Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: EXPIRING GREEN CARDS: HELP!

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: EXPIRING GREEN CARDS: HELP! by David E. Gluckman

    EXPIRING GREEN CARDS: HELP!

    by


    It happens all the time. Your clients are planning an international dream vacation or an exciting change of jobs. But their green cards are expiring! Do they have to cancel everything? Probably not, but the laws and procedures that apply in these situations are not as clear as one would hope. This article will empower practitioners with all the information needed to guide clients through this potential morass.

    This article is divided into two sections to address two groups of permanent residents: those who have filed to remove the conditions on a “conditional” two-year green card, and those who have a “permanent” 10-year green card.

    Conditional Residents

    The Immigration Service (“USCIS”) issues two-year “conditional” green cards to two categories of permanent residents: (1) those who received permanent residence on the basis of marriage to a U.S. citizen, when the marriage occurred less than two years before the green-card approval[1] and (2) those who received permanent residence under the EB-5 “employment creation” program.[2] Each requires a different filing with USCIS: an I-751 for marriage-based conditional residents and an I-829 for “employment creation” conditional residents.[3] USCIS must receive the I-751 or I-829 no earlier than 90 days before the green-card expiration date,[4] and no later than the date the card expires. The failure to file on time results in automatic termination of permanent residence.[5]

    Once the I-751 or I-829 has been filed, the processing is anything but instantaneous. In fact, USCIS can take many months to make a decision. During this time, your client’s green card will have expired! Is it panic-button time? No.

    Although the I-751 and I-829 are very different filings, the rules for how permanent residents will be treated after making these filings are almost identical. As long as the I-751 or I-829 was filed on time, their status as permanent residents is automatically extended until USCIS makes a decision on the petition.[6] USCIS will send a receipt informing them that their status has been extended for one year, but this is not the case—their status is extended until they get that final decision. And in the event the I-751 or I-829 is—gasp—denied and they are placed in removal proceedings, they are still considered permanent residents entitled to documentation of their status until a final removal order is entered by an Immigration Judge.[7]

    Clients frequently ask whether they can make an international trip after filing. Generally, the answer is “yes.” But they may need to take additional steps depending on timing. The key is when they plan to reenter the U.S.—not when they plan to leave.

    If they will be reentering the U.S. within 6 months of the date USCIS receives the I-751 or I-829 filing, they will reenter the U.S. by showing their expired green card and a copy of the I-751 or I-829 receipt notice.[8]

    If they will be reentering the U.S. more than 6 months after the date on their I-751 or I-829 receipt, it is risky to rely on the expired green card and the receipt notice. This is true even though the receipt notice claims to authorize travel up to a year after the filing date.[9] To eliminate any reentry risk from these trips, they should get formal proof of their status from their local USCIS office in the form of a “green-card stamp” in their passports. To get one of these stamps, they would make an InfoPass appointment with their local office through the USCIS website (https://infopass.uscis.gov/). They would bring their expired (or expiring) green card, the I-751 or I-829 receipt notice, and proof of their travel plans. They are automatically entitled to the green-card stamp, which will be valid for 12 months.[10] This is the same process they would use to obtain continued proof of their permanent residence if they have been placed in removal proceedings following denial of the I-751 or I-829.

    In any event, you must advise clients to avoid any trip outside the U.S. of 6 months or more without obtaining a reentry permit. While not a panacea, the reentry permit will be an important document to defend against charges that your clients may have abandoned their permanent residence due to a long absence. Extended absences also impact naturalization eligibility,[11] so this will be something else to discuss.

    What about when your clients ask about their exciting new job offer? Thankfully, they shouldn’t have to put that on hold, either. If the green card has already expired, their best option would be to obtain a temporary green-card stamp from the local USCIS office, as mentioned above. While there is guidance from USCIS indicating that the I-751 or I-829 receipt notice may be acceptable proof of employment authorization,[12] this guidance is not well known and appears to conflict with other regulations.[13]

    Unconditional Permanent Residents

    Unconditional permanent residents have green cards valid for 10 years at a time. To be clear: the expiration date on the green card is not the expiration date of a particular client’s permanent residence—it is just the expiration date of the proof of that client’s permanent residence.[14] That is because a permanent resident will remain a permanent resident until he or she voluntarily relinquishes the green card, becomes subject to a final order of removal, or becomes a U.S. citizen.[15]

    To obtain continuing proof of permanent residence, your clients would apply for a replacement green card by filing a Form I-90 with USCIS. Like I-751s and I-829s, USCIS customarily takes many months to process I-90s.[16] But unlike I-751s and I-829s, the I-90 receipt notice will not serve as proof of their status.

    So what does this mean? It means that your clients will need to get a temporary green-card stamp in their passports if they want to travel outside the U.S. or change jobs while USCIS processes their I-90 applications (unless, of course, they can still use the original green card because it has not yet expired).[17] Again, be sure to counsel clients on reentry permits, abandonment, and potential naturalization consequences if they intend to be outside the U.S. for a single period of 6 months or more.

