DOCSLIB.ORG

Adjudicator's Field Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adjudicator's Field Manual Adjudicator’s Field Manual NOTE: The USCIS Policy Manual is our centralized online repository for immigration policies. We are working quickly to update and move material from the Adjudicator’s Field Manual to the Policy Manual. Please check that resource, along with our Policy Memoranda page, to verify information you find in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual. If you have questions or concerns about any discrepancies among these resources, please contact [email protected]. Chapter 23 Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident. 23.1 Prior Law and Historical Background, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016. 23.2 General Adjustment of Status Issues, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016. 23.3 [Reserved] Chapter 23.3, Reserved, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2015. 23.4 Presumption of Lawful Admission and Creation of Record under 8 CFR 101, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of December 21, 2016. 23.5 Adjustment of Status under Section 245 of the Act has been partially superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status. 23.6 Refugee and Asylee Adjustment under Section 209 of the Act, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of March 4, 2014. 23.7 Registration of Lawful Permanent Residence under Section 249 of the Act, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of December 21, 2016.” 23.8 Section 289 Cases has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of May 15, 2020. 23.9 Section 7 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 Cases 23.10 Adjustment of Status under Section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957 (8 U.S.C. 1255b) 23.11 Cuban Adjustment Act Cases 23.12 Adjustment of Status under NACARA (sec. 202 of Pub L 105-100) 23.13 Adjustment of Status under HRIFA (sec. 902 of Pub L 105-277) 23.14 Adjustment of Status for Certain Syrian Nationals Granted Asylum 23.1 Prior Law and Historical Background, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016. 23.2 General Adjustment of Status Issues, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016. 23.3 Reserved has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2015. 23.4 Presumption of Lawful Admission and Creation of Record under 8 CFR 101, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of December 21, 2016. 23.5 Adjustment of Status under Section 245 of the INA. The following sections of Chapter 23.5, Adjustment of Status under Section 245 of the Act, have been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016: • (a) General • (b) Eligibility • (d) Section 245(k) of the Act: Exemptions to the 245(c)(2), (c)(7) and (c)(8) Bars to Adjustment for Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applicants • (k) Dependents of Adjustment Applicants and Immigrant Visa Holders • (p) Precedent Decisions Pertaining to Adjustment of Status Chapter 23.5(c), Section 245(i) of the Act: Exemptions to the Section 245(a) and 245(c) Bars to Adjustment for Certain Aliens, has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of December 8, 2020. (a) General. This section has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016 (b) Eligibility. This section has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016 (c) Section 245(i) of the Act: Exemptions to the Section 245(a) and 245(c) Bars to Adjustment for Certain Aliens . This section has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of December 8, 2020. (d) Section 245(k) of the Act: Exemptions to the 245(c)(2), (c)(7) and (c)(8) Bars to Adjustment for Certain Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Applicants . This section has been superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status as of February 25, 2016 (e) Relative-Based Adjustment Cases . [Chapter 23.5(d) revised 04-03-2006, AD05-34] (1) General . Adjudication of relative-based petitions is discussed in Chapter 21 of this field manual . If the petition has not already been adjudicated, it is your responsibility to do so before considering the adjustment application. If the petition was already adjudicated and approved, your responsibility as the adjudicator of the adjustment application is to satisfy yourself that the alien remains eligible for the classification granted by that petition. If the petition is based on a blood relationship and the alien is no longer entitled to the classification (perhaps he or she has “aged out”), see whet her the alien is entitled to automatic conversion to some other classification (see 8 CFR 204.2(i) ). If he or she is not eligible for such conversion, revoke the approval of the petition under section 205 of the Act (see Chapter 20.2 of this field manual ). If the petition is based on a marital relationship, question the party or parties sufficiently to satisfy yourself that the relationship continues to exist. If it has been terminated through annulment, divorce, or death, revoke the petition. Furthermore, if the wedding upon which the marriage-based adjustment application is based occurred less than 2 years before the date on which adjustment is granted, the adjusting alien becomes a conditional permanent resident. See Chapter 25 of this field manual for a discussion of the procedures for seeking removal of those conditions. (2) Aliens who Benefit as Immediate Relatives under Section 1703 of Public Law 108-136. (A) Eligibility An alien who qualifies for a benefit under section 1703 of Public Law 108-136 (see Appendix 21-4) is considered an immediate relative for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. The adjudicator