Immigration Waivers Information, News & Issues

An Overview of I-601 Waivers and Extreme Hardship

2012-01-24T15:50:00.000-08:00

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 are various provisions for the I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, formerly titled Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability. This memo addresses the structure and content of an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 212(h), and 212(i).

Court decisions addressing the I-601 waiver may change the existing law or create new law. Counsel are advised to independently confirm whether the law in their circuit or BIA decisions have changed existing law or precedent since the date of this memo.

For the purposes of this memo the Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility will be referred to as an I-601. The I-601 form may also be used for certain waivers that do not require a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, e.g. a waiver of the vaccination requirement. Waivers that do not require a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying relative are not the subject of this memo.

Read more at http://www.scottimmigration.net/content/i601memo

Advance copy of USCIS Notice of Intent: stateside I-601 adjudications

2012-01-06T17:23:00.000-08:00

"U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to change its current process for filing and adjudication of certain applications for waivers of inadmissibility filed in connection with an immediate relative immigrant visa application. Specifically, USCIS is considering regulatory changes that will allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to request provisional waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA or Act), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), prior to departing the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications." - FR Doc. 2012-140 Filed 01/06/2012 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 01/09/2012.

Read more at http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/immigration-law/blogs/inside/archive/2012/01/06/advance-copy-of-uscis-notice-of-intent-stateside-i-601-adjudications.aspx

Proposed stateside waiver Q&A - USCIS

2012-01-06T17:21:00.000-08:00

"USCIS to Propose Changing the Process for Certain Waivers

Introduction

On Jan. 6, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted a notice of intent in the Federal Register outlining its plan to reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances while those family members go through the process of becoming legal immigrants to the United States. Currently, spouses and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States, and have to leave the country as part of the legal immigration process, are barred from returning to their families for as long as 3 or 10 years. They can receive a waiver to allow them to return to their families by showing that their U.S. citizen family member would face extreme hardship as a result of the separation. This proposal would streamline the processing of these individuals’ waiver applications based on unlawful presence; USCIS proposes to process their waiver applications in the United States before any American family faces separation. The process would only apply to immigrants who are eligible for a visa.

Read more at http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/immigration-law/blogs/inside/archive/2012/01/06/proposed-stateside-waiver-q-amp-a-uscis.aspx

AP source: Admin. plans change in immigration rule

2012-01-06T16:37:00.001-08:00

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration plans a rule change to help reduce the time illegal immigrant spouses and children are separated from citizen relatives while they try to win legal status in the United States, a senior administration official said Thursday.

Currently, illegal immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The official said the new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before the illegal immigrant heads to his or her home country to apply for a visa. The illegal immigrants still must go home to finish the visa process to come back to the U.S., but getting the waiver ahead of time could reduce the time an illegal immigrant is out of the country.

Read more at http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_19685281?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com

AP source: Admin. plans change in immigration rule

2012-01-06T16:37:00.000-08:00

UPDATE on I-601 Waivers: Easier Route to Green Card to Be Proposed for Some

2012-01-06T16:36:00.000-08:00

Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.

The change that immigration officials are offering would benefit United States citizens who are married to or have children who are illegal immigrants. It would correct a bureaucratic Catch-22 that those Americans now confront when their spouses or children apply to become legal permanent residents.

Although the tweak that officials of Citizenship and Immigration Services are proposing appears small, immigration lawyers and advocates for immigrants say it will make a great difference for countless Americans. Thousands will no longer be separated from loved ones, they said, and the change could encourage Americans to come forward to apply to bring illegal immigrant family members into the legal system.

Read more in the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/path-to-green-card-for-illegal-immigrant-family-members-of-americans.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

CISOMB Recommendation Update: USCIS Processing of Waivers of Inadmissability

2011-12-13T10:28:00.000-08:00

"On June 10, 2010, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman recommended enhancements to the administration of Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. While specifically focused on the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office, many of the recommendations applied to all overseas posts: (1) Centralize I-601 processing; (2) Allow applicants to concurrently file Form I-601 and Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative; (3) Prioritize the finalization of the overseas case management system, already under development, to ensure accurate statistical reporting on Forms I-601, to allow processing times to be posted, and to enable customers to track a Form I-601 application via the "My Case Status" feature on the USCIS website; (4) Publish clear instructions for customers seeking expedited waiver processing; (5) Increase coordination between Department of State (DOS) and USCIS officers who work with I-601 waivers; and (6) Allow USCIS employees to request digitized A-Files upon receipt of interview schedules. This Recommendation update provides the status of recommendations made by the Ombudsman at least twelve months after the recommendations were issued." -CISOMB, updated Dec. 8, 2011.

Article posted by Daniel M. Kowalski

http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/immigration-law/blogs/inside/archive/2011/12/09/cisomb-recommendation-update-uscis-processing-of-waivers-of-inadmissability.aspx

Ombudsman Recommendation Update: USCIS Processing of Waivers of Inadmissability

2011-12-13T10:25:00.000-08:00

On June 10, 2010, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman recommended enhancements to the administration of Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. While specifically focused on the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office, many of the recommendations applied to all overseas posts: (1) Centralize I-601 processing; (2) Allow applicants to concurrently file Form I-601 and Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative; (3) Prioritize the finalization of the overseas case management system, already under development, to ensure accurate statistical reporting on Forms I-601, to allow processing times to be posted, and to enable customers to track a Form I-601 application via the "My Case Status" feature on the USCIS website; (4) Publish clear instructions for customers seeking expedited waiver processing; (5) Increase coordination between Department of State (DOS) and USCIS officers who work with I-601 waivers; and (6) Allow USCIS employees to request digitized A-Files upon receipt of interview schedules. This Recommendation update provides the status of recommendations made by the Ombudsman at least twelve months after the recommendations were issued.

Read more: http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2011,1209-inadmissibility.shtm

Government by Waiver - Immigration Edition

2011-11-30T15:45:00.000-08:00

By now it is well known that President Obama's big government model disproportionately relies on "waivers" to exempt certain companies and unions—disproportionately located in friendly political districts—from the generally applicable requirements of Obamacare. Whether or not the president's new "government by waiver" effort is unconstitutional—as law professor Philip Hamburger argues—it certainly is pernicious. As professor Richard Epstein urged in his excellent National Affairs essay, "government by waiver" is "among the most serious challenges to the rule of law in our time."(...)
Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/government-waiver-immigration-edition_575897.html

Unlawful Presence

2011-11-30T15:18:00.000-08:00

This is an important issue and very relevant to people, who have entered the United States unlawfully and later on want to marry a US citizen or gain some kind of other immigration benefit.
What is unlawful presence?(...)
The article is divided in 4 parts. Let's start with part 1 http://www.ranchodlaw.com/blog/marriage-green-cards/unlawful-presence-part-1/

New USCIS Policy Memo on Requests to Expedite I-601s

2011-06-06T13:07:00.000-07:00

New USCIS Policy Memo on Requests to Expedite I-601s

Memo dated May 9, 2011 & released today.

A Death in Juarez: How U.S. Immigration Policy Is Tearing American Families Apart

2011-04-13T10:50:00.000-07:00

Forbes.com

Apr. 7 2011 - 2:18 pm | 613 views | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

Image by AFP via @daylife

Monica Bosquez managed to “stay positive” most of the time. But in our conversation just days before she left for Ciudad Juárez, the bright and friendly program analyst for the state of Texas broke into tears. “If I don’t come back,” she said, “make sure you tell people what happened.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/oshadavidson/2011/04/07/a-death-in-juarez-how-u-s-immigration-policy-is-tearing-american-families-apart/

AAO Extreme Hardship Victory

2011-04-01T10:19:00.000-07:00

"When considering the applicant's spouse's extensive family ties to the United States, the abandonment of her permanent resident status, her son's disability, and the common hardships associated with relocation, the AAO finds that she would experience extreme hardship upon relocation to Mexico. ... Considering the totality of the hardship factors presented, the AAO finds that the applicant's spouse would suffer extreme hardship if she remained in the United States. ... The appeal is sustained."

USCIS comment request on revision of Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.

2011-03-28T12:05:00.000-07:00

USCIS comment request on revision of Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. Comments are due 4/25/11. (76 FR 16800, 3/25/11) (75 FR 76745, 12/9/10) (75 FR 74071, 11/30/10) AILA Doc. No. 10120162.

INADMISSIBILITY

2011-03-07T12:02:00.000-08:00

INADMISSIBILITY

COUNTING UNLAWFUL PRESENCE TOWARD 3/1 0 YEAR BARS

Unlawful presence time not counted toward 3/1 0 year bars (though alien may have been unlawfully present):

· before April I, 1997, • under age 18 (except that time under age 18 DOES count toward 9C),

· asylum "claim pending as long as no unauthorized employment,

· 1-485 pending or timely filed application to extend/change nonimmigrant status (forget about the 120 limit in the statute),

· Duration of Status (admitted Canadians without 1-94 presumed to be in D/S),

· application for family unity benefits pending (this is an old section of law) and certain VA WA applicants

INADMISSIBLE, WAIVER AVAILABLE

Title: section regarding inadmissibility; section regarding waiver. Description and details.

Unlawful pres: 212a9BiI, IT; 212a9Bv. More than 180 days, but less than one year is a 3-year bar. If placed in removal proceedings and VD before one year, no 3-year bar. More than one year or more is a 10-year bar. Time not counted in the aggregate. Bar runs while alien is anywhere in the world, including US. QR: USC or LPR spouse or parent.

