Tag Archive for: Adjustment of Status

Cyrus Mehta & Kaitlyn Box*

CSPA Disharmony is More Beautiful Than Monotony Notwithstanding a Discrepancy between USCIS and DOS Policy in Protecting the Age of the Child

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

In early 2023, USCIS reversed its longstanding policy of recognizing only the Final Action Dates (FAD) in the State Department Visa bulletin as protecting a child’s age under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), and agreed to use the Dates for Filing (DFF) to protect the age of the child. This shift in policy allowed the age of many more children to be protected under the CSPA.  USCIS acknowledged that:

“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.”

Cyrus Mehta had long advocated for the use of the DFF for CSPA calculation purposes, and discussed the implications of this policy change at length in a prior blog entitled “CSPA Disharmony: USCIS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Date for Filing While DOS Allows Child’s Age to Be Protected under the Final Action Date”. 

Now, USCIS without advance notice has again reverted to its prior policy, stating in an August 8, 2025 Policy Alert that: 

… “a visa becomes available for the purposes of Child Status Protection Act age calculation based on the Final Action Dates chart of the Department of State Visa Bulletin. The new guidance applies to requests filed on or after August 15, 2025. We will apply the Feb. 14, 2023, policy of CSPA age calculation to adjustment of status applications pending with USCIS before August 15, 2025, as these aliens may have relied on that policy when they filed.    

This policy update ensures both USCIS and the Department of State use the Final Action Dates chart in the Visa Bulletin to determine when a visa becomes available for the purposes of CSPA age calculation. This establishes a consistent CSPA age calculation for aliens who apply for adjustment of status and immigrant visas. The Feb. 14, 2023, policy resulted in inconsistent treatment of aliens who applied for adjustment of status in the United States versus aliens outside the United States who applied for an immigrant visa with the Department of State.”

This change will become effective for applications filed on or after August 15, 2025. 

USCIS’ February 14, 2023 policy that used the DFF to protect the age of the child was salutary, and should have been left in place. This policy protected many more children from aging out, and had a clear legal basis since the DFF allowed one to apply for adjustment of status based on visa availability under INA 245(a)(3) while the child’s age was also frozen based on visa availability under INA 203(h)(1)(A).

The August 2025 policy reversal is ostensibly aimed at ensuring that both the USCIS and the Department of State (DOS) use the FAD chart to determine when a visa becomes available for purposes of the CSPA calculation. A discrepancy indeed existed between the USCIS and State Department policy, as DOS did not issue guidance that corresponded to USCIS’ February 14, 2023 guidance, nor did it update Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) accordingly. However, both the USCIS and State Department could have instead used the DFF rather than the FAD to determine visa availability.

Notwithstanding the discrepancy between USCIS and State Department policy, using the DFF for CSPA calculation purposes benefited children in the U.S. in a nonimmigrant status whose age got protected under the DFF, and who sought to acquire permanent residence within one year of visa availability, even though their parents obtained an immigrant visa, and permanent residence, under the Final Action Dates some years later.  It also benefitted the entire family if they were here in the US and all filed I-485 adjustment applications together as it kept them united and they were able to derive benefits from the I-485 such as work authorization and travel permission. 

USCIS’ policy reversal will have significant implications for children whose age will no longer get protected under the CSPA. Children of parents who were born in backlogged countries such as India and China are likely to suffer the most severe hardship, as it may be many years before the FAD becomes available, resulting in the children aging out before their age can be protected under the CSPA. Children who may age out before their age can get protected under the CSPA may be reluctant to even file an adjustment of status application in the current climate, as denials if the children age out could result in them being placed into removal proceedings.  

It bears considering whether the cruel policy reversal can potentially be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the reversal was arbitrary and capricious as the USCIS did not provide a reasoned explanation for its action under DHS v. Regents of the University of California. In Regents, which was discussed in detail in a prior blog, the Court struck down the rescission of the DACA program on the ground that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for taking this action. The Court also focused on the agency’s failure to factor in the reliance interests of DACA recipients, many of whom had enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance on the DACA program.

The anomaly between the USCIS and DOS policy existed when the new policy was announced on February 23, 2023, and so to necessitate a  reconciliation  is a poor justification for reversing the policy. Nothing has changed since 2023. Moreover, even if USICS has provided an August 15, 2025 cutoff date, the reversal would still impact reliance interests as enunciated by the Supreme Court majority in Regents. The DFF will still allow applicants and their children to file I-485 applications after August 15, but once their children age out, their I-485 will get denied. Children are likely to be deterred from filing I-485 applications if there is a risk that they will age out before the FAD becomes current. Despite the weighty impact on reliance interests,  USCIS has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the reversal.

As the USCIS will continue to use the DFF to protect the age of the child until August 15, 2025, applicants who are eligible to file I-485 adjustment of status applications should do so immediately. After August 15, 2025, while a child may be able to file an I-485 under the DFF it will not protect the age of the child. If the FAD does not become current before the child becomes 21, or if the child turns 21 and cannot utilize the age protection formula under the CSPA, the child’s I-485 application will get denied. This could potentially jeopardize the child’s chances of changing to another nonimmigrant status such as F-1. Although  the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)  in Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (B.I.A. 1975) recognized an inherent dual intent in all nonimmigrant visas, it may be not be recognized by this Administration under the circumstances of an I-485 that was filed and denied. If children  proceed abroad for an F-1 visa they too risk refusal of the visa under INA 214(b) as they may not be able to rebut the presumption that they are intending immigrants. 

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

 

Cyrus Mehta

Parole in Place – A Means to an End or An End in Itself?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

 On June 18, 2024, President Biden announced new measures aimed at ensuring that “U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses and children can keep their families together”. One of these measures provides a discretionary grant of parole in place (“PIP”) to individuals who: are present in the United States without admission or parole; have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2014; have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024; have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise are not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security; and submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting. Individuals whose PIP applications are approved will be able to remain in the U.S. and apply for work authorization. Moreover, the intent of the program is to provide a path to permanent residence. A grant of parole in place “satisfies the requirement under INA section 245(a) that the requestor has been inspected and paroled by an immigration officer”. Qualifying family members of noncitizens granted PIP can file I-130 petitions on their behalf, and the noncitizens can then apply for adjustment of status.

PIP under DHS’s Implementation of the Keeping Families Together program in the Federal Register poses a philosophical question, however – is the measure a means to an end or an end in itself?  The intent of the program is for a noncitizen granted PIP to ultimately be able to be able to adjust status under INA 245(a). When PIP is granted, though, DHS does not require requestors to establish that they are not inadmissible or ineligible for adjustment of status. Although the grant of PIP is only for 3 years, unless extended, requestors can remain in the U.S. and apply for employment authorization upon being granted in PIP. This in itself is a benefit, albeit temporary, and may allow requestors who face grounds of inadmissibility or ineligibility for adjustment of status additional time to overcome these barriers before they file an I-485 adjustment of status application.

There are clearly explicit criminal grounds that would disqualify a PIP application. On the other hand, if a requestor may be potentially inadmissible that in itself would not preclude them from requesting PIP.

The Federal Register notice implementing PIP states the following regarding inadmissibility:

DHS additionally considered requiring the requestor to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible under any ground set forth in INA section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), to be granted parole under this process. This parole in place process is meant for those requestors who are otherwise eligible to adjust status. As noted elsewhere in this notice, serious criminal convictions, including certain convictions that would render the requestor inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, will be disqualifying for this process; other criminal convictions, as well as prior, unexecuted removal orders, will trigger a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for this process. However, detailed consideration of grounds of inadmissibility—including whether applicable grounds can be waived—is a complex analysis undertaken during the Form I-485 adjustment of status adjudication. Requiring parole in place adjudicators to conduct the inadmissibility analysis that is normally conducted at the adjustment of status stage would be an inefficient, duplicative, and costly use of USCIS resources. Therefore, when assessing eligibility for parole in place, while DHS will consider the requestor’s criminal and immigration history and any other adverse factors that could bear upon admissibility, it will not import the admissibility analysis conducted at the Form I-485 stage into the parole adjudication.