may adjust the status of such alien if the alien is: (i) the beneficiary of an approved Form I-360 filed in accordance with the requirements of section 1703 of Public Law 108-136 , which classifies the beneficiary as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen; or (ii) the beneficiary of an approved Form I-130 filed by a qualifying LPR granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A of the Act or an approved Form I-360 self-petition filed in accordance with the requirements of section 1703 of Public Law 108-136 which classifies the beneficiary as an immediate relative. (B) Adjustment of Status Applications Filed Prior to the Death of the Qualifying Alien Granted Posthumous Citizenship under section 329A of the Act . Section 1703(b) of Public Law 108-136 provides that the applications for adjustment of status filed by certain alien spouses or children prior to the death of the qualifying alien granted posthumous citizenship may be adjudicated as immediate relative applications and as if the death had not occurred. (i) The alien spouse, child, or parent’s Form I-485 must have been pending prior to the death of the petitioner. The adjudicator will generally not become aware of the death of the alien petitioner until the adjudication of the application for adjustment of status. Therefore, either prior to adjudication or at the time of adjudication, the alien should demonstrate that he or she remains eligible for adjustment of status based on section 1703(b) of Public Law 108-136 and provide documentation of his or her eli gibility. (ii) If the adjudicator becomes aware of any Form I-485 that has been denied because of the death of the petitioner that would have otherwise been approved under the terms of section 1703 of Public Law 108- 136, the adjudicator may move to reopen such a case. Similarly, an alien who believes his or her previously denied application now qualifies under section 1703 may file a motion to reopen with the adjudicating office. If that application meets all the other statutory and procedural requirements and falls wit hin the terms of Public Law 108-136, including the effective date provision of September 11, 2001, the adjudicator may reopen and approve the case. (iii) The adjudicator will only reopen a Form I-485 that was filed based on a qualifying family relationship to the deceased alien. In addition, given that USCIS does not have jurisdiction over a Form I- 485 where the alien is in deportation or removal proceedings, such application will not be considered for reopening or determining an alien’s eligibility under section 1703. (C) Jurisdiction and Filing Instructions . (i) Refer to chapter 21.11(d)(1) and (2) for jurisdiction pertaining to Form I-360 and Form I-485 , respectively. (ii) An alien who benefits under section 1703 of Public Law 108-136 should check box “A” in Part 2 of Form I-485. Each alien must file his or her own Form I-485. (D) Exemption from Section 212(a)(4) of the Act, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility . An alien who qualifies for a benefit under section 1703 of Public Law 108-136 is exempt from section 212(a)(4) of the Act, public charge. Therefore, the alien is not required to execute and submit Form I-864 as part of his or her application for adjustment of status.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disability Classification System
    CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Track & Field (NB: also used for Cross Country where applicable) Current Previous Definition Classification Classification Deaf (Track & Field Events) T/F 01 HI 55db loss on the average at 500, 1000 and 2000Hz in the better Equivalent to Au2 ear Visually Impaired T/F 11 B1 From no light perception at all in either eye, up to and including the ability to perceive light; inability to recognise objects or contours in any direction and at any distance. T/F 12 B2 Ability to recognise objects up to a distance of 2 metres ie below 2/60 and/or visual field of less than five (5) degrees. T/F13 B3 Can recognise contours between 2 and 6 metres away ie 2/60- 6/60 and visual field of more than five (5) degrees and less than twenty (20) degrees. Intellectually Disabled T/F 20 ID Intellectually disabled. The athlete’s intellectual functioning is 75 or below. Limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care; home living, social skills, community use, self direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. They must have acquired their condition before age 18. Cerebral Palsy C2 Upper Severe to moderate quadriplegia. Upper extremity events are Wheelchair performed by pushing the wheelchair with one or two arms and the wheelchair propulsion is restricted due to poor control. Upper extremity athletes have limited control of movements, but are able to produce some semblance of throwing motion. T/F 33 C3 Wheelchair Moderate quadriplegia. Fair functional strength and moderate problems in upper extremities and torso.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Apply for a Three Or Ten Year Cancellation of Removal