Misrep: 212a6Ci; 212i. Fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks/sought to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission to US. Oral or written. Outside US, 30/60 day rule: violates status or applies for green card within 30 days of nonimmigrant entry is non-rebuttable fraud, within 60 days is rebuttable. Within US, Matter of Cavazos: absent aggravating factors, ADS approved without waiver. QR: USC or LPR spouse or parent.

Prior Removal: 212a9Ai, ii; 212a9Aiii. Prior expedited removal at point of entry is 5-year bar. Other removal/deport is 10 years. Catch-and- release (voluntary return program) and VD are not removal/deportation, No relative required for waiver.

Criminal: 212a2AiI, B, D; 212h. Prostitution/pimping (even iflegal where done) or crime of moral turpitude, except a single conviction for which maximum possible penalty one year or less and actual sentence six months or less. Juvenile convictions excepted unless tried as adult. our, hiring prostitute not CIMTs. Permanent inadmissibility, except prostitution/pimping is 10 years. QR LPR/USC spouse, child, parent. No QR required after 15 years when rehabilitation only is ok. For very violent crimes, must prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

Medical: 212alA; 212g. (a) TB, a few other communicable diseases. QR: VA WA or USCILPR child, spouse or, if alien is unmarried, parent. Don't need extreme hardship. Waiver is about health insurance and public safety. (b) No vaccinations. No QR needed K visa excepted. Prove alien can't vaccinate for medical reasons (e.g. pregnant) or against religious/moral beliefs. (c) Mental disorder that poses danger to alien or others. Waiver: case-by-case.

Smuggling: 212a6E; 212dll. Knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the
United States in violation of law. Waiver if alien smuggled is spouse, parent, child. Family unity standard.

Jl 2-year return: 212e; 212e. On Jl this visit or prior visit and subject to 212e (not all Jls subject, must view visa) and has not spent 2 years in home country. Time in other countries doesn't count. QR not always needed; waivers complex.

INADMISSIBLE, NO WAIVER AVAILABLE EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY

Skipped Hearing 212a6B; no waiver. Failed to attend a removal hearing when NTA
issued after April 1, 1997. 5 year bar after departure.

9CiI 212a9CiI; 212a9Cii, iii. Unlawfully present more than one year in the aggregate after April I, 1997, departed and returned or attempted to return without inspection. All exceptions from the top of the page apply except unlawful presence under age 18. Waiver for VA WA people immediately. Waiver after ten years for all others, no QR.

9CiII 212a9CiII; 212a9Cii, iii. Deported at any time, even before Apr I, 1997, followed by EWI or attempted EWI after April I, 199
Waiver for VA WA people immediately. Waiver after ten years for all others, no QR.

False claim of cit 212a6Cii; no waiver. False claim of citizenship made on or after Sep 30, 1996. Claims made before then are simply misrep. w/waiver. No exception for minors. Claim made for 'any purpose' under INA or StatefFederallaw.

Drug crimes 212a2AiII; no waiver. Any drug conviction except < 30 g marijuana. No intent requirement. No moral turpitude. Convictions under age 18 don't count. Expungements only good if happened in 9^th circuit under Fed 1rst Offender.

Gang member 212a3Aii; no waiver. Any prior gang membership at any age, anywhere. Reason to believe only.

Drug trafficking 212a2C; no waiver. Any prior drug sale/trafficking and spouses and kids. Reason to believe only.

LPR deported for Ag Fel 212a2Ai1, B, D; no waiver under 212h. This group doesn't qualify for 212h waiver.

Drug abuser 212alAiv; no waiver. Virtually any drug use in the past three years. Must show three years 'remission'.

Fake asylum 208d6; no waiver, Bar to all future benefits. Asylum filed after Apr I, 1997. Attorney General finds it "frivolous".

Fake marriage 204c; not exactly waivable, Bar to all future I-130s. If IV application not based on 1-130, waiver under 212i.

Other Lots of other rare situations, e.g. terrorists, attempt on President's life, communists, Nazis, genocide, etc.

Nonimmigrant waiver and Parole People who are not eligible for an immigrant waiver are still eligible for a nonimmigrant waiver under 212d3

to enter temporarily and can get Humanitarian Parole to enter temporarily usually for medical treatment or to attend a funeral.

BARS TO ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS/CHANGE NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

2011-03-07T11:35:00.000-08:00

BARS TO ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS/CHANGE NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

RULE #1: If your most recent entry was without inspection, you cannot adjust status (apply for a green card) nor acquire nonimmigrant status. 245a

Primary Exceptions: 245i, Cancellation of Removal, asylum, VAWA, TIU, TPS.

RULE #2: If you enter in valid nonimmigrant status and you fail to maintain status, you cannot adjust status, nor change, acquire or extend nonimmigrant status. 245c
Primary Excepctions:245i, 245k, Immediate Relative of a US Citizen, Cancellation of Removal, asylum, VA WA, T/U, TPS.

RULE #3:
If your most recent entry was on a K visa (KI, K2, K3, K4), you can only adjust status through the K visa
petitioner and you cannot change nonimmigrant status. 245d

Primary Excepctions:Cancellation of Removal, asylum, V A WA, T/U, TPS. Note that 245; is not on this list!!!

RULE #4:
EXCEPTIONS TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVE EXCEPTION. Even if you last entered in valid
nonimmigrant status and are now married to a US citizen, you cannot adjust status if you last entered as an
alien crewman (D visa) or entered in transit without a visa. 245c

Primary Excepctions: 245i, Cancellation of Removal, VA W A, TIU, TPS.

RULE#5:
If you last entered on the Visa Waiver Program, even if you do not violate status, you cannot change or
extend nonimmigrant status and you cannot adjust status. 2~5c

Primary Excepctions:Immediate relative of a US citizen, 245i, Cancellation of Removal, asylum, VA WA, TIU visas, TPS.

THE EXCEPTIONS ON BARS TO ADJUSTMENT - DESCRIBED

245i:

Either (a) had an 1-130, I-140 or Labor Cert pending on !before April 30, 2001 AND were present since at
least December 2000, OR (b) had an 1-130, 1-140 or Labor Cert pending on/before January 14, 1998.
Derivatives ok.The 1-130, 1-140 or Labor Cert must have been approvable on its face at the time it was
filed. Even if you can't use the 1-130 or 1-140 to adjust under 245a, you can use it to qualify under 245i,
and use a new petition to adjust under 245a. 245i excuses problems under 245a and 245c only. NOT
245d!!! Courts split on whether 245i 'trumps' 9C.

Cancellation:
(1) In removal proceedings. (2) Present in the us at least 10 years prior to commencement of proceedings.(3) Good moral character for ten years. (4) Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to USC or LPR spouse, parent or child. Regardless of inadmissibility, except 212a9Cii because of stop-time provision.

VAWA:
(1) Married to LPR or USC, bona fide belief you were married to LPR or USC, or child of LPR or USC, and (2) abused physically or emotionally by that LPR or USC. Emotional abuse must be extraordinary to qualify. Fiance(e)slboyfriends don't count.

T/U:
Trafficked/exploited and/or victim of crime. T: The trafficker and exploiter must be the same
person/organization. PolicelFB1 must prosecute and T applicant must be witness. PolicelFBI must
cooperate in the T visa process. U: victim of specific violence crimes, domestic violence, assault, etc.
Crime must be reported, and victim may not unreasonably refuse cooperation with investigation and / or
prosecution. Police must cooperate in visa process

Asylum/Withholding:
Must be member of a protected group and must of credible fear of persecution because of membership in
that group. Gov't must participate, acquiesce or be unable to stop persecution. "Women" are not a
protected group. "Victims of non-government criminal activity" are not protected.

245k:
Entered in lawful status. Out of status less than 180 days. Highly skilled workers only. Labor cert already
approved or exempt. Visa priority date must be current.

TPS:
Present in the US in any status or no status when gov't puts them on TPS list. Not a path to green card.

Immediate USC Relative: Spouse. Child under age 21. Parent if child is at least 2]. Category does not allow derivatives.

Some other exceptions:

NACARA (certain Central Americans who filed asylum claims in the 80s), Cuban Adjustment Act (Most Cuban EWls, even now), Registry (here since 1972), Amnesty (here since 80s and filed stuff then), Family Unity Act (filed stuff long ago), certain Haitans (not many), and a few other obscure sections of law.

PROCEDURAL WALK- THROUGH FOR 1-601 FILED ABROAD FOR SPOUSE OF CITIZEN

2011-03-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

PROCEDURAL WALK- THROUGH FOR 1-601 FILED ABROAD FOR SPOUSE OF CITIZEN

File Petition with CIS. USC spouse is Petitioner (P). Alien spouse is Beneficiary (B).

1. Forms: G-28, 1-130, G-325A for P, G-325A for 'B';

2. Supporting Docs: 'P's US birth cert or naturalization cert, marriage cert., proof prior marriages terminated for both 'P' and
'B' (divorce decrees, annulment, death cert.), passport-style photo of'P' and 'B', filing fee. Vital records can be
photocopies, rather than certified/official. Translations required.

3. Send to Chicago. Look at form instructions for current address and fee. www.uscis.gov Click on 'forms'.

4. Note that any alien children of alien spouse will need their own 1-130 (not covered here)

5. On question #22, only list the city abroad where 'B' will consular process. Don't list local CIS office in US.

Processing time: approx 5 months from 1-130 filing to 1-130 approval. Subject to change.

File Application Part I with NVC. USC spouse is Petitioner/Sponsor (PIS), Alien spouse is Applicant (A).

1. Must wait about 30 days after 1-130 approval before NVC sends the visa bill. Pay visa bill online according to instructions

sent by NVC. You cannot do this until you receive the bill.

