WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 |

«November 18, 2015 PM-602-0126 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of the Director (MS 2000)

Washington, DC 20529-2000

November 18, 2015 PM-602-0126

Policy Memorandum

SUBJECT: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act after the Death of a U.S. Citizen Petitioner

Revision to Adjudicator’s Field Manual Chapter 10.21(a), (b), (c)(2) and the last

paragraph of (c)(5) (AFM Update AD-15-02) to implement Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014) Purpose The Policy Memorandum (PM) revises chapter 10.21(a), (b), (c)(2) and the last paragraph of (c)(5) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) to implement the decision in Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014) for all spousal immediate relative visa petitions under section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) after the death of a U.S. citizen petitioner, including petitions filed outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (11th Circuit court). This PM partially supersedes PM-602-0017, Approval of Petitions and Applications after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Scope Unless specifically exempted herein, this PM applies to and is binding on all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees.

Authority INA 204(l) Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014) Background INA 204(l) gives USCIS discretion to approve, or reinstate the approval of, an immigrant visa petition despite the petitioner’s death if the beneficiary resides in the United States when the petitioner dies and continues to reside here. This discretion also extends to cases in which the principal beneficiary dies, and in other cases specified in INA 204(l).

Approval of Petitions and Applications after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, PM-602-0017, dated December 21, 2010, amended the AFM to implement INA 204(l). One provision, AFM 10.21(b), provided that INA PM-602-0126: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act after the Death of a U.S. Citizen Petitioner Page 2 204(l) did not apply to a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed by a U.S. citizen for the U.S. citizen’s spouse. The basis for this conclusion was that a separate amendment to INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i) applied to the case of a spousal immediate relative petition. Under that amendment, it is no longer necessary for the U.S. citizen spouse and the foreign national spouse to have been married for at least 2 years in order for the foreign national spouse to qualify as a “widow(er)” after the death of the U.S. citizen spouse. Under Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) § 204.2(i)(1)(iv), a Form I-130 in this case is automatically converted to a widow(er)’s Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant. However, the particular fact scenario presented in Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.

2014), was not contemplated when this 2010 policy was drafted and implemented. In Williams, the foreign national spouse could no longer rely on the “widow(er)” provision because she had remarried after her U.S. citizen spouse died.

In Williams, the plaintiff’s husband filed a Form I-130 for her in 2002 but he unexpectedly died in 2003 before they had been married for 2 years and while the Form I-130 was still pending.

Because she no longer qualified as an “immediate relative” of a U.S. citizen under INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i), as in effect when he died 1, USCIS denied his Form I-130 and her Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. However, USCIS invited her to file a Form I-360 as a widow(er) and then subsequently denied that petition since she had not been married to the U.S. citizen for 2 years before he died. Id. at 1230. Early in 2009, before Congress enacted the 2009 amendments, the plaintiff remarried and therefore could no longer benefit from the amendment to INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i). 2 Though the amendment removed the requirement that the U.S. citizen petitioner and the alien spouse must be married for 2 years, the requirement that the surviving alien spouse must not have remarried remained. See INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i).

In October 2009, after Congress enacted INA 204(l) and after the plaintiff’s divorce from her second husband, she filed a motion to reopen the original Form I-130, which her deceased husband had submitted before his death, and asked USCIS to approve the petition under the new INA 204(l). 3 USCIS denied her motion because she had remarried after the death of her first husband, the petitioner. The district court affirmed the USCIS decision. Williams v. DHS Secretary, 925 F.Supp.2d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2013). However, the 11th Circuit court reversed the district court’s decision. Williams, 741 F.3d at 1236.

The 11th Circuit court concluded in Williams that USCIS could not interpret the automatic conversion provision at 8 CFR 204.2(i)(1)(iv) in such a way as to limit the plaintiff’s ability to rely instead on INA 204(l). Because a U.S. citizen’s Form I-130 for his or her spouse is, in fact, an immigrant relative visa petition, INA 204(l) can apply to a Form I-130 filed by a nowAt the time of the U.S. citizen’s death, the second sentence of the “immediate relatives” definition required the foreign spouse to have been married to the U.S. citizen “for at least 2 years at the time of the U.S. citizen’s death.” The amendment to INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i) dropped the 2 year marriage requirement but retained the requirement that the surviving spouse must not have remarried.





