Tag Archive for: Green Card

Cyrus Mehta

The Much Neglected Schedule A, Group II Green Card Option Gets a Boost After USCIS Broadens the “Sciences or Arts” Definition

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On April 10, 2024, USCIS issued a policy alert clarifying the term “sciences or arts” for Schedule A, Group II occupations. Schedule A occupations are those for which the Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized that a shortage of U.S. workers exists. Group I occupations consist of physical therapists and professional nurses, while Group II occupations include “immigrants of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts, including college and university teachers, and immigrants of exceptional ability in the performing arts”. Schedule A occupations are “pre-certified” by the DOL, so employers are not required to conduct a lengthy and onerous test of the labor market or file an ETA-9089 with the DOL.

In its recent policy update, USCIS stated that “DOL, when designating Schedule A, Group II, defines science or art as any field of knowledge or skill with respect to which colleges and universities commonly offer specialized courses leading to a degree in the knowledge or skill.” Previously, these terms were not defined in the USCIS Policy Manual. This update could open up the Schedule A, Group II to encompass any field for which U.S. colleges and universities commonly offer a degree program. Noncitizens whose professions were not clearly a “science” or “art”, such as lawyers, businesspeople, and teachers, may now be able to avail of the Schedule A, Group II program. This broadening of the definitions of “science” and “art” follows the Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence to expand the availability of highly-skilled foreign nationals in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and AI fields, as well as additional occupations across the economy, for which there is an insufficient number of ready, willing, able, and qualified United States workers.

However, the significance of this change should not be overstated as all the existing requirements for Schedule A, Group II designation still apply. For noncitizens in the sciences or arts, even under the expanded definition, this means that they must demonstrate exceptional ability in their field. Employers must provide a full-time offer of employment, and offer the beneficiary at least the prevailing wage. The employer must also provide notice of the position to a bargaining representative, or its employees. The specific requirements that USCIS outlines for each Schedule A occupation must also be met. In order to demonstrate “exceptional ability in the sciences or arts”, a beneficiary’s prospective employer must “submit documentary evidence showing the widespread acclaim and international recognition accorded to the beneficiary by recognized experts in the beneficiary’s field”. The beneficiary’s employment during the past year, as well as the position offered in the U.S., must also require exceptional ability.

Additionally, the beneficiary must meet at least two of the following seven criteria laid out in 20 CFR 656.15(d)(1):

  • Documentation of the beneficiary’s receipt of internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field;
  • Documentation of the beneficiary’s membership in international associations, in the field, which require outstanding achievement of their members, as judged by recognized international experts in their disciplines or fields;
  • Published material in professional publications about the beneficiary, about the beneficiary’s work in the field, which must include the title, date, and author of such published material;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s original scientific or scholarly research contributions of major significance in the field;
  • Evidence of the beneficiary’s authorship of published scientific or scholarly articles in the field, in international professional journals or professional journals with an international circulation; and
  • Evidence of the display of the beneficiary’s work, in the field, at artistic exhibitions in more than one country.

It is also important ensure that the “exceptional ability” criteria for Schedule A, Group II are not conflated with the criteria for an employment-based, second preference visa based on exceptional ability. In order to qualify for Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) classification, a noncitizen must hold an advanced degree or equivalent, or “be able to show exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business”. Exceptional ability for EB-2 purposes is defined as “degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business”. Beneficiaries must also demonstrate that they meet at least three of the six criteria outlined in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii):

  • Official academic record showing that you have a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to your area of exceptional ability
  • Letters from current or former employers documenting at least 10 years of full-time experience in your occupation
  • A license to practice your profession or certification for your profession or occupation
  • Evidence that you have commanded a salary or other remuneration for services that demonstrates your exceptional ability
  • Membership in a professional association(s)
  • Recognition for your achievements and significant contributions to your industry or field by your peers, government entities, professional or business organizations

Other comparable evidence of eligibility is also acceptable.

Schedule A, Group II, provides an alternative basis for an employer to sponsor a noncitizen employee for permanent residence without going through the lengthy labor certification process in addition to the person extraordinary ability under the Employment-Based First Preference (EB-1) or the National Interest Waiver under EB-2.

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

[This blog is only for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice].

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

I-485 Supplement J Should Not Be the Only Vehicle to Express Portability

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

It is well settled that noncitizens must have the requisite intent to work for their employers at the time of entry or adjustment of status under the employment second (EB-2) or employment third preferences (EB-3) unless they are exercising job portability under specific statutory provision. A noncitizen who does not have such a bona fide intent is potentially inadmissible under Section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or may be deportable after entry.

Noncitizens who never reported to the certified job after entering the US as a permanent resident have been found deportable. For instance, in Spyropoulos v. INS, 590 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978), a Greek national with Canadian citizenship, was offered a job as a cabinet maker in Washington DC. and the prospective employer obtained labor certification, but was unable to obtain confirmation of the job offer prior to entering the US. Upon arrival in the US, the respondent worked instead in Massachusetts as a woodworker and shortly thereafter with yet another employer as a machinist. The court upheld the lower Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasoning that the respondent should have known that there were problems regarding the offer of employment before he entered the US and further held that he was excludable under Section 212(a)(5) as he never had an intent to take up the certified job.

On the other hand, there are also a long line of decisions holding that as long as the noncitizen took up the job or reported for work, and then left later due to a change in intention (as a result of finding a more attractive job elsewhere), this individual could not be found excludable or deportable. In Matter of Cardoso, 13 I.&N. Dec. 228 (BIA 1969), the respondent, a Portuguese citizen, was sponsored to work for a Rhode Island employer as a braider tender. Upon reporting to the employer with his wife for work, the foreman indicated that there was a possibility that both would be laid off if they both worked for the employer. Based on the foreman’s well intentioned advice, who also stated that he would keep the braider tender job offer open, the respondent worked elsewhere first as a shoe lace tipper and then as a bobbin machine operator. The BIA held that it could not impugn the validity of such an admission where a person reported for work and did not take up the job under the circumstances described above or if the person worked for some time with the certified employer but quit because he did not like the work or found a better job elsewhere. See also Matter of Marcoux, 12 I.&N. Dec. 827 (BIA 1968) (respondent who left certified trainee weaver job after 5 days for a fiber glass repairer job because he did not like the former job was not found to be deportable because he still had a valid certification at time of entry).

Yet, INA Section 204(j), enacted by Congress in 2000 through the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (“AC21”), provides job portability by leaving intact a labor certification or an employment-based I-140 petition when the I-485 adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days or longer even if the noncitizen changes jobs provided it is in the “same or similar occupational classification” as the job described in the I-140 petition. AC21 turned the prior law topsy turvey in a positive way by allowing  noncitizens under special circumstances to change their intent even prior to obtaining permanent residence.

