USCIS Civil Surgeons Locator, Adjustment of status, Permanent Resident, Green Card, Civil Surgeons Illinois, Medical Exam Form I-693

Posted on September 5, 2007 by Mike Baker

All applicants for adjustment of status are required to have a medical examination. The medical examination must be conducted by a civil surgeon who has been designated by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The designated civil surgeon is responsible for the entire medical examination, and will record the results on Form I-693. The required medical exam consists of a physical examination, a tuberculin (TB) skin test and a serologic (blood) test. The designated civil surgeon must perform these tests in accordance with the Technical Instruction for the Medical Examination of Aliens in the United States, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Form I-693 will be given to you in a sealed envelope to present to the USCIS. You should not open the sealed envelope. The requirements of the medical examination are as follows:

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: Required of ALL applicants.

TUBERCULIN (TB) SKIN TEST: Required of ALL APPLICANTS TWO YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER. Applicants under the age of two may be required to have a tuberculin skin test if tuberculosis is suspected, if the applicant has a history of contact with a known TB case, and/or if there is any other reason to suspect TB. A chest x-ray is required only if the reaction to the TB skin test is 5mm or greater.

SEROLOGIC (BLOOD) TEST: Required of ALL APPLICANTS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER. The serologic test will include tests for the virus that causes the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Applicants under the age of 15 must be tested if there is reason to suspect HIV infection.

USCIS Civil Surgeons Locator
https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator. office_type=CIV
______________________________

From: Michael Aytes /s/ Associate Director, Domestic Operations
Date: January 3, 2007

Re: Extension of Validity of Medical Certifications on Form I-693

This memorandum temporarily extends the validity of civil surgeon endorsements on Form I-693 for certain adjustment of status applicants.

For adjustment of status applicants, the endorsement of a civil surgeon on Form I-693, Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of Status, is generally valid for one year. Some adjustment of status applications are concurrently filed with an immigrant visa petition as provided for at 8 CFR 245.2(a) (2).

These applications are filed with a Form I-693 as required by 8 CFR 245.5. Some of these applications remain pending for more than the one-year validity period.

In a policy memorandum dated January 11, 2006, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) extended the validity of the civil surgeon endorsement on Form I-693 until the adjustment of status application could be adjudicated. This policy was issued in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is limited to those applications where no Class A or Class B medical condition was certified. The policy is in effect until January 1, 2007.

Due to the continuing backlog of some concurrently filed adjustment of status applications, the validity of the civil surgeon’s endorsement on Form I-693, when submitted in support of a concurrently filed adjustment of status application as provided for at 8 CFR 245.2(a) (2), is extended until the time of adjudication if no Class A or Class B medical condition is certified by the civil surgeon. This policy will be in effect until January 1, 2008.

Download Memo: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I693MedExt010307.pdf

_____________________________________________________

Medical Examinations.

(a) Medical Grounds of Inadmissibility Defined . Section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act designates four categories that render an applicant for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status inadmissible on medical grounds. The medical grounds are determined according to the regulations published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 42 CFR part 34. The required medical exam, discussed in Chapter 23.3(b), below, must be performed according to the specific guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These are the Technical Instructions for the Medical Examination of Aliens in the United States , used by civil surgeons in the United States, and the Technical Instructions for the Medical Examination of Aliens , used by panel physicians abroad. ( Technical Instructions) . The Technical Instructions have the force of a regulation. See 42 CFR 34.3(f). They can be accessed online at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/technica.htm . If the medical condition found by the panel physician or civil surgeon falls under any of the four categories described below, the civil surgeon or panel physician must certify it as Class A in order for the applicant to be inadmissible on medical grounds. Class B medical conditions are defined at 42 CFR § 34.2(e) as physical or mental abnormalities, diseases, or disabilities serious in degree or permanent in nature amounting to a substantial departure from normal well-being; however, they do not render the applicant inadmissible on medical grounds. Waivers are discussed in Chapter 41.3.

(1) Section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Act . This ground of inadmissibility covers individuals who are found to have a communicable disease of public health significance, including, “. . . infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.” The HHS regulations that define a communicable disease of public health significance are found at 42 CFR § 34.2(b). The following eight conditions are listed: chancroid; gonorrhea; granuloma inguinale; acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS); Hansen’s disease (infectious leprosy); lymphogranuloma venereum; infectious state syphilis; and infectious tuberculosis (TB). Note that, for TB, only Class A TB renders the applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Under current CDC guidelines, Class A TB means tuberculosis that is clinically active and infectious (communicable).

(2) Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act . This ground covers only immigrant visa and adjustment of applicants who have not received all of the required vaccinations. See Chapter 23.3(g) further below.

(3) Section 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act . This ground covers individuals who have a physical or mental disorder or harmful behavior associated with that disorder. It is further divided into two subcategories:

(I) Current physical or mental disorders, with harmful behavior associated with that disorder; and

(II) Past physical or mental disorders, with associated harmful behavior that is likely to recur or lead to other harmful behavior.

Note 1: Harmful behavior is defined under section 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act as behavior that “. . . may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others . . . .”

Note 2: Mental retardation no longer renders an applicant inadmissible on medical grounds, unless the civil surgeon or panel physician determines that the applicant is also exhibiting or has exhibited in the past, associated harmful behavior, as described in Note 1.

(4) Section 212(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Act . This ground of inadmissibility covers individuals who are found to be drug abusers or drug addicts. The Technical Instructions published by the CDC refer to the nonmedical use of a psychoactive substance, and make an exception for experimentation. The CDC has instructed civil surgeons and panel physicians to use their clinical judgement and/or seek a consultation when facing a situation where the applicant’s medical history indicates past nonmedical use of a psychoactive substance or when there is a clinical question as to whether the use was experimental or part of a pattern of abuse. If you have valid reasons to question the com pleteness or accuracy of the medical exam report, you may direct the applicant to return to the civil surgeon or panel physician for a reexamination or ask the CDC to review the medical report.

(b) Aliens Required to Have a Medical Examination . Because section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act states that all medical-related grounds of inadmissibility are determined “. . . in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,” the applicant’s own admission is not sufficient to uphold a finding of inadmissibility on medical grounds. A medical examination performed by panel physician designated by the Department of State or a civil surgeon designated by the district director is required. Hill v. INS, 714 F 2d. 1470 (9 th Cir. 1983). The following requirements apply with respect to medical examinations.

(1) Immigrant Visa Applicants . Per section 221(d) of the Act, all individuals applying for an immigrant visa must submit to a medical examination before the visa is issued.