INA 204(l) allows for the reopening of an earlier filed I-130 beneficiary-petition denied by USCIS because of the death of the qualifying U.S. citizen relative.

PM-602-0126: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act after the Death of a U.S. Citizen Petitioner Page 3 deceased U.S. citizen for his or her spouse, just as it can apply to an immediate relative petition that a now-deceased U.S. citizen filed for a child or parent. According to the court, INA 204(l)(2)A) is not ambiguous and “the plain meaning of the statute is clear and supports [the plaintiff’s] position.” 741 F.3d at 1234. After much analysis of the relationship between the first and second sentences of the “immediate relatives” definition in INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i), the court concluded that Congress intended with INA 204(l) that I-130 beneficiary petitions be “adjudicated notwithstanding the death of the qualifying relative” so that the surviving spouse would be in the same position she would have been but for the untimely death of her husband.

The fact that the surviving spouse eventually remarries does not invalidate the first marriage or the original I-130 petition. INA 204(l).

Williams is binding precedent only for cases arising in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, since the court emphasized that a U.S. citizen’s Form I-130 for his or her spouse is an “immediate relative” petition, USCIS has decided to follow Williams in all cases in which a U.S. citizen’s surviving spouse has remarried, and not just in those cases within the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit.

Policy USCIS officers will follow the Williams 4 decision in all cases, including those arising outside the 11th Circuit.

USCIS officers will adjudicate widow(er) cases as follows:

If a U.S. citizen filed a Form I-130 for his or her spouse before the U.S. citizen died and the

surviving spouse:

• has not remarried, the automatic conversion provision in 8 CFR 204.2(i)(1)(iv) applies and the Form I-130 is deemed to be a Form I-360. The surviving spouse can seek to immigrate as a “widow(er)” under INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i); or

• has remarried, the automatic conversion provision in 8 CFR 204.2(i)(1)(iv) no longer applies, and Form I-130, which was automatically converted to a Form I-360, reverts back to a Form I-130. The surviving spouse can, instead, seek relief under INA 204(l) if the surviving spouse was residing and still resides in the United States when the petitioner died.

It does not matter whether USCIS had approved the Form I-130 before the U.S. citizen died. As noted in AFM 10.21(c)(3), a pending petition may still be denied on the merits, if it would have been subject to denial if the petitioner had not died.

Implementation

The AFM is updated as follows (AFM Update AD15-02):

Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014).

PM-602-0126: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act after the Death of a U.S. Citizen Petitioner Page 4  1. AFM chapter 10.21(a), (b), (c)(2) and the last paragraph of (c)(5) are revised to read as

follows:

10.21 Approval of pending immigrant visa petitions, T or U extension applications, asylee/refugee relative petitions, or applications after death of the qualifying relative.

(a) General. For many decades, USCIS policy interpreted the INA to mean that if the approval of an immigrant visa petition, refugee/asylee relative petition, or application for immigration benefits requires the existence of a family relationship between the alien and another individual, the death of the individual, while the case is pending, generally meant that the alien was no longer eligible for the benefit. By regulation, 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii), USCIS had discretion to allow the approval of an immediate relative and family-based petition to remain in effect, even if the petitioner died after USCIS approved the petition. INA 204(l) gives USCIS much broader discretion to permit an alien’s case to be approved, even if the petitioner or principal beneficiary has died. This chapter provides guidance for exercising that discretion.

(b) Widow(er)s of U.S. Citizens. If a U.S. citizen filed a Form I-130 and this Form I-130 was approved before his or her death, then this Form I-130 is automatically converted to a widow(er)’s Form I-360. See 8 CFR 204.2(i)(1)(iv). In light of the amendment to INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i) by section 568(c) of Public Law 111-83, this conversion takes place even if the U.S. citizen and alien were married for less than 2 years when the U.S.

citizen died.

There are two significant advantages available if the widow(er) of a U.S. citizen immigrates on the basis of a Form I-130 that has been converted to a Form I-360.

