Law Office of Joseph Muller

I-485 Green Card Application Fees

Last updated on January 7, 2021

Green Cards

USCIS proposed fee increases in 2020 which would have made significant changes to the prices for many important benefits like citizenship, work permits, and waivers. It also changed policies like allowing people to request a fee waiver based on having low incomes.

On September 29, 2020, a US District Court Judge issued an order stopping the new fee increases from going into effect. On December 28, 2020, the government withdrew an appeal in that same case. It is not expected that the USCIS fee increases will go into effect at this time.

In most cases, the form I-485 fee is $1,225. However, there are some exceptions and many people will be filing this form alongside other benefits which may have other fees. Consult an attorney before filing in this type of case, because it’s important to review both eligibility and the required documents before filing.

The current prices for different forms and benefits can be accessed at uscis.gov and by using the USCIS fee calculator.

N-400 Naturalization Fees

Last updated on January 7, 2021

US Citizenship

USCIS proposed fee increases in 2020 which would have made significant changes to the prices for many important benefits like citizenship, work permits, and waivers. It also changed policies like allowing people to request a fee waiver based on having low incomes.

On September 29, 2020, a US District Court Judge issued an order stopping the new fee increases from going into effect. On December 28, 2020, the government withdrew an appeal in that same case. It is not expected that the USCIS fee increases will go into effect at this time.

The normal fee for filing an N-400 naturalization application is $725. Some people who have income below a certain level can file for $405. Others with even lower income can file for free. These two lower priced options both require an additional form to be submitted, as well as additional evidence of income. It is recommended to consult with an attorney before filing in those cases to avoid a rejection.

The current prices for different forms and benefits can be accessed at uscis.gov and by using the USCIS fee calculator.

I-601A Provisional Waiver Fees

Last updated on January 7, 2021

Paperwork

USCIS proposed fee increases in 2020 which would have made significant changes to the prices for many important benefits like citizenship, work permits, and waivers. It also changed policies like allowing people to request a fee waiver based on having low incomes.

On September 29, 2020, a US District Court Judge issued an order stopping the new fee increases from going into effect. On December 28, 2020, the government withdrew an appeal in that same case. It is not expected that the USCIS fee increases will go into effect at this time.

The typical fee for the form I-601A provisional waiver is $715. Most applicants will also have to pay for the immigrant visa fee before filing, which is $325.

The current prices for different forms and benefits can be accessed at uscis.gov and by using the USCIS fee calculator.

How Does the U Visa for Victims of Criminal Activity Work?

Last updated on July 26, 2020

I-918 U Visa Form

The U Visa process is an important benefit for individuals who have been victims of crime in the United States. It allows people, even if undocumented, to request a nonimmigrant status to lawfully reside in the US. It can even provide a waiver for those who entered unlawfully, were deported, or have other immigration issues. That said, the U Visa process is extremely slow and usually does not provide much benefit for several years. This is due to visa limitations and processing delays, which ultimately need to be fixed by Congress.

What is the Typical U Visa Process?

Most U Visa cases include the following steps:

  1. Request certification from the police, prosecutor, or a judge that you were the victim of a qualifying crime and assisted in reporting that crime
  2. Send that certification along with other essential forms and documents to USCIS to request U Nonimmigrant Status
  3. After 4-5 years in most cases, USCIS will issue a preliminary decision. Because sufficient visas are not currently available, most people cannot be approved for U Visas for many years and can only receive a type of temporary status called “deferred action.” This status allows for a work permit.
  4. Once a visa is available, the person usually receives a notice of approval and a new work permit. Dependent family members in the US are generally also approved. Family abroad may have additional steps to schedule an interview abroad so they can get an actual visa.

This is a typical case as of July of 2020, and things may change in the future. Many cases are more complicated depending on the person’s immigration history, whether they are in removal proceedings (deportation), or if they receive a request for evidence or denial of a waiver.

What Kinds of Crimes Qualify for a U Visa?