Therefore, requestors who are likely inadmissible but feel that they will be able to overcome these grounds can still apply for PIP. A requestor, for example, who believes that they will not at present be able to overcome the public charge grounds of inadmissibility because the petitioner lacks sufficient income, for example, can still apply for PIP as they may hope that the petitioner’s future tax returns will reflect an income that exceeds 125% of the relevant poverty guideline. Similarly, a requestor who has committed fraud, such as filing a fraudulent asylum applicant in the past, can still apply for PIP and file an I-601 waiver with the I-485, even if the high standard for demonstrating extreme hardship to a qualifying relevant may not be met at the time of requesting PIP but may be satisfied at a later point. For example, having additional US citizen children in the near future would render it more difficult for the US citizen spouse to take care of children if the noncitizen spouse is hypothetically removed from the US. Requestors in these scenarios would still derive the benefits of PIP in good faith and be able to apply for EADs.

An individual requesting PIP could also be prima facie ineligible for adjustment of status if they are subject to an unexecuted removal order for example. The requestor would need to reopen the removal order, most likely though a joint motion with the government, which may or may not occur. Even though a certain fact pattern presented by the requestor could make it difficult to convince an ICE OPLA attorney to agree to join in a motion to reopen, the requestor can still apply for PIP. The Federal Register notice states the following with regards to prior removal orders:

DHS considered whether noncitizens with unexecuted final removal orders should be eligible for this process. DHS determined that noncitizens with unexecuted final removal orders will be presumptively ineligible for parole under this process. DHS recognizes that a noncitizen may have grounds to request that an immigration judge or the BIA reopen their immigration proceedings when they are otherwise eligible for adjustment of status, and thus determined that categorical ineligibility for this parole process would be inappropriate. As a result, DHS will evaluate, in the exercise of its discretion on a case-by-case basis, the facts and circumstances underlying the unexecuted final removal order and all other mitigating factors presented in determining whether the noncitizen may overcome the rebuttable presumption of ineligibility and be granted parole in place.

 Of course, each noncitizen considering requesting PIP must make these assessments themselves. Even if there is no chance that the I-485 will ever get approved, it may be beneficial to request PIP for a 3 year period along with a grant of employment authorization. On the other hand, the Federal Register notice clearly states that there is no assurance that the information provided by the noncitizen in the PIP request will not be used against them:

DHS generally will not use information contained in a request for parole in place under this process for the purpose of initiating immigration enforcement action against the requestor unless DHS determines, in its discretion, the requestor poses a threat to national security, public safety, or border security.[162] This process does not preclude DHS from, in its discretionary authority, taking enforcement actions as deemed appropriate, in accordance with the INA and consistent with governing policies and practices, against noncitizens who may be eligible or who have pending applications for parole under this process. Information provided under this process may be otherwise disclosed consistent with statutory authorities, obligations, and restrictions, as well as governing privacy and information-sharing policies.

Requestors need to decide on a case by case basis whether it is worth obtaining  PIP and work authorization for at least a 3 year period even if they do not ultimately get permanent residence through adjustment of status, and instead get removed from the US. Indeed, there are other risks that could expose the requestor to enforcement action independent of whether the I-485 may be filed and approved. On August 23, 2024, Texas and 15 other Republican states filed a lawsuit in federal court on the ground that the PIP has violated the INA,  the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the US Constitution. Although in the opinion of the authors the lawsuit is not meritorious as parole is clearly authorized under INA 212(d)(5), it is likely that a judge may preliminarily enjoin the program and a higher court may find it unlawful. Under this circumstance, information provided in the PIP could potentially be used against the noncitizen in an enforcement action regardless of whether the I-485 application may get granted or not.

 

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

 

  

Cyrus Mehta

Does the Signing of the I-485 Supplement J By a New Employer Constitute Visa Sponsorship?

/0 Comments/in /by

Cyrus D. Mehta and Jessica Paszko*

Portability under Section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows certain employment-based green card applicants to change jobs or employers while their adjustment of status (Form I-485) application is pending. Portability becomes available once the I-485 has been pending for at least 180 days. It must be exercised by submitting Supplement J (Form I-485J), which confirms the new job offer and its compliance with the same or similar occupational classification as the original job offer that was the basis of Form I-140. Once an applicant’s I-140 priority date is current, there is a race to file an I-485J before the I-485 is approved to ensure the new employment details are recognized and to avoid any potential complications in the adjustment process or later at the time of naturalization. Foreign nationals with backlogged Form I-140 priority dates are generally not envied by their counterparts whose priority dates are current or about to become current. Ironically, the latter group may find themselves green with envy, wishing their non-current priority date could afford them additional time to secure a job offer when faced with unemployment upon their I-140 priority date becoming current.

We’ve previously addressed the dilemma of a green card being approved prior to filing the I-485J, as well as the uncertainties faced by foreign nationals terminated during the “Twilight Zone” with an I-485 pending for less than 180 days. Yet, in exploring these issues, we may have overlooked a crucial element of the I-485J: the employer’s willingness to endorse it. A laid-off worker with a distant priority date need not fear these dilemmas or uncertainties, even if their adjustment has been pending for less than 180 days. They can diligently pursue new opportunities for similar employment, assuming their I-765 application for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) has been approved, and then request their new employer to execute an I-485J on their behalf. However, navigating this process may not be straightforward, particularly when addressing the standard screening question posed by employers to avoid a charge of discrimination or bias: “Do you now, or will you in the future, require sponsorship for employment visa status (e.g., H-1B visa status, etc.) to work legally for our company in the United States?”

Arguably, a foreign national employed under a valid EAD does not necessitate ‘sponsorship’ for a visa. Yet, the new employer must execute an I-485J on their behalf. Is an I-485J synonymous with sponsorship? Technically speaking, probably not, though the new employer should be apprised of this material fact which raises the question of when it would be appropriate to raise this with the employer?

Answering the screening question in the negative can be defended, as signing an I-485J does not imply the type of ’employment visa’ sponsorship the question typically refers to. While the need for an I-485J may not need to be disclosed during initial screening, could withholding this information until after signing the offer letter be justified? Introducing the I-485J requirement during the interview process, before the offer letter is finalized, could potentially complicate matters although the timing of such a disclosure should be determined on a case by case basis. From the foreign national’s perspective, it may be prudent to delay discussing the I-485J until after accepting the offer. However, if the employer learns of this requirement earlier and withdraws the offer, could the foreign national claim discrimination under INA 274B? Prevailing in such a claim is unlikely under these circumstances.

In the eyes of immigration practitioners, and employers who have been through the PERM process once or hundreds of times, hiring a foreign national with an approved I-140 and pending I-485 is a hard-to-pass-by bargain especially if they have the ideal sought after skills for the job. The new employer does not need to start the time consuming and costly PERM process anew and gets all the benefit of hiring a foreign national that has been vetted as qualified for the job by both the Department of Labor and USCIS. Surely, it would be silly for any employer to pass on hiring a prospective employee upon learning that just one simple form needs to be endorsed for the employer to take over an I-140 that another company spent significant time and resources to obtain. Although that might be the inherent reaction of the employer familiar with immigration visa sponsorship, alarm bells might go off in the ears of the cautious employer that has never sponsored any foreign nationals. From the cautious employer’s perspective, a signature in the employer’s section on the I-485J could expose them to perjury. The I-485J contains one section that must be signed by the applicant and another section that must be signed by the prospective employer who has to describe the job title, duties, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code, which may be daunting for the employer to figure out, and even more so in light of signing under penalty of perjury.