Section 204(j), thus, overrides prior law that required a noncitizen to have a bona fide intent to work for the employer who sponsored him or her. Section 204(j) is known as “portability” as it allows an I-485 applicant whose application has been pending for 180 days or more to change jobs within the same employer or even change employers provided it is in the same or similar occupation. 8 CFR Section 240.25(a), which was promulgated on January 17, 2017,  states that the applicant may affirmatively demonstrate to USCIS on Form I-485 Supplement J that  either the job offer by the petitioning employer is continuing or that the applicant has a new offer of employment through the same employer or a different employer, or through self-employment, in the same or similar occupational classification as the employment offered under the I-140 petition. Although 8 CFR Section 240.25(a) does not make it mandatory to submit an I-485J, the instructions on the form make it mandatory to submit the I-485J thus incorporating it  into the regulation (although incorporation of form instructions into a regulation without notice and comment make them vulnerable to court challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act).

Thus, if an applicant legitimately ports under a pending I-485 application, his or her intent to work for the sponsoring employer is no longer relevant. If on the other hand, the noncitizen did not have an offer to work in a same or similar job under Section 204(j), and the I-485 application is is approved, it does not appear that the applicant can exercise portability upon the acquisition of permanent residence. At this point, upon the approval of the I-485 application, the noncitizen must demonstrate that he or she had the intent to work for the employer. Not working for the employer, or reporting to work for that employer, if there was no porting prior to the adjudication is not an option. Section 204(j) portability thus seems to put those in a favorable situation prior to the successful adjudication of the I-485 application. If such persons did not have an offer of same or similar employment prior to the approval of the adjustment application, they must demonstrate they had an intent to work for the sponsoring employer. Portability’s paradox, as explained in a prior 2009 blog,  thus favors the person who was able to demonstrate a job offer in a same or similar job before adjudication of the I-485 application and not after. Of course, this is unfair for an applicant who has waited several years and worked for the same employer only to be required to work for the same employer after lawful permanent residency is granted.  Furthermore, Section 204(j) only benefits an I-485 applicant. If the individual is overseas waiting for a visa appointment at the US consulate instead of adjusting status in the US, he or she cannot avail of this benefit.

There are thousands of beneficiaries of EB-2 and EB-3 petitions whose I-485 applications have been pending even though the priority date of the I-140 petition under the Final Action Date in the State Department Visa Bulletin has become current. These applicants may also desire to change jobs either with the same employer or with a different employer in a same or similar occupational classification. If they are in the process of preparing and submitting I-485Js, and the USCIS approves the I-485 application, this applicant’s green card should not get jeopardized only because the I-485J was not received before the USCIS approved the I-485 application but they otherwise had job offers in a same or similar occupational classification. It does not make sense for this applicant to go back to the old job, which may not exist.  It is also  not good policy to rescind permanent residency only because the I-485J was not submitted before the I-485 application was approved. The USCIS should still be able to determine if the applicant ported under Section 204(j) based on other facts and circumstances even in the absence of the I-485J.

At this point, there is fortunately no anecdotal evidence that USCIS is initiating rescission proceedings if  permanent residency was granted prior to the receipt of the I-485J. However, naturalization examiners have been known to question applicants if they did not take up the position that was the subject of the I-140 petition. If there has been an allegation that the applicant did not properly receive permanent residency, it has been possible to convince a naturalization examiner that the applicant changed to a job in a same or similar occupational classification and thus was properly granted permanent residence. It has also been demonstrated that the I-485J was only issued on January 17, 2017 and so there was no notification requirement prior to that date. However, those who file for naturalization in 2022 will not be able to argue that there was no notification requirement in the 5 years preceding the filing of the application as the I-485J has been in existence for the past 5 years. If such a person did not file the I-485J, the naturalization application should not be denied on the ground that the applicant was not properly admitted as a permanent resident 5 years ago. This person should be  able to demonstrate on a case by case basis that the new job was in a same or similar occupational classification even if the I-485J was not submitted or acknowledged prior to the approval of the I-485 application.

A simple edit to the USCIS  policy manual would resolve this issue and put to bed any anxiety:

In any situation where a Supplement J was not approved or filed before the adjustment of status was granted, USCIS shall not rescind, nor shall it initiate removal proceedings to revoke, the legal permanent residence of any applicant who used section 204(j) so long as the new job was, in fact, in a same or similar occupation as the job for which USCIS approved the I-140. Where the requirement of a same or similar occupation is met, but no Form I-485 Supplement J was filed, USCIS shall consider an applicant for naturalization to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of law, for purposes of section 318 of the INA, notwithstanding the absence of the Supplement J.

This would be consistent with Section 204(j) as well as USCIS’s own regulation at 8 CFR § 245.25(a) that does not make the I-485J mandatory. The failure to file an I-485J should not jeopardize permanent resident status if an applicant ports to a new job so long it can be determined that it is in a same or similar occupational classification. The I-485J should not be the only vehicle for an I-485 applicant to express portability as it would be absurd if USCIS approves the I-485 application one minute before the I-485J is received at USCIS and thwarts one’s ability to port under INA 204(j). The I-485J was designed to provide a way for the applicant to notify the USCIS about portability, but it should not be mandatory, and ought not create peril and anxiety for the applicant. Now USCIS has also decided that filing I-485J is required with an interfiling request and this affects portability eligibility by starting the 180 day clock even though the I-485 has been pending for over 180 days. This is a ghost filing that is not supported in the INA or 8 CFR!

Congress did not intend to put  an applicant in a worse off position as applicants who filed their I-485Js prior to the  adjudication of the I-485 application. Congress by enacting AC21 intended to ameliorate the plight of applicants who were waiting endlessly for their green card and it would be inequitable, bordering on involuntary servitude, for such a person to maintain an intent to work for the sponsoring employer for years on end. There are other provisions in AC21 that provide similar relief, such as extending the H-1B status beyond the six year limit, and thus the entire purpose of AC21 was to provide relief to professional and skilled workers who are in the US here but caught in the green card backlogs. While the example of the grant of permanent residency without the submission of the I-485J starkly demonstrates the absurdity of the disparity when the person clearly had a job offer in a same or similar occupational classification, the same benefit should broadly apply to persons who got the green card after an endless wait as I-485 applicants but changed their intention after receiving it. It makes no sense to allow portability while the applicant is the subject of an I-485 application that has been pending for 180 or more days, but then restrict this benefit to one who obtains permanent residency and receives a job offer in a same or similar occupation shortly thereafter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

What Happens to a Lawful Permanent Resident Who Has Been Stranded For Over One Year Abroad and the Green Card Validity Has Expired?  

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

COVID-related restrictions have caused difficulties for many noncitizens traveling abroad during the pandemic, but lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who traveled overseas in recent months face a unique set of issues. Many LPRs who traveled overseas in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic quickly became trapped there for the foreseeable future, either by travel restrictions that prohibited them from reentering the United States or because they or a family member contracted COVID-19. Recent news articles have discussed the plight of these LPRs who have not been able to return to the US within 180 days to the US from their last departure from the US

Our blog FAQ for Green Card Holders During the Covid-19 Period generated tremendous interest. This blog is addressed towards LPRs who have been overseas for more than one year and the ten year validity period on their green cards have expired.