    HOW TO APPLY FOR THREE OR TEN YEAR CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL WARNING: This booklet provides general information about immigration law and does not cover individual cases. Immigration law changes often, and you should try to consult with an immigration attorney or legal agency to get the most recent information. Also, you can represent yourself in immigration proceedings, but it is always better to get help from a lawyer or legal agency if possible. NOTE: As of March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Immigration enforcement functions, including immigration detention and removal cases, are handled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will handle other immigration matters, including citizenship, asylum and refugee services. • GENERAL INFORMATION • Who wrote this booklet? This booklet was prepared by the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, a non- profit law office that supports human and civil rights. The money to pay for this booklet came from the Ford Foundation. This booklet was updated in November, 2007 with money from the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This booklet was not prepared by DHS, or by any other part of the United States government. The booklet contains information and advice based on the Florence Project’s many years of experience assisting people in immigration detention. Immigration law, unfortunately, is not always clear, and our understanding of the law may not always be the same as DHS’s viewpoint. We believe that the information is correct and helpful, but the fact that this booklet is made available in the libraries of detention centers for the use of detainees does not mean that DHS or any other branch of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOINT APPENDIX (VOLUME 2) NOEL J. FRANCISCO ROBERT ALLEN LONG, JR. Covington & Burling, LLP Solicitor General Department of Justice One CityCenter Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 850 Tenth St., N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 514-2217 [email protected] (202) 662-5612 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioners for Respondents Regents of the University of California and Janet Napolitano (No. 18-587) PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: NOV. 5, 2018 CERTIORARI GRANTED: JUNE 28, 2019 Additional Captions and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Additional Counsel For Respondents THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. MICHAEL JAMES MONGAN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Solicitor General LLP California Department of 333 South Grand Ave. Justice Los Angeles, CA. 90071 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 [email protected] San Francisco, CA. 94102 (213) 229-7804 [email protected] (415) 510-3920 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Respondents for Respondents Dulce Garcia, Miriam States of California, Maine, Gonzalez Avila, Saul Maryland, and Minnesota Jimenez Suarez, Viridiana (No.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Citizenship Law and the Means For
    U.S. Department of Justice http://eoirweb/library/lib_index.htm Executive Office for Immigration Review Published since 2007 Immigration Law Advisor November 2008 A Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 2. No.11 U.S. Citizenship Law and the Means for The Immigration Law Advisor is a professional monthly Becoming a Citizen newsletter produced by the by Katherine Leahy Executive Office for Immigration Review. The purpose of the n this election year, perhaps more than any other in recent memory, publication is to disseminate immigration issues have been at the forefront of the policy debate. judicial, administrative, IHowever, the very last matter on the minds of Americans who regulatory, and legislative rank immigration as an important political issue are the rather obscure developments in immigration law legal doctrines of derived and acquired citizenship. These concepts pertinent to the mission of the provided an interesting (albeit tangential) footnote to the presidential Immigration Courts and Board of race, as both Arizona Senator John McCain and one of his opponents Immigration Appeals. It is intended for the Republican nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt only to be an educational resource for Romney, can point to the operation of the law of acquired citizenship in the use of employees of the Executive their recent family histories. Office for Immigration Review. Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen,” which led some to question whether McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his In this issue..
    [Show full text]
  • Passport Renewal for Expired Passport India
    Passport Renewal For Expired Passport India Georges shudder bloody. Beneficed and bribeable Pinchas concentrates: which Ibrahim is frugivorous enough? Faddier Angus war his smelt bemeans wryly. Irrespective of application is the renewal passport for expired passport, you consent to A typical such SMS message for passport renewal reads like a Dear Passport Holder Your Passport KXXXX949 will cheer on XX-Feb-20. It not RENEW red you abroad to company both passports every sorrow you travel Though the passport has expired the stamped visas do i expire. Local post for replacement of india for a power rankings show ads for access that? I am renewing my passport Will I get in old passport back 12 I submitted my application to the first Office directly Can you bore me 13 My child is usually young. FAQs on Passport Embassy of India Copenhagen Denmark. The validity of an Indian passport is 10 years and it needs to be renewed after the umbrella time period stock are Passport Seva Kendras in several. Further the Indian Consulate in Dubai can society accept passport applications from expatriates living celebrate the UAE the audience News reported. Differences in Applying Passport at PSK and POPSK SmotPro. What is fee of permanent address? 1 A new Indian Passports are now normally issued with a validity of 10 years except inflame the. Passport Seva Online Portal has been designed to deliver Passport and related. Indian Passport Renewal In Usa Fees. Child passports age 15 or younger expire every 5 years You deserve quickly meet your passport expiration date title the situation front cover Renewing.