An employer’s unwillingness to attest to the contents of the I-485J under penalty of perjury may not be the only consideration. A fearless employer who has a hard time believing the government would bother bringing perjury charges against him for something like this would gladly sign off on an I-485J but for the form’s request for information that is fundamentally at odds with the employer’s business practices. Indeed, an employer who solely offers employment-at-will or who never specifies job duties or job duration in offer letters may be hesitant to change its longstanding practice and provide information in the I-485J it has never put in writing. The employer’s unwillingness to endorse an I-485J because to do so would contradict its normal business practices would also cut against a claim that the employer engaged in discrimination. On the other hand, would a discrimination claim fare any better if the employer’s long standing practice is to include job duties and job duration in its offer letters? From that employer’s perspective, despite its long standing practice, denying an offer of employment to a foreign national in need of an I-485J is not commensurate with discrimination because a signature on the I-485J exposes it to perjury, a major liability that its long standing practice does not even contemplate.

The pre-2017 era prior to the requirement of I-485Js offered a simpler process for adjustment applicants who sought job flexibility. During that time, applicants were generally only required to demonstrate, if questioned during a naturalization interview, that they had moved to a same or similar job. However, this approach introduced uncertainty regarding whether applicants were obligated to disclose changes in employment. With the introduction of regulations like 8 CFR § 240.25(a) many years after the enactment of INA § 204(j), clarity has been enhanced: applicants can now use Form I-485J to affirmatively demonstrate ongoing employment with the sponsoring employer or a new job in the same or similar occupation, after the application has been pending for 180 days. While not explicitly mandatory under 8 CFR § 240.25(a), the instructions on Form I-485J have effectively made it a requirement. However, although there is more certainty with the I-485J, applicants may find themselves penalized if the I-485J does not get submitted before the issuance of a green card. This creates a paradoxical situation where those who secured employment before their I-485 approval may benefit more than those who did not, assuming that the employer is not reluctant to sign its part the first place after being confronted with an I-485J asking for job duties and an SOC code.

*Jessica Paszko is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

How Prosecutorial Discretion Saved Our Client

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus Mehta and Jessica Paszko*

This is the story of our client Nadia Habib who was in immigration proceedings from 18 months till 31 years until an Immigration Judge granted her adjustment of status on November 21, 2023!

Nadia Habib came to the US in 1993 from Bangladesh when she was less than 2 years old with her mother Nazmin Habib. They were paroled into the US at JFK airport.  Some years later in June 1997 they were placed in removal proceedings in New York, and ordered deported in absentia on April 26, 2000 by an Immigration Judge. They did not show up in court on the day of their hearing due to an unfortunate misunderstanding as a result of Nazmin being seriously ill the day before.  Several efforts were made to reopen the in absenstia deportation order but to no avail. However, they continued to live their lives normally as a tightly knit family. Nazmin and her husband Jawad, who had a green card, had three more children in the US who were automatically citizens. Jawad supported the entire family as a yellow taxi driver in New York. Nadia continued to be vulnerable to deportation unlike her citizen siblings, although she showed great promise by doing well in school and getting admitted into the elite Bronx High School of Science in New York.

On September 10, 2011, Nazmin and Nadia, then 19 years old, received a bag and baggage letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ordering that they surrender for deportation on September 29, 2011. This letter brought their lives and the lives of their family and loved ones to a shocking halt. Nadia’s friends and other immigrant students quickly sprung to action, launching campaigns on Facebook and Twitter, in the hope that Nadia and her mother would be allowed to remain in the US with her father and her three US citizen siblings. On the fateful day she had to appear for deportation on September 29, members of the Youth Leadership Council gathered thousands of petition signatures and turned out over 100 people to rally in support of Nadia and Nazmin and to try to halt the deportation scheduled for that day at 11 am.  The community’s fervent efforts to keep Nadia and Nazmin from returning to Bangladesh that was entirely foreign to Nadia paid off. ICE halted the deportation order and decided to review their case. Though September 29, 2011 was marked with victory for Nadia and her mom, their immigration woes were far from over.

At that time when Nadia was about to get deported, President Obama began to be known as the Deporter-in-Chief. Although Obama was sympathetic towards immigrants, he wanted to also show that he was strict on enforcing the law as a way to get his Republican opponents in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.  As the deportations under Obama spiked in 2011 and 2012, until they reached a record high by 2013, the then ICE Director John Morton issued a landmark memo in 2011 providing detailed guidelines on how ICE officers should exercise prosecutorial discretion.

On September 30, 2011, which also happened to be Nadia’s 20th birthday, ICE issued a Stay of Removal Order for Nadia and Nazmin. This was the first exercise of prosecutorial discretion that would benefit Nadia and Nazmin and a birthday present that Nadia would never forget. Nadia and Nazmin approached our firm to seek representation. The case was so sympathetic and meritorious that we decided to take on the case pro bono. The goal was to find a pathway for Nazmin and Nadia to reopen their deportation orders and adjust status while keeping them in the US in the interim in an authorized capacity as long as possible.

On February 23, 2012, ICE also issued an order of supervision to both Nadia and Nazmin which required them to report in person to ICE on specified dates, usually once or twice a year. On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”, officially establishing what would later be known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA came to be the second form of prosecutorial discretion that benefitted Nadia who clearly qualified as she came to the US well before the age of 16. After graduating from the Bronx High School of Science, Nadia pursued undergraduate studies at Stony Brook University and later obtained her master’s degree in architecture from The City College of New York. On the basis of DACA, Nadia was able to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in September 2012. Since then, our firm helped Nazmin and Nadia comply with their annual appointments with ICE and apply for DACA extensions along with the EAD. Nadia had to report each year for her appointment with ICE even though she was authorized to remain in the US under DACA. Every time Nadia wanted to travel outside New York for a trip to another state, even over a long weekend, she had to ask for and receive permission from ICE.

In the meantime, Nadia’s US citizen brother filed Form I-130 on behalf of his mother Nazmin which was approved in early 2016. Jawad had not yet naturalized as his application had been erroneously denied and our appeal challenging the denial was pending. This I-130 served as the basis of our request to DHS to join our motion to reopen Nazmin’s removal so that Nazmin could apply for adjustment of status based on the approved I-130 petition filed by her US citizen child. A removal order can be reopened at any time if the government joins in a motion to reopen even though prior efforts to reopen the removal were unsuccessful. The ability of the government joining in a motion to reopen depends on the policies of the administration at any given time. We requested the government to join in the motion in September 2016, during the final year of the Obama administration based on Morton’s prosecutorial discretion policy. Donald Trump became president in 2017 and our request was pending, but the ICE attorney who got our request to join in the motion fortunately agreed to join in the motion to reopen Nazmin’s removal proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) even though by then prosecutorial discretion became non-existent under Trump’s new enforcement oriented immigration focus. In July 2017, the BIA granted our motion based on the government’s consent and remanded for further proceedings. After a nearly five year wait (since the I-485 application could not be tracked in the USICS bureaucracy until there was Congressional intervention), Nazmin was scheduled for an adjustment interview in March 2022 at a USCIS field office in Long Island where her adjustment of status application was finally granted.

Nadia was still not eligible to adjust status, so we could not request the government to join in the motion to reopen. Although Nadia’s father eventually naturalized, she was unable to adjust status through him as she was over 21 years old. Despite this, Nadia continued to be able to remain in the US thanks to DACA. When Nadia married her US citizen husband in 2020, he filed Form
I-130 on her behalf which was approved the following year. Following a similar path as her mother case, in January 2022, our firm submitted a request to DHS to join our motion to reopen Nadia’s removal order so that Nadia could apply for adjustment of status based on the approved I-130 petition filed by her husband. By then Joe Biden was President and he once again instructed ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion. In November 2022, DHS consented to joining in the motion to reopen for the sole purpose of dismissal of removal proceedings. The following month, in December 2022, we submitted our joint motion to reopen Nadia’s removal proceedings to the BIA. In February 2023, the BIA granted our motion and reopened and remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. In September 2023, we learned that Nadia had been scheduled for a merits hearing on November 1, 2023 by happenstance as neither Nadia nor our firm received the notice – imagine if the Immigration Judge would have again deported Nadia in absentia at the hearing. Our request to adjust Nadia’s status on the basis of her I-130 was unopposed by DHS, though the Immigration Judge could not grant the adjustment as the sealed medical report that we had delivered to the Immigration Court in advance of the November 1st hearing had not made its way to him. The Immigration Judge continued the hearing to November 17, 2023 where finally, after many trials and tribulations, Nadia was adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. Nadia’s order of supervision dissolved on that day too relieving her from reporting to ICE each year.