As a background, an LPRs who have been absent from the United States for less than 180 days are not considered to be applicants for admission.  An LPR who returns to the United States after more than six months abroad will again be considered an applicant seeking admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(ii) and may face additional scrutiny, but is unlikely to be accused of abandonment, especially if the reason for not travelling back within 180 days was due to COVID-19 restrictions. Regardless of whether the LPR is returning within or in excess of 180 days, there may be other grounds under which the LPR will be treated as an applicant for admission pursuant to INA 101(a)(13)(C).

Essentially, an LPR can be found to have abandoned that status regardless of the time spent abroad. The trip could have been under 180 or over 180 days. The key issue is to determine whether it was a temporary visit abroad. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) of what constitutes a temporary visit abroad is generally followed:

A trip is a temporary visit abroad if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time. If as in (b) the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

The Second Circuit in Ahmed v .Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 611(2d Cir. 2002) with respect to the second prong, has further clarified that when the visit “relies upon an event with a reasonable possibility of occurring within a short period to time…the intention of the visitor must still be to return within a period relatively short, fixed by some early event.” The Sixth Circuit in Hana v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005) held that LPR status was not abandoned where an LPR was compelled to return to Iraq to resume her job and be with her family while they were waiting for immigrant visas to materialize.

After LPRs have spent more than a year outside the United States, their green card document (Form I-551) is technically no longer valid. There is a common misperception that this situation results in an automatic loss of permanent resident status, but an individual is still an LPR until they are found to have abandoned their permanent residence in the United States. Therefore, the test set forth in Singh v. Reno and other cases still needs to be followed to determine whether the LPR’s visit abroad was temporary or not.  The burden is still on the government to prove through clear and convincing evidence that the LPR has abandoned permanent resident status. See, e.g Matadin v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) and  Matter of Rivens, 25 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2011).

LPRs who have been abroad for more than a year may be able to apply for a apply for a Returning Resident (SB-1) Visa at a U.S. Consulate. In order to apply for an SB-1 visa, LPRs will still be required to demonstrate that they have not abandoned residence in the United States, and should explain that they were trapped outside the country due to the pandemic. However, U.S. consulates have been hesitant to issue SB-1 visas, even before the pandemic. It appears that since the pandemic, US consulates have not been entertaining SB-1. LPRs who wish to try for an SB-1 visa should check the website of the relevant U.S. embassy or consulate for guidance. The U.S. Embassy and Consulates in India website, for example, provides some instruction on how to apply for an SB-1 visa.  Alternatively, an LPR whose green card date is still valid could attempt to return to the U.S. anyway and assert at the port of entry that she has not abandoned permanent residence in the United States. Under INA § 211(b), CBP has the statutory authority to provide a waiver to a returning LPR who no longer has a valid green card document. It may be helpful for an LPR who is returning to the U.S. after more than a year abroad to have in hand documentary evidence that they have not abandoned permanent resident status. Documents such as: U.S. income tax returns, evidence of owning or leasing a residence in the U.S., bank statements or other proof of assets in the U.S., a letter or pay stubs from a U.S. employer, evidence of family ties in the U.S., proof of past medical treatments or doctor visits in the U.S., or evidence of membership in religious, professional, or community organizations in the U.S., to provide a few examples, can help stave off any allegation of abandonment of permanent resident status at the port of entry.

If the 10-year expiration date on the green card document has passed, the situation becomes more complicated. However, LPRs whose green card has expired or is about to expire may be able to file Form I-90 to renew their green card. The paper version of Form I-90 contains does not prohibit applicants who are outside the United States from submitting the form, so LPRs may be able to try renewing their green card even if they are stranded in India. USCIS announced in January 2021 that an I-90 receipt notice can be used in conjunction with an expired green card as proof of lawful permanent resident status, so filing an I-90 and obtaining a receipt notice may provide LPRs with a basis to reenter the United States.

Several things can happen when an LPR whose green card document has passed attempts to reenter the United States. For one, the LPR can complete Form I-193, and may be waived into the United States by CBP pursuant to INA § 211(b), if it is determined that they have not abandoned LPR status. Otherwise, the LPR will be placed into removal proceedings pursuant to INA § 212(a)(7)(A) as an arriving alien. LPRs who are placed into removal proceedings will need to make the case again that they have not abandoned permanent resident status, this time before an immigration judge. The burden of proof in this case is still on the government, and the LPR remains an LPR until a final removal order is issued. Final removal orders may be appealed to the BIA, and then to a circuit court.

An LPR who has an immediate relative who is a U.S. citizen, such as a spouse or a child over the age of 21, may be able to apply for adjustment of status all over again as adjustment can generally serve as a form of relief from removal. See Matter of Rainford, 20 I.&N. Dec. 598 (BIA 1992).  Note, however, that while there is no statutory bar on LPR re-adjustments, the USCIS may refuse to process such adjustments as a discretionary matter. LPRs who wish to take the lowest risk path can  be sponsored again while they are overseas if they have a basis for permanent resident status, such as a family member who can file an I-130 petition, particularly a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or a U.S. citizen child over the age of 21.  Alternatively, one could be sponsored again through an employment-based category such as a multinational executive or manager under the employment-based first preference. Prior to processing for an immigrant visa, they must file Form I-407 to abandon their green card.

It is of course advisable that an LPR do everything to avoid being in the situation of remaining outside the US for more than one year and after the green card validity has expired. The LPR should apply for a reentry permit that would allow them to remain outside for the US for two years, although Form I-131 must be filed while the LPR is in the US. If the LPR has not filed for the reentry permit while in the US, then the next best approach is to try to reenter the US within 1 year from the last departure. If the LPR has remained outside the US for more than one year, LPR status has not been automatically lost and this blog provides a roadmap to still assert LPR status, although one trying this strategy should also be aware of the risks and pitfalls.

(This blog is for information purposes, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice).

* 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

FAQ for Green Card Holders during the COVID-19 Period

/0 Comments/in /by

I have received inquiries from lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, who are outside the United States and have been unable to return to the United States in the COVID-19 period. They are unable to return either because there are no flights out of the country to the US or they feel vulnerable to contracting the infection or they may have unfortunately contracted the infection.

These green card holders are understandably concerned as their inability to return to the US is due to no fault of their own.  If a lawful permanent resident is unable to return to the US within a year, the green card technically becomes invalid for reentry to the US. This does not mean that the person ceases to be a lawful permanent resident, and it can still be asserted that lawful permanent residence has not been abandoned.

Similarly, a reentry permit allows a green card holder to remain outside the US for two years. One who is outside the US with a reentry permit must return back prior to the expiration of the reentry permit. Otherwise, if the person remains outside the US beyond the date of the reentry permit, the reentry permit is technically invalid as a travel document, although the person can still claim to be a lawful permanent resident.