There is a long list of crimes that are considered to be qualifying crimes for a U Visa. It is extremely important to consider this requirement before filing because the denial of a U Visa application can bring consequences, including, deportation. An approved certification form does not mean that a crime was a qualifying one, and USCIS does not have to agree with the police’s decision to certify someone.

Additionally, it is not always simple to analyze what is considered a qualifying crime. Crimes often go by different names in different states. Police may also investigate one crime which doesn’t qualify but another crime was actually committed.

The list of crimes is below:

  • Abduction
  • Abusive Sexual Contact
  • Blackmail
  • Domestic Violence
  • Extortion
  • False Imprisonment
  • Female Genital Mutilation
  • Felonious Assault
  • Fraud in Foreign Labor Contracting
  • Hostage
  • Incest
  • Involuntary Servitude
  • Kidnapping
  • Manslaughter
  • Murder
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Peonage
  • Perjury
  • Prostitution
  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault
  • Sexual Exploitation
  • Slave Trade
  • Stalking
  • Torture
  • Trafficking
  • Witness Tampering
  • Unlawful Criminal Restraint
  • Other Related Crimes

Can You Request A Waiver With A U Visa Application?

One of the main benefits of the U Visa process is that there is a powerful waiver available which can help people with otherwise unfixable immigration issues and sometimes criminal issues. Some people do not require waivers, but in most cases of people inside the US requesting a U Visa, waivers are required. It is important to review the need for a waiver with an attorney because not getting a waiver can have long-term consequences. For example, if a waiver was required but not requested, the U Visa could be denied, or it could initially be approved and denied later when USCIS discovers the issue. It is important to request a waiver for each and every ground of inadmissibility that applies to a person as well as for derivative family members.

Can You Include Family Members With A U Visa Application?

Yes, some family members can be included as dependents of U Visa applications. In most cases, family are added to an application by filing a form I-918A and a waiver form I-192 if necessary. It’s important to review issues such as derivative beneficiaries with an attorney. If done incorrectly, family members might lose out on the opportunity to be included.

How to Prove Extreme Hardship in Immigration Waivers for Spouses and Family

Last updated on August 30, 2020

Waivers Are Key

Extreme hardship waivers are a specific type of immigration waivers that use the same legal standard: extreme hardship. Not all waivers use this standard. Generally speaking, proving extreme hardship means showing that the hardship suffered by someone is above and beyond that which a normal person might suffer. This same standard is used for a variety of waiver types, including those for unlawful presence in the US, misrepresentation or immigration fraud, and certain criminal convictions.

Why Request an Extreme Hardship Waiver?

The reason why someone requests a waiver is because they are considered to be inadmissible and ineligible to get a visa or green card without a waiver. If someone is told they need a waiver, it’s not optional and there may be tight deadlines. In ideal circumstances someone will be aware of the waiver requirement before they need to prepare one. They are time consuming, and it is not fun to prepare a waiver that has to be filed within 30 days.

What Types of Waivers Use the Extreme Hardship Standard?

Extreme hardship is a waiver standard, not a type of waiver. The types of waivers correspond with the grounds of inadmissibility. For example, someone who had unlawful presence in the US needs an unlawful presence waiver. That waiver uses the extreme hardship standard. A waiver for fraud or misrepresentation uses the same standard. Some criminal waivers also use the same standard. Because inadmissibility and waivers are complex issues, it is highly recommended to schedule a consultation to review the situation.

What is Extreme Hardship for Immigration Waivers?

Extreme hardship is just a standard that the immigration law requires someone to prove in order to be approved for a waiver. You might ask, extreme hardship to whom? It actually depends on the type of waiver. But, generally, the standard is referring to someone other than the person who is trying to immigrate or get a benefit. It is frequently a US Citizen or Permanent Resident spouse or parent. Notably, children are not usually included. But, hardships to children can be an important part nevertheless, because hardships to children are frequently hardships to spouses and parents.

