, the Supreme Court narrowed the previous standard set forth in Auer v. Robbins, which held that courts would give deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.  In Aguilar Hernandez it does not appear that the BIA thought that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 was ambiguous, and so it did not even need to defer to the government’s interpretation of this regulation even under the narrower standard as set forth in Kisor v. Wilkie. The plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 did not support an expansive reading that would allow the government to cure a defective NTA by amending it through the submission of an I-261. An I-261 under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 only allows the government to add or substitute charges in an NTA or to add or substitute factual allegations.

The requirement that the government interprets the plain meaning of the regulation is part of a trend. The “Auer deference” standard as modified by Kisor v. Wilkie is quite similar to “Chevron deference”, which holds that courts will give deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). However, when a statute is not ambiguous, the court does not need to even rely on Chevron deference and can side step the analysis all together.  While requiring an agency to adhere to the plain meaning of a statute or regulation helped the respondent in Aguilar Hernandez, it may not always come to the aid of plaintiffs. For instance,  the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Wang v. Blinken  held that it was clear that INA 203(d) required the counting of both the principal and derivative beneficiaries in the employment-based fifth preference. Indeed, the Court in Wang v. Blinken also rejected the government’s argument that it was entitled to Chevron deference in interpreting INA 203(d) by counting derivatives as INA 203(d) was not ambiguous in the first place.

Two upcoming Supreme Court cases –  Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo –  may narrow Chevron or even eviscerate it altogether. If the Supreme Court’s holdings in Relentless and Loper Bright deprive agencies of the ability to interpret ambiguous statutes without explicit Congressional authorization, it may result in both good and bad outcomes in the immigration context. According to the Think Immigration Blog: “For example, in removal cases, Chevron deference hurts those seeking review of immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. It can also hurt employers seeking to obtain a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a noncitizen worker.   However, Chevron deference can help when the immigration agency seeks to give employment authorization benefits, such as with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or with F-1 optional practical training.”

At present, courts also rely on the “major questions” doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) to side step Chevron deference even if a statute is ambiguous. Here the Supreme Court held that “in certain extraordinary cases” where it is unclear whether an agency action was authorized by Congress, “given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims”.  Such extraordinary cases where the “major questions” doctrine is invoked have vast economic and political significance. The dissent in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“Washtech v. DHS”), for example, argued that the issue of whether DHS’ 2016 OPT Rule exceeds its statutory authority was a “major question”. Similarly, in a footnote, the court in Texas v. USA cited West Virginia v. EPA in holding that DHS had no Congressional authority to implement the DACA program. The standard articulated in West Virginia v. EPA requires agencies to assert clear Congressional authorization when implementing a new policy of major significance, while Chevron imposes an almost opposite standard by saying that if the court cannot identify clear congressional authority disapproving what the agency proposes to do, the court should uphold the agency action if it is reasonable.  The Supreme Court’s decisions in Relentless and Loper Bright could help to resolve this discrepancy. If Chevron deference is eliminated, courts need not even need to go into the “major questions” doctrine.

Matter of Aguilar Hernandez gives us a taste of how courts will interpret INA provisions and regulations in a post Chevron world although it remains to be seen whether the end result will always be beneficial.

 

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Musings On Brand X As a Force for Good Ahead of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Chevron Deference

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box

The Supreme Court on January 17, 2024 heard arguments in two cases – Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo  – that may determine whether courts will continue to give deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute as held in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Chevron deference also applies to ambiguous provisions under the INA. It is currently disfavored by  the conservative majority in the Supreme Court because it gives too much power to a federal agency to decide what the law is. It is also disfavored because deciding whether a statute is ambiguous, and thus becomes subject to deference,  is also a subjective determination based on the administration’s political ideology at any given moment in time. There is thus a great likelihood that Chevron will either be overturned or narrowed. As Brian Green and Stephen Yale-Loehr have astutely observed in their blog on Think Immigration:

Not all immigration practitioners and their clients will feel the impact if Chevron is narrowed or overruled. There will be winners and losers, and some unintended consequences may occur in limiting previously afforded deference to federal agency decision making. For example, in removal cases, Chevron deference hurts those seeking review of immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. It can also hurt employers seeking to obtain a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a noncitizen worker.   However, Chevron deference can help when the immigration agency seeks to give employment authorization benefits, such as with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or with F-1 optional practical training.