Green card holders stuck outside the US have to also be mindful about their eligibility for naturalization. The eligible applicant must have at least 2.5 years of physical presence in the US in the past 5 years prior to filing the application. If the applicant has been married to a US citizen for 3 years, then the eligible applicant must have 1.5 years of physical presence in the US.  Spouses and children who obtained lawful permanent residence as a result of being subject to extreme cruelty by a US citizen are also allowed to apply for naturalization after 3 years. Furthermore, the applicant must be continuously residing in the US during the relevant 5 or 3 year period. An applicant who has been outside the US for more than six months is deemed to have broken continuity of residence. This presumption of breaking continuous residence can be rebutted if the applicant can show that the applicant did not terminate his or her employment in the United States or obtain employment while abroad; the applicant’s immediate family members remained in the United States; and the applicant retained full access to or continued to own or lease a home in the United States.

Below are my brief answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by concerned green card holders during the COVID-19 crisis.

1.I am unable to return to the US as all flights have been cancelled in my country. Will I have any problems if I return to the US in excess of 180 days from my last departure?

If a green card holder seeks admission to the US after being outside for more than 180 days, he or she will again be considered as an applicant seeking admission into the US under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(ii). While you may be subject to more scrutiny at the port of entry as an applicant seeking admission, you will likely not be denied admission for abandoning permanent residency especially if the reason for not travelling back within 180 days was due to COVID-19 restrictions. Regardless of whether you are returning within or in excess of 180 days, there may be other grounds under which you will be treated as an applicant for admission pursuant to INA 101(a)(13)(C).

2. I am unable to return to the US as all flights have been cancelled in my country. Will I have any problems if I return to the US in excess of 1 year from my last departure?

The green card (Form I-551) is technically invalid for reentry into the US if you have spent in excess of 1 year outside the US from your last departure. If your reason for not coming back was related to COVID-19, you should apply for a Returning Resident (SB-1) Visa at the US Consulate as soon as it reopens to the public and explain that your inability to return was due to circumstances beyond your control. You must still demonstrate that you never abandoned permanent residence by demonstrating that you are returning from a temporary visit abroad, continued to  maintain ties with the US and that you always harbored an intention to resume permanent residency.

The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) of what constitutes a temporary visit abroad is generally followed:

A trip is a temporary visit abroad if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time. If as in (b) the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

3. What if the US Consulate refused the SB-1 Visa, or has not resumed operations soon enough, and I have spent in excess of 1 year overseas from my last departure?

If your green card (Form I-551) has not expired, you may wish to travel directly to the US and assert at the port of entry that you never abandoned permanent residency. While this is more risky than applying for an SB-1 visa, the Customs and Border Protection official has discretion to waive you into the US even without a technically valid I-551. The CBP official may ask you to complete Form I-193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa and pay the requisite filing fee. In the event that the CBP official does not waive you into the US, as a lawful permanent resident you have the right to have an Immigration Judge review your claim, and the burden of proof is on the government through clear and convincing evidence that you abandondoned permanent residency.

4. As a result of being unable to travel back to the US, I have gone beyond the expiration date of my reentry permit?

My responses to Questions 2 and 3 are equally applicable to one who has stayed beyond the expiration date of the reentry permit.

5. Can I attempt to renew the reentry permit while stuck overseas?

No. You can only apply for a reentry permit while you are physically in the US.

6. How will my being stuck outside the US in excess of 180 days but less than 1 year impact my ability to naturalize?

You have to demonstrate that you have been physically present in the US for half of the relevant period – 5 years or 3 years (if married to a US citizen for 3 years) – preceding the filing of the N-400 application. In other words, you must demonstrate that you have physically spent at least half of 5 or 3 years in the US. Each day you spend outside the US may erase the time you have already accumulated until you get readmitted into the US and gain more days. Of course, if you have already accumulated days that exceed the threshold, you would still have sufficient time to spare.

If you are on the cusp, and will likely have less than half of the required time of physical presence in the US because of your forced stay outside the US, then you may wish to consider filing the N-400 application from overseas in order to lock in the required physical presence.

If you meet the physical presence test, you have to also demonstrate that you did not break continuity of residence, and so remaining outside the US in excess of six months will lead to a rebuttable presumption that you broke continuous residence. Under current law, one can rebut the presumption by demonstrating that you did not move your residence or seek employment overseas, or your immediate family members remained in the US. There is no accommodation in the existing rules regarding remaining outside the US due to circumstances beyond your control. Still, an applicant is nevertheless encouraged to use a COVID-19 related ground to also rebut the presumption of breaking continuity of residence.

7. How will my being stuck outside the US in excess of 1 year impact my ability to naturalize?

Unfortunately, whatever physical presence that was accumulated will be erased, and you will need to wait 4 years and 1 day before you can file Form N-400 again, provided you have the requisite physical presence as discussed above, and you have also been continuously residing during the relevant period. The USCIS Policy Manual suggests that an applicant apply after 4 years and 6 months to avoid the presumption of a break in continuity of residence.

8. Are there any exceptions if I am unable to meet the requirements of naturalization if I am stranded overseas?

Yes. Spouses of US citizens who are employed abroad for certain organizations may not need to meet the physical presence of residence requirement. Most people who avail of this exception are spouses of US citizens working for an American corporation or its subsidiary abroad that is engaged in the development of foreign trade or commerce of the US,  but see Chapter 4 – Spouses of US Citizens Employed Abroad of the USCIS Policy Manual for further details and other exceptions.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

EB-5 Green Card, Ethics and Trump

/0 Comments/in /by

The EB-5 green card program for foreign investors is very much in the news due to its connection with President Trump!

A series of news reports have highlighted the Kushner family’s attempt to raise funds through the EB-5 green card program from Chinese investors by suggesting Trump’s connection to one of its real estate projects through his son in law, Jared Kushner. Qiaowai  is a Chinese agency that acts as an intermediary between Chinese EB-5 investors and EB-5 projects, including the Kushner EB-5 project called One Journal Square in Jersey City. Qiaowai has touted this project’s close links to President Trump.  When Qiaowai did a road show in China recently, Nicole Kushner Meyer, Jared Kushner’s sister, was promoted as the event’s “heavyweight honored guest”.  According to the New York Times, Ms. Meyer told prospective investors that the Journal Square development project “means a lot to me and my entire family,” and that her brother served as chief executive of Kushner Companies before leaving the company to work for the president. Qiaowai’s founder, Ding Ying, has boasted about being close to Trump. Its website stated, “The fact that Ms. Ding has once again been invited to attend a presidential inauguration shows that the U.S. Congress values and approves of the Qiaowai group.” The US Immigration Fund, is the Regional Center promoting this project in the United States.