2. After paying visa bilI, follow the online instructions to print out the Bar Code Sheet unique to the case.

3. Forms: DS-230 Parts I and II, 1-864

4. Supporting Docs: Bar Code Sheet, 'PIS's US birth cert or natz cert., 'A's birth cert, marriage cert for 'PIS' and 'A', proof of
termination of prior marriages, police certificates (not from US, Mexico or select other countries), all court/police records for
criminal history, relevant removal records, copy ofID pages of 'A's passport valid at least 6 months into future, 2 passport-
style photos of 'A', most recent tax return and W-2 for 'PIS', most recent paystub for 'PIS'. Vital records must be
certified/official. Translations not required if in language of country.

5. RFEs are common at NVC.

6. After NVC is done, it may be another 1-2 months or so before consular interview.

Processing time: approx 3-5 months from 1-130 approval to consular interview. Subject to change.

File Application Part II with consulate. USC spouse is PetitionerlSponsor (PIS), Alien spouse is Applicant (A).

I. 'A' will receive an instruction packet from the consulate. These packets are also usually available online from consulate
website. They have instructions on the medical exam and what NOT to bring in consulate.

2. 'A' must have medical exam at least 2 days before consular interview and must do so at medical office designated by
consulate in same city as consulate. 'A' mayor may not have to schedule the medical appointment himlherself. This will be
described in packet. 'A' must bring vaccination records.

3. At consular interview, consulate will check for medical grounds of inadmissibility, real marriage, whether sponsor meets
income requirement, identity of' A', and other grounds of inadmissibility

4. 'A' should bring to interview: copies of everything submitted with 1-130 and NVC processing, certified copies of all vital
records, proof of real marriage (especially photos and birth certs of kids in common!!)

5. If alien needs a waiver, consulate will usually make that determination at the consular interview and give' A' a notice listing
the section of law making him inadmissible and providing instructions on filing a waiver.

6. Sometimes consulate asks for additional items or wants a few days to issue the formal denial notice. 'A' should be prepared
to spend 3-10 days in the city where the consulate is located. Get a refundable ticket.

Processing time: two days to two weeks from medical exam to denial notice with waiver instructions

File waiver application with consulate. use spouse is Qualifying Relative (QR), Alien spouse is Applicant (A).

1. Sometimes you can file the waiver at the consular interview. Sometimes you need an appointment to come back (e.g. Ciudad
Juarez). Rarely you can mail it in after the interview. Consulate will provide instructions to 'A' at the interview.

2. Forms: G-28, 1-601, G-325A for 'A', sometimes G-325A for 'QR'. sometimes there's a consular questionnaire that is not
available online in advance

3. Supporting documents: Filing fee, letter from the qualifying relative, whatever else you need to prove extreme hardship, any
criminal records. In London you must have letter from 'A'. In Central and South America you must have all the vital
records and police certificates you submitted to the NVC plus English translations of those documents. If you have
additional qualifying relatives other than petitioner, you need proof of their LRP or USC status and proof ofrelationship (e.g.
'A's birth certificate if 'QR' is parent).

Processing time: One week to 18 months from 1-601 filing to decision, but usually 6-9 months. Subject to change. Note that
Mexico has the Pilot Program - in one week 'A' either approved or referred, if referred it will then be a year for final decision.

Post approval visa pickup. USC spouse is Petitioner/Sponsor (PIS), Alien spouse is Applicant (A).

I. If it is Mexico and' A' has Pilot Program approval, the immigrant visa will be in the passport in the DHL packet.

2. If the waiver is approved and visa can be issued under one year from Jast interview, 'A' will not need a new medical exam or
new DS-230, but may need a recent paystub and tax returnlW-2 from 'PIS'. Need consular appointment.

3. Ifwaiver approved and visa cannot be issued under a year from Jast interview, 'A' will need a new medical exam, new DS-
230 and a new consular interview. No new IV fees required, but must pay for new medical. Need consular appointment.

Processing time: unless it is Mexican Pilot Program approval, it can take 30 days for the consulate to receive CIS' approval
notice and another 30+ days to have the consular interview and issue the visa.

Immigration Waivers Information, News & Issues: Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Unlawful Presence

2011-03-04T15:46:00.000-08:00

Immigration Waivers Information, News & Issues: Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Unlawful Presence

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Unlawful Presence

2011-03-04T15:41:00.000-08:00

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Unlawful Presence

"Inadmissible for having procured admission to the United States by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact and pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 11 82(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), for having been unlawfully present for a period of one year or more. The applicant is the spouse of a U.S. citizen and the beneficiary of an approved Petition for Alien Relative. She seeks a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to sections 212(a)(9)(B)(v) and 212(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 9 1 182(a)(9)(B)(v) and (i), in order to return to the United States and reside with her husband."

Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility - Misrepresentation

2011-03-04T15:31:00.000-08:00

Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility - Misrepresentation

"an alien who has procured a visa or admission into the United States through fraud or misrepresentation. The applicant is a beneficiary of an approved relative visa petition based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, and he seeks a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1182(i), in order to remain with his wife in the United States."

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Criminal

2011-03-04T15:28:00.000-08:00

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility - Criminal

"The record reflects that on September 18, 2000, the applicant was convicted in the District Court of Maryland for On August 28, 2005, the applicant Rockville/Montgomery
filed County of an "CDS: Application to Poss Paraphernalia" Register Permanent - Residence or Adjust Status (Form 1-485) based on an underlying Petition for Alien Relative (Form 1-130). On July 6, 2007, the applicant filed an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Form 1-601)."

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under Section 212

2011-03-04T14:44:00.000-08:00

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility under Section 212

The record reflects that the applicant is a native and citizen of Colombia and the beneficiary of an approved Petition for Special Immigrant (Form 1-360). The district director found the applicant inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(l)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1182(a)(l)(A)(i), as an alien determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance, to wit: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The applicant filed an application for a waiver of inadmissibility in order to reside in the United States.

The district director found that the applicant had failed to establish eligibility for waiver in that he failed to show the requisite relationship to a U.S. citizen or LPR as required in the statute authorizing waiver. The district director therefore denied the application.

Inadmissibility under Section 212(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

2011-03-04T14:38:00.000-08:00

Inadmissibility under Section 212

May 18th, 2010

I-601 Waivers - CIS Ombudsman Teleconference

2011-03-04T11:59:00.000-08:00

I-601 Waivers - CIS Ombudsman Teleconference

1. Why do some I-601 waivers of inadmissibility take so long to adjudicate?

2. Why are processing times for I-601 waivers of inadmissibility not posted on the USCIS website?

3. What are the current processing times?

4. How can a customer find out where his/her case is being adjudicated?

5. Where should additional evidence be sent?

6. How can a customer find the status of his/her case?

7. Once a case is denied, what are a customer’s options?

8. Once an Appeal or Motion to Reopen or Reconsider is filed, is there anything else a customer can do to have his/her case resolved?

9. What is USCIS protocol if an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility is denied, the case is appealed, and it is determined that the USCIS adjudicator did not follow proper procedures?

10. After the USCIS office in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico reopened following their H1N1-related closing, it seemed that a high volume of cases were denied or referred. Is this accurate, and if so, is there reasoning behind this?

11. USCIS will oftentimes issue boilerplate letters and/or requests for evidence, which are not specific enough to be helpful to the applicant. In fact, this often results in the applicant re-sending much of the same information. Does USCIS plan to issue more detailed, case-specific requests for evidence in the future?

12. Many applicants are under the impression that they can file an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility without any supporting documentation and provide additional information during the interview. However, it seems as though a high volume of cases have been denied because of insufficient information. Is there a preferred way of submitting supporting documentation?

13. Oftentimes, notarios erroneously file I-601 waivers of inadmissibility, leading to denials or detailed requests for evidence to clients. Is there a way that USCIS can specially handle these types of cases?

14. Is there a formal process for inquiring into pending Forms I-212 at local USCIS offices?

15. A customer requested expedited processing of an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility case due to complications with her pregnancy. The expedite request was denied; however, there still continues to be other types of hardship that are not related to her medical condition. What can she do?

16. Are I-601 waiver applicants eligible for fee waivers?

17. How would the removal of HIV from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance affect I-601 waiver of inadmissibility processes and procedures?

18. Do different consulates have different criteria for adjudicating I-601 waivers of inadmissibility?

19. Will USCIS be reviewing and/or revising its criteria for extreme hardship?

20. There seems to be little communication between USCIS and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for cases involving medical waivers. Is anything being done to address this issue?

21. Would USCIS consider expediting the adjudication of I-601 waivers of inadmissibility for individuals who are overseas over individuals who are in the U.S.?

Followed by the USCIS Responses!!

Mexico cartels empty border towns

2010-04-19T14:28:00.000-07:00

AP Enterprise: Mexico cartels empty border towns

By MARK STEVENSON and ALICIA A. CALDWELL (AP) – 3 days ago

EL PORVENIR, Mexico — The 14-year-old boy tied a few mattresses and a bedstead to the family pickup truck. He went back into his single-story yellow house for the cat, and chained up the gate. Then he drove off with his family, which was abandoning home, jobs, school and country.
All because the drug smugglers told them to.

Hundreds of families are fleeing the cotton-farming towns of the Juarez Valley, a stretch of border 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of Ciudad Juarez. In a new strategy, Mexican drug cartels seeking to minimize interference with their operations are using terror to empty the entire area.

They have burned down homes in Esperanza ("Hope") and torched a church on Good Friday in El Porvenir ("The Future"). Wherever they strike, they leave notes ordering residents to leave.

"They were typewritten, and they said, 'You have just a few hours to get out,'" Christian, the 14-year-old, said as he set off for a new life in Texas. Like others cited in this story, he would give only his first name for fear of reprisal. Some were so afraid they wouldn't even give that.