An experienced attorney will be able to fit a family’s situation into the extreme hardships standard. This requires a good understanding of the case law and how USCIS has interpreted it. Failing to understand the standard may well mean denial of the waiver. The standards are actually well documented and can be reviewed by anyone at the USCIS Policy Manual, available at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9-part-b

In particular, it’s very important to review the list of hardship factors that USCIS should consider. USCIS does not, in fact, always consider these factors. It’s likely that some of the people who decide waivers have not reviewed the factors. As a result, it might be helpful to use the hardship factors as a checklist for documenting and arguing the case: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9-part-b-chapter-5

Additionally, some factors are really important. They are so important that USCIS considers them “particularly significant” and will generally approve a case if those factors are present. That’s important when approval of a waiver is the key step to approval of a green card. Every single waiver case should evaluate whether there are any of the “particularly significant factors” present. Those can also be found at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9-part-b-chapter-5

Do I Need A Lawyer for an Extreme Hardship Waiver?

Lawyers are not required for immigration cases, but you can gain a lot by speaking to an experienced professional who has prepared and received approvals for many extreme hardship waivers. A lawyer who works on waivers will know how likely it is to be approved and how to make the waiver stronger. There’s no reason to file a case without scheduling a free consultation.

What Are The I-601A Waiver Processing Times?

Last updated on October 27, 2020

Form I-601A

The USCIS Form I-601A is used to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Immigration waivers are used in cases where someone is inadmissible, meaning that they are ineligible for a visa or for a green card. The I-601A is special because it is only used for one specific ground of inadmissibility: those people who have spent time unlawfully in the US and who intend to leave to attend an interview at an embassy or consulate. It cannot include other waiver reasons. Those applying for a waiver abroad often use a similar but different form, the I-601.

Am I eligible for the I-601A waiver process?

Not everyone is eligible to use the waiver process, and some people are eligible to adjust status in the US without getting this waiver. First, it’s important to understand that the I-601A can only waive a person’s unlawful presence in the US once they have left. It cannot help in cases where someone has a criminal conviction, has made a misrepresentation, has entered unlawfully multiple times, or many other situations. Even if a waiver is approved on form I-601A, if there is another type of inadmissibility, the person could be denied at their interview abroad.

There is no better way to figure out if the I-601A process works for you and your family than to schedule a free immigration consultation.

Request a Free Immigration Consultation

How long does the I-601A take? What are the I-601A processing times?

There is a lot of variation in processing times for the I-601A provisional waiver. However, as of October 2020, it is common for I-601A waivers to be in process for longer than one year. This is likely due to the pandemic and slower overall processing by USCIS. USCIS generally follows a “first in, first out” rule of processing cases which are filed first, but there is some variation even with that rule.

Sometimes, a delay means that a case is going to be issued a “Request for Evidence” or RFE. Those requests typically are used to ask for more evidence of “extreme hardship.” It’s important to work with a lawyer to review the reasons for any requests for evidence as well as what kinds of evidence might be useful to show extreme hardship. Schedule a consultation today to review the best practices for preparing this kind of immigration waiver.

USCIS Updates Guidance on Discretion

Last updated on July 16, 2020

USCIS

USCIS announced updates to its guidance on discretion in immigration decisions on July 15, 2020. While this guidance is aimed at adjudicators who are deciding whether to approve a benefit, it should be useful for arguing positive discretionary factors as well. The updates can be found in the USCIS Policy Manual:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-8

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-10-part-a-chapter-5

DACA Applications After the Supreme Court’s Decision

Last updated on June 19, 2020

Many people want to know if they can now file for additional DACA benefits, including initial DACA applications and requests for advance parole. These are good questions but have not been resolved as of today. It is expected that USCIS will issue clarifying guidance soon, and that President Trump might even issue a new rescission notice that more clearly complies with regulations. Until that happens, what options exist?

The short answer: new, initial DACA applications should be accepted and processed by USCIS, but whether they will actually do so is unclear. And, DHS could terminate DACA again at any moment. Continue reading for more details.

It is important to review what has happened up to this point. On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary Elaine C. Duke issued a memorandum rescinding the DACA program in its entirety. All benefits associated with the original DACA memorandum and program were then terminated if that memorandum did not specify otherwise. There were certain benefits that continued to exist, but only for a temporary period of time.