This close connection between an EB-5 project, the foreign migration agency, the Regional Center and Trump has resulted in a barrage of criticism as it once again brings up the specter of conflicts of interest. There has already been widespread concern about Trump’s businesses violating the Emolument Clause of the Constitution. At the same time, there has been scant commentary on the dilemma that such conflicts involving Trump and his family members pose for the immigration lawyer who represent EB-5 investors. Must the immigration lawyer, when providing a list of viable EB-5 projects that have resulted in green cards for the investor, now also recommend projects of the Kushner family because of their close proximity to President Trump? While an immigration lawyer should not be acting as an investment advisor, unless licensed, an immigration lawyer may still conduct “immigration due diligence” on behalf of the client. The immigration due diligence assesses the viability of the project, not with regard to whether it will deliver a rate of return, but from the perspective of whether the investor has a reasonable chance of getting the green card. Such diligence includes evaluating the past I-526 approvals through the project and whether the project will create the requisite 10 indirect jobs per investor to satisfy the EB-5 statutory requirement. It also includes whether the project is in a targeted area that qualifies for the $500,000 investment, whether the investment capital is at risk, the investor’s place in the queue regarding job allocations and a host of other considerations that are unrelated to investment advice. Conducting such immigration diligence is part of the immigration attorney’s ethical obligation to be competent under ABA Model Rule 1.1, which provides:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation

The immigration lawyer must also consider other ethical rules, besides the duty of competence, when representing EB-5 investors:

Rule 1.2 addresses the scope of representation and the allocation of decision-making authority. According to this allocation, the client establishes the objectives, and the lawyer controls the means to pursue them.

Rule 1.4 on communication overlaps with 1.2: “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”

Rule 1.0 defines informed consent: “The agreement by a person to the proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.”

Rule 1.3 on diligence emphasizes the lawyer’s commitment to the client. “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” The first comment to Rule 1.3 expands on this statement. “A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.”

As part of the lawyer’s competent representation and other ethical considerations on behalf of a prospective EB-5 investor client, must the ethical lawyer factor into consideration the EB-5 project run by the Kushner company due to its close relationship to President Trump? This is especially true when an intermediary such as a foreign migration agency in China has enticed the client to invest in a project that is close to the president. The lawyer may need to consider whether there is a likelihood of such an EB-5 project being treated more favorably, for example, by receiving less scrutiny with respect to its job creation plan, thus increasing the chances of a green card for the client? Hopefully, the answer should be “No,” but in the age of Trump, expectations have been defied and turned upside down many times over. In the not too distant past, then USCIS Director Mayorkas was investigated for appearing to show favoritism for EB-5 projects that had connections to Hillary Clinton’s brother and Senator Reid. Although Director Mayorkas did not face any sanction at the conclusion of the investigation, in an ideal world, an EB-5 project’s connection to Trump or his family ought not to matter. Both the financial advisor and immigration attorney should independently evaluate the project without regard to any political connections. By the same token, even the USCIS should independently evaluate the project, without regard to whether it is connected to a close family member of the president. It is also worth noting that the success or failure of an EB-5 application depends, not so much on the project, but on whether the investor can demonstrate the source of funds. In other words, is the investor able to demonstrate he or she was the owner of the funds from the very beginning? If the investor cannot demonstrate that he owned the funds, as opposed to an uncle depositing the money in the investor’s bank account, the EB-5 application will fail regardless of the strength of the EB-5 project. Therefore, the immigration lawyer can ethically advise that the success or failure of an investor’s EB-5 application may have nothing to do with how connected it is to the president.

Still, Flaubert said, “There is no truth. There is only perception.” If an investor hears that someone who invested in an EB-5 project connected to the Trump name got approved before she did in another EB-5 project, there will always be this lingering doubt in the mind of that investor. While Trump and his family members may yet be unaffected by their conflicts of interest, immigration attorneys have been left scratching their heads when representing EB-5 investors whether to ask clients to consider EB-5 projects close to Trump. Of course, while we are all witnessing a breathtaking compromise of ethics at the presidential level, it still behooves a lawyer to comply with the ethical rules when representing EB-5 investor clients. It is quite often the case that a foreign migration agent in China, such as Qiaowai, will hire the immigration lawyer to prepare and file EB-5 applications on behalf of its clients. Foreign migration agents play a crucial role in assisting the investor in assembling the documentation to demonstrate lawful source of funds, assisting in communications and translations and monitoring the statuses of all processes and filings of the investor. Still, as New York State Bar Ethics Opinion 1116 recently stated, it is imperative that the lawyer maintain her independence from the migration agent and that the lawyer’s judgment not be compromised. Therefore, if the migration agent has steered the investor into an EB-5 project with a close connection to Trump, it is incumbent on the lawyer to still maintain professional independence and to ensure that the lawyer’s judgment has not been compromised. The lawyer may wish to advise the client that the foreign migration agencies’ claims may be mere puffery.  If the lawyer accepts referrals from a foreign migration agent knowing that the investment selected by the agent will not be in the client’s best interest, the lawyer may be conflicted and must get informed consent from the EB-5 client under Rule 1.7(b). The client must acknowledge that the lawyer has a relationship with a foreign migration agent who may be steering the client to a project that may ultimately not be in the client’s best interest. Under no circumstances may a lawyer pay a referral fee to the foreign migration agent. If the foreign migration agent insists that the referral fee is for payment for expenses for services it provides, those services and expenses have to be identified and disclosed to the EB-5 investor client and should not cost more than services that could be found elsewhere.

Trump can remain in office for four years, and if he wins reelection, for a maximum of eight years, unless he is impeached before that! While Trump and his family members may disregard conflicts of interest and the truth, a lawyer cannot and should not follow suit. The lawyer must stay within the ethical rules – which includes not lying, not being compromised by conflicts and being competent – in order to outlast Trump by many decades.

Cyrus Mehta

FREE THE CHILDREN: PARENT’S ABANDONMENT OF GREEN CARD SHOULD NOT BE IMPUTED ON CHILD

/1 Comment/in /by

There are a number of  unfortunate cases where the parent abandons lawful permanent resident (LPR) status by staying outside the United States resulting in the child’s LPR status also being abandoned. Should the child’s LPR status be deemed abandoned even if the child had no intention to abandon that status?

The answer, unfortunately, is “Yes,” but there might still be grounds for putting up a fight. There is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of  Zamora, 17 I&N Dec. 395 (BIA 198), which holds that if the parent abandons his or her LPR status while the child is in the custody and control of the parent, then the parental abandonment may be imputed to the child. The reasoning in Matter of Zamora is based on the premise that a minor child cannot legally possess an intent to remain in the United States distinct from his or her parent’s intent. Even the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual acknowledges that a child under the age of 16 years is not considered to possess a will or intent separate from that of the parent with regard to a protracted stay abroad. 9 FAM 42.22 N5.