Nadia was 32 years old on the day she was granted adjustment of status, and before then she had been in some form of immigration proceeding since she was 17 months old. Today Nadia is a successful architect and her siblings are also equally successful. Through this period, Nadia benefited from prosecutorial discretion, but the path was never smooth. DACA was declared unlawful by a federal judge and its fate hangs in the balance till this day. Even after Biden became president, courts enjoined his prosecutorial discretion policies that were set forth in the memo of DHS Secretary Mayorkas, but we advocated, when requesting the government to join in the motion to reopen, that the government could still exercise discretion outside the priorities set forth in the Mayorkas memo. Despite the court block of the Mayorkas memo, the DHS retained the ability to exercise discretion and join in a motion to reopen. Imagine if Nadia did not receive the stay of removal in 2011 and was deported to Bangladesh after she had spent her whole life in the US. But for the prosecutorial discretion policies in place, Nadia would have been deported because of an in absentia deportation order that she received, over which she had no control and for no fault of her own. Nadia and Nazmin were also fortunate that ICE attorneys agreed to join in the motions to reopen despite the zigzagging prosecutorial discretion policies over three presidential administrations.

We are proud to have represented Nadia and Nazmin tenaciously and doggedly for well over 10 years in a pro bono capacity!

*Jessica Paszko is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Advancing the Dates for Filing in the State Department Visa Bulletin Will Restore Balance and Sanity to the Legal Immigration System

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

The August 2023 Visa Bulletin is a disaster. Here are some of the highlights:

Establishment of Worldwide employment-based first preference (EB-1) final action date.  Rest of World countries, Mexico, and Philippines will be subject to a final action date final action date of August 1, 2023. It is likely that in October the category will return to “Current” for these countries.

Retrogression in employment-based first preference (EB-1) for India.  India will be subject to an EB-1 final action date of January 1, 2012. It is likely that in October the final action date will advance.

Retrogression in employment-based third preference (EB-3) for Rest of World countries, Mexico, and Philippines. The Rest of World, Mexico, and Philippines EB-3 final action date will retrogress in August to May 1, 2020.

Retrogression in family-based second preference (F-2A) for Rest of the World countries, China and India. The Rest of World, China, and India F2A final action date will retrogress to October 8, 2017.

.The bad news from the July 2023 Visa Bulletin continues into the August 2023 Visa Bulletin.  The India EB-2 final action date remains retrogressed at January 1, 2011. The India EB-3 final action date remains retrogressed at January 1, 2009. Still, the corresponding dates for filing  in the August 2023 visa bulletin are significantly more ahead than the final action date. For instance, the dates for filing for the F2A for all countries is current. The dates for filing for the EB-1 for the Rest of the World is current and for India is June 1, 2022. Yet, the USCIS has indicated that I-485 adjustment of status applications can only be filed in August 2023 under the dates for filing chart  if they are family-based while I-485 adjustment of status applications can only be filed in August 2023 under the final action dates chart if they are employment-based.

The USCIS should allow I-485 applications related to both family and employment-based petitions to be filed under the dates for filing chart. Indeed, in the face of massive retrogression in the Visa Bulletin, the Biden administration does have the authority to move the dates for filing to current. However, even before taking this radical step, which has a legal basis, the administration should  at least allow I-485 applications to be filed under the dates for filing in both the family and employment-based preferences.

The total allocation of visa numbers in the employment and family based categories are woefully adequate. §201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000.  The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.  INA §202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. These limits were established in the Immigration Act of 1990, and since then, the US Congress has not expanded these limits for well over three decades. In 1990, the worldwide web was not in existence, and  since then, there have been an explosion in the number of jobs as a result of internet based technologies and so many related technologies as well as a demand for foreign skilled workers many of whom have been educated at US educational institutions.  Yet, the US legal immigration system has not kept up to timely give green cards to immigrants who contribute to the country. Due to the per country limits,  till recently it was only India and China that were backlogged in the employment based preferences, but now under the August 2023 Visa Bulletin all countries face backlogs. Still, India bears the brunt disproportionately in the employment-based categories, and one study has estimated the wait time to be 150 years in the India EB-2!

It would be ideal for Congress to eliminate the per country limits and even add more visas to each preference category. Until Congress is able to act, it would be easy for the Biden administration to provide even greater relief through executive action. One easy fix is to advance the dates for filing in the State Department’s Visa Bulletin so that many more backlogged beneficiaries of approved petitions can file I-485 adjustment of status applications and get  ameliorative relief such as an  employment authorization document (EAD), travel permission and to be able to exercise job portability under INA §204(j). Spouse and minor children can also avail of work authorization and travel permission after they file their I-485 applications.

There is a legal basis to advance the dates for filing even to current. This would allow many backlogged immigrants to file I-485 adjustment of status applications and get the benefits of adjustment of status such as the ability to port to a new job under INA 204(j), obtain travel permission and an EAD. Many more of the children of these backlogged immigrants would also be able to protect their age under the USCIS’s updated guidance relating to the Child Status Protection Act.

INA §245(a)(3) allows for the filing of an adjustment of status application when “an immigrant visa  is immediately available” to the applicant. 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) links visa availability to the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin. Pursuant to this regulation, an I-485 application can only be submitted “if the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current).” The term “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3) has never been defined, except as in 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) by “a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in Bulletin” or if the date in the Bulletin is current for that category.

The State Department has historically never advanced priority dates based on certitude that a visa would actually become available. There have been many instances when applicants have filed an I-485 application in a particular month, only to later find that the dates have retrogressed. A good example is the April 2012 Visa Bulletin, when the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China were May 1, 2010. In the very next May 2012 Visa Bulletin a month later, the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China retrogressed to August 15, 2007. If the State Department was absolutely certain that applicants born in India and China who filed in April 2012 would receive their green cards, it would not have needed to retrogress dates back to August 15, 2007.  Indeed, those EB-2 applicants who filed their I-485 applications in April 2012 may still potentially be waiting and have yet to receive their green cards even as of today! Another example is when the State Department announced that the July 2007 Visa Bulletin for EB-2 and EB-3 would become current. Hundreds of thousands filed during that period (which actually was the extended period from July 17, 2007 to August 17, 2007). It was obvious that these applicants would not receive their green cards during that time frame. The State Department then retrogressed the EB dates substantially the following month, and those who filed under the India EB-3 in July-August 2007 waited for over a decade before they became eligible for green cards. More recently, the September 2022  Visa Bulletin had a final action date of December 1, 2014 for EB-2 India. In the next October 2022 Visa Bulletin the FAD for EB-2 India was abruptly retrogressed to April 1, 2012 and then further retrogressed to October 8, 2011 in the December 2022 Visa Bulletin. If a visa number was immediately available in September 2022, an applicant under EB-2 India with a priority date of December 1, 2014 or earlier should have been issued permanent residence.

These three examples, among many, go to show that “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3), according to the State Department, have never meant that visas were actually available to be issued to applicants as soon as they filed. Rather, it has always been based on a notion of visa availability at some point of time in the future.

Under the dual filing dates system first introduced by the State Department in October 2015, USCIS acknowledges that availability of visas is based on an estimate of available visas for the fiscal year rather than immediate availability:

When we determine there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants, you may use the DFF Applications chart to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS. Otherwise, you must use the Application Final Action Dates chart to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS.

