Matter of Garcia

 Matter of GARCIA, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023) For choice of law purposes, the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), clarified. Link to Decisions. 

Change to Regulations Regarding SIJS Applicants Getting Married

Previously if a SIJS applicant who had an approved I-360 had to remain unmarried until their priority date became current and they completed the adjustment of status process to obtain legal permanent resident status or their I-360 would be automatically revoked per 8 CFR §205.1(a)(3)(iv). A change to the regulations—at 8 CFR § 204.11(b)(2)—now requires that a SIJS applicant remain unmarried only until their I-360 petition is approved. Changes to the USCIS Policy Manual A USCIS policy alert dated June 10, 2022, further explains this change of policy. See Policy Alert, Special Immigrant Juvenile Classification and Adjustment of Status, June 10, 2022, PA-2022-14. The USCIS Policy Manual was amended at Volume 6, Part J, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements revising the definitions of “juvenile court” and “custody,” clarifying the evidentiary requirements under Subsection 2 (Parental Reunification) and Subsection 3 (Best Interests), and revises guidance on the validity of juvenile court orders in Subsection 4 (Validity of Order). USCIS Policy Manual at Chapter 2, Section A, General Eligibility Requirement for SIJS Classification now lists: 1. Physically present in the United States at the time of filing and adjudication of the Petition;2. Unmarried at the time of filing and adjudication of Form I-360;3. Under the age of 21 at the time of filing Form I-360;4. Subject to juvenile court determination issued in the US meeting the requirements;5. Obtain US Department of Homeland Security consent; and6. Obtain US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) consent (if applicable). The USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Chapter 2, Section B, Age-Out Protections for Filing with USCIS, the USCIS Policy Manual States: If a petitioner was under 21 years of age on the date of the proper filing of the Form I-360, and all other eligibility requirements under the statute are met, USCIS cannot deny SIJ classification solely because the petitioner is older than 21 years of age at the time of adjudication. Section 235(d)(6) of the TVPRA 2008, Pub. L. 110-457 (PDF), 122 Stat. 5044, 5080 (December 23, 2008), provides age-out protection to SIJ petitioners. Long Wait After I-360 Approval Until Adjustment of Status This had been becoming more of an issue lately because of the long wait from I-360 approval until SIJS applicants would be able to adjust status to get legal permanent resident status. Due to the large number of SIJS applications, for the last 5-6 years, there has been a backlog for children from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico. As of April 2021, there are 44,000 SIJS beneficiaries remaining in the backlog. SIJS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have waited an average of 4 years before their priority date is current to apply for adjustment of status. SIJS visas are part of the employment-based fourth preference category. The fourth category receives only 7.1% of the 140,000 visas generally available per year. SIJS beneficiaries are also subject to annual country caps applicable to employment-based immigration: 7% per-country limit. There is an overwhelming number of SIJS beneficiaries who are also in removal proceedings: 92% of Honduran SIJS adjustment applicants, 90% of Guatemalan applicants, and 84% of Salvadoran applicants.

Matter of Garcia BIA 2023

For choice of law purposes, the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), clarified.

Calculating CSPA Age (NEW POLICY)

NEW USCIS POLICY FOR CALCULATING AGE UNDER THE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA) SEE UPDATE POSTED ON THE USCIS WEBSITE, FEBRUARY 14, 2023. USCIS issued updated guidance regarding when an immigrant visa number “becomes available” for the purpose of calculating a noncitizen’s age under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  Prior to this, USCIS considered a child’s age “frozen” if a visa number was available under the Final Action Date Chart of the Visa Bulletin at the time the I-485 application was filed. If a visa number was not available under the Final Action Date Chart of the Visa Bulletin, they may still be eligible to file their application for adjustment of status (to obtain a green card)based on the Dates for Filing Chart of the Visa Bulletin. In that scenario, a noncitizen may file their application when the Dates for Filing Chart indicated but ultimately not be eligible because the Final Action Date Chart did not advance sufficiently Under the USCIS Policy Manual as updated, USCIS will instead use the Dates for Filing Chart for calculating a child’s age under CSPA. In other words, the child’s age will be “frozen” when the adjustment of status application is filed based on the Date of Filing Chart, even if a visa number is not yet available under the Final Action Chart. This policy change is effective immediately and applies to all pending applications. This means that some noncitizens with pending applications based on the Dates of Filing Chart, who may have already “aged out” if their priority date never became current under the Final Action Chart, may now have a CSPA age under 21. If so, they remain eligible for a derivative green card. SOURCES: USCIS Policy Manual Policy Alert (PDF, 345 KB) Child Status Protection Act