Essentially, an LPR must be returning from a temporary visit abroad under INA § 101(a)(27) in order to avoid a charge of abandonment. The term “temporary visit abroad” has been subject to much interpretation by the Circuit Courts. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) is generally followed:

A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.”If as in (b) “the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

Therefore, when an LPR is unable to establish that the trip abroad was temporary under the formula established in Singh v. Reno, and thus deemed to have abandoned that status, it would be imputed to the child. I question whether it is good policy as there may be a number of situations where a child may possess a separate intention from that of the parent. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Khoshfahm v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2011), while affirming Zamora,  raised this possibility by citing the example of LPR parents who leave the country, but leave their child in the US to attend school or live with a relative. Under the principle set forth in Zamora, the parents’ length of stay abroad, along with a lack of continuous intent to return to the US, could result in a finding that they had abandoned status, but it would be unreasonable to impute the parents’ abandonment to the child who never left the US. There are other situations too, where say an abusive parent who is an LPR takes the child abroad and does not allow the child to return back to the US. This would result in an unfair outcome, and is inconsistent with prevailing immigration policy. The Violence Against Women Act ensures that battered spouses, children and other relatives do not need to depend on the abuser’s status to apply for immigration benefits by enacting INA sections 204(a)(1)(A) and (1)(B), which allow battered spouses of US citizens and permanent residents to self-petition for permanent residency even when the abusive spouse either refuses to sponsor or has withdrawn support on a previously filed I-130 petition.  The intent of an abusive parent can also be considered as analogous to the fraudulent conduct of a parent, which is not imputed to the innocent child.  See Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400, 409-410 (6th Cir. 2006).

The argument to not attribute any abandonment by the parent on the child is further bolstered when the parent legally ceases to be a custodial parent, possibly due to the abusive relationship, and this is supported by the State Department guidance at 9 FAM 42.22 N5(c), which provides:

In the case of LPR children who you believe spend more than one year outside the United States as a result of an abduction by a non-custodian parent, please contact Overseas Citizen’s Services, Office of Children’s Issues (CA/OCS/CI) and the Post Liaison Division (CA/VO/F/P) to determine the proper course of action. While a returning resident visa is the preferred way for the child to return to the United States and be admitted in the proper status, a non-custodial parent may not be willing to cooperate in order to complete the returning resident visa process. CA/OCS/CI, CA/VO/F/P, and CA/VO/L/A can advise you on options in coordination with DHS to allow the child to travel back to the United States.

The Ninth Circuit in Khoshfahm also held that a child can have his or her own intent upon reaching 18th, which is like the State Department’s policy, although the State Department cuts off the age at 16.  Thus, a child should be able to establish his or her own intent independent o the parent’s intent after 16 or at least by 18.

 

It was thus heartening to find an unpublished decision by Immigration Judge Philip J. Montante, Jr. on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 13112247 (posted 11/22/13), which held that the abandonment of LPR status by a divorced parent could not be imputed to the child who was under the age of 18 where the divorce decree specifically required the child to travel to the US to visit her father resided in order to maintain her US residency. The child was also able to demonstrate that she visited her father in the US several times. Hats off to attorney Eric Schulz in Buffalo, NY, who was the attorney for the child respondent!

 

When an LPR child finds himself or herself in such a situation and has been outside the US for more than a year without a valid reentry permit, the child may be eligible to apply for an SB-1 visa as a returning legal permanent resident at a US consular post. Alternatively, the child can also arrive at a port of entry in the US and be prepared to submit a Form I-193 waiver under INA section 211(b) as a returning legal permanent resident who has a valid Form I-551 (green card) but has been outside the United States for more than one year. This is risky, however, because If the child is not waived into the US, then the child will be issued a Notice to Appear, alleging that he or she is an immigrant not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid entry document required by the INA. The NTA will most likely charge the child as being subject to removal pursuant to INA section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Although the child will be subject to a removal hearing before an Immigration Judge, where an alien has a colorable claim to returning resident status, the government bears the burden of proving abandonment of lawful status “by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” See e.g. Matadin v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008).

Attorneys representing LPR children who have been deemed to have abandoned their LPR status through imputation should, where the facts warrant,  be prepared to chip away at the principle set forth in Zamora. It is no longer fair to reflexively impute the abandonment of a parent’s LPR status onto a child, especially in situations where the child has expressed an intent contrary to the parent.

(This blog is for informational purposes only, and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice)

Cyrus Mehta

DELAYS FOR OVERSEAS SPOUSES OF US CITIZENS SEEKING GREEN CARDS

/6 Comments/in /by

One of the most fundamental benefits under immigration law is for the ability of a US citizen to quickly sponsor a foreign national spouse for a green card.  While the granting of immigration benefits is contentious in today’s political environment, no one has disputed, even immigration restrictionists, that a US citizen cannot swiftly bring into this country a foreign national whom he or she has married overseas. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the spouse of a US citizen qualifies as an immediate relative, and falls outside the quotas that other relatives of US citizens may be subject to such as adult sons and daughters or siblings. Minor children and parents of US citizens also qualify as immediate relatives.

The Form I-130 petition is used to sponsor a spouse, minor child or parent of a US citizen who is outside the US. In the recent past, such an I-130 petition filed with the United States Immigration and Citizenship Services on behalf of an immediate relative got approved in about 3-4 months. The case was then sent to the National Visa Center, a clearing house for the consular posts of the Department of State. Once the petitioner submitted the required documents to the NVC, the file was dispatched to the consular post and an appointment was quickly scheduled. The entire process generally took about six months or a little over.

More recently, I-130 petitions filed on behalf of spouses and other immediate relatives are reportedly taking much longer. This author has heard that I-130s filed in January or February 2013 have still not been approved. The Vermont Service Center states that I-130 petitions received on October 22, 2012 for immediate relatives are being adjudicated presently. The California Service Center does not indicate any processing time for a similar I-130 petition.  This is quite frankly a shocking state of affairs. The reason for the delay is that the I-130s are being shunted to local USCIS offices for processing rather than being processed at the California or Vermont Service Centers, which is how they were processed previously. Still, this is no excuse for the USCIS to cause so much delay. It makes no sense to allow spouses of US citizen to wait for so long outside the US before they can join their loved one in the US. The USCIS is capable of far greater efficiency as it demonstrated when it more quickly adjudicated thousands upon thousands of applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

While the filing of a concurrent I-130 petition with an I-485 application for adjustment of status may process more quickly, the foreign spouse has to be in the US in order to adjust status. If a spouse enters the US on a nonimmigrant visa, such as a tourist visa, with the intention to adjust status, such an I-485 can be denied if the spouse had a preconceived intent to apply for permanent residence while entering the country as a tourist. If, on the other hand, the spouse came genuinely as a tourist, but changed his or her mind after arriving in the US, then it can be demonstrated that there was no preconceived intent, or worse, fraud or misrepresentation with respect to the purpose of entering the US on a tourist visa.  Of course, if the spouse enters on a nonimmigrant visa, such as an H-1B or L visa, which allows for dual intent, then the spouse’s intent to apply for a permanent immigrant benefit is not an issue. The number of people on H or L visas who become spouses of US citizens is relatively few, though, and many people are unable to apply for a tourist visa to even visit the US temporarily to meet their spouses while the I-130 petition remains pending. People who are nationals of Visa Waiver countries can visit the US for 90 days without applying for a visa, but they too may risk being questioned about their intent at the port of entry.