    [Show full text]
  • Compatibility of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons with Canada’S Legal Framework and Its International Human Rights Obligations
    ENDING STATELESSNESS STATELESSNESS ENDING Relating To e Status COMPATIBILITY Of Stateless Persons With Canada’s Legal OF THE Framework And Its International Human 1954 CONVENTION Rights Obligations A SPECIAL REPORT Ending STATELESSNESS W Y #IBELONG © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 Researched And Written For UNHCR By Gregg Erauw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN FOR UNHCR BY GREGG ERAUW © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or UNHCR. COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 Background to the Report .................................................................................................................... 3 The Purpose of the
    [Show full text]
  • Reframing Sport Contexts: Labeling, Identities, and Social Justice
    Reframing Sport Contexts: Labeling, Identities, and Social Justice Dr. Ted Fay and Eli Wolff Sport in Society Disability in Sport Initiative Northeastern University Critical Context • Marginalization (Current Status Quo) vs. • Legitimatization (New Inclusive Paradigm) Critical Context Naturalism vs. Trans-Humanism (Wolbring, G. (2009) How Do We Handle Our Differences related to Labeling Language and Cultural Identities? • Stereotyping? • Prejudice? • Discrimination? (Carr-Ruffino, 2003, p. 1) Ten Major Cultural Differences 1) Source of Control 2) Collectivism or Individualism 3) Homogeneous or Heterogeneous 4) Feminine or Masculine 5) Rank Status 6) Risk orientation 7) Time use 8) Space use 9) Communication Style 10) Economic System (Carr – Ruffino, 2003, p.27) Rationale for Inclusion • Divisioning by classification relative to “fair play” and equity principles • Sport model rather than “ism” segregated model (e.g., by race, gender, disability, socio-economic class, sexual orientation, look (body image), sect (religion), age) • Legitimacy • Human rights and equality Social Dynamics of Inequality Reinforce and reproduce Social Institutions Ideology Political (Patriarchy) Economic Educational Perpetuates Religious Prejudice & Are institutionalized by Discrimination Cultural Practices (ISM) Sport Music Art (Sage, 1998) Five Interlinking Conceptual Frameworks • Critical Change Factors Model (CCFM) • Organizational Continuum in Sport Governance (OCSG) • Criteria for Inclusion in Sport Organizations (CISO) • Individual Multiple Identity Sport Classifications Index (IMISCI) • Sport Opportunity Spectrum (SOS) Critical Change Factors Model (CCFM) F1) Change/occurrence of major societal event (s) affecting public opinion toward ID group. F2) Change in laws, government and court action in changing public policies toward ID group. F3) Change in level of influence of high profile ID group role models on public opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Passport Renewal in Usa Bls International
    Indian Passport Renewal In Usa Bls International Volatilized Gus underselling debauchedly while Jessie always decompound his suture yammers everyway, he sensitized so poutingly. Unprevented Deryl always scrimmages his evangelistaries if Jean is serfish or kithe snakily. Assyrian and nomistic Merrel intersect her niece bastinado stylise and solemnifies pausingly. The intention behind these measures is obviously to present an alarming picture to the world of our bilateral ties. Please note we have no control over the security and reliability of postal mail. ICAO and local regulations. Application has been approved by the Immigration Department of Malaysia and is ready for Payment and print. If yes then how much amount and what is the payment mode. Agreement Details Government of Pakistan. The bls international travel visa to register new bls international services usa today we look for a british shared embassies. Indian expats might take not eligible individuals and bls international flights to travel overseas indian address of this number of medical center and return is the indian embassy. You can also find useful tips from fellow travellers. The validity of the passport is decided by the Assistant Passport Officer and the maximum an Indian passport is valid. Indian expats to follow up outside bls, renewal in indian passport usa bls international? Embassy washington dc, if in bls document you call before the republic of registration. The Best Resume Font Type to Use. When it involves renewal of passports in India, applicants can utilize two methods. Possible to send both applications together. Coquille style with cedar plank walls. However, there can be problems if you do not meet the rules for India OCI Visa Photos.