In El Porvenir, which normally has about 3,000 residents, only a couple hundred appear to remain. During Easter Week, when schools were closed and the plaza would normally bustle, the only things moving in the center of town were a few stray dogs.

The exodus appears to be the work of the Sinaloa cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug organization. The Associated Press, citing U.S. intelligence, reported last week that the group has seized control of smuggling corridors through the region after a bloody, two-year battle with the Juarez cartel.

The cartel, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, is now trying to show locals who's in charge, experts and Mexican officials say. Mexican soldiers who arrested four men on Tuesday for allegedly torching more than 20 homes in the valley said all are connected to the Sinaloa cartel.

"The warning to El Porvenir was a warning to the Juarez cartel," said Tony Payan at the University of Texas-El Paso.

Laura Pallares, a clerk at a convenience store overlooking the bridge to Fort Hancock, Texas, said she has seen up to 20 pickup trucks heading to the border every day for the past few weeks, carrying families and their possessions.

"It's been an exodus," said Arturo Vega, the towcouncil secretary in nearby Guadalupe, where gunfire rings out at night, shopkeepers have been killed and homes burned down.

Some are fleeing to Fort Hancock and Fabens, another nearby Texas farming community. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials say requests for asylum have jumped since the fiscal year started in October, with 47 people asking for the protection of the American government, up from 11 the previous year. And those numbers don't count the people who didn't seek asylum or crossed illegally.

The influx of new residents — nearly 50 new students have enrolled in schools in Fort Hancock, population 1,700 — has made townsfolk afraid that cartel enforcers have followed them to Texas to intimidate them. Sheriff's deputies have advised local farmers and ranchers to be vigilant — and armed. Fort Davis High School canceled a baseball game at Fort Hancock because of security fears.

"We talked to the kids and they felt like they couldn't be assured of their safety, so we didn't go," said Larry Butler, superintendent of the Fort Davis Independent School District.

The region is perfect for smugglers, with miles (kilometers) of dirt roads that federal police and soldiers seldom patrol. The Rio Grande in the area is often so shallow that smugglers can walk or drive across.
At least one handwritten note, copies of which were tossed around the nearby town of Praxedis, denied the Sinaloa cartel was behind the abuses. It claimed a rival cartel — apparently Juarez — was staging the campaign in an effort to frame the Sinaloa gang, perhaps in an attempt to poison its victory.
The note was signed, "Sincerely, the Sinaloa cartel."

Whichever gang is responsible, the scorched-earth strategy is clear. All along the valley, burned-out concrete-block houses dot the roads. Smugglers have sent gunmen to tell government workers to halt plans for a highway extending from El Porvenir along the border to the east.

The terror in El Porvenir reached its height on Good Friday, when gunmen tried to break down the door of the church. They kicked in one panel of the door and set the facade ablaze. Locals managed to keep the fire from spreading.

"I think they thought, 'If we burn the church, all the people will leave,'" the Rev. Salvador Salgado said.
Soldiers and federal police stepped up patrols after the church attack, but few residents took heart.
"This place used to be wonderful," said Pancho, 48, who was getting a tire fixed in one of the four businesses still open in El Porvenir (the other three were a diner, a bakery and an auto parts store). "We would be out all the time. Sometimes we would walk over the border to the United States, and our parents never worried about us."

Across the street, the owner of a beer-and-soft drink store was packing up his belongings, including a small propane tank and a slushy vending machine. "We just can't operate like this," he said.
About a week after the church burning in El Porvenir, a commando of nearly 100 armed men took over the town of Maycoba, southwest of Ciudad Juarez, just over the border in Sonora state.

They forced inhabitants to leave, killed four people and left in a convoy of trucks and all-terrain vehicles. Residents hid in nearby ranches, stables and gulches until the gunmen left, the mayor told a local radio station.
On the outskirts of Placitas, a tiny town where a gate and a long access road has so far kept residents relatively safe, Lorena was unloading a sofa, an armchair and a bed from a pickup truck. She, her five children and her elderly mother had just fled Guadalupe.

"There used to be fiestas in the town square. Someone would have a birthday or a quinceanera or a wedding, and everybody would come," she said. "We miss that. Now, we don't go out after nightfall, and we can't even sleep because of the fear."

She was optimistic about their future in Placitas, but her mother, Jovita, was less sure.
"I guess we'll stay until the next threat comes," she said.

ICE Audits becoming the new ICE Raids

2009-12-04T14:46:00.000-08:00

Audits becoming the new ICE raids

By Matt O'Brien / MediaNews Group

Posted: 12/04/2009 01:30:17 AM PST

Updated: 12/04/2009 07:46:15 AM PST

Immigration agents made headlines during the Bush administration when they rushed into Midwestern meatpacking plants, a New England leather goods factory and Bay Area ethnic restaurants, handcuffing dozens of employees who would later be deported.The agents arrested seven people at Vallejo's Empire Buffet at the corner of Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street last September. Altogether, the agents arrested 21 people in a four-part immigration sweep across Solano County.
Eventually, Vacaville residents Rui Yang Lin, Bi Xia Ni, Fa Yong Ni and Ru Zhu Ren pleaded guilty to unlawful employment of illegal aliens as a result of the operation.
Today, those high-profile raids have been replaced with a quieter but more expansive arm of immigration enforcement: The forensic auditor.
"Being an employer, it's like getting a letter from the Internal Revenue Service. You panic," said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. "It's a real frightening deal for employers."
Most audits are invisible to the public, and land with a softer impact than a raid, but they are common enough to worry some employers.
Federal agents this month are probing more than 150 California businesses and 1,000 nationwide, the latest in a surge of civil inspections that began in the spring.
"They were selected because we received leads or intelligence indicating there might be problems with their workforce, and these businesses might have (connections) to public safety and critical infrastructure," said ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
The inspections typically begin with a phone call and are followed by visits from auditors with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, who ask to review the I-9 forms that all employees must fill out to verify their identity and eligibility to work in the United States.
"A lot of people in business now know a company who's had an I-9 audit," said lawyer Dan Brown, who was a policy director at ICE during the Bush administration. "They are more nervous and taking the threat more seriously."
Along with the threat of fines and a tarnished reputation, many companies face the added costs of attorneys to navigate the conflicting demands of the government and the company's own bargaining agreements with union workers.
Targets range from brand-name firms to small companies, but ICE will not identify them unless employers are dealt a fine. Among the industries targeted because they are part of the nation's "critical infrastructure" are those involved in the food supply chain, officials have said.
That means investigations are hitting California farmers, who are widely known to employ tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants but whose operations were largely untouched by immigration enforcement for years.
Before this year, when ICE visited a farm, dairy or packing plant, the agency was typically looking for one immigrant who was wanted by law enforcement, said Cunha, whose group advocates for Central Valley farmers.
Some food businesses are now finding that the government wants to review their entire workforce, including longtime employees they know from church or family functions. The audits are hardest for older farmers who still use carbon paper and punch-in time cards and have not transitioned into the digital age of record-keeping, Cunha said.
"There's so much confusion. No education has been done," said Cunha, who brought his concerns to ICE's director at a meeting last month in Washington, D.C. "I don't just blame this administration, but this is the one that's doing the audits with no education."
The inspections are a way of enforcing immigration law without launching disruptive and controversial raids, said Philip Martin, a professor in labor and agricultural economics at UC Davis. It's unclear if the new focus will be prolonged, he said.
"We don't know how it's going to play out," Martin said. "Workplace enforcement was never a terribly high priority."
Brown said the Obama administration's push for more employer audits marks a significant shift and has already caused companies across the country to fire employees who do not have the right paperwork.
"The use of I-9 inspections kind of tailed off in the late 1990s and then really tailed off after 9/11," said the former ICE official. "There was a bigger focus on homeland security and terrorism concerns rather than vanilla immigration enforcement."
Brown said some officials had not considered civil inspections effective because the audits were time-consuming and the fines too small to be taken seriously by corporations.
"With the Bush administration's focus on criminal investigators, I think probably a lot of employers didn't feel impacted by that," Brown said.
Fine amounts increased by 25 percent last year, so companies penalized for the first time must pay $375 to $3,200 for each unauthorized worker. ICE this year has issued final orders demanding companies pay almost $800,000, an increase from the less than $200,000 collected from a total of eight cases the year before.
Still, most of the nearly 2,000 companies audited this year will not end up being fined. Of the more than two dozen Northern California businesses investigated this summer, only one is likely to face a fine, Kice said.
"The vast majority were actually subsequently found to be in compliance," she said.

AAO Hardship Victory - Mexico

2009-12-01T15:11:00.000-08:00

AAO Hardship Victory
"When considered in the aggregate, the factors of hardship to the applicant's wife should she remain in the United States constitute extreme hardship. The applicant's wife was suffering from depression and was prescribed medication for the condition, and decided to relocate to Mexico because of the emotional hardship she was experiencing. Her decision to relocate was made despite the need to leave her job and family in the United States, and she has remained in Mexico despite financial hardship and fears resulting from the rising crime rate. It appears that in light of her psychological condition, the applicant's wife would be at risk of depression if she remained in the United States without the applicant, and this psychological hardship, when combined with the financial hardship of supporting herself and their child without the applicant's income, would amount to hardship to the applicant's wife that is unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected as a result of inadmissibility or removal from the United States." Matter of X-, Nov.27, 2009.