The filing of an I-130 petition for consular processing, when the spouse is based overseas, is thus the legally appropriate method to apply. The USCIS should not discourage this process by inordinately delaying the approval of an I-130 petition, and thus encourage people to circumvent the process by coming on tourist visas, or other nonimmigrant visas that do not allow for dual intent, with the intent to apply for adjustment of status. Moreover, it is worth noting that with Section 3 of the  Defense of Marriage Act being declared unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor, same sex spouses of US citizen can also for a green card through an I-130 petition. These spouses were unjustly deprived of a benefit for years on end as a result of an unconstitutional statute, and they should not be required to wait that much longer for the I-130 petition to get approved.

In light of long delays in the processing of the I-130 petition, it may be worth considering filing an I-129F petition for a K-3 visa. Congress specifically designed the K-3 visa to allow spouses of US citizens to enter the US if the I-130 processing got delayed. In recent times, K-3 petitions have not been filed due to the fact that I-130 petitions were processed in a few months. It now makes sense to revive the K-3, and to file for it after the I-130 petition has been filed. Both the Vermont and California Service Centers indicate that K-3 processing is taking 5 months. If that time frame is accurate, then the beneficiary of a pending I-130 petition, which is expected to take a year or longer under current processing times, can at least unite with the US citizen spouse through a K-3 visa. Once the spouse is here on a K-3 visa, it is permissible under law to file an I-485 application for adjustment of status. While this is not a perfect solution as it involves two steps, the spouse can at least expect to unite with the US citizen spouse somewhat sooner.

(This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice)
Cyrus Mehta

The Ties that Bind: Can Family Unity Co-Exist with Maintenance of Lawful Permanent Resident Status?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

While many covet lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the US, popularly known as the green card, since it allows them to freely live and work in the US, it can also become a burden if one remains absent from the US, which can result in the loss of this status. This happened in Lateef v. Holder, where the petitioner, a Pakistani national, argued that despite multiple long absences from the United States, she did not intend to abandon her status, which also served as the foundation for her husband’s and child’s entry into the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that intent alone is insufficient to maintain LPR status and that her extended periods in Pakistan, including her final trip that lasted a year and three months, supported the BIA’s finding that she had abandoned her LPR status. The court also noted that the petitioner, at the end of a long and exhausting international flight, fearful of losing her LPR status, had lied in one instance to border officials about the date of her last visit to the United States.

Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch dissented, noting among other things that errors by U.S. immigration officials were responsible for at least some of the delays in her returning, and that the petitioner’s daughter in Pakistan had emotional and physical problems that compelled her to spend time in Pakistan to care for her.

The main lesson learned from Lateef v. Holder is that waiting outside the US with your loved ones, until they can immigrate to the US, can result in abandonment of your green card. Due to the tremendous backlogs in the family-based immigration system, it can take years before an LPR can sponsor a spouse or child to the US, thus compelling the LPR to be absent from the US until such time that the family members are issued immigrant visas. The case highlights the tensions between a global world involving frequent travel, and where families live apart in different countries, and an insular immigration system.

Lateef, a native of Pakistan, became a LPR in 1991 along with her parents and brothers. She initially went back to Pakistan to complete her final 2 years of medical school, and then returned to the US and remained for over 2 years. After Lateef married her husband in Pakistan in June 1995, she spent most of her time in Pakistan until February 2001, when she was charged with inadmissibility based on abandonment of her LPR status. Between 1995 and 2001, she returned periodically to the US to take her medical exams. Her husband was also denied a visitor visa during this time. She also gave birth to a daughter in Pakistan. Although, according to the majority her daughter was granted LPR status “as a child born during a temporary visit abroad” to an LPR under 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(1), Judge Stranch’s dissenting opinion disputes this fact. Due to an error by the INS at the port of entry, according to Judge Stranch, the daughter was not granted LPR status under this special dispensation. Lateef had to file a separate I-130 petition on behalf of her daughter, which resulted in the daughter having to wait in Pakistan for many years. Lateef’s daughter developed behavioral problems whenever she came to the US to take medical exams. She was thus forced to return to Pakistan, and she last left the US in November 1999 due to her daughter’s continuing behavioral problems, where she remained there for a year and three months. Her husband and children (by then she also had a son) were granted immigrant visas in November 2000, but she stayed in Pakistan until 2001 to attend weddings.

When Lateef last arrived in the US in February 2001 after being out since November 1999, she falsely told the officer that she was last in the US in July 2000. Upon being confronted, she changed her story that she was last in the US in April 2000, which was also untrue. When being further confronted with documents found in the family’s luggage, she confessed that she was out since November 1999 and that she had previously lied to immigration officials.

Before we draw further lessons from Lateef v. Holder, we give you a primer on the law of abandonment of LPR status. For a more extensive review on this subject, we refer you to our article, Home Is Where The Card Is: How To Preserve Lawful Permanent Resident Status In A Global Economy, 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 849, July 1, 2008. Essentially, an LPR must be returning from a temporary visit abroad under INA § 101(a)(27) in order to avoid a charge of abandonment. The term “temporary visit abroad” has recently been subject to interpretation by the Circuit Courts. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) is generally followed:

A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.”If as in (b) “the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

Singh v. Reno is worth further elaboration as the facts in this case are somewhat analogous to Lateef v. Holder. Singh obtained lawful permanent residence through the special agricultural worker program on December 1, 1990. From that date till the initiation of the proceedings on July 8, 1993, Singh spent less than one-third of his time in the US. In fact, he spent time with his wife and daughter in the United Kingdom who were waiting for their family-based immigrant visa petition to materialize. During the time Singh spend in the US, he worked sporadically for a restaurant in California, and lived in temporary housing provided by the employer. Singh also applied for a visitor visa at the US consulate in London and entered the US four times on that visa after he obtained permanent residency in the UK. The Ninth Circuit held that Singh’s long visits to the UK did not qualify as a temporary visit, even though he was never out of the US for more than a year, and upheld the Board’s decision affirming his abandonment of LPR.

In a scathing dissent, Judge Reinhardt criticized the majority for failing to consider that Singh’s motive for spending time abroad was due to the wait for his wife and daughter to gain immigration status. Moreover, the dissenting judge disagreed with the majority that the wife and spouse were free to reside in the US while waiting for their immigration status.

Another important case is Hana v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2005), which in turn drew from Singh v. Reno. Although the facts in Hana v. Gonzales, are similar to Singh, the Sixth Circuit found that Hana, an Iraqi national, did not abandon her status. On May 22, 1992, Hana was granted LPR status upon which she immediately filed immigrant visa petitions for her husband and four children. A few weeks later, on July 19, 1992, Hana returned to Iraq, and to her job as an inspector at the Central Bank of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime. Hana was compelled to return to Iraq to work because she was afraid that the government would hurt her family. Upon obtaining a reentry permit, Hana spent in the next two years in Iraq with her family and to care for her terminally ill mother in law. Two weeks prior to the expiration of her re-entry permit in December 1996, Hana returned to the US but was detained and charged with inadmissibility as an immigrant without a valid visa. Hana admitted that she had never paid income tax in the US and had no property in this country, but had initially entered with $10,000 in jewelry and money, which she gave to her brother so that she could ultimately purchase a home and car, and provide for her children when they arrived in the US.