If the Supreme Court retains but limits Chevron, efforts will be made to argue that Chevron deference should not apply in BIA adjudications. Many case decisions have held that BIA adjudications receive Chevron deference, but there may be room to argue for a reversal of that precedent, depending on how the Court rules in Relentless and Loper.

If the Supreme Court’s holdings in Relentless and Loper Bright deprive agencies of the ability to interpret ambiguous statutes without explicit Congressional authorization, other precedent beyond Chevron could be eviscerated as well. In National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the Supreme Court held that an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute may still be afforded deference even if a circuit court has interpreted the statute in a conflicting way. The Court’s holding in Brand X is a double edged sword – it can empower agencies to interpret statutes in a way that will be detrimental to immigrants, or in a beneficial way, even in light of problematic circuit court precedent. One example of an agency using Brand X to the benefit of an immigrant may be found in Matter of Douglas, 26 I&N Dec. 197 (BIA 2013), discussed at length by David Isaacson in a prior blog. Matter of Douglas involved an individual, Mr. Douglas, who was born in Jamaica and seeking to establish citizenship under former INA §321(a). His mother had naturalized in 1988, and subsequently gained legal custody of Mr. Douglas when his parents divorced.

Case law in the Third Circuit required that an applicant under former INA §321(a)(3) demonstrate that his custodial parent naturalized after legal separation from the other parent. See Jordon v. Att’y Gen., 424 F.3d 320, 330 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir. 2005)). The BIA, however, had previously held that one may demonstrate citizenship under former INA §321(a) regardless of whether his parent gained legal custody before or after naturalizing. See Matter of Baires, 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008). Relying on Brand X, the Board of Immigration Appeals chose to follow its own precedent and hold that Mr. Douglas was a U.S. citizen, circuit court case law notwithstanding.

Isaacson’s blog also points to other instances where the BIA previously rejected Court of Appeals case law that it thought to be incorrect in favor of a more immigrant-friendly approach but not as explicitly as in Matter of Douglas. In Matter of F-P-R-, 24 I&N Dec. 681 (BIA 2008), for example, the BIA declined to follow the Second Circuit’s decision in Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir 2006), and held that the one-year period in which a timely application for asylum may be made runs from the applicant’s literal “last arrival” even when that last arrival followed a relatively brief trip outside the United States pursuant to advance parole granted by immigration authorities (which the Second Circuit had held would not restart the one-year clock). Isaacson also astutely points to a  footnote in the BIA’s acclaimed decision in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) (regarding travel on advance parole by one who has accrued unlawful presence) that could be read as pointing in this direction, the BIA in Arrabally made much of the fact that it was addressing an aspect of the law that the petitioner in the Third Circuit’s previous decision in Cheruku v. Att’y Gen., 662 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2011), had not challenged, see Matter of Arrabally, 25 I&N Dec. at 775 n.6.

Brand X can also provide hope when even the Supreme Court may have ostensibly shut the door. If a court’s decision is based on deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, a subsequent administration may interpret the statute differently notwithstanding the court’s decision. In Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, the Supreme Court ruled that the BIA’s previous interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), as set out in Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009), was a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.  In particular, the Court deferred to the BIA’s narrow interpretation of INA §203(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1153(h)(3), severely limiting which derivative beneficiaries of visa petitions could retain their parents’ priority dates.  This is a disappointing decision, but the details of the opinions in Cuellar de Osorio do leave room for some hope. When a statue is ambiguous in that way, Brand X makes clear that the BIA could reverse its position. So too could the Attorney General go against Matter of Wang and adopt a broader interpretation of INA §203(h)(3). If Brand X falls by the wayside like Chevron, there will be no room for a future administration to reinterpret this CSPA provision that could provide ameliorative relief for hundreds of thousands of children.

The demise of Brand X would deprive a future administration that might be bolder and kinder on immigration, a potentially important tool to implement immigration reform in the face of Congressional polarization and inaction. As we have noted in prior blogs, Brand X could be used by that administration to, for example, count derivative family members together with the principal applicant in both the employment-based (EB) and family based (FB) visa preference categories under INA § 203(d). There is nothing in §203(d) that requires the separate counting of derivatives even though the administration has been separately counting them since the enactment of this provision.  Although the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that derivative family members must be counted separately in the EB-5 context in Wang v. Blinken, No. 20-5076 (D.C. Cir. 2021), Brand X could provide the Biden administration with a way to nonetheless change this interpretation by deeming INA 203(d) ambiguous and issuing a rule or  policy memo overruling Wang v. Blinken everywhere in the country except in the D.C. Circuit. Other Court of Appeals decisions have similarly limited the Biden administration’s ability to use Brand X to the advantage of immigrants.