Recent AAO Waiver Victories

2009-09-27T18:17:00.000-07:00

Read article on Haitian citizen
Read article on Mali citizen

Read article on Mexican citizen

Read article on Mexican citizen (2)

Read article on Turkish citizen

Read article on Senegalese citizen

Read article on Guatemalan citizen

USCIS Internal Guide "Immigrant Waivers: Procedures for Adjudication of Form I-601 For Overseas Adjudication Officers"

2009-06-18T15:48:00.000-07:00

USCIS has finally made available to the public their internal guidelines to officers for deciding I-601 waivers. It is called:

"Immigrant Waivers: Procedures for Adjudication of Form I-601 For Overseas Adjudication Officers"

Click on above to go directly to the guide. It is 59 pages long, but well worth reading.

AAO Hardship Waiver Victory

2009-04-20T09:12:00.001-07:00

Click here to read the article about the appeal and victory of the hardship waiver.

AAO Finds Extreme Hardship Would be Suffered by Father of Chinese I-601 Waiver Applicant

2009-03-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

Read the final decision: here

Update from Ciudad Juarez- Waivers

2009-03-03T10:37:00.000-08:00

A big thanks to Charles Wheeler for this very informative update.

Laura Dogu, Deputy Consul General, and Mark Bosse, Communications Unit Supervisor, U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez, as well as Warren Janssen, Field Office Director of the USCIS office located at the consulate, each spoke at CLINIC's annual family immigration law training in El Paso on February 5, 2008. The following is a summary of the minutes provided by the State Department and USCIS, respectively.
State Department Update
New Consular Offices. The consulate completed its move into a bigger and more modern facility in November 2008. The waiting room is much larger and contains 87 windows where immigrant visa (IV) and non-immigrant visa (NIV) applicants can speak to consular officials and pass documents back and forth. The new facility will make it much easier for the consulate to process visas, conduct interviews, and accommodate the increased demand for visas, as well as for U.S. citizens' services. All of the various consular and USCIS offices are now housed together in this new compound, which is located a little bit farther into Cd. Juarez (seven miles from the Port of Entry). The consulate is still undergoing a "breaking-in" period with the new facility, so expect some minor changes or even conflicting information regarding local procedures for a little while longer.
Ms. Dogu is working toward a one-hour, door-to-door customer service goal. This means that the applicant would ideally be admitted to the consulate and interviewed within one hour.
Caseload. The consulate continues to be the largest and busiest IV post in the world. In fact, it processes about the same number of immigrant visas as the next three busiest consulates combined. For the last fiscal year the consulate processed approximately 150,000 IV applications, which is a substantial increase over the prior year's total. That translates to between 600 and 1,000 IV applicants/day. By increasing staff and concentrating efforts during a six-month period, the consulate was able to eliminate a 45,000 IV backlog by March 2008. The consulate is now "current," meaning that the National Visa Center (NVC) is able to schedule visa interviews as soon as that office has completed its case processing. For this fiscal year the consulate anticipates processing between 130,000 and 140,000 IV applications.
Procedures. Appointment interviews are now spread throughout the day, rather than scheduled in two chunks. The consulate discourages applicants from coming to their IV interview before the allotted time on the interview notice. There is no benefit to arriving early since applicants will be admitted only at the designated hour. The consulate waiting room can accommodate all of the applicants assigned to that time slot. Please do not bring any other family members to the consulate interview, since they will not be allowed past the gate. If they accompany your client to Cd. Juarez, please tell them to wait at their hotel or perhaps shop in the mall across the street. Only the IV applicant is permitted to attend the interview, unless other family members are specifically identified and requested by the consulate. Minor children applying for immigrant visas should be accompanied by a parent. Attorneys and representatives are never allowed to attend the interview.
The consulate recommends that the family check into their hotel and store their personal belongings before doing anything else. There have been incidents where vehicles have been broken into and luggage has been stolen.
In November 2008 the consulate began working with DHL, the private carrier service company, for delivery of the immigrant visa to the applicant after their issuance. In the near future, all immigrant visas issued by the consulate will be delivered by DHL. After the interview, the client should return to his or her hotel, call DHL, and determine if their visa is ready for pick-up or delivery. If there is an error on the visa, applicants can either send it back to the consulate through DHL or bring it to the Information window at the consulate.
There are two medical clinics that perform the necessary examinations; one is located across the street from the new consulate while the other is still located across the street from the old consulate, although it will be moving to the new neighborhood soon. As a result of guidelines from the Center for Disease Control regarding screening for tuberculosis, applicants aged between 2 and 14 must receive a PPD skin test as part of the medical exam. The panel physicians need 72 hours to read the reaction to the skin test. Therefore, applicants with children in this age range must have the medical exam conducted at least four days prior to the scheduled IV interview to allow time to obtain the results.
Beware of touts and other people working on the streets near the consulate who are offering interview preparation services. In some cases they masquerade as State Department employees; in others they offer form completion, such as affidavits of support or waiver applications. Discourage your clients from dealing with these individuals, since they are often committing fraud.
Please remember that the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which will require U.S. citizens to have a passport to travel to the United States from Mexico, goes into effect on June 1, 2009. Apply for passports before traveling to Mexico. U.S. citizen family members who will be traveling to Cd. Juarez with the IV applicant should go to the State Department website travel.state.gov and register prior to leaving. That will facilitate further contact by the consulate should an emergency develop or someone in the United States needs to contact them.
Adopted Children and Stepchildren. Children who are being adopted in Mexico must receive a final, irrevocable adoption decree. The consulate will not accept the revocable decrees that are issued by some Mexican states. The consulate may request in certain cases that the natural parent attend the stepchild's IV interview. Even though the USCIS has approved the I-130 petition and found the marriage establishing the stepparent-stepchild relationship to be valid, the consulate still has the right to interview the natural parent to confirm the relationship. This would occur, for example, when the child provides conflicting information about the natural parent and stepparent's relationship. The consulate recognizes that this has caused a hardship in some cases where the natural parent is residing in the United States, is out of status, and is reluctant to return to Mexico. The consulate prefers to try to resolve such cases locally rather than returning the I-130 to the USCIS for further investigation.
Grounds of Inadmissibility. There are no waivers for false claims of citizenship made on or after September 30, 1996, although there is one narrow exception. INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) does not have an intent requirement and does apply to minors. Nevertheless, children under age 18 will not necessarily be found to have triggered the ground of inadmissibility in INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). That finding will be based on the age of the child and the specific circumstances. Most of these cases are now being sent to the Visa Office in Washington, DC for an advisory opinion.
Although children under age 18 cannot accrue unlawful presence for purposes of triggering the three- or ten-year bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) when they leave the United States, they can accrue unlawful presence for purposes of the "permanent" bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). That bar applies to aliens who accrue more than one year in the United States, leave the country, and then return or attempt to return illegally. Those persons must remain outside the United States for ten years before being eligible to file a Form I-212, "Permission to Reapply for Admission." The exception to accruing unlawful presence that applies to children under 18 for the three- and ten-year bars does not apply to that separate bar. It means, for example, that a child who was brought into the United States illegally at an early age, resided here after April 1, 1997 for more than a year, was taken back to Mexico, and then at a later date returned or attempted to return illegally, has tripped this "permanent" bar.
There is an exception to affidavit of support requirement where the intending immigrant has already acquired at least 40 qualifying quarters of Social Security coverage. Even if the petitioner/sponsor has submitted a Form I-864W in these cases, and the NVC has reviewed that documentation and forwarded it to the consulate, the consulate has in some cases requested a joint sponsor. Due to public charge concerns, the consulate has looked behind the documentary submission of Social Security coverage and questioned the worker's earnings record or ability to support the intending immigrants. The consulate encourages applicants in those cases simply to comply with its request for a joint sponsor rather than challenge their decision. [Editor's note: while the public charge ground of inadmissibility in INA § 212(a)(4) still applies in those cases, the income of the I-130 petitioner should be irrelevant in cases where the affidavit of support requirements have been waived pursuant to 8 CFR § 213a.2(a)(2)(ii)(C). There is apparently no authority for requiring that the petitioner pass an income test after INA § 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) has been satisfied through the accumulation of 40 qualifying quarters. However, as Ms. Dogu points out, it is often more expedient to obtain the joint sponsor agreement rather than challenge the consulate's decision. In trying to secure this joint sponsor, it may help to inform the potential sponsor that the I-864 contract will terminate the moment the intending immigrant obtains LPR status due to the 40-quarters exception. In other words, the affidavit of support will never go into effect.]