(2) Refugees Applying for Admission under Section 207 of the Act . Per section 207(c)(1) of the Act, all individuals applying for admission as refugees must, among other requirements, establish that they are admissible to the United States, or establish eligibility for a waiver as provided under section 207(c)(3) of the Act. Because the medical grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act apply, a medical exam is required. For a discussion of the vaccination requirements specifically as they apply to refugees, refer to Chapter 23.3(g)(4)(C).

(3) Adjustment of Status Applicants . Per section 245(a)(2) of the Act, an individual applying for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident must be “eligible to receive an immigrant visa and [be] admissible to the United States for permanent residence. . . .” Thus, to comply with the visa issuance requirements of sections 221(d) and 245(a)(2) of the Act, and the medical grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act, all individuals applying for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act are required to ha ve as part of their applications for adjustment of status:

• A valid medical examination (Form I-693, Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of Status ), properly endorsed by a physician authorized to conduct medical examinations for this purpose; and

• A certificate establishing compliance with the vaccination requirements described in section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, unless otherwise exempt. For ease of reading, the vaccination supplement to Form I-693 is referred to in this guidance as the “vaccination sign-off.”

(4) Presumption of Lawful Admission Cases, Section 249 Registry Cases, and Section 289 Indian Cases . A medical examination is not required.

(5) Nonimmigrants .

(A) General . Per section 221(d) of the Act, a consular officer may, prior to the issuance of a nonimmigrant visa, require the applicant to submit to a physical or mental examination or both, if considered necessary to determine whether the applicant is eligible to receive the visa. Similarly, CBP officers at ports-of-entry may require a nonimmigrant (arriving with or without a visa) to submit to a medical examination if necessary to determine whether a medical ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(1)(A) of th e Act applies.

(B) Nonimmigrants under Section 101(a)(15)(K) or (V) of the Act . Individuals outside the United States applying for nonimmigrant visas under any provision of section 101(a)(15)(K) or (V) of the Act must undergo a medical exam by a panel physician as part of the visa application process. Individuals in the United States applying for change of status to that of a “V” nonimmigrant pursuant to section 214(o) of the Act must submit with their application a medical exam report (Form I-693) completed by a designated civil surgeon. The vaccination requirements of section 212(a )(1)(A)(ii) of the Act do not apply at this stage of the process. See also Chapter 23.3(g)(4)(J).

(c) Authorized Civil Surgeons . If Form I-693 and the accompanying vaccination supplement have been endorsed by anyone other than a designated civil surgeon, they must be returned to the applicant for corrective action. To verify whether the physician that performed the medical exam is a civil surgeon, go to the USCIS website. The list of designated civil surgeons is found at the end of each individual office profile. Select the office and check the civil surgeon list maintained in the local office profile for the USCIS district where the medical exam was performed. If you cannot access this information from the USCIS intranet, refer to Appendix 23-1 of this field manual from the latest version of I-LINK. The civil surgeon listing found in Appendix 23-1 is divided into three parts (23-1A, 23-1B, and 23-1C) representing the Eastern, Central, and Western regions, respectively. Note, however, that the civil surgeon list maintained on the website is updated daily. Therefore, try to clarify any discrepancies through your district/sub-office and/or your regional point of contact (POC), before you return the case for evidence (RFE the case). If you have reaso n to doubt the authenticity of the endorsement by a civil surgeon within your district, refer to the file maintained in your district office. If you have doubts about the authenticity of an endorsement by a civil surgeon located in another district, consult informally (i.e., by telephone and fax machine) with the Adjudications section of that district office. If informal consultation does not clear up all doubts, refer the matter formally through a request for an auxiliary investigation (see AFM Chapter 10.14 ). See AFM Chapter 83 for the procedures to be followed for certifying, reviewing, and decertifying civil surgeons.

(d) Submission of the Medical Examination Report . According to Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status , which was last revised on February 27, 2000, the following instructions apply:

• Applications Filed at a Service Center : Individuals applying through a USCIS Service Center (including asylees adjusting under section 209 of the Act), must submit the medical examination report with the adjustment of status application. Note that refugees need only submit the vaccination supplement to Form I-693 (not the entire Form I-693) if there were no medical grounds of inadmissibility that arose during the initial medical exam performed overseas. See 8 CFR § 209.1(c).

• Applications Filed at a District Office : Individuals applying for adjustment of status through a district or sub-office do not submit Form I-693 with the initial filing. Rather, they should be provided instructions about the medical examination in conjunction with the notice of their in-person interview. See Chapter 23.3(g) for information about the specific situations applicable to K and V nonimmigrants.

(e) Validity of Medical Certifications.

(1) General . [Revised as of January 3, 2008; AD 07-22.] Form I-693 is normally valid for a period of 1 year from the date it was endorsed by the civil surgeon. In accordance with the agreements reached between USCIS and the CDC, if the adjustment of status application has been pending for over 1 year and Form I-693 was included with the initial filing, the adjudicating officer may accept a medical exam report that is more than 1 year old because of the pending adjustment of status application, IF there was no Class A or B medical condition noted. This agreement is in effect until January 1, 2008. See January 3, 2007, Extension of Validity of Medical Certifications on Form I-693. http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I693MedExt010307.pdf

(2) K and V nonimmigrants . A new medical exam is not required in order to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, if one of the following scenarios exists:

• The applicant is a K or V nonimmigrant and the medical exam did not reveal any Class A or B medical condition, and the application for adjustment of status was filed within 1 year of the date of the original medical exam. If these requirements are met, the medical exam remains valid until the date USCIS adjudicates the adjustment of status application; or

• The applicant is a K or V nonimmigrant who received a conditional waiver under section 212(g) of the Act in conjunction with the K or V nonimmigrant visa or the change of status to V. The section 245 adjustment of status application must be filed with USCIS within 1 year of the date of the original medical exam, and the applicant must submit evidence of compliance with the specific terms and conditions imposed on the waiver. The medical exam remains valid until the date USCIS adjudicates the adjustment of status application. If these requirements have not been met, a new medical examination is required. And, if that new medical examination reveals a Class A medical condition, a new waiver application will also be required. In such cases, determine whether the applicant complied with the terms and conditions of the first waiver. That determination should be given considerable weight in the adjudication of a subsequent waiver application.

Note: Although there may be cases where a new medical exam is not required, compliance with the vaccination requirements is still required, as the vaccination sign-off was not included as part of the original medical exam report. See Chapter 23.3(g)(4)(J).