• First, the widow(er)’s child(ren) may accompany or follow to join the widow(er), even if the deceased petitioner never filed a petition for the child(ren). See INA 204(a)(1)(A)(ii).

• Second, while a widow(er) and his or her child(ren), when immigrating on the basis of a Form I-360, must show that they are not likely to become public charges, they are not required to submit a Form I-864, Affidavit of Support. See INA 212(a)(4)(C)(i)(I).

Note: As specified in INA 101(b), a child is an unmarried person under 21 years of age (as determined under the Child Status Protection Act, if necessary).

Widow(er)s of U.S. Citizens with K-visas. In the case of a K-1 nonimmigrant who marries the petitioner within 90 days of admission, the K-1 nonimmigrant (and any K-2 child(ren) who may be otherwise eligible) may obtain adjustment of status without the need for Form I-360, just as they would have been eligible for adjustment without Form PM-602-0126: Approval of a Spousal Immediate Relative Visa Petition under Section 204(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act after the Death of a U.S. Citizen Petitioner Page 5 I-130 if the petitioner had not died. Termination of the marriage does not end the adjustment eligibility. Matter of Sesay 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011). As a widow(er) and child, the K-1 and K-2 would no longer need to submit a Form I-864.

If an alien was admitted as a K-3 or K-4 nonimmigrant, the Form I-130 filed for the K-3 is converted to a Form I-360 upon the U.S. citizen petitioner’s death. The K-4 can then “accompany or follow to join” the K-3 based on that Form I-360.

Remarried Widow(er)s of U.S. Citizens. A widow(er)’s eligibility for adjustment as a widow(er) ends if the widow(er) remarries before obtaining lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (11th Circuit court) has held, however, that 8 CFR 204.2(i)((iv) cannot properly be applied to prevent the alien from seeking relief under INA 204(l). Williams v. DHS Secretary, 741 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014). USCIS has decided to follow Williams even for cases arising outside the 11th Circuit.

For this reason, if the widow(er) of a U.S. citizen no longer qualifies as an immediate relative under the second sentence in INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i), the widow(er) can still seek relief under INA 204(l). For example, the widow(er)’s remarriage would prevent the widow(er) from qualifying under the second sentence of 201(b)(2)(A)(i), but USCIS would still have discretion to approve the Form I-130 (or to reinstate a prior approval) under INA 204(l), notwithstanding the widow(er)’s remarriage.

The two specific advantages to the widow(er) of filing a Form I-360 are not available to him or her if the alien widow(er) no longer qualifies under the second sentence of INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and instead seeks relief under INA 204(l). If the U.S. citizen spouse had not filed petitions for the alien spouse’s child(ren), the child(ren) cannot “accompany or follow to join” the alien parent. Also, the widow(er) will need to submit a Form I-864 from a substitute sponsor, unless 8 CFR 213a.2 exempts the widow(er) from this requirement. See INA 213A(f)(5)(B); cf. Chapter 10.21(c)(4)(i) of this AFM.

Williams applies only to the widow(er) of a U.S. citizen (and any eligible child(ren). The surviving spouse (widow or widower) of an LPR may seek relief only under INA 204(l) or 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C).



Pages:   || 2 |


Similar works:

«Introduction Edward P. Lazear This book is an outgrowth of the desire at the Hoover Institution to focus on issues that are of essential policy relevance. Right now, few issues are more important in the United States than improving education. This introduction summarizes the key arguments made in the book’s essays. The summary is followed by a discussion of some of the key policy questions in education. More will be said on the nature of the book below, but let us get to the essence first....»

«TOURISM POLICY MAKING: THE POLICYMAKERS’ PERSPECTIVES Nancy Stevenson University of Westminster, U.K. David Airey, University of Surrey, Faculty of Management and Law, U.K. Graham Miller, University of Surrey, Faculty of Management and Law, U.K.ABSTRACT This research explores tourism policy making, from the perspectives of policy makers using grounded theory. It focuses on Leeds, a city in the North of England, which is characterized by its turbulent environment. The paper identifies themes...»