Fiancé(e)s applying for a K-1 visa or spouses of U.S. citizens applying for a K-3 visa must file a Form I-601 waiver form if they are found inadmissible for fraud, unlawful presence, or a crime-related ground. Although the nonimmigrant waiver standard under INA § 212(d)(3) is more relaxed and generous than that for IV applicants, these applicants are treated as if they were applying for an immigrant visa and must demonstrate extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. If the case involves a K-1 fiancé(e), before beginning that waiver process the consular officer should first satisfy himself or herself that the petitioner was or is aware of the ineligibility and still wishes to pursue the marriage. If not, the petition should be returned to DHS and no waiver process commenced. In their cases, the consulate requests a signed letter from the petitioner.
Clients who have been granted voluntary departure (in lieu of deportation) by an immigration judge will be provided documentation to that effect by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Voluntary departees in Cd. Juarez should check in with ICE officers at the consulate to verify that they departed within the required period of time. In other locations around the world they may deal with the consular section.
Processing of Derivatives. Where the principal beneficiary in a preference case has adjusted status in the United States and the derivative beneficiaries in Mexico will need to consular process, the principal beneficiary has been instructed to file a Form I-824 with the USCIS that approved the adjustment. That form will be approved, sent to the NVC, and then forwarded to the consulate, which will commence IV processing. The consulate used to allow the LPR parent in that situation to send proof of having adjusted directly to the consulate and bypass the I-824 and NVC. They have ended that procedure; all derivatives in those cases must now go through the I-824 process. In cases where the principal beneficiary consular processed in Cd. Juarez and derivatives are following-to-join, the applicant should contact the Call Center to determine the location of and information in the file. In cases such as that, it is unnecessary to file an I-824. In those cases the consulate should be able to schedule them locally for an interview.
On derivative cases where a child is not included in the visa forms sent from the NVC, due either to agency error, a failure to include the child's name on the I-130, or because the child is after-acquired, contact the NVC and have that office re-send the fee bill and forms. If the derivative and the principal for some reason have separate files, notify the NVC and/or consulate and it will cross-reference and merge the files so that the family members can attend the same interview.
NVC Forms. The NVC sends the Choice of Agent form to the IV applicant and/or I-130 petitioner. This form must be signed by the IV applicant himself or herself and designate the person who will receive further communication from the NVC. Similarly, according to the consulate, only the IV applicant, not the agent, can sign the IV application, Form DS-230 Part 1, which is downloaded and submitted later.
K-3 versus IV. The consulate has also eliminated the backlog of K-3 applications filed by U.S. citizens on behalf of spouses residing in Mexico. If the consulate has started processing for the nonimmigrant visa and it receives the IV file from the NVC (approved alien relative petition and accompanying forms), it will cease all processing for the K-3 visa and proceed only with the IV application. The prior policy was to allow the applicant to choose between receiving the K-3 or the immigrant visa.
Communicating with the Consulate. Applicants, practitioners, and congressional representatives may communicate with the consulate in one of two manners. They should use the Call Center for all matters regarding scheduling/re-scheduling/expediting of the visa interview or regarding the interview process and visa eligibility requirements. That number is 1-900-476-1212. If calling from Mexico, dial 01-900-849-4949. For questions regarding an ongoing case where the applicant has already been interviewed, use the new electronic inquiry form. This can be found on the consulate's website at http:/ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/feedback-form.html. The form asks for the inquirer's name, e-mail address, phone number, and an affirmation that the inquirer has been retained to represent the IV applicant, including the inquirer's state bar number (if applicable). Include the IV applicant's case number and select from a list of options (e.g., requesting information on a visa denial; requesting the status or providing information on a pending case). Then type in the specific inquiry. A special Communications Unit with three full-time staff has been assigned to answer these inquiries, and they have a goal of responding within five business days.
USCIS Update
Mr. Janssen's office is now located inside the consulate, but is still under the jurisdiction of the DHS/USCIS. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of the IV applications require a waiver for inadmissibility; most of these denials are based on the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. Mr. Janssen's main responsibility is adjudicating waiver applications. In the last fiscal year, the USCIS adjudicated approximately 24,000 waiver applications, and for next year it anticipates processing a similar number.
Mr. Janssen has a permanent staff of four officers and eight support staff, bringing it to a total of twelve employees. He also has three additional officers working in his office on temporary detail who are helping to work down the backlog. He anticipates maintaining that permanent and temporary staffing throughout this fiscal year.
Immigrant visa applicants who are found inadmissible for a waivable ground are now given written notice at the time of the consular interview informing them of the procedure for submitting their waiver packet through a separate Call Center appointment system. Immigrant visa applicants who know before they attend the interview that they will be found inadmissible used to be able to phone the Call Center before leaving and schedule this separate appointment. Recently appointments were being scheduled for up to two months after the immigrant visa appointment.
That procedure has changed as of February 10, 2009. The new procedure does not allow the immigrant visa applicant to schedule the waiver appointment until after the consulate denies the visa. In other words, consular officials in Cd. Juarez will first determine that the alien is inadmissible and eligible for a waiver, and then note that in the computerized case file. The following day, the alien can phone the Call Center and schedule the waiver appointment. Under the new system, it is expected that waiver appointments will be scheduled between one to two weeks after the denial of the immigrant visa. Aliens who already scheduled their waiver appointments under the prior system will be allowed to keep them. All questions regarding the new waiver appointment process should be directed to the Call Center. That number is 900-476-1212. If calling from Mexico, dial 01-900-849-4949.
At the time of their waiver appointment, applicants will return to the consulate, pay the waiver fee, and submit the waiver application, together with supporting documentation. The consulate receives the application and hands the file over to the USCIS adjudicating officer in an adjoining room. The USCIS officials do not interview the applicant but instead base their decision on the application and supporting documentation. If Mr. Janssen's office believes it is a "clean" case (no FBI criminal hits, no separate A file to examine) that is readily approveable, it will grant the waiver that same day and return the file to the consulate. The consular official in turn will approve the immigrant visa either that day or the following.
Four of the USCIS officers are currently assigned to adjudicate waiver applications sent through this "same day" (formerly the "pilot") program. They each review approximately 30-35 applications per day, resulting in a daily total of 120-140 applications. Given their schedule, each officer spends approximately 10-15 minutes reviewing the waiver application and supporting documentation before making a decision to either approve or refer. The approval rate for applications processed through this program is between 50 to 60 percent.
The 40 to 50 percent of the applicants who are not found to have a clearly approveable waiver are not denied but are rather referred to the pre-existing adjudication process. In the opinion of the USCIS, most of these applicants did not submit sufficient evidence to merit a favorable decision. Others may have criminal or prior deportation issues that did not surface at the consular interview. Rather than being formally denied, their application is added to the current backlog of 9,000 pending cases and will be reviewed later. His office is currently adjudicating referred waivers submitted in December 2007, meaning that the waiting time for a decision with those files is now over one year. Waiver applicants who are referred to the backlog are encouraged to supplement their file with additional proof of hardship. Although the referral letter indicates that they have 30 days to submit more supporting documentation, they can actually submit it at any time up to the date of adjudication. These files may have been transferred to another USCIS office in Tijuana, Monterrey, or Mexico City for adjudication. Therefore, it is advisable to submit the supporting documentation before that transfer takes place. Also, the USCIS has plans to open an office in Los Angeles sometime this fiscal year that will work exclusively on adjudicating waivers referred to the backlog. When that takes place, the USCIS hopes to vastly reduce or eliminate the backlog. Therefore, applicants should strive to submit their additional documentation within 30 days.
Applicants who are denied may file an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). Those appeals are filed on Form I-290B within 33 days with his office, along with a filing fee of $585, and forwarded to the AAO. The applicant must indicate on the form whether he/she wishes either to: (1) file an appeal, in which case Janssen's office will review the file and reconsider the decision before forwarding it to the AAO; or (2) request a reopening or reconsideration of the decision. In the latter case, Mr. Janssen's office will review the case and either overturn and grant the waiver or sustain the original denial. In those latter cases, the file is not forwarded to the AAO.
Alternatively, an IV applicant who has been denied a waiver may choose to submit a new waiver application. In those cases, the applicant would phone the Call Center and schedule a new IV interview with the consulate. If they are once again found inadmissible, they can start the waiver process over again. Be aware that clients who were found inadmissible for more than one year of unlawful presence under 212(a)(9)(B), and who returned illegally to the United States, will have triggered the 212(a)(9)(C) inadmissibility ground and thus be ineligible to file a waiver for ten years. Please communicate with the USCIS via their special e-mail address: cdj.uscis@dhs.gov. An officer in the Mexico City will respond to the question. The turn around for a response is between one to two weeks. Additional supporting documentation for a pending waiver application should be mailed to USCIS, P.O. Box 9896, El Paso, TX 79995. Do not use the new State Department inquiry system for any communications with the USCIS.