What happened in practice was that initial DACA applications stopped immediately, many people rushed to file renewal applications, and pending I-131 applications were terminated and people were issued refunds. People have actually been able to renew DACA without stop because several courts enjoined the DACA programs recission.

Now, years later, the Supreme Court decided that the Trump Administration’s actions were illegal in its decision dated June 18, 2020. The Court was not really ruling as to the legality of DACA, but rather the legality of its termination. US law constrains the actions that agencies can take in important ways, and the Supreme Court decided that DHS:

failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.

DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca., 591 U.S. ____ p. 29 (2020).

The exact language of the Supreme Court’s decision is important for assessing the current status of the DACA program. The Court stated:

The judgment in NAACP, No. 18–588, is affirmed.7 The judgment in Regents, No. 18–587, is vacated in part and reversed in part. And in Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589, the February 13, 2018 order granting respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order partially denying the Government’s motion to dismissis affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order partially denying the balance of the Government’s motion to dismiss is reversed in part. All three cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca., 591 U.S. ____ p. 29 (2020).

As stated above, the judgment in one of the consolidated cases, NAACP v. Trump, 298 F. Supp. 3d 209, was affirmed. So we need to consider what that court said in order to know what the Supreme Court was affirming. Here is the order by that court that was affirmed:

Upon consideration of [8] defendants’ motion to dismiss and [28] plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and for the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date, it is hereby

ORDERED that [8] the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to plaintiffs’ procedural Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim (Count I) and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim (Count V), DENIED as to plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim (Count II), and DENIED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART as to plaintiffs’ constitutional claims (Counts III and IV); it is further

ORDERED that [28] plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to their substantive APA claim but DENIED as to their procedural APA claim; it is further

ORDERED that the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program is VACATED and REMANDED to the agency; it is further

ORDERED that the Court’s order of vacatur is STAYED for ninety days; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file, by not later than Friday, July 27, 2018 a joint status report stating whether DHS has issued a new decision rescinding DACA and whether the parties contemplate the need for further proceedings in this case.

***

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOHN D. BATES

NAACP v. Trump, 298 F. Supp. 3d 209

And so, the order was was affirmed on June 18th, 2020, explicitly “ORDERED that the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program is VACATED and REMANDED to the agency…” Because that decision was vacated, it is as though it never existed. DHS cannot rely on the decision in any part until it issues a new decision rescinding the DACA program. At that point, the litigation process will likely begin anew and most likely at some point the Supreme Court will allow the Trump Administration to terminate DACA since it was only due to its own errors that it lost in court to begin with.

In reality, the Trump Administration is not likely to have enough time left to carry out that policy. It will take years for a new decision to make its way to the Supreme Court, and it is likely that some court will step in to enjoin a new rescission order. Or, Congress could finally take action to give DACA-holders a permanent status, which would resolve all of these issues.

With all of the above in mind, what options do those with DACA, those who qualified for DACA but did not request it, and those with DACA who want to travel on advance parole have? As said above, the situation is new and there are no guarantees. But it seems, generally speaking and not for any specific person, that:

  • Anyone who meets the original requirements for DACA can now file an initial DACA application, and USCIS has no lawful basis to refuse that until they formally rescind DACA again. However, this does not mean that USCIS will accept those applications, and everyone attempting this should accept that it may need to be litigated.
  • DACA renewal applications should be able to continue as they were before the Trump Administration tried to end it, which is not terribly different from the situation we have been in.
  • Request for I-131 parole (travel permits) are not likely to work, but for someone with an urgent need to travel there might be some value in trying.

Resources

Original DACA Memorandum from June 15, 2012Download
Memorandum-on-Rescission-Of-DACA-_-Homeland-SecurityDownload

Supreme Court Holds that Trump Administration Unlawfully Terminated DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Last updated on June 18, 2020

In a decision issued by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Trump Administration violated the law when it terminated DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The decision was based on the Trump Administration’s actions taken in terminating the program, its failure to fully consider the available alternatives to complete termination, and ignoring the reliance interests of many DACA holders who had been promised protection by the US Government.