(f) Review of Form I-693 . For those applicants required to undergo a complete medical exam, review Form I-693 to ensure compliance with the following requirements:

(1) Form I-693 Must Be Signed by a Designated Civil Surgeon . To verify whether the physician who performed the medical exam is a designated civil surgeon, refer to the instructions in Chapter 23.3(b).

(2) Form I-693 Must Be Completed Legibly in English and Must Be in a Sealed Envelope . The results must be typed or printed legibly and placed in an envelope sealed by the civil surgeon. If Form I-693 has not been dated and signed by the civil surgeon, has not been completed legibly in English, or if the envelope was not sealed by the civil surgeon or there is evidence of tampering with the sealed envelope, return a copy of the I-693 to the applicant for corrective action.

(3) Form I-693 Must Clearly Indicate That All Required Tests Were Performed and the Results . The medical examination must include all evaluations/assessments/tests necessary to determine whether the applicant is inadmissible on medical grounds under section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Findings of physical and mental disorders and drug abuse must be indicated in the “Remarks” section of Form I-693. If an applicant has been referred for further evaluation for a communicable disease of public health significance, physical or mental disorders with associated harmful behavior, psychoactive substance abus e or other physical or mental abnormalities, diseases or disabilities, the medical report must be accompanied by a definitive diagnosis (or a short list of likely diagnoses) and a statement as to whether the presence or absence of a Class A or Class B medical condition has been established. If the findings have not been clearly stated, return a copy of Form I-693 to the applicant for corrective action.

(4) Form I-693 Must Be Accompanied by a Properly Completed Vaccination Supplement, Unless the Applicant Is Applying for “Adjustment” of Status to V . For a complete discussion of the vaccination requirements and review of the vaccination supplement, refer to Chapter 23.3(g). For a discussion of waiver issues related to the vaccination requirements, see Chapter 41.3(b).

(5) Required Testing . All applicants must undergo a general physical examination and a mental status evaluation. In addition, other tests may be required depending on the applicant’s age and/or possible exposure to a particular disease. If all required tests/evaluations have not been performed, return a copy Form I-693 to the applicant for corrective action.

• Tuberculin (TB) Skin Test : All applicants 2 years of age and older must have a tuberculin skin test (TST). Civil surgeons may require an applicant who is less than 2 years of age to have a TST if he or she has a history of contact with a known TB case, or if there is any other reason to suspect TB disease. If the applicant’s reaction to the TST is 4 millimeters or less, no further testing is required. A chest X-ray is required only when the reaction to the TST is 5 millimeters or more. If the civil surgeon has performed a chest x-r ay for TB, but not a TST, the USCIS office that granted the civil surgeon designation should advise the civil surgeon in writing of the deficiency and of the need to comply with CDC’s Technical Instructions . Forward a copy of the letter and Form I-693 to CDC at the following address:

Chief, Migration Health Assessment Section

Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (E03)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

If the same civil surgeon receives two such letters of corrective action, the District Director may take appropriate steps to revoke the civil surgeon designation. See Chapter 83.4(c).

• Serologic (blood) tests . All applicants 15 years of age and older must undergo serologic (blood) testing for syphilis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Applicants under the age of 15 must undergo serologic testing if there is reason for the civil surgeon or for DHS to suspect infection.
___________________________________________________

Vaccinations.

Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act requires all immigrant visa and adjustment of status applicants to establish that they have been vaccinated against certain vaccine-preventable diseases. Section 212(g)(2) of the Act authorizes waivers in certain instances. To implement the vaccination requirements and the corresponding waiver provisions, USCIS developed streamlined procedures whereby certain individuals may be granted a waiver without the need to file a form or pay a fee. Furthermore, those applicants who are not covered under the streamlined procedures may apply for a waiver on an individual basis. Refer to Chapter 41.3(b) for additional information about these procedures.

(1) Vaccination Requirements Defined . Section 341 of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) created an additional medical ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act relating to vaccinations. Individuals who are subject to the vaccination requirements who have not complied (or who are unable to submit acceptable proof of compliance) are inadmissible under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, unless they are fully vaccinated or receive a waiver.

(2) Effective Date . The vaccination requirements became effective on the IIRIRA enactment date, September 30, 1996, and apply with respect to all immigrant visa and adjustment of status applications filed on or after that date.

(3) Required Vaccinations . Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act specifies the following vaccinations: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B. Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the applicant is also required to have any other vaccinations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The ACIP provides guidelines on appropriate doses of vaccines at specific intervals for specific age groups. The varicella, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines are also required, because they are currently recommended by the ACIP.

(4) Applicability . Section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the vaccination requirements apply with respect to anyone who “. . . seeks admission as an immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . .” Thus, the applicability of the vaccination requirements depends on the specific immigration benefit the applicant is seeking. The following list clarifies these distinctions for purposes of section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act:

(A) Adjustment of Status and Immigrant Visa Applicants . All adjustment of status and immigrant visa applications filed on or after September 30, 1996, must be sufficient to establish compliance with the vaccination requirements under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act or eligibility for a waiver. The waiver provisions and application procedures are addressed in Chapter 41.3 of this field manual.

(B) Refugees Making an Initial Application for Admission under Section 207 of the Act . USCIS has determined that the vaccination requirements do not apply to individuals seeking admission to the United States as refugees under section 207 of the Act, because there is no application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status at this stage of the process. Therefore, the results of a medical examination performed abroad for a refugee seeking admission to the United States under section 207 of the Act need not include the results of a vaccination assessment. DHS officers at ports-of-entry shoul d not refuse admission to refugees solely because they have not yet complied with the vaccination requirements.

(C) Refugees Applying for Adjustment of Status under Section 209 of the Act . Refugees must satisfy the vaccination requirements under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act when they apply for adjustment of status under section 209 of the Act, 1 year following their admission under section 207 of the Act.

The regulations at 8 CFR § 209.1(c) state that “[u]nless there were medical grounds for exclusion at the time of arrival, a United States Public Health Service medical examination is not required.” The term “medical ground for exclusion” means only Class A medical conditions. Therefore, a refugee who received a medical exam in conjunction with the initial application for admission under section 207 of the Act generally does not need to repeat the entire medical exam. He or she does, however, need the vaccin ation sign-off from the civil surgeon when adjusting under section 209 of the Act 1 year later. Consequently, USCIS officers should not require refugees to repeat the entire medical exam if it did not reveal a Class A medical condition. A refugee who was found to have any Class B medical condition that would result in any medical ineligibility under section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Act, without proper medical care or follow up, must submit evidence establishing compliance with any follow up examinations or treatment, as may have been required as a condition of the original admission.

Although a new medical examination may not be required, the refugee must nevertheless establish compliance with the vaccination requirements of section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act at the time of adjustment under section 209 of the Act, by submitting a vaccination supplement completed by a designated civil surgeon or in certain cases, by a state or local health department official. For information about the designation of state and local health departments as civil surgeons for refugees adjusting under secti on 209 of the Act who need only the vaccination sign-off, refer to Chapter 83.4(b) of this field manual.

(D) Asylees Making an Initial Application for Asylum under Section 208 of the Act . Individuals applying for asylum under section 208 of the Act are not subject to the vaccination requirements under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. They are not required to undergo a medical exam.

(E) Asylees Applying for Adjustment under Section 209 of the Act . If the asylum application is approved and the individual applies for adjustment of status under section 209 of the Act and 8 CFR § 209.2 at least 1 year later, a complete medical exam is required, including a vaccination assessment, as required under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. See 8 CFR § 209.2(d).

Note : Regarding Kurdish asylees paroled under Operation Pacific Haven, the INS determined, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that medical examinations performed under Operation Pacific Haven for Kurdish asylees either before arrival or while on Guam are acceptable for purposes of adjustment of status under section 209 of the Act and 8 CFR § 209.2. Kurdish asylees were given copies of these medical reports and should include them with the adjustment application. If the Ku rdish asylee no longer has a copy of the medical report, a new medical exam must be performed by a designated civil surgeon, including the vaccination assessment. In all cases, the adjustment application under 8 CFR § 209.2 submitted by a Kurdish asylee must also include the vaccination sign-off.

(F) Registry Applicants under Section 249 of the Act . Aliens applying for the creation of a record of admission for permanent residence are not required to undergo a medical examination or comply with the vaccination requirements. This is because section 212(a)(1) of the Act is not among the grounds of inadmissibility or ineligibility specified in section 249 of the Act.

(G) North American Indians . American Indians born in Canada who meet the requirements described in the regulations at 8 CFR §§ 289.1 and 289.2 may be regarded as having been lawfully admitted for lawful permanent residence. Because such lawful admission is recorded on Form I-181, and neither an immigrant visa nor an adjustment of status application is required, the applicant is not required to establish compliance with the vaccination requirements. Therefore, officers at ports-of-entry should not consider the vaccination requirement s in determining the eligibility of North American Indians seeking benefits under section 289 of the Act and 8 CFR part 289.

(H) Children of Returning Residents (XA and NA Babies) . This group covers children born abroad either subsequent to the issuance of an immigrant visa to a parent applying for admission while the visa remains valid, or during the temporary visit abroad of a mother who is a national or permanent resident of the United States. Until further notice, continue admitting these two groups of children under the procedures in effect prior to the implementation of IIRIRA (i.e., with no medical or vaccination requirement).

(I) Nonimmigrants . Except as provided in paragraphs (J) and (K), individuals applying for a nonimmigrant visa under any provision of section 101(a)(15) of the Act or for admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant, are not required to comply with section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act relating to vaccinations.

(J) Special Considerations for K and V Nonimmigrants . The plain language in section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act regarding the vaccination requirements refers to applicants for immigrant visas and for adjustment of status. Applicants for visas under section 101(a)(15)(K) or (V) of the Act are not applicants for immigrant visas at this stage of the process. DOS and USCIS have agreed that the required medical examination for K and V nonimmigrants outside of the United States will include the vaccination assessment described in section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Ac t. The vaccination assessment will be performed in anticipation of the adjustment of status application, to give the applicants the opportunity to retrieve the records for those vaccinations they have already received, while they are still abroad. Individuals in the United States applying for change of status to V will not be required to undergo a vaccination assessment in conjunction with their medical exam, but civil surgeons are not precluded from advising them about the vaccination requirements in antic ipation of their adjustment of status application.

While some panel physicians may elect to indicate the vaccinations already received on the vaccination supplement, consular officers will not refuse the K or V visa and CBP officers will not refuse admission to a K or V nonimmigrant, solely because all of the vaccination requirements have not been met. When the panel physician’s report indicates that the applicant lacks certain required vaccines, consular officers will attach a single-page addendum to Form DS-2053 (Formerly Form OF-157), Medical Examination for Immigrant or Refugee Applicant , and the accompanying worksheets, advising the applicant of the need to comply with the vaccination requirements upon the application for adjustment of status in the United States.

(K) Vaccination Requirements for K and V Nonimmigrants Adjusting Status to That of Lawful Permanent Resident under Section 245 of the Act . In certain instances, K and V nonimmigrants are not required to repeat the original medical examination that was performed to obtain that nonimmigrant classification. See Chapter 23.3(d)(2). When this is the case, only the vaccination sign-off is required. The vaccination sign-off must have been done by a designated civil surgeon. If the applicant obtained a K or V nonimmigrant visa overseas, the medical exam report completed by the panel physician overseas, Form DS-2053 and accompanying worksheets, should already be in the alien’s A-File, if it was surrendered at the port-of-entry with the visa packet. Note that, in completing the vaccination sign-off, the designated civil surgeon may accept the vaccination supplement to Form DS-2053 completed by the panel physician overseas and proof of additional vaccines received following the applicant’s admission to the United States. If the applicant was granted a change of status to V in the United States under section 214(o) of the Act, the medical exam report completed by the civil surgeon should be in the A-file created at the time that the change of status was initially granted. The applicant will need to return to the civil surge on for the vaccination sign-off. If, however, the requirements of Chapter 23.3(d)(2) have not been met, a new medical examination is required, including the vaccination assessment specified under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.

(L) Exceptions for Orphans . On November 12, 1997, the President signed into law Pub. L. 105-73. This bill amended section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act by creating section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii)(C) to provide exceptions to the vaccination requirements for internationally adopted children 10 years of age or younger. This exception covers children 10 years of age or younger classified as orphans under section 101(b)(1)(F) who are applying for immigrant visas as immediate relatives under section 201(b) of the Act (IR-3 and-4 visas). In order f or the child to benefit from the exception, the adopting parent(s) must sign an affidavit prior to visa issuance. The adopting parent(s) must affirm that the child will receive the required vaccination within 30 days of admission to the United States or at the earliest time that it is medically appropriate. However, noncompliance with the vaccination requirements following the child’s admission to the United States is not a ground for removal under section 237 of the Act.

DOS has developed a standard affidavit form to ensure that adopting parents are aware of the possibility of an exception from the vaccination requirements provided under section 212(a)(1)(A)(ii)(C) of the Act, and of their obligation to ensure that the child is vaccinated following admission. The affidavit must be made under oath or affirmation in the presence of either the consular officer or a notary public, and the completed form must be included with Form OF 157.

When the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent cannot sign the affidavit in good faith because of religious or moral objections to vaccinations, the child will require a waiver under section 212(g)(2)(C) of the Act. The requirements for this waiver are described in Chapter 41.3(b) of this field manual.

Posted in Adjustment of Status, Chicago District Office, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), Civil Surgeons Locator, Form I-693, Medical Exam, Permanent Resident Green Card | Leave a comment

U.S. Supreme Court- Aliens, Immigration and Nationality Law

Posted on September 5, 2007 by Mike Baker

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES (click on link)

DUI IS NOT A CRIME OF VIOLENCE:
Leocal v. Ashcroft 543 U. S. ____ (2004) November 9, 2004.

A drunk driving accident is not a “crime of violence” allowing the government to deport a permanent resident, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. Ashcroft 543 U. S. ____ (2004) November 9, 2004.

The court ruled unanimously in favor of Josue Leocal, a Florida man challenging his deportation to Haiti in 2002 after pleading guilty to a felony charge of drunk driving.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DUI offense was a “crime of violence” under the immigration statute because he had caused injury to others.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It said the plain meaning of the statute suggests that the felony offense must require intent in causing harm – not mere negligence as in Leocal’s case – before immigrants are subject to the drastic consequence of deportation.

DOWNLOAD

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and causing serious bodily injury in an accident, in violation of Florida law. While he was serving his prison sentence, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings pursuant to § 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which permits deportation of an alien convicted of “an aggravated felony.” INA § 101(a)(43)(F) defines “aggravated felony” to include, inter alia, “a crime of violence [as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16] for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” Title 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), in turn, defines “crime of violence” as “an offense that has as an element the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another,” and § 16(b) defines it as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordered petitioner’s deportation, and the Eleventh Circuit dismissed his petition for review, relying on its precedent that a conviction under Florida’s DUI statute is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16.

Held: State DUI offenses such as Florida’s, which either do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle, are not crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. Pp. 4-11.

(a) Section 16 requires this Court to look to the elements and nature of the offense of conviction in determining whether petitioner’s conviction falls within its ambit. Florida’s DUI statute, like similar statutes in many States, requires proof of causation but not of any mental state; and some other States appear to require only proof that a person acted negligently in operating the vehicle. This Court’s analysis begins with § 16’s language. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144, 133 L. Ed. 2d 472, 116 S. Ct. 501. Particularly when interpreting a statute featuring as elastic a word as “use,” the Court construes language in its context and in light of the terms surrounding it. See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 229, 124 L. Ed. 2d 138, 113 S. Ct. 2050. Section 16(a)’s critical aspect is that a crime of violence involves the “use . . . of physical force against” another’s person or property. That requires active employment. See Bailey, supra, 516 U.S. 137, at 145, 1333 L. Ed. 472, 116 S. Ct. 501. While one may, in theory, actively employ something in an accidental manner, it is much less natural to say that a person actively employs physical force against another by accident. When interpreting a statute, words must be given their “ordinary or natural” meaning, Smith, supra, 508 U.S. 223 at 228, 124 L. Ed. 2d 138, 113 S. Ct. 2050, and § 16(a)’s key phrase most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. Petitioner’s DUI offense therefore is not a crime of violence under § 16(a). Pp. 4-8.

(b) Nor is it a crime of violence under § 16(b), which sweeps more broadly than § 16(a), but does not thereby encompass all negligent conduct, such as negligent operation of a vehicle. It simply covers offenses that naturally involve a person acting in disregard of the risk that physical force might be used against another in committing an offense. The classic example is burglary, which, by nature, involves a substantial risk that the burglar will use force against a victim in completing the crime. Thus, § 16(b) contains the same formulation found to be determinative in § 16(a): the use of physical force against another’s person or property. Accordingly, § 16(b)’s language must be given an identical construction, requiring a higher mens rea than the merely accidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense. Pp. 8-9.

(c) The ordinary meaning of the term “crime of violence,” which is what this Court is ultimately determining, combined with § 16’s emphasis on the use of physical force against another (or the risk of having to use such force in committing a crime), suggests a category of violent, active crimes that cannot be said naturally to include DUI offenses. This construction is reinforced by INA § 101(h), which includes as alternative definitions of “serious criminal offense” a “crime of violence, as defined in [§ 16],” § 101(h)(2), and a DUI-causing-injury offense, § 101(h)(3). Interpreting § 16 to include DUI offenses would leave § 101(h)(3) practically void of significance, in contravention of the rule that effect should be given to every word of a statute whenever possible, see Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174, 150 L. Ed. 2d 251, 121 S. Ct. 2120. Pp. 9-11.

(d) This case does not present the question whether an offense requiring proof of the reckless use of force against another’s person or property qualifies as a crime of violence under § 16. P. 11.

Reversed and remanded
________________________________

Demore v. Kim: Mandatory Detention Allowed | Custody & No Bond/Bail: INA Sec. 236(c)(1), 8 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1226(c)(1) (April 29, 2003)

The US Supreme Court declared that lawful permanent residents with certain criminal convictions can be detained pursuant to INA §236(c) without an individual bond hearing. The Court, however, also held that § 236(e) does not preclude habeas review of challenges to detention under § 236(c) .

The Supreme Court decision in Demore v. Kim applied only to individuals who conceded deportability and explicitly did not address the adequacy of the Matter of Joseph hearing, which allows a person to be released if she or he can demonstrate that the government is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on the charges of removal. To the extent possible, non-citizens should not concede deportability and request a Matter of Joseph hearing. 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999) http://callyourlawyers.com/pdfcaselaw/matterofjoseph.pdf

The Immigration Judge may make a determination on whether a lawful permanent resident “is not properly included” in a mandatory detention category, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 3.19(h)(2)(ii), either before or after the conclusion of the underlying removal case. If this threshold bond decision is made after the Immigration Judge’s resolution of the removal case, the Immigration Judge may rely on that underlying merits determination.

________________________________
INS v. St. Cyr: Supreme Court Allows Criminal Aliens to Apply for Waivers under former Section 212(c)

Courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to decide the legal issue raised by St. Cyrs habeas petition. (2) Section 212(c) relief remains available for aliens, like St. Cyr, whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for 212(c) relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit No. 00767. June 25, 2001

HTML: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-767.ZS.html

PDF: http://callyourlawyers.com/pdfcaselaw/St.Cyr_supct.pdf

Posted in Chicago Immigration Court, Chicago-dui lawyer, Immigration Judge, Removal, Removal hearing | Leave a comment

Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition when the alien beneficiary claims eligibility benefits under §106(c) of AC21 due to a change in his or her

Posted on September 5, 2007 by Mike Baker

08/04/03 Memo from William R. Yates /s/ Janis Sposato HQBCIS

MEMORANDUM FOR SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS, BCIS REGIONAL DIRECTORS, CIS Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition in accordance with Section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21)

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide field offices with guidance on processing Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, when the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140, Petition for Immigrant Worker, is eligible to change employers under §106(c) of AC21.

On January 29, 2001, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (Service) Office of Field Operations issued a memorandum entitled “Interim Guidance for Processing H-1B Applications for Admission as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2002, Public Law 106-313.” On June 19, 2001, the Office of Programs issued a follow-up memorandum entitled “Initial Guidance for Processing H-1B Petitions as Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Public Law 106-313) and Related Legislation (Public Law 106-311) and (Public Law 106-396).” On February 28, 2003, Immigration Services Division issued a memorandum entitled “Procedures for concurrently filed family-based or employment-based Form I-485 when the underlying visa petition is denied.” These memoranda remain in effect. On July 31, 2002, the Service published an interim rule allowing, in certain circumstances, the concurrent filing of Form I-140 and Form I-485. Previous Service regulations required an alien worker to first obtain approval of the underlying Form I-140 before applying for permanent resident status on the Form I-485. Institution of the concurrent filing process, and other issues relating to revocation of approval of Form I-140 petitions, have resulted in questions on how to process adjustment applications when the alien beneficiary claims eligibility benefits under §106(c) of AC21 due to a change in his or her employment.

A. Approved Form I-140 Visa Petitions and Form I-485 Applications

The AC21 §106(c) states:

A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) [since re-designated section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act] for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, guidance in the June 19, 2001, memorandum provides that the labor certification or approval of a Form I-140 employment-based (EB) immigrant petition shall remain valid when an alien changes jobs, if:

(a) A Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, on the basis of the EB immigrant petition has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more; and

(b) The new job is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made. This policy is still in effect and has not changed as a result of implementation of the concurrent filing process.

If the Form I-140 (“immigrant petition”) has been approved and the Form I-485 (“adjustment application”) has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the Form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation.1 If the Form I-485 has been pending for less than 180 days, then the approved Form I-140 shall not remain valid with respect to a new offer of employment. B. Provisions in Cases of Revocation of the Approved Form I-140 1AC21 also provides that any underlying labor certification also remains valid if the conditions of §106(c) are satisfied.

As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of §106(c) of AC21.

Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of §106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.

If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of §106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of §106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act. Questions regarding this memorandum may be directed via e-mail through appropriate channels to Joe Holliday at Service Center Operations or to Mari Johnson in Program and Regulation Development. Accordingly, the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) is revised as follows:

1. Chapter 20.2 of the AFM is revised by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

20.2 Petition Validity.

(c) Validity after Revocation or Withdrawal. Pursuant to the provisions of section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313, the approval of a Form I-140 employment-based (EB) immigrant petition shall remain valid when an alien changes jobs, if:

A Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, on the basis of the EB immigrant petition has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more; and

The new job is in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification or approval was initially made.

If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation.

If the Form I-485 has been pending for less than 180 days, then the approved Form I- 140 shall not remain valid with respect to a new offer of employment.

Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of §106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.

If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of §106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of §106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.

2. The AFM Transmittal Memoranda button is revised by adding the following entry: Chapter 20.2(c) Provides guidance on the validity of immigrant petitions under section 106(c) of AC21 (Public Law 106-313) 08/04/03

Download Memo

Posted in Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), I-485 Employment | Leave a comment

Conviction under Immigration law includes Illinois sentence for “1410 probation” (Gill v. Ashcroft, (7th Cir.) )

Posted on September 4, 2007 by Mike Baker

Gill v. Ashcroft, (7th Cir.) 2003 WL 21525603. July 8, 2003

Ct. of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal of instant removal order under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on existence of alien’s prior Illinois state court conviction for possession of cocaine that was ultimately dismissed87 upon alien’s successful completion of probation period; under 8 USC §1101(a)(48)(A), alien’s state court proceeding qualified as “conviction” that precluded alien from applying for discretionary relief from removal order.

Gill pleaded guilty in an Illinois court to possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to “410 probation,” 720 ILCS 570/410. Section 410(f) provides that, if a first offender completes this probation without incident, “the court shall discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him.” The statute continues: A disposition of probation is considered to be a conviction for the purposes of imposing the conditions of probation and for appeal, however, discharge and dismissal under this Section is not a conviction for purposes of this Act or for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime. 720 ILCS 570/410(g). Gill did not deny that “410 probation” was a “conviction” under the text of §1101(a)(48)(A). The 7th Circuit declined to follow the holding of Lujan- Armendariz, “which elevated an abandoned administrative practice over a statutory text.” 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000).

The term “conviction” under Immigration law: * * * The term “conviction” means with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and (ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed. * * * (8 U.S.C. 101(a)(48)(A)

Two principal problems: How to classify diversionary dispositions such as “410 probation” that impose some restraint on liberty but withhold formal adjudication of guilt; second, how to classify convictions later expunged or covered by some other device for restoring the person’s civil rights. In Matter of Roldan, 22 I&N Dec. 512 (BIA 1999), the Board held that the criteria of §1101(a)(48)(A) apply to all offenders, no matter how they would have been treated if they had been charged in federal court. The 7th Circuit adopted the Board’s “straightforward” application of §1101(a)(48)(A), which abolished, for purposes of immigration law, any distinction between the treatment of deferred dispositions in first and successive drug-possession offenses. The Board has declined to acquiesce in Lujan-Armendariz and will not apply it outside the ninth circuit.

In Gill, the Seventh Circuit determined that the definition of conviction under federal immigration law, not the Illinois First Offender standard, controls. The 7th Circuit determined that an administrative appellate tribunal, namely, the Board of Immigration Appeals, had the authority to conclude that its uniform interpretation of what constitutes a “conviction” under federal law was dispositive, regardless of what states may say to the contrary (Matter of Roldan , 22 I&N Dec. 512 (BIA, 1999).

http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3377.pdf

Another court has looked at this differently (Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000). In the latter decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals found that state equivalents to the Federal First Offender Act (like 410 probation) in regard to first time simple drug possession charges if expunged, may not be used as convictions under the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish inadmissibility or deportability. The Ninth Circuit also extended this rule to foreign equivalents to the First Offender Act (Dillingham v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 267 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001). Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not apply in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin. And, there is more. Under certain circumstances, a misdemeanor conviction under state law may amount to what is known as an “aggravated felony” (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) under federal immigration law (Guerrero-Perez v. INS, (7th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 727, rehearing den.(7th Cir. 2001) 256 F.3d 546). What this means is that certain misdemeanor convictions, like the First Offender conviction, can result in the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident or undocumented alien. (For example, Criminal Sexual Abuse, 720 ILCS 5/12-15(c) is a Class A misdemeanor. It is also an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. Since aliens who have committed aggravated felonies are unable as a matter of law to obtain cancellation of their removal hearings upon a conviction for such a crime, they may be deported). (Guerrero-Perez).

Gill v. Ashcroft, (7th Cir.) 2003 WL 21525603. July 8, 2003:
Download: http://callyourlawyers.com/pdfcaselaw/gil.pdf

Posted in 7th Circuit, Chicago Immigration Court, Deportation, Immigration Judge, Removal, Removal hearing | Leave a comment

Was the Marriage Entered into for Immigration Purposes? Is the marraige “Bona fide” for immigration purposes?

Posted on September 4, 2007 by Mike Baker

In order to be granted permanent residency, your spouse’s relationship with you must be established and your spouse must be admissible to the United States under the immigration law. Also, the marriage must be bona fide, not merely a sham to get the non US citizen spouse a green card. The USCIS takes fraudulent marriage seriously and you will be asked to provide supporting documents to show that the marriage is valid.

Over the past two decades, Congress and the CIS have grown increasingly suspicious of marriages. Since 1986, a foreign-born spouse who has been married to the petitioner for less than two years is given conditional permanent residence for two years. While this conditional status is for the most part the same as regular permanent residence, it is designed to provide assurance that the parties did not marry for immigration purposes by allowing the conditional status to be revoked if the marriage does not last two years.

It is important to note at the outset that it is not against federal immigration law to consider immigration in deciding to get married. Considering immigration benefits will only be a problem if those were the ONLY reason to marry. So a couple, one of whom is undocumented and the other a citizen would not be breaking the law if they married before they would otherwise have planned to so the noncitizen can legalize his or her status. Despite this, and despite the fact that it can be impossible to determine why people marry, the CIS makes this determination every day. Therefore, it is important to know what factors will make the agency suspect marriage fraud.

Some of the most obvious of these are if the couple did not know each other for very long before marrying or had seen each other only a few times before marrying. Also, if the couple does not live together, the CIS will be very suspicious, even more so if they have never lived together. Also, marriages between couples from different backgrounds, especially those that lack a common language, are viewed with suspicion.

The CIS is very suspicious of marriages entered into after one of the parties is placed in removal proceedings or is being investigated by the CIS. In such cases, the beneficiary is required to stay outside the US for two years after the marriage unless the parties can prove the marriage is bona fide. The best way to show that the marriage is bona fide is to present evidence of the parties’ joint ownership of property and their cohabitation. Evidence of children born in the marriage, as well as affidavits from friends and family testifying to the bona fides of the marriage are also helpful.

The CIS has discretion to suspect and then accordingly to investigate a marriage which may bring immigration benefits to the aliens. If the CIS has reasons to suspect that the marriage is a “sham marriage”, the CIS officers have the authority to investigate. Usually, the CIS officers may visit the suspect couple at their residence, or visit their neighbors to investigate whether they reside together, share a household, or own property jointly, etc. Also, the CIS officers may arrange interviews with the couple at their residence or at local CIS offices. _________________________________

Whether an alien qualifies as a spouse depends upon three factors:

(1) the validity of the marriage under the law of the jurisdiction where it was performed;

(2) whether the marriage was entered into in order to confer an immigration benefit on the alien (a sham marriage); and

(3) the current status of the marriage.

The only legally-sanctioned marriage defined by the INA to be invalid for immigration purposes is one in which the two parties were not physically in the presence of each other at the time of the marriage ceremony, unless the marriage was subsequently consummated. Other marriages may be invalid at their inception because one of the parties lacked legal capacity or because the marriage is against the law of the jurisdiction.

The most common impediment to a valid marriage, however, is the objection that one of the parties lacked capacity to marry because of the invalidity of a prior divorce. Any prior divorce must meet the legal standards of the jurisdiction where the divorce decree is entered, and must be recognized in the jurisdiction where the subsequent marriage occurs. While all U.S. divorces are considered valid determining the validity of divorces in foreign jurisdictions is often a complicated task. This difficulty can be compounded when the foreign jurisdiction recognizes “custom-ary” divorces and marriages; in such instances, it is necessary to study the actual facts of the divorce or marriage proce-dure or ceremony to determine whether the proper ritual was followed.

Even if a marriage is valid at its inception, it may be considered sham for immigration purposes if it was entered into to confer an immigration benefit on the alien. The general authority to investigate the bona fides of a marriage rela-tionship for purposes of conferring an immigration benefit appears in section 204(b) of the INA. The basic test in all cases will be whether the parties entered into the marriage sharing the intention to establish a life together. Thus, the fact that the couple is presently divorced or separated does not necessarily negate the validity of the marriage for immi-gration purposes, although such circumstances may raise questions as to the bona fides of the marriage. In addition to this general investigatory authority, section 204(c) of the INA bars the approval of a visa petition for a person who pre-viously obtained, or attempted or conspired to obtain, immigration benefits by reason of a marriage determined to have been entered into for purpose of evading the immigration laws.

Several other provisions added by the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 (IMFA) are also designed to combat sham marriages.

First, the INS cannot approve the spousal second preference petition of permanent residents who have been accorded their status based on a prior marriage unless:

(1) a period of five years has elapsed after the alien acquired the permanent resident status;

(2) the alien establishes through clear and convincing evidence that the prior marriage was not entered into for purposes of evading the immigration laws; or

(3) the prior marriage was terminated through the death of the petitioner’s spouse.

Second, an immigrant visa petition cannot be approved for an alien who has married after commencement of deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings until the alien has resided outside of the United States for two years after the marriage. The alien can obtain a “bona fide marriage” waiver of the foreign residence requirement if the alien establishes by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1) the marriage was entered in good faith and in accordance with the laws of the place where the marriage took place;

(2) the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of procuring the alien’s entry as an immigrant; and

(3) no fee or other consideration was given (other than a fee or other consideration to an attorney for assistance in preparing petitions) for the filing of a petition on behalf of the alien.