Update from Ciudad Juarez

2009-02-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

By: Charles Wheeler

Laura Dogu, Deputy Consul General, and Mark Boss, Communications Unit Supervisor, U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez, as well as Warren Janssen, Field Office Director of the USCIS office located at the consulate, each spoke at CLINIC’s annual family immigration law training in El Paso on February 5, 2008. The following is a summary of the updated information Mr. Janssen provided. We will soon circulate updated information from the consular officials.
Mr. Janssen’s office is now located inside the consulate, but is still under the jurisdiction of the DHS/USCIS. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of the IV applications require a waiver for inadmissibility; most of these denials are based on the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility. Mr. Janssen’s main responsibility is adjudicating waiver applications. In the last fiscal year, the USCIS adjudicated approximately 24,000 waiver applications, and for next year it anticipates processing a similar number.
Mr. Janssen has a permanent staff of four officers and eight support staff, bringing it to a total of twelve employees. He also has three additional officers working in his office on temporary detail who are helping to work down the backlog. He anticipates maintaining that permanent and temporary staffing throughout this fiscal year.
Immigrant visa applicants who are found inadmissible for a waivable ground are now given written notice at the time of the consular interview informing them of the procedure for submitting their waiver packet through a separate Call Center appointment system. Immigrant visa applicants who know before they attend the interview that they will be found inadmissible used to be able to phone the Call Center before leaving and schedule this separate appointment. Recently appointments were being scheduled for up to two months after the immigrant visa appointment.
That procedure has changed as of February 10, 2009. The new procedure does not allow the immigrant visa applicant to schedule the waiver appointment until after the consulate denies the visa. In other words, consular officials in Cd. Juarez will first determine that the alien is inadmissible and eligible for a waiver, and then note that in the computerized case file. The following day, the alien can phone the Call Center and schedule the waiver appointment. Under the new system, it is expected that waiver appointments will be scheduled between one to two weeks after the denial of the immigrant visa. Aliens who already scheduled their waiver appointments under the prior system will be allowed to keep them. All questions regarding the new waiver appointment process should be directed to the Call Center. That number is 900-476-1212. If calling from Mexico, dial 01-900-849-4949.
At the time of their waiver appointment, applicants will return to the consulate, pay the waiver fee, and submit the waiver application, together with supporting documentation. The consulate receives the application and hands the file over to the USCIS adjudicating officer in an adjoining room. The USCIS officials do not interview the applicant but instead base their decision on the application and supporting documentation. If Mr. Janssen’s office believes it is a “clean” case (no FBI criminal hits, no separate A file to examine) that is readily approveable, it will grant the waiver that same day and return the file to the consulate. The consular official in turn will approve the immigrant visa either that day or the following.
Four of the USCIS officers are currently assigned to adjudicate waiver applications sent through this “same day” (formerly the “pilot”) program. They each review approximately 30-35 applications per day, resulting in a daily total of 120-140 applications. Given their schedule, each officer spends approximately 10-15 minutes reviewing the waiver application and supporting documentation before making a decision to either approve or refer. The approval rate for applications processed through this program is between 50 to 60 percent.
The 40 to 50 percent of the applicants who are not found to have a clearly approveable waiver are not denied but are rather referred to the pre-existing adjudication process. In the opinion of the USCIS, most of these applicants did not submit sufficient evidence to merit a favorable decision. Others may have criminal or prior deportation issues that did not surface at the consular interview. Rather than being formally denied, their application is added to the current backlog of 9,000 pending cases and will be reviewed later. His office is currently adjudicating referred waivers submitted in December 2007, meaning that the waiting time for a decision with those files is now over one year. Waiver applicants who are referred to the backlog are encouraged to supplement their file with additional proof of hardship. Although the referral letter indicates that they have 30 days to submit more supporting documentation, they can actually submit it at any time up to the date of adjudication. These files may have been transferred to another USCIS office in Tijuana, Monterrey, or Mexico City for adjudication. Therefore, it is advisable to submit the supporting documentation before that transfer takes place. Also, the USCIS has plans to open an office in Los Angeles sometime this fiscal year that will work exclusively on adjudicating waivers referred to the backlog. When that takes place, the USCIS hopes to vastly reduce or eliminate the backlog. Therefore, applicants should strive to submit their additional documentation within 30 days.
Applicants who are denied may file an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). Those appeals are filed on Form I-290B within 33 days with his office, along with a filing fee of $585, and forwarded to the AAO. The applicant must indicate on the form whether he/she wishes either to: (1) file an appeal, in which case Janssen’s office will review the file and reconsider the decision before forwarding it to the AAO; or (2) request a reopening or reconsideration of the decision. In the latter case, Mr. Janssen’s office will review the case and either overturn and grant the waiver or sustain the original denial. In those latter cases, the file is not forwarded to the AAO.
Alternatively, an IV applicant who has been denied a waiver may choose to submit a new waiver application. In those cases, the applicant would phone the Call Center and schedule a new IV interview with the consulate. If they are once again found inadmissible, they can start the waiver process over again. Be aware that clients who were found inadmissible for more than one year of unlawful presence under 212(a)(9)(B), and who returned illegally to the United States, will have triggered the 212(a)(9)(C) inadmissibility ground and thus be ineligible to file a waiver for ten years. Please communicate with the USCIS via their special e-mail address: cdj.uscis@dhs.gov. An officer in the Mexico City will respond to the question. The turn around for a response is between one to two weeks. Additional supporting documentation for a pending waiver application should be mailed to USCIS, P.O. Box 9896, El Paso, TX 79995. Do not use the new State Department inquiry system for any communications with the USCIS.

Clarification of procedure decision for Visa Waiver: DHL delivery

2009-02-17T15:01:00.001-08:00

The DHL delivery service is a function of the DOS in its attempt to improve the wait times in the consulate.

Here is a summary of the procedures:

- Waiver applicant gets a numbered ticket to enter the consular section.

- The applicant is called to a cashier where he pays the $545.00 waiver fee.

- She then is called to another window to submit the waiver to DOS.

- The applicant is then advised to go to the DHL counter and pay 80 pesos for the delivery service. DHL advises the applicant to call a toll free number that will advise the applicant when the decision packet is available to pick up at an outside DHL location.

- The applicant leaves the consulate and calls DHL. The decision packet is normally ready the same day in the afternoon or the next day.

- The applicant goes to the DHL location and picks up the decision.

- If the waiver was approved the packet will contain the waiver approval notice and the immigrant visa. The applicant goes to a POE and is admitted as a LPR.

- If the waiver is referred, the packet contains the referral notice and the applicant’s passport.

All consulate customers must pay the DHL and it is the same fee for everyone.

Waiver Appointments Added to Schedule at Ciudad Juarez

2009-01-15T15:39:00.000-08:00

"AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 09011467 (posted Jan. 14, 2009)"

Warren Janssen, Field Office Director, USCIS, Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico advises AILA Liaison that over 1500 new waiver appointments from January 26, 2009 to March 20, 2009 have been added. Those who want to have an earlier appointment may call and cancel and make a new appointment with the call center (1-900-476-1212, or 1-800-919-1754 using a credit card).

I-601 Victory at AAO

2008-12-18T14:42:00.000-08:00

"The adverse factors in the present case are the convictions for which the applicant seeks a waiver. The favorable and mitigating factors in the present case are the extreme hardship to the applicant's spouse and children if the applicant were refused admission, her otherwise clean background, and the applicant's spouse's and children's significant ties to the United States. The AAO finds that, although the criminal convictions of the applicant are serious and cannot be condoned, when taken together, the favorable factors in the present case outweigh the adverse factors, such that a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained." Matter of X-, Apr. 25, 2008.

http://www.uscis.gov/err/H2%20-%20Waiver%20for%20Excludability/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Apr252008_01H2212.pdf

Nightmare Experience at Airport for Fiance of U.S. Citizen! Waiver Required

2008-07-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

Warning: Always talk to an immigration attorney experienced in fiance(e) visas and marriage to U.S. Citizen immigration cases before traveling to or outside the U.S. or getting married! (Randall Caudle gives free phone consultations on these issues)

Stopped at U.S. Border and Banished for Betrothal: Ann Woolner

Commentary by Ann Woolner

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Naomi Malca Walls doesn't fit the profile of someone U.S. agents would stop at the border, interrogate for hours, deport and forbid to ever set foot on U.S. soil again.

No hint of terrorist ties lurks in her background, not even a traffic ticket. A 32-year-old photographer and Israeli citizen, she carries no plague.

She expected no complications at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport in March, when she arrived with her soon-to-be-husband, an American, who had proposed marriage three days earlier while visiting her in Tokyo.

Instead, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents detained her for 30 hours, questioned her, screamed at her, laughed at her, accused her of lying, ignored her questions and her pleas, photographed her, fingerprinted her, searched her and put her in a cold holding cell where she spent seven hours shivering and weeping and wondering what was happening, she recounted four months later.

``They made me feel like I did a crime,'' she says. ``I don't even know what the crime is.''

Then the agents escorted her to a plane bound for Tel Aviv.

``I still don't know what's the reason,'' she said in an international phone call this week.

What happened to her is called expedited removal, by which tens of thousands of foreign nationals attempting to enter the U.S. are sent back to their homelands each year.

Finding WMD

``Expedited removal is the WMD of immigration law,'' says Kathleen Campbell Walker, immediate past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. She practices immigration law in El Paso, Texas.

Under a 1996 law, you can be expeditiously removed if a border officer decides either that you lack proper papers or that you are lying about something that matters.

If you know to ask, a supervisor can review the decision. And if you fear persecution at home, you can get a hearing on that.

But in all other cases, there is no appeal, no judge, no lawyer. And sometimes there is no explanation.

Almost 40,000 foreign travelers were speedily booted out from U.S. air, sea and land ports of entry during the last fiscal year, according to the Customs and Border Protection bureau. The number doesn't include others intercepted elsewhere.

Five to Life

Expedited removal brings an automatic five-year ban on returning to the U.S. If agents think the traveler was attempting fraud, the ban lasts forever.

So it was for Naomi, who insists she told the truth and was willing to prove it, to no avail.

Extreme treatment based solely on the discretion of one or two border officials is legal for foreign nationals not yet admitted into the U.S. They have no constitutional right to a fair hearing, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just because they can be treated shabbily doesn't mean they should be. Often, the travelers' only crime is that they don't know the arcana of U.S. immigration law.

``People just kind of stumble into these terrible situations,'' says Walker, who has no connection to Naomi's case but quickly surmised the problem when told what occurred. Naomi's mistake was in not knowing that you can't use a tourist visa to gain entry to the U.S. when betrothed to an American.

No Congratulations?

``I just got engaged,'' Naomi says she told the first agent she saw. ``This is my fiancé.''

``Soon as I said that,'' she recalls, ``someone took me to the room'' where her ordeal began.

Agents assume if you are about to marry a U.S. citizen, you plan to live in the U.S., not merely tour it. You need a fiancé visa, which puts you in the intended immigrant category.

Foreign nationals often assume entry will be easier, not harder, when betrothed to an American. Walker remembers a Mexican who cheerfully drove to the U.S. border in her wedding dress. Big mistake.

If the agent thinks it an innocent error, the traveler can withdraw the entry application, go back home and apply for the proper visa, as many do.

But if the agent thinks the traveler is committing fraud, that's another matter.

``They told me I'd been lying to them,'' Naomi said. About what, they wouldn't say.

But she acknowledges her tourist visa had the wrong date for her divorce, an honest mistake.

And her previous travels to the U.S. may have worked against her, leading the officers to wonder whether she was actually living in the U.S.

Life, not Five

No one told her during those 30 hours that she would be banished for life. To date, the only document they gave her says it's a five-year ban.