Taking this to its logical extreme, visa availability for establishing the dates for filing may be based on just one visa being saved in the backlogged preference category in the year, such as the India EB-3, like the proverbial Thanksgiving turkey. Just like one turkey every Thanksgiving Day is pardoned by the President and not consumed, similarly one visa can also be left intact rather than used by the noncitizen beneficiary.   So long as there is one visa kept available, it would provide the legal basis for an I-485 filing under a DFF, and this would be consistent with INA 245(a)(3) as well as 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1). This is reflected in the August  2023 Visa Bulletin as the first visa in the India EB-3 has a priority date of January 1, 2009. Hence, there is one available visa in the India EB-3 skilled worker, otherwise it would have stated “Unavailable.”  The   dates for filing could potentially advance and become current based on this available visa with a  January 1, 2009 priority date in the India EB-3, thus allowing hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries of I-140 petitions to file I-485 applications.

This same logic can be extended to beneficiaries of family-based I-130 petitions.

The administration simply needs to move the dates for filing to current or close to current. It can undertake this executive action through a stroke of a pen. However, if it needs to do this through rulemaking 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) could be easily amended (shown in bold) to expand the definition of visa availability:

An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 [if] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current) (“Final Action Date”). An immigrant visa is also considered available for submission of the I-485 application based on a provisional priority date (“‘Dates for Filing”) without reference to the Final Action Date. No provisional submission can be undertaken absent prior approval of the visa petition and only if all visas in the preference category have not been exhausted in the fiscal year. Final adjudication only occurs when there is a current Final Action Date. An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service office.

 

The Biden administration has provided relief to hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals through executive actions such as humanitarian parole, now enforcing deportation against low priority individuals and extending DACA. The administration recently announced a Family Reunification Parole Initiative for beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, & Honduras. Nationals of these countries can be considered for parole on a case-by-case basis for a period of up to three years while they wait to apply to become lawful permanent residents. This is an example of the administration using its executive authority to shape immigration policy in the absence of meaningful Congressional action to reform the system. Indeed, this initiative can serve as a template to allow beneficiaries of approved I-130, I-140, and I-526 petitions to be paroled into the US while they wait for a visa number to become available, which under the backlogs in the employment and family preference categories, can take several years to decades. The Biden administration ought to likewise advance the DFF to current so that beneficiaries of family and employment petitions can file I-485 applications and get the benefits of employment authorization, advance parole and the ability to port to a new employer if the job is same or similar to the position that was the subject of the sponsorship for the green card. There  is also a parallel campaign to convince the administration to issue an EAD and advance parole for beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions, although this should be done in conjunction with advancing the dates for filing so that applicants can also file I-485 applications. Once the I-485 is filed applicants would also be able to port to same or similar jobs under INA §204(j) and keep intact the underlying labor certification and I-140 petition.  As we have shown in a related blog on the compelling circumstances EAD, if the EAD is not linked to an I-485 application and they do not have nonimmigrant status, holders of this EAD will have to leave the US to consular process for their immigrant visas and would also need another employer to sponsor them if they have left or cut ties with the original employer who sponsored them.  This would entail getting the new employer to start the whole labor certification process, which is perilous these days if the employer as laid off workers.

The Supreme Court in United States v.  Texas very recently rendered a blow to Texas and Louisiana in holding that they had no standing to challenge the Biden administration on federal immigration policy on enforcement priorities. As this analysis can also apply to challenges to other executive actions on immigration by states not friendly to pro immigrant executive actions, the Biden administration should move boldly and advance the DFF in the State Department Visa bulletin to restore balance and some semblance of sanity to the legal immigration system in the US.

Cyrus Mehta

Helping Afghans and Ukrainians Progress from Parole to Temporary Protected Status to Permanent Residence

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

In light of the recent crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been at the forefront of discussions around how the United States can assist individuals who are fleeing these two countries. On March 3, 2022, Ukraine was designated for TPS for an 18 month period. On March 16, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security also announced the designation of Afghanistan for TPS for a period of 18 months.

Generally, TPS provides a temporary immigration status to nationals of countries fraught with armed conflict or other disasters. In order to be eligible for TPS, an individual must be a national of a country designated for TPS, have been continuously present in the U.S. since the date of the designation, have continuously resided in the U.S. since a date specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and not be inadmissible to the United States. In the case of Ukraine, the requirement that applicants must have continuously resided in the United States since April 11, 2022 will render many  Ukrainian nationals ineligible for TPS, as many individuals fleeing the war would not have arrived in the United States by that date. Individuals who are granted TPS receive a stay of deportation and temporary authorization to work in the United States.

The Uniting for Ukraine program that would allow Ukrainians to enter the US under humanitarian parole was announced on April 21, 2022. Thus, those who will get paroled into the US under Uniting for Ukraine will not be eligible for TPS.  However, several thousand Ukrainians who came to Mexico  after the Russian invasion in February 20, 2022 and got paroled into the US from the Southern border prior to April 11, 2022 will be eligible for TPS.

On the other hand, Afghans have been applying for  humanitarian parole prior to and  after the US withdrew from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021. A recent New York Times report states that of the 43,000 humanitarian parole applications received by USCIS since July 2021, the agency has processed less than 2,000. Of those processed applications, 1,500 were denied and 170 were approved as of February 11, 2022. While the humanitarian parole program for Afghans has been a disappointment, those who have been paroled into the US already prior to March 16, 2022 can apply for TPS.

Though it provides an important temporary form of relief for some nationals of countries experiencing a crisis, TPS is, by its very nature, temporary and does not provide foreign nationals with a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship in the United States. Thus, one must look for other alternatives for individuals who wish to seek permanent residence in the United States. Foreign nationals who have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative may be able to file a family-based adjustment of status application, but some family preference categories are extremely backlogged. Skilled TPS recipients who can find a U.S. employer to sponsor them may instead be eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application. There are no backlogs for most TPS-designated countries, and spouses and minor children of the primary applicant may also file adjustment of status applications. In addition, foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics may be eligible for an employment-based, first-preference visa, which does not require employer sponsorship or a Labor Certification.

However, complications arise when a TPS recipient who entered the U.S. without inspection wishes to apply for permanent residence. Pursuant to INA § 245(a), an individual must have been inspected and admitted  or paroled into the United States in order to be eligible to apply for adjustment of status. A foreign national who was inspected and paroled into the United States would be eligible for adjustment of status, but an individual who entered without inspection would not. In a previous blog, we analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas, which holds that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not constitute an admission under INA § 245(a) for purposes of adjustment of status. However, the decision seems to leave open whether a grant of TPS could “cure” a short lapse in the status of an individual who was inspected and admitted to the U.S., but later fell out of status. In her opinion, Justice Kagan gives the example of an individual who was out of status for a few months before receiving TPS, potentially implying that receiving TPS ends an individual’s time out of status, if this duration would otherwise have exceeded 180 days and rendered the individual unable to adjust under INA § 245(k). Additionally, the decision could imply that a grant of TPS could qualify as a “lawful nonimmigrant status”, which could assist individuals who would otherwise have been ineligible to file and adjustment of status application under INA § 245(c)(7).

While TPS is no doubt an important tool for aiding individuals who have fled Ukraine or Afghanistan, not all nationals of these countries will be eligible and a grant of TPS does not provide a path to permanent residence in the U.S. Thus, some TPS recipients, or individuals from TPS-designated countries who are ineligible, may be able to utilize employment-based immigrant visa petitions as a path to permanent residence.  Thus, one who was initially paroled into the US and then was granted TPS would be able to apply for adjustment of status if he or she became the beneficiary of an employment based I-140 petition after an employer obtained labor certification. The parole would fulfill the requirement  under INA 245(a) that the applicant have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the US. The subsequent grant of TPS would then confer “lawful nonimmigrant status” to that applicant and thus render him or her eligible for adjustment of status under INA §245(c)(7).  However, TPS recipients who entered without inspection will be ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. For individuals who were inspected and admitted to the U.S., though, but later had a lapse in status, a grant of TPS could render them again eligible for permanent residence.