    [Show full text]
  • Form I-881, Application for Suspension of Deportation
    Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 105-100, NACARA) USCIS Form I-881 Department of Homeland Security OMB No. 1615-0072 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Expires 11/30/2021 What Is the Purpose of Form I-881? This application is used by any alien eligible to apply for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of Public Law 105-100, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203). If you are in immigration proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and are not eligible to apply for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of NACARA because you do not meet the criteria listed below, you must use Form EOIR-40, Application for Suspension of Deportation (if you are in deportation proceedings) or Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents (if you are in removal proceedings). WARNING: Applicants who are in the United States illegally are subject to deportation or removal if their suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal claims are not granted by an asylum officer, an immigration judge, or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We may use any information you provide in completing this application as a basis for placing you in immigration proceedings before an immigration judge or as evidence in these proceedings, even if you withdraw your application later. If you have any concerns about this process, you may want to consult with an attorney or representative before you submit this application to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Peters V. Barr
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA AUDREY PETERS, No. 16-73509 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A099-872-287 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 13, 2019 Pasadena, California Filed April 2, 2020 Before: N. Randy Smith and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Watford * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 PETERS V. BARR SUMMARY** Immigration The panel granted Patricia Audrey Peters’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, holding that Peters remains eligible for adjustment of status because she reasonably relied on her attorney’s assurances that he had filed the petition necessary to maintain her lawful status, and therefore, her failure to maintain lawful status was through no fault of her own. An individual is barred from adjusting status to become a lawful permanent resident if he or she “has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(2). However, skilled workers such as Peters remain eligible for adjustment of status as long as they have not been out of lawful status for more than 180 days. Peters argued that she fell out of lawful status through no fault of her own because either: 1) her attorney timely filed the necessary petition (as he said he did) and it was misplaced; or 2) the attorney did not file the petition.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-991 In the Supreme Court of the United States JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. ALTIN BASHKIM SHUTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General ROBERT A. PARKER Assistant to the Solicitor General DONALD E. KEENER BRYAN S. BEIER Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitu- tionally vague. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ......................................................................................... 2 Argument ......................................................................................... 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 6 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (July 7, 2016) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — Board of Immigration Appeals decision (July 24, 2015) .......................................... 22a Appendix C
    [Show full text]
  • A. Legal Permanent Resident Aliens
    A. Classes Currently in Use - Legal Permanent Resident Aliens (continued) Symbol: *Arrival/ Statistical Document Adjust Section of Law Description FY AM1 AM-1 N Sec. 584(b)(1)(A) of Amerasian born in AM6 AM-6 A PL 100-202 Vietnam after (Dec. 22, 1987) Jan. 1, 1962 and before Jan. 1, 1976 who was fathered by a U.S. citizen. AM2 AM-2 N Sec. 584(b)(1)(B) of Spouse or child of an AM7 AM-7 A PL 100-202 alien classified as (Dec. 22, 1987) AM1 or AM6. AM3 AM-3 N Sec. 584(b)(1)(C) of Mother, guardian, or AM8 AM-8 A PL 100-202 next-of-kin of an (Dec. 22, 1987) alien classified as AM1 or AM6, and spouse or child of the mother, guardian, or next-of-kin. AR1 AR-1 N Sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i) Amerasian child of a AR6 AR-6 A of the I&N Act and U.S. citizen born in 204(g) as added by Cambodia, Korea, PL 97-359 (Oct. 22, Laos, Thailand, or 1982) Vietnam (immediate relative child). AS6 AS-6 A Sec. 209(b) of the Asylee principal I&N Act as added by PL 96-212 (Mar. 17, 1980) AS7 AS-7 A Sec. 209(b) of the Spouse of an alien I&N Act as added by classified as AS6. PL 96-212 (Mar. 17, 1980) AS8 AS-8 A Sec. 209(b) of the Child of an alien I&N Act as added by classified as AS6.
    [Show full text]