Matter of Castro-Tum, a Trump era decision holding that Immigration Judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) do not have the authority to administratively close cases was rejected by several Circuit Court decisions and ultimately overturned it its entirely by Attorney General Garland’s 2021 decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision not to grant administrative closure under Matter of Castro-Tum in Garcia v. Garland, a 2023 decision, despite the fact that the Biden administration had already, through Garland’s decision, reinstated the prior rule under Matter of Avetisyan, which permitted IJs and the BIA to administratively close removal proceedings, even if a party opposes. Although the Second Circuit’s decision was disappointing,  the case leaves open some interesting possibilities. In Garcia v. Garland the Second Circuit held that that agency’s interpretation on administrative closure was valid because Matter of Castro-Tum was valid and applicable at the time of the agency’s decision. Thus, if an IJ or the BIA grant administrative closure in reliance on Matter of Cruz-Valdez, that decision should be upheld even if a less immigrant-friendly administration overrules the decision in future. The same logic could apply to other Biden administration policies should they be challenged in future. Further, the decision in Garcia v. Garland asserts that principle that different administrations may reinterpret ambiguous statutory provisions.

Of course, if Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless overrule Chevron, Brand X too will fall along with its potential for be a force for good for immigrants. There is a possibility that Chevron may be narrowed rather than completely overruled. Green and Steve Yale Loehr suggest that the Supreme Court may cabin Chevron as it did for Auer deference. The Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie provided no new radical test of how it would view an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. It essentially “cabined the scope” of Auer deference, and set forth a three-step approach under Kisor. Under this test,  the court must determine (i) that the regulation is “genuinely ambiguous” — the court should reach this conclusion after exhausting all the “traditional tools” of construction; (ii) if the regulation is genuinely ambiguous, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable; and (iii) even if it is a reasonable interpretation, whether it meets the “minimum threshold” to grant Auer deference, requiring the court to conduct an “independent inquiry” into whether (a) it is an authoritative or official position of the agency; (b) it reflects the agency’s substantive expertise; and (c) the agency’s interpretation of the rule reflects “its fair and considered judgment.”

If the Supreme Court similarly narrows Chevron as it did with Auer deference, then Brand X will also be narrowed and survive.  But if Chevron falls, so will Brand X rendering it harder for a future immigrant friendly administration to implement broad based immigration reform.

Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC

 

Cyrus Mehta

CSPA Disharmony: USCIS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Date for Fling while DOS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Final Action Date

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

On February 14, 2023, the USCIS recognized that the age of the child gets protected  under the Child Status Protection Act when the Date for Filing (DFF) in the  Department of State (“DOS” or “State Department”) Visa Bulletin becomes current.

Since October 2015, the State Department Visa Bulletin two different charts to determine visa availability – the Final Action Dates (FAD) chart and the Dates for Filing (DFF) chart. The DFF in the Visa Bulletin potentially allows for the early filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications if eligible applicants are in the United States. The FAD is the date when permanent residency can be granted.  The Filing Date, if the USCIS so determines, allows for the early submission of an I-485 application prior to the date when the green card actually become available.

Prior to February 14, 2023, the USCIS maintained that the FAD protected the age of the child and not the DFF.  Using the DFF to protect the age of the child who is nearing the age of 21 is clearly more advantageous – the date becomes available sooner than the FAD – but USCIS policy erroneously maintained since September 2018 that only the FAD could protect the age of the child.

The USCIS on February 14, 2023 at long last agreed to use the DFF to protect the age of the child, and acknowledged this:

“After the publication of the May 2018 guidance, the same applicant for adjustment of status could have a visa “immediately available” for purposes of filing the application but not have a visa “become available” for purposes of CSPA calculation. Applicants who filed based on the Dates for Filing chart would have to pay the fee and file the application for adjustment of status without knowing whether the CSPA would benefit them. To address this issue, USCIS has updated its policies, and now considers a visa available to calculate CSPA age at the same time USCIS considers a visa immediately available for accepting and processing the adjustment of status application. This update resolves any apparent contradiction between different dates in the visa bulletin and the statutory text regarding when a visa is “available.”