    To obtain a temporary green-card stamp, your clients will first need to file an I-90 application (which can be done electronically or on paper).[18] Then they will need to make an InfoPass appointment with their local USCIS office through the USCIS website (https://infopass.uscis.gov/) and bring the expired card and the I-90 receipt to the appointment. They should automatically be issued a stamp valid for 12 months.[19]

    Even if there are no plans to change jobs or to travel internationally, there are good reasons to advise clients to file for a replacement green card.[20] First, permanent residents are required by law to carry with them evidence of their permanent-resident status.[21] An expired card may not be sufficient. Secondly, permanent residents cannot apply for naturalization (U.S. citizenship) with an expired card.[22] In fact, they must apply for a replacement card if it will expire less than 6 months before they submit their naturalization application.[23]

    Conclusion

    As any immigration attorney can commiserate, processes and procedures in our field are almost always more important than the law itself. Dealing with expiring green cards is no exception. Making your clients aware of these processes and procedures will help them to keep calm and carry on, dream vacations and all.



    [1] INA § 216(a)(1) & (g)(1).

    [2] Id. § 216A(a)(1) & (f)(1).

    [3] The mechanics and complexities of filing these petitions are beyond the scope of this article.

    [4] But see 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a); USCIS, Instructions for Pet. Remove Conditions on Residence, http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-751instr.pdf (last visited Apr. 10, 2014) (allowing filing before the 90-day window for marriage-based conditional residents who seek a waiver of the requirement to file the I-751 jointly with the U.S.-citizen spouse).

    [5] Id. § 216.4(a)(6) (failure to file I-751); id. § 216.6(a)(5) (failure to file I-829). There are some exceptions for filing late, but this is definitely a risk avoid if at all possible. See, e.g., id. §§ 216.4(a)(6) & 216.6(a)(5) (allowing a late filing if “good cause” is shown); id. § 216.5(a)(1) (permitting late filing for marriage-based conditional residents who are seeking a waiver of the requirement to file the I-751 jointly with the U.S.-citizen spouse).

    [6] Id. § 216.4(a)(1) (I-751); id. § 216.6(a)(1) (I-829).

    [7] See Questions and Answers: USCIS Field Opers. Directorate—American Immigration Lawyers Ass’n (AILA) Mtg., at 3 (Oct. 25, 2011), available at AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12011061 (“If the I-829 or I-751 has been denied and an NTA [Notice to Appear] has been issued, but no final order of removal has been entered, then USCIS should follow established procedures for providing a temporary I-551 [green-card] stamp as evidence of the alien’s conditional resident status upon request at a local USCIS Field Office. The alien is eligible for temporary I-551 stamps until an Immigration Judge makes a final decision on the case.”).

    [8] 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(a)(5).

    [9] This language on the receipt notice appears to conflict with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 211.1(a)(5), which permits reentry with an expired green card “accompanied by a filing receipt issued within the previous 6 months for either a Form I-751 . . . or Form I-829, . . . if seeking admission or readmission after a temporary absence of less than 1 year.”

    [10] See Memorandum from William R. Yates, Acting Assoc. Dir. Opers., BCIS, to Interim Reg. Dirs., at 2 (Dec. 2, 2003), available at AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03120940.

    [11] See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1) (addressing how extended absences could break the period of continuous U.S. residence required for naturalization).

    [12] See USCIS, I-9 Central Questions and Answers, http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/i-9-central-questions-answers/faq/may-i-accept-expired-document-form-i-9 (last visited Apr. 9, 2014) (“[Y]ou may accept an expired Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action, that indicates that the card is valid for an additional year, which is an acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797.”).

    [13] See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(vi) (listing the only circumstances when a receipt will be acceptable evidence of employment authorization, which do not include I-751 or I-829 receipts).

    [14] Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Exec. Assoc. Comm’r, INS, to Reg Dirs. 2 (Sep. 29, 1999), available at AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 99100640 (“Although lawful permanent resident status is not affected by the expiration of the Form I-551 [green card], individuals will need to replace their cards to have valid evidence of their status and registration.”) [hereinafter Pearson Memo].

    [15] See 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(p).

    [16] USCIS’ current processing times for all applications and petitions are available at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do.

    [17] Many USCIS Application Support Centers will affix a sticker to an expiring or expired green card when the client attends the I-90 biometrics appointment. This sticker will extend the validity of the green card (typically for a period of 6 months), making it unnecessary to obtain a temporary green-card stamp for as long as the sticker is valid.

    [18] USCIS, I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, http://www.uscis.gov/i-90 (last visited Apr. 9, 2014).

    [19] Pearson Memo, supra note 14, at 2-3.

    [20] At the same time, there is a good reason to advise clients not to file a Form I-90 if they have been convicted of certain crimes. That is because I-90 applicants must undergo biometrics (fingerprints and photos) as part of I-90 processing, and this may bring their criminal history to the attention of the immigration authorities.

    [21] INA § 264(e).

    [22] Pearson Memo, supra note 14, at 3.

    [23] Id.


    About The Author

    David E. Gluckman David E. Gluckman is an attorney with McCandlish Holton's Immigration Practice Group in Richmond, Virginia. He advises businesses and individuals nationwide and worldwide, guiding them through the U.S. immigration labyrinth toward their short- and long-term goals. His expertise includes temporary-visa petitions, permanent-residence applications for family-based and employment-based applicants in all categories, citizenship, and the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. David is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Richmond School of Law. He can be reached by email at dgluckman@lawmh.com .


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily
      The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X