There will be large numbers who will enter the US on humanitarian parole under Uniting for Ukraine but will not be eligible to receive TPS as they would have entered the US well after the cut off date of April 11, 2022. If a parolee is sponsored by an employer through labor certification, he or she will not be eligible for adjustment of status as parole is not considered a lawful nonimmigrant status under INA  § 245(c)(7).  This person will have to process at a US Consulate overseas after the I-140 petition is approved. Fortunately, Ukrainian nationals can have their cases processed at the US Consulate in Frankfurt rather than in Kiev. On the other hand, a parolee would still be able to adjust status under 245(a) as an immediate relative. Similarly, a parolee who becomes the beneficiary of an I-130 petition under a family preference category will also be able to adjust status as the requirement to be in “lawful nonimmigrant status” under 245(c)(7) only applies to beneficiaries of employment-based petitions and not family-based petitions. Indeed, one in parole status would be considered  to be in a lawful status under 8 CFR 245.1 (d)(1)(v) for purposes of adjusting status under a family-based petition but not an employment-based petition.

There are pathways for people who have been paroled to become permanent residents, and even more  pathways for those who have subsequently received TPS. Given the low unemployment rate and shortage of workers in the US, employers should look to not just be hiring Ukrainians and Afghans as parolees or in TPS status, but must also endeavor to sponsor people with parole and TPS for permanent residence through a labor certification, an I-140 petition and the filing of an I-485 adjustment of status application. Those who may not be eligible for adjustment of status because they are parolees can still proceed to a US Consulate for an immigrant visa following the approval of the I-140 petition.

The sponsoring of  workers based on their true worth skills would allow them to pursue better jobs and careers. Presently, people on TPS or parole may have employment authorization, but many are in jobs that may not match their skills. How many times has one been driven by a taxi driver who was a doctor or engineer in their own country or received groceries from a delivery person who may have previously been an accountant?   An employer who commits to hiring and then sponsoring a foreign national worker on parole or TPS based on their real skills creates a win-win situation for both.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice).

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Frequently Asked Questions on Transferring the Underlying Basis of an I-485 application from an I-140 petition under India EB-3 to an I-140 under India EB-2

/0 Comments/in /by

Update – January 21, 2022

On January 21, 2022, USCIS released new guidance on requests to transfer the underlying basis of an I-485 to a different employment-based immigrant category based on another Form I-140. The guidance states that USCIS may, in its discretion grant a transfer of underlying basis if the following criteria are met:

Read more
Cyrus Mehta

Sanchez v. Mayorkas: Although TPS Is Not An Admission, Justice Kagan’s Opinion Leaves Open Avenues for TPS Recipients to Adjust Status as Nonimmigrants

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Sanchez v. Mayorkas, holding that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not constitute an admission under INA § 245(a) for purposes of adjustment of status. Though overall a disappointing decision, the Court’s opinion may nonetheless leave open some options for some TPS recipients who want to obtain their green cards.

Sanchez v. Mayorkas involved the plight of Jose Santos Sanchez, an El Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection in 1997 and was subsequently granted TPS based on a series of earthquakes in his home country. In 2014, Sanchez, together with his wife, Sonia Gonzalez, sought to adjust status after more than 20 years of residence in the United States, but the USCIS denied his application on the grounds that “[a] grant of TPS does not cure a foreign national’s entry without inspection or constitute an inspection and admission of the foreign national”.

Sanchez challenged the denial, and the District Court ruled in his favor, holding that an LPR “’shall be considered as’ having ‘lawful status as a nonimmigrant’ for purposes of applying to become an LPR”. See Santos Sanchez v. Johnson, 2018 WL 6427894, *4 (D NJ, Dec. 7, 2018). The District Court further held that INA §244(f)(4) requires TPS holders to be treated “as though [they] had been ‘inspected and admitted.’” The Third Circuit, though, reversed, holding that “a grant of TPS does not constitute an ‘admission’ into the United States.” Sanchez v. Secretary U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 967 F. 3d 242, 252 (2020).

The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, held that an individual who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible to adjust status under INA §245 by virtue of being a TPS recipient. The Court drew a distinction between the concept of “admission” and one’s immigration status, noting that there are several categories of individuals who have nonimmigrant status without having been admitted to the United States (alien crewmen, crime  victims in U visa status, etc.).

Though unfortunate that the Court did not consider a grant to TPS to be an admission under INA § 245(a), Justice Kagan’s opinion includes some interesting language that may leave open some avenues for TPS recipients to adjust status. On pages 8-9 of the opinion, the Court held that TPS recipients will be considered to have nonimmigrant status, which is needed to adjust status under §245. Thus, an individual who was admitted to the United States in lawful B-2 status for example, but fell out of status before being granted TPS might be able to adjust status, having satisfied both the “admission” and “nonimmigrant status” requirements.

Thus, it is unclear whether a grant of TPS “wipes out” a lapse in one’s nonimmigrant status, no matter the duration. Justice Kagan gives the more narrow example of an individual who was out of status for a few months before receiving TPS, potentially implying that TPS ends an individual’s time out of status who otherwise would have exceeded 180 days and been unable to adjust under INA § 245(k). However, a noncitizen relying on §245(k) to adjust status would not need to have received TPS, or any other nonimmigrant status, to file an employment based I-485 within 180 days of admission.  On the other hand, INA §245(k) could still potentially come to the rescue if the individual is granted TPS status within 180 days of the admission but then seeks to file for adjustment of status 180 days after the admission. The grant of TPS would have put the person back in nonimmigrant status within the 180 days from the admission, even if they file an adjustment application after 180 days.

Justice Kagan’s opinion can be interpreted even more broadly to support the idea that a grant of TPS “wipes out” a lapse in the nonimmigrant status and thus overrides INA §§§ 245(c)(2), (7) and (8), when the lack of a lawful status impedes an individual’s ability to adjust status. Under INA §245(c)(2) an applicant for adjustment of status even if admitted (other than an immediate relative) is precluded from applying for adjustment of status if they are in unlawful status at the date of filing the application or who have failed to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the US. INA § 245(k) allows one who was admitted to apply for adjustment of status under the first three employment-based preferences and the employment-based fourth preference as a religious worker if they have failed to maintain lawful status for not more than 180 days. But INA § 245(k) is inapplicable to one who is applying for adjustment of status under a family-based preference.  A grant of TPS at any point in time, if Justice Kagan’s opinion is interpreted broadly, should once again render an applicant eligible for adjustment of status whether they are filing an adjustment application under a family based preference or  an employment-based preference even 180 days beyond the admission and the grant of TPS.

INA § 245(c)(7) similarly precludes adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under INA § 203(b) (the five employment-based preferences) for one who is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status. A grant of TPS ought to wipe out this impediment. INA § 245(c)(8) disqualifies one from adjusting status who accepted employment while unauthorized. Under the broader interpretation of Justice Kagan’s opinion, the grant of TPS ought to also remove this impediment under INA § 245(c)(8) too.

While the Supreme Court nixed the ability of TPS applicants to adjust status if they were not admitted, there are still some bright spots if one carefully parses through Justice Kagan’s opinion. Under the broadest interpretation of Justice Kagan’s opinion, TPS applicants, if they were initially admitted, should continue to claim that they are eligible to adjust status under both the family and employment preferences by virtue of receiving nonimmigrant status.

