If you are an immediate relative of a US citizen, you may be eligible to apply for provisional stateside waivers. The Provisional “Stateside” Waivers are limited to immediate relatives and do not apply to those seeking a no-contest waiver.
The federal government has recently enacted no-contest waivers in the stateside. This new process is the first of its kind and will save the nation a bundle in the long run. Traditionally, applicants had to attend a consulate interview in their home country before being granted a waiver.
In order to make the process more efficient, USCIS consulted with state and local governments, tribal organizations, and interested citizens to craft a new notice of intent. With a few tweaks here and there, the new system will be ready to go in no time.
DHS received some 900 commenters in person and on the phone. While most comments were in favor of the proposed rule changes, there were also some dissenters. Several commenters expressed doubts about whether the new process would actually save them money in the long run. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is still in the process of figuring out how the new system will best serve the American public.
Despite the aforementioned skepticism, DHS has not yet ruled out the possibility of implementing a no-contest waiver program in the stateside. Until then, those under seventeen who need a waiver will have to wait it out.
In addition to the proposed rule changes, USCIS held a flurry of public meetings and roundtables to answer questions from various stakeholders. In fact, the department has analyzed all the relevant comments to come up with a final rule and a list of priorities. Although DHS is not rushing to publish the aforementioned list, they do hope it will serve as a springboard for further discussion. They will use the feedback to inform future rule making and a host of related initiatives.
Petition for review of the removal order
If you are detained or removed from the United States, the best way to challenge it is to file a Petition for Review of the removal order with the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a complex legal matter that requires expert legal advice. A good San Antonio immigration attorney will be able to guide you through the process.
Although a petition for review is not always granted, the right one may be enough to stop you from being deported from the U.S. Depending on your case, you may even be able to obtain a stay of removal.
Often, a petition for review of the removal order is a last resort for someone who has been ordered to leave the country. Even if you are granted a stay of removal, it is possible to be reinstated or reentered into the country without authorization.
The most important thing to remember when filing a Petition for Review is to file it in the correct federal appellate court. Failure to do so can result in the petition being ignored or the wrong federal appeals court hearing your case.
It is also crucial to file the Petition for Review with the right federal circuit court. For example, if you were deported to Florida, you should file the Petition for Review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When you are looking for an attorney to assist you with a Petition for Review of the removal orders, make sure you find one with experience handling these types of cases. They will be able to tell you about the right federal court to file in and the correct procedure to follow.
Only apply to immediate relatives of US citizens
The Provisional Stateside Waiver is a program that allows a family member of a United States citizen to apply for a waiver of the 10-year bar on return to the United States. This program was made available March 4, 2013. But USCIS does not extend the waiver process to immediate relatives of preference aliens.
Immediate relatives include parents, spouses, unmarried children under 21, and qualified widowers of U.S. citizens. Applicants for provisional stateside waivers must meet specific requirements, including being a qualifying relative.
Prior to the implementation of the program, immediate relatives of United States citizens had to travel abroad to request a waiver of inadmissibility. After returning, they would need to undergo a biometrics collection process. These delays caused significant separation from family members.
As a result, many families were forced to stay in the United States for up to ten years, away from their loved ones. In order to address this problem, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) introduced a provisional unlawful presence waiver, which allows certain immigrant visa applicants to submit their waiver applications while in the United States.
Prior to the introduction of the provisional waiver, a waiver was available only to individuals who could demonstrate extreme hardship. While this waiver was intended to alleviate these hardships, it was not possible for individuals with criminal or fraudulent claims to citizenship.
However, Congress did not set a limit on the number of immediate relatives allowed to remain in the United States. In addition, lawful permanent residents can sponsor their spouses and unmarried sons and daughters, provided they are under the age of 21.
According to the new waiver process, however, applicants must be able to establish extreme hardship to a United States citizen parent or spouse. In addition, the processing time can take over a year. If this delay is caused by a delay in the adjudication of the waiver, it can lead to a more serious hardship for U.S. citizens and their immediate relatives.
Suspension Clause is not violated
The provisional unlawful presence waiver process is only available to certain categories of people. These people include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, as well as aliens who are departing for consular processing abroad.
In order to obtain the provisional unlawful presence waiver, an applicant must show extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. This definition of extreme hardship is subjective, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Applicants are advised to read the instructions for the Form I-601A, the application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, to see what types of documents are acceptable.
DHS has received comments about the proposed rule. Most of the comments were favorable to the process, while some were opposed. Some commenters pointed out that the process was unfair and would encourage fraud. Others argued that the rule was unconstitutional. Still others pointed out that DHS was not entitled to make the changes.
However, DHS has listened to the comments and incorporated the suggestions in a final rule. DHS will evaluate the effectiveness of the new process and determine whether to expand it in the future.
Among the most commonly suggested improvements are limiting the types of aliens who may apply for the process and adding eligibility criteria. These changes will help prioritize those who are most likely to qualify. They will also reduce interchange with USCIS.
A premium processing fee would expedite the provisional unlawful presence waiver process. This fee is primarily used to cover the administrative costs of the USCIS. The fee could range from $5,000 to $20,000.
Those who disagreed with the rule expressed a variety of concerns. Many of them believe that the law is not being enforced properly and that illegal aliens are gaining an advantage. Other comments came from individuals, immigrant advocacy groups, religious organizations, and members of Congress.
Petitioner’s contention that he did not “seek to contest” the DHS
In the words of the undersigned, a petitioner’s contention that he did not “seek to contest” the DHS provisional stateside waivers lacked the luster of the real thing. Indeed, the court ruled that he had received all the due process required to prove his claims. Hence, the court recommends dismissing his claims with prejudice.
The most important point to understand is that the court does not have jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claim that DHS and USCIS officials failed to apply the aforementioned nifty. It is, however, free to consider the merits of the other claims on the docket. This case is not an exception.
For instance, the court ruled that Petitioner had no more than one claim in Count one of his four-county, multi-county, multi-state complaint. Similarly, he had no more than two claims in Counts two, three, and four. He also had no more than three claims in Count Five. However, he had more than ten claims in Count Six. So, he may have to wait a while before he receives his benevolent alien award.
Finally, the court found that the Petitioner’s contention that he did not get a chance to testify at his hearing was a moot point. He was released to the custody of immigration authorities. His legal defense, however, was to file an appeal. If the court rules in his favor, he could face a lengthy stay of removal proceedings. Until then, his best bet is to keep an eye out for a favorable court ruling. A favorable decision could lead to a favorable outcome, albeit one that would be a lot harder to pull off in a hostile environment.
Overall, Judge Lanza’s decision is a win for the judicial system as a whole, and particularly the judges of the District of Arizona.