Even if the child’s age is protected  when the DFF becomes current, the applicant must have sought to acquire permanent resident status within one year INA 203(h)(1)(A). According to the USCIS Policy Manual this could include filing a Form I-485, Form DS 260, paying IV fee, I-864 fee, I-824 or requesting transfer of underlying basis of an I-485.

Unfortunately, USCIS’s policy of using the DFF to protect a child’s age seems only to pertain to individuals who apply for adjustment of status within the United States. The Department of State (DOS) has yet to issue any corresponding guidance or update the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) in accordance with USCIS’s new policy. The FAM still states that an applicant’s “CSPA age’ is determined on the date that the visa, or in the case of derivative beneficiaries, the principal applicant’s visa became available (i.e., the date on which the priority date became current in the Application Final Action Dates and the petition was approved, whichever came later) (emphasis added)”. Thus, an applicant outside the U.S. who pays an immigrant visa (IV) fee may satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement, but only based on the FAD becoming current. This uneven policy makes little sense, and the DOS should promulgate its own guidance in accordance with USCIS’s policy to ensure that the DFF can also be used to protect the age of a child who processes for a visa overseas.

This results in an odd anomaly. A child who is seeking to immigrate through consular processing in the foreign country may not be able to take advantage of the CSPA under the DFF while a child who is seeking to adjust status while in the US can have the age protected under the DFF. Take the example of an Indian born beneficiary of a Family-Based Third Preference Petition, which applies to married sons and daughters of US citizens. The I-130 petition was filed by the US citizen parent on behalf of the married daughter, Nikki,  on March 2, 2009. The FAD on this I-130 petition became current under the State Department Visa Bulletin on January 1, 2024 and Nikki has been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview date on February 1, 2024 at the US Consulate in Mumbai. But the daughter’s son, Vivek, who was born on June 1, 1998 has already aged out and cannot get protected under the FAD since he is already 26.

On the other hand, the DFF on this petition became current on June 1, 2020.  The NVC notified Nikki and her derivative Vivek to pay the fee and complete the rest of the processing such as filing the DS 260 application. On June 1, 2020, Vivek was already 22 years.  However, the I-130 petition that was filed on March 2, 2009 took one year  and 1 day to to get approved on March 3, 2010. Under INA 203(h)(1)(A) the CSPA age is calculated based on the age of the child when the visa becomes available reduced by the number of days during which the I-130 petition was pending. So even though Vivek’s biological age on June 1, 2020 was 22, his CSPA age was under 21. By seeking to acquire permanent residency within one year of June 1, 2020, Vivek’s CSPA age got permanently locked in under the DFF.

Nikki paid the NVC fee on December 1, 2020  but took her time with the completion of  the DS 160 applications, which were submitted sometime in the month of  July 2021. Vivek’s age is protected under the DFF on June 1, 2020, which became current well before the FAD became current. He also sought to acquire lawful permanent resident status by paying the NVC fee within one year of June 1, 2020 along with his mother, Nikki, even though they filed their DS 260 applications after a year from the DFF becoming current.  If Vivek is seeking to process the case through consular processing at the US Consulate in Mumbai, he cannot do so as the State Department only recognizes the FAD to protect the child under the CSPA. But if Vivek is in the US in a nonimmigrant status such as F-1 he will luck out. Once Nikki is issued the immigrant visa in Mumbai, she can get admitted in the US as a permanent resident. Vivek can subsequently file an I-485 application in the US while in F-1 status as a follow to join derivative. Vivek can also argue that he sought to acquire permanent resident status by paying the NVC fee within 1 year of the DFF becoming current.