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Coping with Delays Facing H-4 and L-2 Spouses When They Have a Pending Adjustment Application – Part 2

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus Mehta and Isabel Rajabzadeh*

Although H-4 and L-2 extensions continue to be delayed since our  last blog  “Coping with Delays Facing H-4 and L-2 Spouses”,  we highlight another issue,  which adds further hardship for H-4 and L-2 spouses faced with unjust processing delays. In October 2020, the EB-3 Dates for Filing in the Visa Bulletin advanced significantly, which allowed many born in India to file Form I-485, Adjustment of Status (AOS) applications. The surge in AOS cases, coupled with the H-4/L-2 processing delays, have left many with the inability to travel abroad as they await both their H-4/L-2 extension and Advance Parole (AP) processing. This blog tackles the threat to abandonment of AOS when traveling internationally while AP and H-4/L-2 are processing. We also discuss the complex interplay with employment authorization for H-4/L-2 spouses who have pending AOS applications.

Preserving H-4 and L-2 Status When an AOS is Pending

Since the H-1B and L visas allow for dual intent, it is possible to maintain H or L nonimmigrant status while an AOS application for permanent residence has been filed.

Due to the delays in the processing of H-4/L-2 extensions and requests for EAD, travelling abroad poses a conundrum. In order to preserve the AOS that is still processing, one needs to have either AP or valid H-4/L-2 status before leaving. Accordingly, 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(B)-(C) outlines two distinct pathways. Under (B), it allows those with approved AP to leave the country and then subsequently return in AP without abandoning their AOS, absent any specific situations outlined in the regulation. Under (C), the same is true for those who leave in H-4/L-2 status and return in H-4/L-2.

In 2000, the Cronin Memo was published and clarified that although an H-1B or L is considered  to be paroled after entering the United States via AP, he/she is still able to apply for an extension of H-1B or L if there was a valid and approved petition. Upon the granting of the H-1B or L extension, the grant of parole would be terminated, and the H-1B applicant would then be admitted into the relevant H-1B status. Although the Cronin Memo contemplates one who is already in H-1B and L status before traveling abroad and being paroled via AP, it could also apply to one who has a pending extension of  H-1B or L-1 status application and who traveled abroad under AP and was paroled into the US. Likewise, upon the approval of the H-1B or L-1 request, the parole would be terminated, and the beneficiary would be admitted in H-1B or L status. This allows the H-1B beneficiary to travel abroad while simultaneously preserving the AOS when both the H-1B and AOS are pending.

There is an inherent vagueness as to whether the Cronin memo applies to derivatives since H-4s and L-2s are not mentioned in the memo in respect to this issue. One may however argue, through anecdotal experience, that the Cronin Memo should apply to H-4s and L-2s and therefore, the H-4/L-2 should be able to enter the United States in AP and be able to switch to H-4/L-2 status once the H-4/L-2 extension is approved.

Preserving Adjustment of Status When Advanced Parole and H-4 are Pending 

What happens when an H-4 has a pending AOS and has not received AP or H-4 approval but wants to travel based on an emergency? This issue is two-fold and is specifically applicable to those whose prior H-4/L-2 statuses have expired and have timely filed their extensions but still await processing. As mentioned before in our prior blog, although the H-4 can get a visa stamp at a US consulate, the AOS may be deemed abandoned if the H-4 left the US without H-4 status or AP.

In this scenario, the only recourse for the H-4 is to apply for an emergency AP by calling the USCIS 800 number to schedule an appointment with the local USCIS office, however, it is not definite that one will be able to connect to a live-person, let alone convince the USCIS that the emergency qualifies for expeditious AP processing.

Does an L-2 Spouse Need an EAD?  

Out of the many downfalls of the H-4/L-2 processing delays, one of the most significant is the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) processing gaps afflicting families around the nation. At large, this issue has subjected many spouses and their families to financial struggle, and it remains a leading issue that the USCIS and the Biden administration must immediately resolve. The hardship is compounded by the fact that there are delays in the processing of the EAD under both the AOS and the H-4/L-2.  Nonetheless, there may be an arguable legal basis for an L-2 spouse to engage in employment without obtaining an EAD.

In the Matter of Do Kyung Lee, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that employment authorization is incident to E-2 status. INA 214(e)(6) explicitly states that an E-2 spouse shall be authorized to engage in employment.  In this unpublished  decision, the BIA reasoned that the regulation at 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(2) only specified that the dependent spouse and child of an E-1 visa holder must apply for work authorization, but the same regulation did not specifically state that the spouse of an E-2 must do the same. The Court held that since INA 214(e)(6) specifically authorized the E-2 spouse to engage in employment, the E-2 spouse’s failure to apply for an EAD did not result in a violation of status. Based on the reasoning of this BIA decision, the same logic can be applied to L-2 spouses since INA 214(c)(2)(E) explicitly authorizes L-2 spouses to engage in employment. The regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12 do not have a specific category for L-2 spouses, and USCIS requires L-2 spouses to use the catchall reserved provision under 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(18).

Nevertheless, this is still a gray area and E-2 and L-2 spouses are therefore still recommended to apply for an EAD. Even if the reasoning of this unpublished BIA decision is accepted by the USCIS, a lack of EAD could potentially trigger I-9 noncompliance issues with respect to the employer as ICE may not recognize the holding of an unpublished BIA decision.

The reasoning of this BIA decision is not appliable to H-4 spouses as there is no explicit INA provision that specifically authorizes H-4 spouses to engage in employment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Obama administration specifically created a regulation which authorizes EAD for an H-4 under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26), based on implied authority in the INA to issue work authorization to any class of noncitizens. The Trump administration tried to unsuccessfully rescind the rule as it was hostile towards H-4 EADs, but could not get it past the Office of Management and Budget. The Trump administration then imposed the biometric requirement for every I-539 extension, which in turn delayed the grant of the H-4 EAD. The pandemic that followed in March 2020 caused further delays and backlogs.

Conclusion

We reiterate our request that the Biden administration remove the biometric requirement imposed by the prior Trump administration when an I-539 application is filed. The justification by the Trump administration, as revealed in a recent WSJ article, that the biometric requirement was necessary so that dependents did not misrepresent themselves is spurious. Until 2019, there was never a biometric requirement when dependents filed I-539s, and there were no widespread incidents of such misrepresentations. Many of these dependents were already vetted when they obtained H-4 and L-2 visa stamps at US consulates. Moreover, subjecting infants and toddlers seeking H-4 and L-2 extensions to this is downright cruel. Eliminating this unnecessary biometric requirement will go a long way in eliminating the delays facing H-2 and L-2 spouses as they can then be processed under the premium processing request filed through the principal spouse’s H-1B or L-1 petition. The DHS should also initiate premium processing for EAD requests since Congress authorized additional premium processing last year. Finally, since INA 214(c)(2)(E) explicitly authorizes an L-2 spouse to engage in employment, what is the need to require the L-2 spouse to go through the lengthy process of applying for an EAD? Under the logic of the BIA decision in Do Kyung Lee, an E-2 or L-2 spouse who engages in employment without an EAD will not be viewed as engaging in unauthorized employment. Therefore, even if the Biden administration cannot speed up EAD processing quickly, it can officially pronounce that L-2 and E-2 spouses need not obtain an EAD.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice).

* Isabel Rajabzadeh is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC and is admitted to practice law in New York.

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Fascinating Confluence of Temporary Protected Status, Removal and Employment-Based Adjustment of Status

/0 Comments/in /by

Immigration Judge Ila C. Deiss’ summary order shows how one who is granted Temporary Protected Status can adjust to permanent resident status through an I-140 petition filed by an employer.

Here are the facts based upon which IJ Deiss issued the order:

The Respondent is a native and citizen of Nepal who arrived in the United States in 2006 in F-1 student status. In 2007 he stopped going to school and began working without authorization. He affirmatively filed for asylum in 2008, but his asylum claim was not granted and he was placed in removal proceedings in the same year. An Immigration Judge denied his asylum claim in 2010 and he was granted voluntary departure. Respondent appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal in 2011. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied in 2014. His case was then remanded to the Immigration Judge and was subsequently Administratively Closed based on a grant of Temporary Protected Status. In 2015, as a result of a massive earth quake, the Attorney General designated Nepal for Temporary Protected Status. Respondent, as a citizen of Nepal, applied for and was granted TPS in the same year and continued to be a recipient of TPS registration at the time of the decision.

