No announcement yet.

Article: 2016 Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Rule. By Damini M. Patel, Esq.


  • Article: 2016 Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Rule. By Damini M. Patel, Esq.

    2016 Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Rule


    On July 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule that expanded the availability of the provisional unlawful presence waiver. This waiver is available to individuals who would be eligible for a waiver under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v). Under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v), an individual who has accrued over 180 days of unlawful presence in the US is subject to a 3-year bar to readmission that is triggered upon departure from the US. A person who has accrued one year or more of unlawful presence is subject to a 10-year bar to readmission.

    Previously, such individuals had to option of applying for a provisional waiver. To apply for a provisional waiver, an individual must first depart the US, apply for an immigrant visa at a US embassy or consulate, and be found inadmissible at the visa interview as a result of a prior unlawful presence. Thereafter, the individual must file Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. However, due to this lengthy process, families suffered extreme hardships. To alleviate these hardships, the new provisional waiver process was implemented. The new provisional waiver process allows individuals, who are aware that they will be subject to the 3 or 10 year bar, to apply for provisional approval of unlawful presence waiver prior to departing the US for the immigrant visa interview. This allows approvals for provisional waivers which permit consular officers to issue immigrant visas without undue delays - assuming there are no other admissibility issues.

    Who is eligible?

    Under the previous rule, provisional waivers were limited to those immigrating to the US as “immediate relatives,” of US citizens who could demonstrate extreme hardship to a US citizen spouse or parent.

    Under the new rule, any individual that can demonstrate extreme hardship to a US citizen or LPR spouse or parent, may apply for and receive a provisional waiver. The basis for the immigrant visa may be an employment-based preference category, a family-based preference category, the diversity visa lottery, or a special immigrant classification.

    Change in Standard of Review

    The previous provision held the "reason to believe" standard. Under 8 CFR §212.7(e)(4)(i), USCIS must deny a provisional waiver application if it has “reason to believe” that the individual may be subject to a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence at the time of the immigrant visa interview. This standard resulted in USCIS denying applications for individuals who were clearly not deemed inadmissible for reasons other than unlawful presence at a consular interview. Thus, USCIS eliminated the rigid "reason to believe" standard and now only considers whether extreme hardship has been established and whether the individual warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

    How will the change in standard affect the individual?

    Considering this is a new regulation that is being implemented, issues will arise. Although this opens up doors to immigrants that would otherwise be barred from readmission, USCIS may still deny a provisional waiver as a matter of discretion. Basically, there may still be individuals that will be denied for "reason to believe". However, there may also be individuals that may have been denied for "reason to believe", which may be approved. At the same time, if the Department of State finds an individual ineligible for an immigrant visa or inadmissible on grounds other than unlawful presence, the approved provisional waiver will be revoked. In which case, the individual may still go about the original visa waiver process and apply for a waiver abroad, using Form I-601.

    Although the new rule still requires the exercise of great discretion on part of USCIS, it still opens up new options for immigrants. Therefore, if you or your client is facing a 3-year or 10-year bar and you find that the eligibility criteria has been met, this may be an option worth exploring.

    Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Damini M. Patel Damini M. Patel, Esq is an associate attorney at the Nair Law Group, a law firm practicing exclusively in the area of US Immigration and Nationality law. The firm represents business and corporate clients in all matters of employment-based immigration.

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

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      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
      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.

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


      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).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM