How Long Does I-601 Take to Process?

Introduction

In order to obtain a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa, an alien must be admissible to the United States.  If an alien is inadmissible, he or she must generally file a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.  If an alien who would otherwise be inadmissible obtains a waiver of the applicable ground(s) of inadmissibility, he or she will be one large step closer to procuring lawful immigration status in the United States.

Due to the number of immigration applications handled by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an applicant who files a Form I-601 or any other immigration form will have to wait for the application to be fully processed before receiving a final decision.  For applicants who have filed a Form I-601 upon which their eligibility for lawful immigration status in the United States depends, not knowing how long the processing will take can be stressful. Fortunately, the USCIS publishes statistics that may provide an applicant who filed a Form I-601 with a rough idea of when he or she can expect a final decision on the application.

Finding Average Processing Times

The USCIS posts average processing times for a variety of forms on its website.  While average processing times do not guarantee that a given application will be processed by a specific date, they may give a form filer an idea of when his or her application will be adjudicated.  In order to find the appropriate average processing time, the applicant must look up the USCIS Service Center or Office that is handling his or her application.  For the Form I-601, the most recent average Form I-601 processing times (as of the date of this article) at the California Service Center, Nebraska Service Center, and Texas Service Center are 4 months from the date of filing.

Applicants for provisional unlawful presence waivers who filed the Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, must look up the average processing timeframes at the National Benefits Center (NBC).  As of June 30, 2016, the NBC was processing cases initiated December 30, 2015.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) handles appeals of Form I-601 denials outside of immigration proceedings.  The AAO periodically posts its average case processing time information. As of July 1, 2016, the average case processing time for the appeal of the denial of a Form I-601 is 6 months or less.

Conclusion

An applicant for a waiver of inadmissibility should consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Depending on the waiver being sought, the applicant may have to offer substantial evidence demonstrating that he or she is eligible for a waiver.  An experienced immigration attorney will not only be able to provide the applicant with professional guidance throughout the Form I-601 application process to insure that the application satisfies all requirements, but will also likely be able to give the applicant an idea of how long his or her waiver application process and broader visa application process may reasonably be expected to take.  It is important to properly file the Form I-601 to ensure that it is accepted for processing at all.  Where an applicant must file the Form I-601 will depend on the circumstances under which he or she is seeking relief.  The applicant should carefully follow all of the instructions on the Form I-601 with the assistance of immigration counsel.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "Estimated AAO Case Processing Times as of July 1, 2016", "Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers Rules Taking Effect August 29, 2016", "Role and Structure of the Administrative Appeals Office AAO"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

What is a Waiver of Inadmissibility to the US?

What is Inadmissibility to the US?

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains various grounds of alien “inadmissibility.”  If an alien is found to be inadmissible, he or she may be ineligible for:

• Temporary Protected Status (TPS);
• Nonimmigrant status;
• Immigrant status; and
• Naturalization.

Furthermore, an alien who was inadmissible at the time of entry or at the time of adjustment of status is removable from the United States under section 237(a)(1).

Certain types of inadmissibility are either temporary in duration or they can be overcome by meeting certain requirements.  Other types of inadmissibility either attach for life or attach unless/until a waiver is obtained.  If an inadmissible alien intends to seek immigration status or fight immigration proceedings brought on account of inadmissibility, he or she will likely need to seek a waiver of inadmissibility.

What is a Waiver of Inadmissibility to the US?

Along with containing the INA’s inadmissibility grounds, section 212 of the INA also includes provisions for waivers of inadmissibility.  In general, and depending on the inadmissibility ground and the waiver sought, an alien may apply for a waiver of inadmissibility when seeking lawful immigration status (nonimmigrant or immigrant) or in the course of seeking relief in immigration removal proceedings.  The following are commonly used waivers available in section 212 of the INA:

• 212(i) – Waiver for inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact to obtain immigration benefits;
• 212(h)(1)(B) – Waiver for inadmissibility for certain criminal or related grounds;
• 212(d) – Waiver for inadmissibility for several grounds of inadmissibility and ineligibility to receive a visa, including for document fraud;
• 212(a)(9)(B)(v) – Waiver for certain aliens subject to the 3- or 10- year bar of inadmissibility for the accrual of unlawful presence;
• 212(g)(1) – Waiver for inadmissibility for certain health-related grounds; and
• 212(k) – Limited waivers for inadmissibility/ineligibility for missing documentation.

Section 209(c) of the INA contains waiver provisions for asylees and refugees.

Certain waivers of inadmissibility will require the applicant to demonstrate that a qualifying relative would incur “extreme hardship” were  he or she to be refused admission to the United States.  These include section 212(i), 212(h)(1)(B), and section 212(a)(9)(B)(v).

Applying for a waiver of inadmissibility

Most applications for waivers of inadmissibility are made by filing the Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.  An application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver is filed on the Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.  Certain applicants who have been deported or removed may need to file the inadmissibility waiver application in conjunction with the Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal.  Although there is a fee associated with the Form I-601 ($585 as of August 26, 2016), a fee waiver may be requested with the Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver (submitted with evidence that shows the alien is unable to pay the filing fee).

Asylees and refugees must apply for a waiver by using the Form I-602, Application By Refugee For Waiver of Grounds of Excludability.  There is no filing fee for the Form I-602.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) accepts fee waiver requests for the Form I-601 from the following applicants:

• VAWA self-petitioner;
• T visa applicant;
• Battered spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or LPR;
• Applicant for TPS;
• An alien for whom a determination that he or she would be a public charge under section 212(a)(4) is not required.

See https://www.uscis.gov/i-601 (special instructions for list of applicants who may request fee waivers as of March 9, 2016)

Seeking Waiver of Inadmissibility

If a person who is seeking immigration status in the United States or who is resisting removal is charged as being inadmissible, he or she should consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately.  There is no catch-all rule for determining whether a person in a given case will be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility.  Each case is fact-specific, and each will depend on many factors, including the following:

• Ground of inadmissibility (not all inadmissibility can be waived);
• Nature of the conduct that resulted in the person being inadmissible (if a waiver is available);
• Immigration benefit sought;
• Other circumstances that may weigh in favor or against the applicant; and
• Other relevant factors not listed here.

An experienced immigration attorney will be able to help an applicant determine whether a waiver of inadmissibility is available for his or her ground of inadmissibility in conjunction with the immigration benefit that he or she is seeking.  If there is, an experienced immigration attorney will be able to determine whether the applicant has a plausible path toward obtaining relief and, if so, to help the applicant put forward the best case for doing so.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "Waivers", "Extreme Hardship", "Waivers for Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact to Obtain an Immigration Benefit"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

What is a Waiver in Immigration Law?

What is an Immigration Fee Waiver (USCIS)?

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) require immigration fees for the processing of certain forms and services.  These fees help fund the USCIS’s operations.  In certain cases, the USCIS may allow an applicant seeking an immigration benefit to apply for an immigration fee waiver.  In general, an application for an immigration fee waiver is filed with the benefit application using the Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.  Alternatively, an applicant may also send a letter that includes the request for the waiver being sought along with all of the evidence required by the Form I-912.  If an applicant demonstrates eligibility for a fee waiver, his or her form or benefit request will be processed by the USCIS without fee.  If a fee waiver request is denied, the applicant will have to re-file the form or benefit request in accordance with the form instructions.

Before Filing an Immigration Fee Waiver Request

Before seeking a fee waiver, the applicant must make sure that he or she can even procure a fee waiver for the specific form or benefit sought.  The Form I-912 instructions as well as regulations found in 8 C.F.R. 103.7 contain the forms for which fee waivers may be sought.  There are certain forms for which an applicant may always seek a fee waiver, certain forms for which an applicant may seek a fee waiver depending on the benefit sought, and certain forms for which there are no fee waivers available.  In general, the following classes of applicants may apply for a fee waiver for any forms associated with their applications for status as a:

1. Battered spouse of A, G, E3, or H nonimmigrants;
2. Battered spouse or child of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or U.S. citizen under section 240A(b)(2) in an application for VAWA cancellation of removal;
3. T nonimmigrant;
4. Temporary Protected Status (TPS);
5. U nonimmigrant; or
6. VAWA self-petitioner.

If the applicant’s form or benefit request is eligible for an immigration fee waiver, he or she may proceed to other considerations before deciding whether to file.

Rules for Immigration Fee Waivers

Section 10.9(b) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) lists the three ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that he or she is eligible for a fee waiver.  In general, these methods are listed in order of ascending difficulty:

1. Demonstrate that he or she is receiving a means-tested benefit (federal, state, or local);
2. Demonstrate “that his or her household income, on which taxes were paid for the most recent year, is at or below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level established in the most recent poverty guidelines”;
3. Demonstrate that the inability to pay is due to financial hardship caused by extraordinary circumstances or other circumstances.

In order to establish eligibility for an immigration fee waiver, the applicant must show through at least one of three methods that he or she is unable to pay the requisite immigration fee in question.  The easiest way for an applicant to establish eligibility is by showing that he or she is receiving a government means-tested benefit.  A means-tested benefit is a benefit that depends on the beneficiary’s income and resources.  For example, Medicaid is a “means-tested benefit” because entitlement  depends on a beneficiary’s income, whereas Medicare is not a means-tested benefit.

If the applicant is not receiving a means-tested benefit, he or she may establish eligibility by demonstrating that his or her household income for the most recent taxable year is at or below 150 percent of the most recent federal poverty guidelines.  If seeking to establish eligibility through this method, the applicant must carefully follow the rules on the Form I-912 instructions regarding who is counted as part of his or her “household” and ensure that sufficient evidence is submitted.

The final method for demonstrating eligibility for a fee waiver is by establishing financial hardship due to extraordinary circumstances or other circumstances.  The AFM provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of circumstances that may qualify an applicant for a fee waiver:

• Unexpected and uninsured (or underinsured) medical bills;
• Situations that could not normally be expected in the regular course of life events; or
• A medical emergency or catastrophic illness affecting the individual or the individual’s dependents.

If seeking to establish eligibility through this method, the applicant must carefully explain the “circumstances,” how they cause an “inability to pay,” and follow the evidentiary requirements in the Form I-912 instructions.

The applicant may submit evidence to establish eligibility for an immigration fee waiver in more than one category.  However, the applicant needs only to establish eligibility under one of the three grounds in order to be granted a fee waiver (e.g., if the applicant establishes that he or she is receiving a means-tested benefit, it is unlikely that the USCIS would proceed to consider evidence that he or she qualifies under the federal poverty guidelines ground in step two).

Additional Considerations

An applicant should only apply for a fee waiver if he or she is unable to pay the fee for one of the three reasons listed in the AFM.  Fee waivers are for the “inability” to pay and not for “difficulty” in paying.  This is important because if a fee waiver application is denied, the underlying form or benefit request will not be processed, and the applicant will have to re-file the application with the correct fee.  This is especially important to remember for applications that may be time-sensitive.  An applicant should always be aware of his or her overall immigration situation when considering an immigration fee waiver application.

A fee waiver request will be adjudicated separately from the form or benefit to which it applies.  This means, for example, if the evidence on the fee waiver application indicates that the applicant may be inadmissible or ineligible for the underlying benefit on public charge grounds (if applicable), the fee waiver application may still be granted on its own merits.  However, the underlying application may be denied on grounds of public charge.

Finally, if an applicant is found to have provided false documentation, misrepresented material facts, or committed other fraud in the fee waiver application, both the fee waiver and the underlying benefit request will be denied.  Furthermore, the applicant may be subject to further immigration or criminal penalties.

Conclusion

Whether an applicant is eligible for a fee waiver will depend on the form being filed or benefit being sought and on the specific facts of the applicant’s situation.  An applicant may benefit from consulting with an experienced immigration attorney regarding both his or her eligibility for an immigration fee waiver and whether his or her financial situation may call into question his or her eligibility for an immigration benefit or immigration status in the United States.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Resources and materials:

Alexander J Segal - "Establishing Eligibility for a Fee Waiver with the USCIS", "Forms for Which a Fee Waiver May be Available"

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Election Issues and Immigration #4: The Porta-Potty Fire of 2016

A DUMPSTER FIRE OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Prior to the Republican National Convention, Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a prominent opponent of his party's then presumptive nominee, was asked whether he would attend the Convention. His spokesperson issued the following answer:

“Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners.”[1]

We know not if the good Senator from Nebraska went on his dumpster fire appreciation tour during the Convention, but if he did, he surely got a warmer response than Senator Ted Cruz did when he told the assembled delegates to “vote your conscience.”