If for any reason Vivek’s  I-485 application is denied because the USCIS did not accept that the payment of the NVC fee amounted to Vivek seeking to acquire, he would still arguably as explained in our prior blog be able to maintain F-1 status under Matter of Hosseinpour, which recognized  inherent dual intent in nonimmigrant visas. Matter of Hosseinpour involved an Iranian citizen who entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student and later applied for adjustment of status. After his adjustment of status application was denied, he was placed in deportation proceedings and found deportable by an immigration judge on the ground that he violated his nonimmigrant status by filing an adjustment of status application. The BIA disagreed with this interpretation of the nonimmigrant intent requirement for foreign students, noting the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act had expressly removed a provision stating that an individual’s nonimmigrant status would automatically terminate if he filed an adjustment of status application. Thus, the BIA held that “filing of an application for adjustment of status is not necessarily inconsistent with the maintenance of lawful nonimmigrant status”. The BIA also referred to legal precedent which states that “a desire to remain in this country permanently in accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status.” (See Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Bong Youn Choy v. Barker, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). See also Matter of H-R-, 7 I & N Dec. 651 (R.C. 1958)).

Notwithstanding the disharmony between the USCIS and State Department CSPA policy, Vivek is able to take advantage of the more favorable DFF because he happened to be in the US in F-1 status and the USCIS belatedly recognized that the DFF could be relied on to protect the age of the child on February 14, 2023. Not all derivative beneficiaries might be so fortunate. Take the example of Vivek’s twin sister Kamala who is not in the US in F-1 status like her brother. Her only option to take advantage of the more favorable DFF is to obtain a B-2 visa and then file an I-485 in the US after Nikki is admitted as a lawful permanent resident. It might be impossible for Kamala to obtain a B-2 visa as the nonimmigrant visa applicant needs to demonstrate a foreign residence abroach which she has not abandoned. A consular officer may well refuse her application for the B-2 visa under INA 214(b) as she has not been able to establish that she is not an intending immigrant. Even if Kamala already obtained a B-2 visa stamp previously, she would need to enter the US in B-2 status and subsequently file the I-485 with the USCIS. The USCIS may deny the I-485 if Kamala entered the US with an intent to file for permanent residency in the US under the fraud or willful misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Of course, if Kamala is able to get admitted into the US on a dual intent H-1B or L-1 visa, she can file the I-485 application without any issues.

If the DOS aligned its CSPA policy with the USCIS, there would be no need for such convoluted albeit legal workarounds. Both Vivek in the US and Kamala in India would be able to seek the protection of the CSPA based on the DFF becoming current on June 1, 2020.

Cyrus Mehta

USCIS Policy Manual Recognizes Dual Intent for Foreign Students as Expressed in Matter of Hosseinpour

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On December 20, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual pertaining to nonimmigrant students in F and M status. An F-1 visa allows a nonimmigrant student to enter the U.S. to student at a college or university, while nonimmigrants in M status pursue training at a vocational school or other nonacademic institution. Pursuant to INA 101(a)(15)(F) and INA 101(a)(15)(M), foreign students in F and M status must “intend to depart from the United States after their temporary period of stay … and have a foreign residence that they have no intention of abandoning”.

The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges that “The foreign residence requirement should be adjudicated differently for students than for other nonimmigrants. Typically, students lack the strong economic and social ties of more established applicants, and they plan longer stays in the United States. […] Considerations should include the student’s present intent, not what they might do after a lengthy stay in the United States”. Newly added language in the Policy Manual also makes clear that a foreign student who is the beneficiary of a labor certification or I-140 petition filed by a prospective employer can still demonstrate the requisite intent to depart the United States, stating: “A student may be the beneficiary of an approved or pending permanent labor certification application or immigrant petition and still be able to demonstrate their intention to depart after a temporary period of stay. USCIS officers generally view the fact that a student is the beneficiary of an approved or pending permanent labor certification or an immigrant visa petition as not necessarily impacting their eligibility for the classification, so long as the student intends to depart at the end of their temporary period of stay.” A further addition to the Policy Manual broadens the requirement that foreign students must maintain a residence abroad:

“If a student had a foreign residence immediately prior to traveling to the United States, even if such residence was with parents or guardians, they may be considered to be maintaining a residence abroad if they have the present intent to depart the United States at the conclusion of their studies. The fact that this intention may change is not a sufficient reason to deny them F classification. In addition, the present intent to depart does not imply the need to return to the country from which they hold a passport. It means only that they must intend to leave the United States upon completion of their studies. Given that most students are young, they are not expected to have a long-range plan and may not be able to fully explain their plans at the conclusion of their studies.”