Establishing Extreme Hardship

ESTABLISHING EXTREME HARDSHIP There are several forms of relief and immigration benefits that require a noncitizen to establish extreme hardship or variations of extreme hardship (such as exceptional and extremely unusual hardship). Most commonly I-601A and I-601 visa waivers require a showing of extreme hardship and cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents requires a showing of extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship. This is an overview of some of the ways in which one can go about establishing extreme hardship. A. Totality of the Circumstances The officer must make extreme hardship determinations based on the factors, arguments, and evidence submitted.[1] Therefore, the officer should consider any submission from the applicant bearing on the extreme hardship determination. The officer may also consider factors, arguments, and evidence relevant to the extreme hardship determination that the applicant has not specifically presented, such as those addressed in Department of State (DOS) information on country conditions[2] or other U.S. Government determinations regarding country conditions, including a country’s designation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Officers must base their decisions on the totality of the evidence and circumstances presented. B. Common Consequences The common consequences of denying admission, in and of themselves, do not warrant a finding of extreme hardship.[3] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that the common consequences of denying admission include, but are not limited to, the following: C. Factors Must Be Considered Cumulatively The officer must consider all factors and consequences in their totality and cumulatively when assessing whether a qualifying relative will experience extreme hardship either in the United States or abroad. In some cases, common consequences that on their own do not constitute extreme hardship may result in extreme hardship when assessed cumulatively with other factors.[5] For example, if a qualifying relative has a medical condition that alone does not rise to the level of extreme hardship, the combination of that hardship and the common consequences of inferior medical services, economic detriment, or readjusting to life in another country may cumulatively cause extreme emotional or financial hardship for the qualifying relative when considering the totality of the circumstances.  Ordinarily, for example, the fact that medical services are less comprehensive in another country is a common consequence of denying admission; but the inferior quality of medical services, considered along with the individual’s specific medical conditions, may create sufficient difficulties as to rise to the level of extreme hardship in combination with all the other consequences. The officer must weigh all factors individually and cumulatively, as follows: First, the officer must consider whether any factor set forth individually rises to the level of extreme hardship under the totality of the circumstances.  ​Second, if any factor alone does not rise to the level of extreme hardship, the officer must consider all factors together to determine whether they cumulatively rise to the level of extreme hardship. This includes hardships to multiple qualifying relatives.  When considering the factors, whether individually or cumulatively, all factors, including negative factors, must be evaluated in the totality of the circumstances.  D. Examples of Factors that May Support a Finding of Extreme Hardship The chart below lists factors that an applicant might present and that would be relevant to determining whether an applicant has demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. This list is not exhaustive; circumstances that are not on this list may also be relevant to finding extreme hardship.  The presence of one or more of the factors below in a particular case does not mean that extreme hardship would necessarily result from a denial of admission. But they are factors that may be encountered and should be considered in their totality and cumulatively in individual cases. All hardship factors presented by the applicant should be considered in the totality of the circumstances in making the extreme hardship determination. Some of the factors listed below apply when the qualifying relative would remain in the United States without the applicant. Other factors apply when the qualifying relative would relocate abroad. Some of the factors might apply under either circumstance.  Factors and Considerations for Extreme Hardship Considerations Family Ties and Impact Qualifying relative’s ties to family members living in the United States, including age, status, and length of residence of any children. Responsibility for the care of any family members in the United States, particularly children, elderly adults, and disabled adults. Impact on the cognitive, social, or emotional well-being of a qualifying relative who is left to replace the applicant as caregiver for someone else, or impact on the qualifying relative (for example, child or parent) for whom such care is required. Social and Cultural Impact Loss of access to the U.S. courts and the criminal justice system, including the loss of opportunity to request or provide testimony in criminal investigations or prosecutions; to participate in proceedings to enforce labor, employment, or civil rights laws; to participate in family law proceedings, victim’s compensation proceedings, or other civil proceedings; or to obtain court orders regarding protection, child support, maintenance, child custody, or visitation. Fear of persecution or societal discrimination. Prior grant of U nonimmigrant status. Existence of laws and social practices in the country of relocation that would punish the qualifying relative because he or she has been in the United States or is perceived to have Western values. Access or lack of access to social institutions and structures (official and unofficial) for support, guidance, or protection. Social ostracism or stigma based on characteristics such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, race, national origin, ethnicity, citizenship, age, political opinion, marital status, or disability.[6] Qualifying relative’s community ties in the United States and in the country of relocation. Extent to which the qualifying relative has integrated into U.S. culture, including language, skills, and acculturation. Extent to which the qualifying relative would have difficulty integrating into the country of relocation, including understanding and adopting social norms and established customs, including gender roles and ethical or moral codes. Difficulty and expense of travel/communication to maintain ties between qualifying relative and applicant, if the … Read more