As I will explain, I concur with Senator Sasse's assessment of the 2016 election in part and dissent in part. To start us off, I must disagree that this election is a dumpster fire, as Senator Sasse and others have asserted.

Due to the extraordinary ineptitude of the two major party nominees and their campaigns, I cannot escape the conclusion that we must upgrade this election from dumpster fire status. The idea came to me when I came across an article about 100 porta-potties in San Francisco being set ablaze.[2]

The 2016 election is a porta-potty fire.

EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE

For those who have kept up to date with my blog here at myattorneyusa.com, it should be no secret that I am not a fan of either Hillary Clinton [see blog] or Donald Trump [see blog].

I have covered my disagreements with Trump extensively over the past year. We have discussed Trump's ironic support for touchback amnesty [see blog], highlighted similarities in how Trump has exploited voter ignorance to how candidates on the other side such as President Obama and Bernie Sanders have done so [see blog], and even discussed how Trump's rise has brought some of the rotten and anti-Semitic elements of the Republican Party to prominence [see blog]. There can be little doubt that Trump is the worst Republican nominee of my lifetime, and it will forever perplex me that my fellow Republican primary voters chose the least qualified of seventeen candidates to represent the Party in such an important election.

However, I would not want anyone to think that my focus on in any way means that I consider Hillary Clinton acceptable. Clinton is running with the promise to continue the policies of the last eight years of the Obama Administration, which include the increasingly ill-fated effort to socialize medicine, moves toward amnesty and away from any semblance of immigration enforcement, and warming up to Iran while moving away from Israel and our other allies. This would all be bad enough if Clinton herself did not have extraordinary ethical questions for a major party Presidential nominee. It appears quite likely that she used her post as Secretary of State to curry influence for the Clinton Foundation while she now encourages the reversal of the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which was originally about a government policy banning a critical film about her. Then there is Clinton's email scandal, which can only be explained by willful negligence or gross misconduct.

NO GOOD OPTIONS ON IMMIGRATION

Because this is part of my series of blog posts on immigration and the election, I must highlight that both candidates are awful on immigration. For his part, Trump is a supporter of touchback amnesty [see blog] after originally attacking Mitt Romney in 2012 for not supporting the more garden-variety amnesty. Trump supported drastically increasing H1B visas in one of the Republican debates before again calling for a suspension of H1B visas hours later.[3] Trump recognizes that the current administration's refugee policies and unwillingness to vet applicants for immigration status for dangerous and un-American beliefs is a threat to national security, but has focused on making sensationalistic statements in lieu of actually articulating policies to help ensure that our immigration policies do not compromise American security. Our only hope with Trump would seem to be that, if elected, he would surround himself with competent conservative thinkers on immigration policy and be amenable to accepting their guidance on these important issues.

For her part, Clinton supports the President's illegal executive actions on immigration, most notably DAPA [see blog], and even pledges to expand them. She pledges to drastically curtail immigration enforcement by further limiting President Obama's already generous deportation priorities [see blog]. Clinton proposes admitting 60,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict without explaining how exactly she would do this in a safe way and why exactly these refugee admissions are in the national interest [see blog] rather than adjusting our policy overseas to help alleviate the chaos in the region. It is not at all reassuring when one's best hope is that a candidate will only be bad rather than catastrophic because the shift toward catastrophe can be accounted for by political expedience concerns.

DIFFICULT DECISIONS

It can be said that the best thing about Donald Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton, and the best thing about Clinton is that she is not Trump. This leaves voters, and especially Republican voters not partial to the nominee, in a difficult spot.