This update to the Policy Manual is not only a welcome clarification for foreign students, but it also brings USCIS policy in line with consular guidance and established case law. Section 402.5-5(E)(1)(U) of the Foreign Affairs Manual, for example, instructs consular officers as follows:

If a student visa applicant is residing with parents or guardians, you may consider them to be maintaining a residence abroad if you are satisfied that the applicant has the present intent to depart the United States at the conclusion of their studies.  The fact that this intention may change is not sufficient reason to deny a visa.  In addition, the present intent to depart, does not imply the need to return to the country from which they hold a passport.  It means only that they must intend to leave the United States upon completion of their studies.  Given that most student visa applicants are young, they are not expected to have a long-range plan and may not be able to fully explain their plans at the conclusion of their studies.  You must be satisfied at the time of the application for the visa that the applicant possesses the present intent to depart at the conclusion of their approved activities.

9 FAM 402.5-5(E)(1)(U)(c)

The new guidance is also in line with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision in Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (B.I.A. 1975), which recognized  inherent dual intent in nonimmigrant visas. Matter of Hosseinpour involved an Iranian citizen who entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student and later applied for adjustment of status. After his adjustment of status application was denied, he was placed in deportation proceedings and found deportable by an immigration judge on the ground that he violated his nonimmigrant status by filing an adjustment of status application. The BIA disagreed with this interpretation of the nonimmigrant intent requirement for foreign students, noting the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act had expressly removed a provision stating that an individual’s nonimmigrant status would automatically terminate if he filed an adjustment of status application. Thus, the BIA held that “filing of an application for adjustment of status is not necessarily inconsistent with the maintenance of lawful nonimmigrant status”. The BIA also referred to legal precedent which states that “a desire to remain in this country permanently in accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status.” (See Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Bong Youn Choy v. Barker, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). See also Matter of H-R-, 7 I & N Dec. 651 (R.C. 1958)).

USCIS’ new guidance appears to reaffirm the BIA’s holding in Matter of Hosseinpour and we refer readers to our prior blog, “Long Live Matter of Hosseinpour: Making the Case for Dual Intent in All Nonimmigrant Visas”. These changes also reflect the reality of many nonimmigrant students’ situations. A foreign student could intend to depart the United States at the end of their degree program, but simultaneously hope to stay in the country if an opportunity to do so arose. At the time of his entry into the U.S.,  the foreign student could hardly predict that he could later apply for adjustment of status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen spouse or a prospective employer would file an  I-140 petition. The fact that a foreign student desires to pursue one of these paths to permanent residence if the opportunity arises should  not mean that she cannot also possess the requisite nonimmigrant intent.

The flexibility afforded by Matter of Hosseinpour and USCIS’ new policy guidance can be extended to other categories of nonimmigrants, as well. A few categories of nonimmigrant visas, such as H-1Bs and L-1s,  expressly allow “dual intent” in INA 214(b), meaning that a visa holder may pursue permanent residence while simultaneously maintaining his nonimmigrant status.  Other nonimmigrant categories allow for quasi dual intent such as the O, E-1, E-2, and P categories. Nonimmigrants in these categories are not required to maintain a foreign residence but are still required to leave at the end of their authorized stay.   Other categories of nonimmigrant visas, however, are explicitly not dual intent, including E-3 visas, which allow Australian nationals to come to the U.S. perform services in a specialty occupation. Although an E-3 is also a “specialty occupation” visa, E-3 workers are more restricted from seeking permanent residence in the U.S. than those in H-1B status. Expanding the flexibilities reflected in USCIS’ additions to the policy manuals would greatly benefit nonimmigrants and better reflect the nuances inherent in today’s immigration landscape.

The clarification in the USCIS Policy Manual will have the greatest impact on those filing for a change of status to F-1 or M-1 from another nonimmigrant visa status such as H-1B, and who may be beneficiaries of I-130 or I-140 petitions. It would also assist dependents in H-4 status who are changing to F-1 status because their parent’s I-140 petition is stuck in the India EB-1, EB-2 or EB-3 backlogs and their age has not been protected under the Child Status Protection Act. They will not be held to the impossibly rigid standard of maintaining a foreign residence abroad they have not abandoned,  especially if they left their home country at a young age many years ago.  Under the new clarification they would be considered to be maintaining a foreign residence abroad so long as they had one prior to coming to the US even if it was with their parents or guardians and they have a present intent to depart at the end of their studies.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.