This decision is an important protection for those who were brought to the United States as children, and who lived their lives here like any child born in the United States, but have no legal options to become residents due to the structure of the immigration laws. While this decision is extremely important in the short term, Congress needs to act to provide a long-term remedy to these individuals so that they can obtain residency and eventually citizenship.

Supreme Court’s DACA DecisionDownload

MPP Hearings Rescheduled Through July 17th, Resume on July 20, 2020

Last updated on June 16, 2020

Executive Office for Immigration Review

The US Government recently announced that MPP hearings were again being delayed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DHS and EOIR issued a joint statement today explaining that hearings scheduled through July 17, 2020 will be rescheduled, and that they anticipate resuming hearings on July 20, 2020. Individuals should continue to check case status and the EOIR’s website to ensure up to date and accurate information.

Announcement Email from EOIRDownload

Hearings Under the MPP “Remain in Mexico” Program Delayed Until June 22, 2020

Last updated on May 12, 2020

Executive Office for Immigration Review

On May 10, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review announced an additional delay in cases being conducted under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Those cases are held at or near the US-Mexico border and applicants are forced to remain in Mexico while they await their court hearings. Based on this announcement, cases will resume on June 22, 2020, and so those who have court that day or later should continue preparing for their cases. Read the full announcement below.

Joint DHS/EOIR Statement on the Rescheduling of MPP Hearings

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security continue to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by limiting in-person interaction. To this end, the Departments have made the following adjustments to the temporary postponement of Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) hearings.

Beginning May 10th, in-person document service will be suspended immediately until June 8th, alleviating the need for aliens to travel within Mexico to a U.S. port of entry during this one-month suspension period. DHS and EOIR are deeply committed to ensuring the health and safety of aliens, our frontline officers, immigration court professionals, and our citizens.

All MPP hearings will remain postponed through, and including, June 19th. Individuals with a hearing date prior to June 22nd should present themselves at the port of entry identified on their tear sheet one month later than the date indicated on their most recently noticed date. For example, if the hearing date is May 10th, individuals should present themselves on June 10th.

For individuals with a hearing date of June 22nd or after, there is no change in procedures and individuals should report as instructed on their tear sheets.

The Departments are committed to proceeding with MPP hearings as expeditiously as possible and will continue to review conditions related to COVID-19 to make further determinations as necessary. For updated information on immigration courts in English and Spanish please visit: portal.eoir.justice.gov/infosystem or call: 1-800-898-7180.

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

703-305-0289

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-operational-status-during-coronavirus-pandemic#MPP

USCIS Updates Policies Related to False Claims of U.S. Citizenship

Last updated on May 3, 2020

Paperwork

USCIS announced changes to its policy manual on April 24, 2020. These changes relate to “false claims to U.S. Citizenship,” a type of issues that many prevent immigrants from entering the United States or becoming Lawful Permanent Residents. It can also result in removal (deportation) as well as other negative effects. These changes are the first implementation of USCIS’ guidance on this subject into the USCIS Policy Manual, which is slowly replacing the Adjudicator’s Field Manual.

This guidance is primarily for adjudicators to decide whether or not an applicant has made a false claim to U.S. Citizenship, but it is also very useful for attorneys and others who want to understand how USCIS will be enforcing the often-confusing immigration laws. One of the most noteworthy changes is that USCIS is formally implementing the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019). That opinion generally stated that there was not an intent requirement for establishing that someone has made a false claim to U.S. Citizenship. That means that it is easier for the government to deny people for false claims because they do not have to establish every individual person’s intent.

There are still a number of other components to determining whether or not a false claim has been made. Immigrants and legal practitioners should not necessarily concede a false claim finding and should argue that claims must still be willful and knowing. They may also want to argue outside the statute itself with due process and constitutional claims. Notably, Matter of Zhang did not overtly overrule any precedent decisions and the facts of the case are extremely unusual, essentially involving the purchase of a legitimate but unlawfully obtained certificate of naturalization. Most false claims instead involve oral or written statements of one kind or another, such as to a border patrol officer or in a form I-9.

Review the changes at the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 8, Part K.

Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019)Download