A Democrat who is opposed to Clinton can at least take solace in the fact that the policies she would pursue as President will be liberal. Perhaps a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter will wish Clinton was even more radical while someone who is more concerned with Clinton's personal integrity issues would wish that she did not violate federal law in her handling of classified information, but both can be content with the conclusion that Clinton will not transmogrify into Senator Ted Cruz or Mike Lee upon taking the oath of office.

Conservative Republicans are in a more difficult situation with Trump. Trump's political identity has been, to put it mildly, turbulent. It is hard to find a single issue that Trump has been consistent on for the duration of his campaign, much less over the last forty years he has spent in the public spotlight. Just eight years ago, Trump's public statements were extremely supportive of Obama and Clinton, whereas now we are supposed to expect that he has suddenly found conservatism.[4] It is hard for a conservative to have great confidence that a President Trump would govern as a conservative given his inconsistent public statements and the fact that he has made at least as many overtures to Bernie Sanders supporters as he has to disaffected Republicans. The ideological concerns do not even reach his breathtaking ignorance on domestic and foreign affairs; although he is the foremost scholar on the so-called Article XII of the U.S. Constitution (there is none, to be clear).[5]

I am left with a difficult decision in this election: to vote for Trump or to abstain from the two major party candidates entirely. In his controversial speech to the Convention, Senator Ted Cruz, who was not my first choice but was my last choice in the Primaries, told conservatives to “vote your conscience, vote for the candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”[6] I do not have great trust in Trump to do either of those things, but I trust with absolute certainty that Hillary Clinton will not.

Clinton promises to continue the dreadful policies of the last eight years, appoint left-wing judges to the Supreme Court to transform it for a generation, and to continue our feckless appeasement abroad. The best Clinton promises is that she may be marginally less bad than Obama.

Trump may well live down to my worst expectations if elected. However, I believe that it is more likely than not that a President Trump will be better, or at least less bad, than a President Clinton. Trump will have access to the majority of the best conservative thinkers if he becomes President, and we can hope that holding the highest office in the land would humble him such that he recognizes what he does not know and accepts the counsel of those who do. Furthermore, it would be in a President Trump's best interest to stay on good terms with a Republican Congress, for it seems unlikely that Democrats would readily assist in anything that would make Trump more popular. Finally, if Trump were to stick to his proposed list of Supreme Court prospects, he would at least reestablish a conservative majority on the Court even if he disappoints in his other duties as President.

I concur with the noted libertarian law professor Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy blog that voting for the “lesser of two evils” is perfectly justifiable.[7] There are no easy answers when the election is a porta-potty fire, but it is too important for us to sit on the sidelines and watch the porta-potties burn. Unlike Somin, however, I believe that the lesser of two evils in this case is the Republican nominee, and not the nominee of the Democrats. My conscience tells me to be confident in neither, but it tells me that Trump offers the prospect, however slight, for something more. In a choice between too awful candidates, my choice is for the one who has the potential to improve the situation of my country. The ceiling for Clinton is so low that a President Trump does not need a high floor to be a better President than her. Therefore, with extreme reservations, I intend to vote for Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States.

To read more of my posts about immigration and the election, please see my blog post.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Ernst, Douglas, “Sasse would rather 'watch some dumpster fires' than attend Trump nomination: Spokesman,” washingtontimes.com, (Jul. 7, 2016)
2. CBS SF Bay Area, “100 Porta-Potties Go Up In Flames At Hayward Storage Facility,” sanfransico.cbslocal.com, (Feb. 28, 2015)
3. Dinan, Stephen, “Trump quickly recants new stance on immigrant guest-workers,” washingtontimes.com, (Mar. 4, 2016)
4. Savransky, Rebecca, “Clinton launches ad using quotes of Trump praising her,” thehill.com, (Jul. 21, 2016)
5. Hughes, Siobhan, “Donald Trump's Pledge to Defend Article XII of Constitution Raises Eyebrows,” blogs.wsj.com, (Jul. 7, 2016)
6. Schroeder, Peter, “No Trump endorsement from Cruz: 'Vote your conscience',” thehill.com, (Jul. 21, 2016)
7. Somin, Ilya, “The logic of voting for a lesser evil,” washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy, (Jul. 27, 2016)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com