Respondent’s employer filed an I-140 petition to the USCIS on his behalf in 2019, and in the same year, Respondent concurrently filed an I-485 adjustment of status application with the court.  The legal question before IJ Deiss was whether the Respondent was eligible for adjustment of status.

Earlier, in Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit held that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a). A foreign national who enters the United States without inspection, which was the case in Ramirez v. Brown, does not qualify for adjustment of status even if married to a US citizen since s/he does not meet the key requirement of INA § 245(a), which is to “have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” However, both Ramirez, and another case in the 6th Circuit with the same facts,   Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013), held that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress intended TPS recipients to be considered “admitted” for purposes of INA 245(a). Thus, even if the foreign national entered without inspection, the grant of TPS constituted an admission thus rendering the TPS recipient eligible for adjustment of status. Of course, the other conditions of INA 245(a) must also be met, which is not be inadmissible as well as have a visa that is immediately available. The disqualifications to adjustment of status in INA 245(c)(2) such as working without authorization, being in unlawful status or failing to maintain lawful status since entry are not applicable to immediate relatives of US citizens, who are spouses, minor children and parents.

The courts in Ramirez and Flores relied on INA § 244 (f)(4), which provides:

(f) Benefits and Status During Period of Protected Status – During a period in which an alien is granted temporary protected status under this section-

(4) for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant

Both courts read the above phrase, especially “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248” to be in harmony with being “admitted” for purposes of adjustment of status. As § 244(f)(4) bestows nonimmigrant status on a TPS recipient, an alien who has obtained nonimmigrant status is deemed to be “admitted.” Thus, at least in places that fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, TPS recipients who have been granted nonimmigrant status under INA 244(f)(4) could potentially adjust status to permanent residence as immediate relatives of US citizens. Those who have entered without inspection in these two circuits need not travel outside the US under advance parole in order to become eligible to adjust status under § 245(a). On the other hand, those not in the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuit who were not previously admitted will need to travel under advance parole to become eligible for adjustment of status as immediate relatives by availing of Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). Under this decision, a departure under advance parole does not trigger the 3 and 10-year unlawful presence bars pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(B).

In a prior blog titled Potential Adjustment of Status Options After the Termination of TPS, I raised the question whether the holdings in Ramirez and Flores could apply to TPS recipients who are beneficiaries of an approved I-140 petition under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. I postulated that the “answer arguably is ‘yes” under § 245(k) provided they fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.

IJ Deiss’ order in the San Francisco Immigration Court, which falls under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, now confirms that §245(k) can rescue such persons even if they are in removal proceedings. § 245(k) exempts applicants for adjustment of status who are otherwise subject to the § 245(c)(2) bar based on unauthorized employment or for not maintaining lawful status provided they are present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission and subsequent to such admission have not failed to maintain lawful status or engaged in unauthorized unemployment for more than 180 days. § 245(k) also waives the bars under §§ 245(c)(7) and (c)(8) that otherwise apply to employment-based adjustment applicants.  Thus, even if the TPS recipient may have not been in lawful status prior to the grant of TPS, the grant of TPS resulted in the individual being admitted into the US. If this person files within the TPS validity period, 245(k) should allow this person to adjust to permanent residence, as IJ Deiss also held.

The attorney for the respondent, Emily Wilson,  in arguing for 245(k) eligibility relied on a USCIS memo by Acting Associate Director, Donald Neufeld, titled Applicability of Section 245(k) to Certain Employment Based Adjustment of Status Applications filed under Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This memo correctly interprets 245(k) by stating that “adjudicators must only examine the 180 day period from the date of the alien’s last lawful admission to the United States and must not count violations that occurred before the alien’s last lawful admission.” In the instant case, the Respondent’s last lawful admission to the United States was his grant of TPS in 2015. Ms. Wilson went on to argue, “Under a plain reading of the regulation and USCIS’ guidance on the applicability of 245(k) it is clear that only violations of 245(c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(6) that occurred after the TPS grant are relevant in this case. Since the Respondent has no violations of 245(c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) since his TPS grant on [redacted] 2015 he is eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident under §§ 245(a) and 245(k) of the INA.”

Another interesting aspect of this case is that the grant of TPS constituted another admission, thus resenting the clock, although the Respondent was previously admitted in F-1 status. In Ramirez and Flores, the adjustment applicants had entered without inspection, and conceptually, it is easier to admit someone who was previously not admitted. However, there is nothing in the reading of  §244(f)(4) that should preclude someone from being admitted again, as in the instant case,  even if previously admitted in a nonimmigrant status prior to the TPS grant.

There are other interesting things to ponder about. Although the Trump administration has sought to terminated TPS for Nepal, under the court ordered stipulation in Bhattarai v. Neilsen the TPS designation for Nepal remains in effect. I would argue that even assuming TPS for Nepal was terminated at the time IJ Deiss rendered her decision, 245(k) ought to allow a respondent in removal proceedings to adjust status. Although INA 244(f)(4) bestows lawful nonimmigrant status to a current TPS recipient, that grant of nonimmigrant status also previously admitted the TPS recipient into the United States. The fact that she was once admitted through the TPS grant cannot vanish just because she is no longer a TPS recipient, and she ought to be eligible to adjust status under 245(k) so long as she has not stayed in the US greater than 180 days from the termination of TPS designation. Once a person has been admitted, the person is still considered to have been admitted for 245(a) purposes even if the period of stay under TPS expires. I would further argue that this should apply to a § 244(f)(4) implied admission as much as it does to any other kind of admission. If you are necessarily admitted because you have gone from having entered without inspection to being in nonimmigrant status, that does not cease to have been the case because your nonimmigrant status later goes away. Finally, Ms. Wilson correctly pointed out in footnote 1 in her decision that a derivative may also benefit under § 245(k), according to the USCIS 245(k) memo, and so the Respondent’s spouse who presumably is also a TPS recipient along with her spouse is also eligible to apply for adjustment of status.

Note that § 245(k) is only applicable to I-485 applications filed under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. With respect to family-based preference petitions, USCIS has taken the position that anyone who has ever failed to maintain continuously a lawful status will not be eligible for adjustment of status (although there is one outlier federal district court decision, See Figueroa v. Rodriguez, No. CV-16-8218 -PA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128120 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017)). Hence, the beneficiary of an I-130 filed by a permanent resident on behalf of his spouse will likely not be able to adjust status if he was not in status prior to the grant of TPS. Also, one who needs to travel outside the United States in order to become eligible for adjustment of status under § 245(a) as an immediate relative, especially those outside the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, will not be able to avail of § 245(k) to adjust pursuant to an employment-based I-140 petition as § 245(k) only applies to one who has been admitted rather than paroled into the United States..

Unfortunately, the beneficial impact of a TPS grant for employment-based adjustment applicants is only applicable to those within the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuit. It is also important to note that the Eleventh Circuit in Serrano v. Unites States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) held that TPS was not an admission for purposes of adjustment under INA 245(a). A class action, filed by the American Immigration Council, is designed to replicate the Ramirez and Flores decisions in all Circuits that have not yet ruled and has been awaiting a decision from the district court judge for over a year in the Eastern District of New York. In the interim, the issue is now pending in the Third, Fifth, and Eight Circuits and the AIC has filed amicus briefs in all of them. There is a strong statutory argument that the grant of TPS constitutes an admission under § 244(f)(4), and thus allows one to adjust status both as an immediate relative and also through an employment-based I-140 petition under § 245(k). This logical and unambiguous interpretation should ultimately be adhered to by all courts.

(Hats off to Emily Wilson who was the Respondent’s attorney!)