Finally, under IMFA, aliens who obtain an immigration benefit on the basis of a marriage entered into within two years of the time the benefit is conferred will be granted conditional resident status for a period of two years. Before this period ends, the couple must file a joint petition to remove the conditional basis of the alien’s residence; failure to do so results in automatic termination of the alien’s resident status. When the conditional resident is unable or unwilling to obtain the cooperation of the citizen or resident spouse or parent, he or she will be required to file an application for waiver of the joint petition requirement. There generally is no requirement that a marriage currently be viable in order for it to be the basis for conferring immigration benefits. In most cases, as long as the couple entered into a bona fide marriage and have neither divorced nor legally separated pursuant to a formal written instrument, they will be considered spouses for immigration purposes.

(1) In the absence of adverse factors, an application for adjustment of status as an immediate relative should generally be granted in the exercise of discretion notwithstanding the fact that the applicant entered the United States as a nonimmigrant with a preconceived intention to remain. Matter of Cavazos, Interim Decision 2750 (BIA 1980), clarified and reaffirmed. Matter of Cavazos, 1980 BIA LEXIS 2; 17 I. & N. Dec. 215

(2) A fraudulent or sham marriage that is entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the immigration laws does not enable an alien spouse to obtain immigration benefits.

(3) Where the parties enter into a valid marriage, and there is nothing to show that they have since obtained a legal separation or dissolution of that marriage, a visa petition filed on behalf of the alien spouse should not be denied solely because the parties are not residing together.

(4) Although the separation of spouses in and of itself is not a valid basis for denial of a visa petition based upon a determination that the marriage is not viable, a separation is a relevant factor in determining the parties’ intent at the time of their marriage, i.e., whether the marriage is a sham. (Matter of McKee, 1980 BIA LEXIS 17; 17 I. & N. Dec. 332)

_________________________________

The following is a list of some of the typical questions asked during an adjustment of status interview. During the marriage interview the parties may be questioned separately concerning the bona fides of the marriage. Usually the US citizen will be questioned first and then the alien spouse will be asked the same questions.

MARRIAGE INTERVIEW-SAMPLE QUESTIONS

During the marriage interview the parties may be questioned separately concerning the bona fides of the marriage. Usually the US citizen will be questioned first and then the alien spouse will be asked the same questions.

Name and address.

Name and Date of Birth of Spouse.

When and where did you meet your spouse?

Describe this 1st meeting.

Did you make arrangements to meet again?

Did you exchange phone numbers?

When did you meet next?

Where were you living at the time? Where was your spouse living?

When did you decide to get married? Where were you at the time?

Did you live together before marriage?

When and where did you get married? How did you and your spouse get to the church, courthouse, etc.?

Who were the witnesses to the ceremony?

Did you exchange wedding rings?

Where had you purchased these rings? Did you and your spouse purchase them together?

Did you have a reception after the ceremony?

Where was it held?

Do you have any photos of the ceremony and /or reception?

Describe the reception.

Did any of your, and your spouse’s, family members attend? If so, who?

Did you go on a honeymoon? If so, when and where?

If you did not have a reception, what did you do after the wedding ceremony?

Where did you live after the wedding?

Describe the place where you lived right after the marriage. Number of bedrooms and bathrooms; furnishings; color of walls, floor coverings, appliances, etc; type of air conditioning, heating, etc; # of telephones, televisions, etc. Do you have cable television?

Where did you get the furniture? Was it already there, did you buy it, was it a gift, or did it come from your, or your spouse’s, previous residence?

If brought to the house or apartment, describe how it was transported.

Describe your bedroom. Where do you keep your clothes? Where does your spouse keep his or her clothes? Where are the bathroom towels kept? Where do you keep the dirty clothes?

Where is the garbage kept in the kitchen?

On what day of the week is the garbage picked up?

Where do you shop for groceries? Do you go together with your spouse? How do you get there?

Where do you work? What days of the week do you work?

What hours do you work? What is your salary?

What is your telephone # at work?

When was the last vacation you had from work?

Did you and your spouse go anywhere together at that time?

When was the last vacation you and your spouse took together?

Where did you go? How did you get there? Describe it.

Where does your spouse work? What days of the week? What hours? What is the salary, if you know?

What is your spouse’s telephone # at work?

When was the last time your spouse got a vacation from work?

Do you know your spouse’s family members? If so, which ones? If your spouse has children from a previous marriage, their names, ages, where they live, and where they go to school, if applicable.

Where do you live now? (If different from where you lived right after the marriage, then go over the same questions as above). How much is the rent? When is it paid? How do you pay it?

Do you have a bank account together? Where? What kind of account? (Checking, savings).

Are both of you listed on the account? (Do you have a bank letter, cancelled checks, etc.?)

Did you file a joint tax return this year? Do you have a copy with you?

Do you own any property together? What property? Did you bring copies of the documents with you?

What kind of automobile do you and your spouse have? Describe them.

Do you have an Insurance policy listing your spouse as the beneficiary? If so, do you have a copy?

Have you taken any trips or vacations together? Do you have photos from these trips?

Do you have any utility bills, or receipts from items you have purchased together?

What other documentation do you have to show that you are living together as husband and wife?

Do you have any pets? What kind, what are their names, and describe them?

What did you do for Christmas, New Year’s, your anniversary, or you or your spouse’s last birthday? Did you exchange gifts? If so, what kind of gift?

Did you or your spouse go to work yesterday? If so, at what time did you and/or your spouse leave the house and return?

Who cooks the meals at the house?

What is your spouse’s favorite food? What is your favorite food?

Does your spouse drink coffee? If so, does he or she use cream and/or sugar?

Did you eat dinner together last night? Did anyone else have dinner with you? What did you have?

What time was dinner served? Who cooked it?

Did you watch TV after dinner? What shows did you watch?

At what time did you go to bed? Who went to bed first?

Did you have the air conditioning or heater on?

Who woke up first this morning? Did an alarm clock go off?

Did you or your spouse take a shower?

Did you come to the interview together? Who drove?

Did you have breakfast? Where and what did you eat?

Please remember that the number and types of questions that can be asked is almost limitless. Therefore, you and your spouse should review your entire lives together prior to attending the immigration interview. Even married couples living together for many years sometimes have difficulties remembering all of the facts of their relationship. Be prepared and take original documents with you. Then you will have no problem passing the interview and obtaining permanent residence in the United States.

Posted in Adjustment of Status, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, Lawful Permanent Resident, Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence | Leave a comment