«International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES) Vol.2, No.2, May 2011 FIREWALL POLICY MANAGEMENT THROUGH SLIDING WINDOW FILTERING METHOD USING DATA MINING TECHNIQUES Ch.Srinivasa Rao1, Research Scholar Mother Teresa Institute of science & Technology,Sathupalli, A.P, INDIA E-mail: srinivas_research@yahoo.in Dr.Boddi Reddy Rama2 Kakatiya University, Warangal,A.P INDIA K.Naga Mani 3 Research Scholar Mother Teresa Institute of Science & Technology, Sathupalli, A.P,INDIA...»

«Taxi and Private Hire Car Market and Local Licensing Regimes TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE CAR MARKET AND LOCAL LICENSING REGIMES James M Cooper, Taxi Research, Edinburgh Napier University Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Approach 2 Primary findings 2 2 BACKGROUND 5 3 QUANTITATIVE RESPONSES 7 Driver and vehicle licence policies 7 Accessibility and vehicle type policies 8 Training policies 11 Taxi Tariffs 11 4 POLICY DETAIL 12 Qualitative responses – licence restriction 12 Qualitative responses...»

«Contesting media frames and policy change The influence of media frames of immigration policy-related incidents contesting dominant policy frames on changes in Dutch immigration policies Rianne Dekker & Peter Scholten Department of Public Administration Erasmus University Rotterdam P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam r.dekker@fsw.eur.nl Abstract Incidents related to government policies often spur media attention that puts current policies into question. Contesting issue frames in media coverage may...»

«Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Policy Statement 1000 Effective date: 11/25/2003 Page 2 III. POLICY Agency senior staff and managers shall issue policy and procedures and disseminate other information pertaining to policy and procedures in accordance with the procedures appended to this Policy Statement.More specifically, these procedures: • Require that Agency policy must be issued in the form of Policy Statements; • Require that Agency...»

«Contentious Politics and Social Movements POL 451/2351 Winter 2015 Seminar location:UC 148 Professor Fu Diana.fu@utoronto.ca Seminar hour: W 2-4pm Office: SS 3012 Office Hours: Tuesdays 4-5pm* *Office hours will be held in UC after class. If you need to meet me in my office (SS 3012), set up appointment in advance. Course Overview This seminar course engages students in reading and discussing the core literature in contentious politics and social movements through a comparative lens. The first...»

«September 2003 Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor This policy paper defines a general strategy for the Office of the Prosecutor, highlights the priority tasks to be performed and determines an institutional framework capable of ensuring the proper exercise of its functions. This is a redrafted version of a paper discussed at the public hearing of the Office of the Prosecutor convened from 17 to 18 June...»

«IMPORTANT: This policy memo has been partially or fully superseded by the USCIS Policy Manual. Please visit www.uscis.gov/policymanual for effective policy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000 November 15, 2013 PM-602-0091 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Parole of Spouses, Children and Parents of Active Duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Former Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or...»

«Pdf Scanned by Sabinet Online GOVERNMENT NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 14 October 2003 No. R. 1467 HIGHER EDUCATION ACT, 1997 (Act No. 101 of 1997) POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR MEASUREMENT OF RESEARCH OUTPUT OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS I, Professor Kader Asmal, MP, Minister of Education, in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Higher Education Act, 1997 (Act 101 of 1997), and after consulting the Council on Higher Education, has determined the policy set out in the Schedule hereto...»

«California Independent System Operator Corporation Memorandum To: Board of Governors From: Charles A. King, P.E, Vice President, Market Development & Program Management Date: October 9, 2007 Re: Decision on Location Constrained Resource Interconnection Policy This memorandum requires Board action.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consistent with state and federal public policy initiatives, the CAISO seeks to promote the development of multipleowner generation sites in which the location of the fuel source is...»

«UNDERSTANDING POLICY FORMULATION: A TOOLS PERSPECTIVE 1 John Turnpenny Senior Lecturer in the School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Andrew Jordan Professor of Environmental Policy, Tyndall Centre School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.ABSTRACT Policy formulation is a key element of policy-making, but in spite of increasing interest it is still greatly under-explored. This paper develops a research agenda...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.