While ruling in Hana’s favor, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that it must take into account the totality of the alien’s circumstances in addition to the two-part test established in Singh v. Reno to determine what constitutes a temporary visit abroad. Thus, while Hana did not possess family, property or job in the US, the Court held that she still had an intent to return to the US upon the materialization of her family members’ immigration visa petitions. It appears that the Sixth Circuit was influenced by Hana’s decision to remain in Iraq with her family to ensure that they were not harmed by a brutal regime’s henchmen and for caring for her terminally ill mother-in-law. The Sixth Circuit distinguished Singh v. Reno, by observing that Singh’s family, even though not free to reside in the US, could freely travel between the two countries which were relatively safe democratic nations, although the Court acknowledged that Singh was a “close case.” Clearly, Hana is a better decision as it recognizes an LPR’s need to remain with family overseas, and is also more understanding of the realities of the backlogs in family-based immigration, along with the difficulty that sponsored family members may have in obtaining visitor visas to the United States as well as the political and economic realities that might hinder one’s ability to return to the US quickly.

Lateef v. Holder is also from the Sixth Circuit, and Lateef sought to show that her case was similar to Hana, but the majority thought otherwise. Unlike the Hana petitioner, who was forced to remain in Iraq to protect her family from a brutal dictatorship, the Lateef court thought that Pakistan was a free country that allowed its people to travel. Also compare Hana’s intent to return to the US upon the immigration of her relatives, which the Sixth Circuit paid attention to despite her lack of other ties, with the refusal of the Sixth Circuit to pay similar deference to Lateef’s intent as a controlling factor. It appears that the Sixth Circuit thought that Lateef’s case was more like Singh who could freely travel between two democratic countries, the United Kingdom and the US, even though they had relatives who were waiting in the preference system for immigrant visas. While this is a refreshing observation on Pakistan, we know anecdotally that Pakistani nationals do not otherwise fare too well in our immigration system. Their applications for routine immigration benefits get scrutinized more than others through the prism of national security, and they are more amenable to be placed in removal proceedings notwithstanding the new DHS prosecutorial discretion policy set forth in the Morton Memo of June 17, 2011. It is true that Lateef did not have a reentry permit, unlike Hana, when she returned to the US in February 2011 and even lied about the last time she came back to the US. This may have cut against her, but the misrepresentation would not have been material, and thus an additional ground of inadmissibility, if she had not abandoned her LPR status. Also, a reentry permit is not an essential prerequisite for maintaining LPR status. In yet another decision involving a Pakistani national, Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003), the petitioner, after obtaining LPR status, left for Pakistan to marry and spent the majority of the next several years with her husband and children in Pakistan. Even though Moin had a sick child who died after barely one year and had a reentry permit, the fact that she spent most of the time in Pakistan without an intent to return within a relatively short period caused the Fifth Circuit to affirm the abandonment of her LPR status. The Fifth Circuit observed that “a reentry permit, in and of itself, does not prevent a finding that an alien has abandoned her permanent residency status.” Indeed, this lesson is one that is poorly understood by LPRs who see the re-entry permit as offering the absolute assurance of retention. The Lateef court, in finding that the petitioner had abandoned LPR status was more influenced by Moin and Singh than Hana.

Still Judge Stranch’s dissent in Lateef has considerable moral force like Judge Reinhardt’s dissent in Singh. Green card holders should not be deprived of their status primarily because they reside abroad with family members whom they have sponsored under our creaky immigration system. In Lateef, it appears that there was also an error with respect to her infant daughter being expeditiously granted LPR status at the airport under the special dispensation in 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(b)(1). Her daughter thus was forced to stay in Pakistan until the regular immigrant visa processing for a few years, and Lateef needed to be with her daughter in Pakistan due to continuing behavioral problems. Even though the court opined that Lateef and her family were free to travel, her husband was denied a tourist visa. This is often the case when a family member is being sponsored for a green card, and the tourist visa is routinely denied on the ground that the family member is wrongly suspected of being an intending immigrant and planning to overstay the visa. Moreover, the court seemed to be impressed by the fact that Hana brought $10,000 worth of valuables and cash with her to purchase a home and a car in the US when she finally would come and reside in the US. But the court glaringly missed the investment in time that Lateef was spending taking medical exams in the US that would qualify her to practice as a physician and establish a career in the US. It is clear that Lateef was expending her own human capital in the US even though she did not bring physical assets to the US like Hana, which appeared rather modest. On the other hand, Lateef’s investment of time in obtaining a medical license to practice in the US was impressive.

The unfortunate holding in Lateef v. Holder again compels us to offer our proposal that, if adopted, will change the law on preservation of LPR status in a really big way: green card holders, like US citizens, should not be presumed to abandon their status without a tangible manifestation or expression of informed consent. The significance of LPR status would be greatly enhanced if a presumption existed in favor of retention of status, notwithstanding the commission of certain acts that might suggest a contrary intent. US citizens now enjoy this same presumption and there is no reason why resident aliens should not as well. It is neither sound nor sensible to assume that naturalized Americans have a stronger or more meaningful attachment to this country than lawful permanent residents; indeed, there are numerous anecdotal reasons to commend the opposite conclusion. Extended absence from the US, without more, should never serve as the basis for abandonment; in a global economy, where an LPR may have to reside abroad with family members until their immigration process is completed or where international relocations are the price of career advancement or even job retention, the law should and must provide that no LPR can be stripped of their green card on the basis of abandonment unless he or she clearly states an unmistakable intention to give it up. No inference from proven conduct would be possible absent clear evidence that such was the desired and intended consequence. Application of this presumption would properly reflect the profound importance of lawful resident alien status while serving as symbolic recognition of the vast contributions that such permanent residents have made to their adopted home. How is the nation well served when we presume that a citizen does not intend the consequences of a potentially expatriating act while denying the LPR his or her right to rely upon the very same presumption? What reason is there to believe that a US citizen is more invested in keeping citizenship than an LPR in preserving the green card? Do we seek to punish the lawful permanent resident for retaining original loyalties and not taking that one, final, fateful step signifying that they have truly become one of us, making our cause their own?

So long as the green card holder has not violated our laws, or otherwise subjected themselves to justifiable removal, no public interest is advanced when the law refuses to shield permanent residents from involuntary loss of status. Our liberties are not made more secure, our federal coffers do not swell with more tax dollars, our enemies are not chastened nor our friends reassured from such an anomalous state of affairs. The genius of the American constitutional arrangement, that which has provided it with the equipoise so prized in times of crisis, lies in its ability to give all those affected by its operation a stake in society. As Professor Alexander M. Bickel taught us in Citizenship in the American Constitution, 15 Arizona Law Review 369 (1973), the value of citizenship is most authentically reaffirmed when the rights of citizens are least exalted above all others. No one, LPRs included, should have to choose between loyalty to family and retention of status. The true meaning of America lies elsewhere. F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Crack-Up (1933) points the way:

France was a land, England a people but America was somehow different… It had about it still the quality of an idea…It was, above all else, a willingness of the heart.