Not being schooled in immigration law, she didn't know that the ``6C1'' an officer wrote on her visa means fraud.

As for the other side of the story, a Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman says privacy concerns prevent the agency from discussing individual cases.

Yes, the U.S. must protect its borders, which are so porous that more than 12 million illegal aliens now live in this country. And no, Naomi's experience isn't the most horrific immigration story around.

But it is plenty bad for her and her now-husband, Scott Walls, a business consultant in Tampa, Florida.

Across the Border

Yesterday, the couple met up in Toronto. What comes next, they don't know. She may apply for a waiver, but those are hard to come by and expensive to get, given legal fees.

Walls, 40, says he has always defended the extra security measures imposed after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But these days, he says he is disappointed in what the country has become.

``They take very sound, appealing arguments to the American people,'' such as the need to keep out illegal aliens, he says. ``Then they use that to do whatever they want to.''

Walls says he isn't so sure he wants to live in a country that treats an innocent woman, his wife, the way his did.

That's what happens when power goes unchecked.

(Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg news columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

-Editors: James Greiff, Jim Rubin.

To contact the writer of this column: Ann Woolner in Atlanta at awoolner@bloomberg.net.

"Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes

2008-06-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

Excellent 9-page paper by Trina Realmuto, an attorney at the American Immigration Law Foundation's Legal Action Center, on the "Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes.

See http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_finrem.pdf

This paper is of interest to anyone that has already been ordered deported, removed or granted voluntary departure.

AAO I-212 Appeal Successful - Denial from Athens, Greece (Lebanon)

2008-05-29T17:17:00.000-07:00

AAO: relocating to Lebanon would be extreme hardship

"In light of the applicant's son's medical history during his past visits to Lebanon, the AAO finds that applicant's spouse's concerns regarding his medical problems would result in extreme emotional hardship for her should she relocate to Lebanon. Moreover, it finds the security situation in Lebanon, as set forth in the record, and the recent Department of State traveling warning, to establish an additional basis for a finding of extreme hardship in the event that the applicant's spouse joined him in Lebanon." Matter of X-, Jan. 9, 2008.

See www.bibdaily.com for link to PDF of AAO decision.

Yet Another AAO I-212 Appeal Successful

2008-05-29T17:14:00.000-07:00

AAO waiver victory

"The favorable factors in this matter are the applicant's family ties to a lawful permanent resident and United States citizens, her husband and children, general hardship they may experience, letters of reference, payment of taxes, no criminal record, and her numerous attempts over the years to legitimize her status through TPS, asylum, and NACARA. While the applicant has been unable to adjust her status to a lawful permanent resident, her various legitimately filed applications have afforded her a status which allowed her to live and work in the United States. The AAO notes that the applicant's marriage to her husband occurred after her order of deportation and is an after-acquired equity. As an after- acquired equity this factor will be given less weight. The AAO finds that the unfavorable factors in this case include the applicant's initial entry without inspection and her failure to abide by an order of removal. While the applicant's actions cannot be condoned, the AAO finds that given all the circumstances of the present case, the applicant has established that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors, and that a favorable exercise of the Secretary's discretion is warranted." Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal under Section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9) (A)(iii); Matter of X-, Feb. 5, 2008.

See www.bibdaily.com for link to 5 page PDF of AAO decision.

Another AAO I-212 Appeal Successful

2008-05-29T17:12:00.000-07:00

AAO I-212 victory: San Antonio

The favorable factors in this matter are the applicant's U.S. citizen son, the absence of any criminal record, letters of recommendation and her approved immigrant visa petition. The AAO notes that the approval of the applicant's immigrant visa petition occurred after the applicant was ordered removed, and is an "after acquired equity." Any favorable weight derived from it must, therefore, be accorded diminished weight. The AAO finds that the unfavorable factors in this case include the applicant's failure to comply with an order of voluntary departure; her failure to comply with an order of removal; and her illegal entry into the United States after having been removed. While the applicant has multiple immigration violations that cannot be condoned, the AAO finds that, given all of the circumstances, the applicant has established that the favorable factors in the present case outweigh the negative and that a favorable exercise of the Secretary's discretion is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is sustained." Matter of X-, Jan. 2, 2008.

See www.bibdaily.com for link to PDF of AAO decision.

AAO I-212 Waiver Appeal Successful

2008-05-29T17:10:00.000-07:00

AAO I-212 victory

"Although the AAO notes the multiple unfavorable factors identified by the director in his decision, it finds there is only one unfavorable factor in this case, the applicant's failure to depart the United States immediately after the BIA issued its April 23, 2004 decision. In a separate proceeding, the AAO has found that the applicant did not accrue sufficient unlawful presence in the United States to render him inadmissible under section 212(9)(B) of the Act. In this same proceeding, it also determined that the applicant had not overstayed his B-2 nonimmigrant visa and had not worked in the United States without authorization. While the applicant's failure to depart the United States immediately following the BIA's decision cannot be condoned, the AAO finds that, given all the circumstances of the present case, this failure is outweighed by the favorable factors previously noted and that a favorable exercise of the Secretary's discretion is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained and the application will be approved." Matter of X-, Feb. 12, 2008.

See www.bibdaily.com for link to PDF of 5 page opinion by AAO.

U.S. Immigration Law Separates Husband & Wife for 10 years!

2008-02-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

See http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217illegalbride0217.html

U.S. immigration law drives husband, wife apart
"It was the Christmas holidays. Brown was visiting his wife, Virginia Carrillo, and son, Bryan. Their separation began in September the day the family applied for legal status for Carrillo, Brown's illegal-immigrant wife. They hoped Carrillo would qualify for a green card based on her marriage and child to Brown. Instead, Carrillo was barred from returning to the U.S. for 10 years. Now, the family is forced to live separately on opposite sides of the U.S.-Mexican border." Arizona Republic, Feb. 17, 2008.

I-601 Waiver Power Point - 82 Slides

2008-01-18T15:06:00.000-08:00

See http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22550 for an 82 slide power point presentation (in PDF format) on I-601 waivers from an AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) Annual Conference.

Randall Caudle was the discussion leader on the panel presenting to other immigration attorneys on I-601 waivers.

In addition to the other 2 panelists listed, Laurel Scott, an exceptional immigration attorney in Houston, Texas was on the panel as well.

I-601 Pilot Project for Fast I-601 Waiver Decisions in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

2008-01-18T14:54:00.000-08:00

See http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/pilot%20601%204-3-07.pdf & http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/pilot%20601.pdf for the USCIS official press release and memo on the pilot I-601 waiver adjudication process. The USCIS office by the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico instituted a pilot project in April 2007 to approve many I-601 waivers within a few weeks, instead of the 1 year plus it was previously taking. Kudos to the USCIS Ciudad Juarez office!

New I-601 Waiver Appointment Scheduling Call System

2008-01-18T14:50:00.000-08:00

See http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/CDJ%20601.pdf (BIB Daily) for info on the new scheduling process for I-601 waivers in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. There is now a phone number to call to schedule appointments instead of the online InfoPass system that used to exist.

AAO Appeal of Waiver Denial in Ciudad Juarez Successful

2008-01-18T14:44:00.000-08:00

See http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AAO%2010-31-07%20I-601%20Wittevrongel.pdf (BIB Daily) for another wonderful decision by the AAO (Administrative Appeals Office). The AAO overturned an immigration waiver denial and stated that there was extreme hardship to the U.S. Citizen wife and that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors.

This decision overturns an immigration waiver denial out of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

AAO Appeal Decision Overturns Waiver Application Denial & Finds Extreme Hardship

2008-01-18T14:39:00.001-08:00

See http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AAO%20Kain%201-9-08%20212i.pdf (BIB Daily) for a wonderful decision by the AAO (Administrative Appeals Office) of the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services overturning an immigration waiver denial.

The AAO found extreme hardship to the U.S. Citizen wife and child and that the positive equities in the case outweighed the adverse factors.

This case is out of Athens, Greece for a Lebanese national and citizen.

Legal Fees for Immigration Waivers

2008-01-18T13:29:00.000-08:00

The Law Office of Randall Caudle / Caudle Immigration currently charges the following fees for immigration waiver representation.

$6000 for I-601 waivers through Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

$7500 for I-601 waivers through other countries.

$7500 for I-601 waivers filed with local USCIS offices in the U.S.

$7500 for I-601 waiver appeals.

$1500 for U.S. Legal Permanent Resident (green card) or Fiance or Fiancee visa applications filed along with the I-601 waiver application.

$2800 for U.S. Legal Permanent Resident (green card) applications for spouses of U.S. Citizens when an I-601 waiver is not required.

$2800 for K-1 Fiance or Fiancee Visa Petitions and the subsequent U.S. Legal Permanent Resident (green card) applications for spouses of U.S. Citizens when an I-601 waiver is not required.

$0 No additional fee if the I-601 waiver individual also requires an I-212 waiver application (more forms, but only need to show exceptional hardship once).

$7500 for all other immigration waiver applications.

Payment plans available and all credit cards accepted.

Free initial phone consultations.

Legal Fees do not include any U.S. government fees, medical or pysch exams, photos, or costs to access records (birth certificates, divorce judgments, criminal records, etc).

Immigration Waivers Legal Representation

2008-01-18T13:19:00.000-08:00

The Law Office of Randall Caudle / Caudle Immigration represents individuals and families in obtaining immigration waivers for unlawful presence, immigration fraud, document fraud, criminal activity, and health-related grounds of inadmissibility.

Randall Caudle speaks at immigration lawyer conferences on I-601 waivers for spouses, children and fiance(e)s of U.S. Citizens.

This blog will be an informational source on the various immigration waivers available and the questions and issues that people have concerning immigration waivers.