Category Archives: The Legal Immigrant – Immigration Blog

“Expeditious” Naturalization: Who Can Get It and What Does It Mean?

Posted on June 8, 2026 | Comments Off on “Expeditious” Naturalization: Who Can Get It and What Does It Mean?

When a permanent resident seeks to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, he must file a Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with USCIS. Among the general eligibility requirements are Continuous Residence and Physical Presence in the United States. But these standards are more flexible for a naturalization applicant with:

  • A U.S. citizen spouse working for a qualified employer outside the United States;
  • Military service during period of hostilities; or
  • At least one year of honorable military service at any time, including when the nation is not at war. 

Applicants in any of these 3 categories qualify for “expeditious” naturalization. This means they may file their Form N-400 applications earlier than usual – because they are exempt from normal residency requirements. Continuous residence involves maintaining a permanent dwelling place or principal residence in the United States over the period of time required by the statute. Physical presence concerns the total number of days you are physically in the U.S. during the period required for naturalization.

The wait time between the naturalization interview and the oath ceremony might also be shorter than it is for normal applications. 

Expeditious naturalization does NOT mean applicants are spared from meeting other eligibility requirements, such as good moral character, English language ability, and knowledge of U.S. civics. Background checks, naturalization interviews, and oath ceremonies are also still required. 

Normal Paths to Naturalization

General Provision (5 Years of Continuous Residence | 30 Months of Physical Presence).

Generally, applicants must have at least five years of continuous residence and at least 30 months of physical presence in the U.S. during the 5-year period to apply for naturalization. 

Spouse of a U.S. Citizen (3 Years of Continuous Residence | 18 Months of Physical Presence).

Applicants who are married to a U.S. citizen may file for naturalization after just three years, instead of five years, of continuous residence. They must also have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 18 months during the 3-year period. 

To qualify for this provision, you must have lived in marital union with your U.S. citizen spouse for the entire three-year period prior to filing for naturalization. This means you are physically living together as a married couple. Legal separations or keeping separate residences can disqualify you, even if there is no divorce. 

The spouse must also have been a U.S. citizen for the full three years. If they recently switched from being a permanent resident to a U.S. citizen, the 3-year period begins from when they naturalized, not from when you became a green card holder. 

VAWA applicants may also use the three-year provision even if the marriage to the U.S. citizen has ended. They include spouses, former spouses, and children of a U.S. citizen who obtained permanent residence under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Expeditious Paths to Naturalization

Spouse of a U.S. Citizen Stationed Abroad Due to Qualifying Employment. 

If your U.S. citizen spouse is working abroad for a qualified employer, you may apply for naturalization with no continuous residence or physical presence in the United States. In short, you are exempt from the 5 or 3-year residence requirement. But you must be physically present for the naturalization interview and oath ceremony. 

Qualified employers include:

  • The U.S. government. 
  • An American research institution recognized by the Attorney General. See List of Recognized American Institutions of Research and Other Recognized Organizations | USCIS.
  • A public international organization in which the U.S. participates by treaty or statute.
  • An American firm or corporation that is developing U.S. foreign trade and commerce, in whole or in part.
  • A religious denomination or an interdenominational mission organization and your U.S. citizen spouse is performing the ministerial or priestly functions of the religious denomination or is serving as a missionary, brother, nun, or sister for the religious denomination or interdenominational mission.

The spouse must be obligated to work outside the U.S. for the qualified employer for at least one year from the date of the Form N-400 filing. The applicant must include a written statement declaring his intent to live outside the U.S. with the spouse and to live in the U.S. immediately after the spouse’s qualified employment ends. There must also be proof of the employer’s name and nature of business and the nature of the spouse’s work. 

If the overseas position relates to the U.S. military, the applicant must provide a DD Form 1278 (Certificate of Overseas Assignment) or a combination of the spouse’s travel orders and a letter from their commanding officer (issued within 90 days of U.S. departure). 

Military Service During Period of Hostilities.

During certain periods of military hostilities, an applicant in the U.S. armed forces may apply for naturalization immediately. Because there is no continuous residence or physical presence requirement, the filing could be as early as day one of enlistment. You must, however, be in the United States, a qualifying territory, or on a qualifying military installation at the time of enlistment. Besides active-duty officers, members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve also qualify for this expeditious path. 

Executive Order 13269 – Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in an Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism, signed on July 3, 2002, by President George W. Bush, has no end date. It remains in effect until a future president issues a new order terminating it. 

The first five years of service serves as probationary period for naturalization. If you leave the military without honorable conditions before completing five years of service, your citizenship may be revoked. The U.S. government may also initiate denaturalization proceedings against you.

At Least One Year of Honorable Military Service at Any Time. 

At any time, including periods of peace, applicants who have at least one year of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces may apply for naturalization without meeting the continuous residence or physical presence requirement. The Form N-400 application must be submitted to USCIS while you are still serving in the military or within six months of an honorable discharge. 

The one year of service does not need to be continuous. Separate periods that make up at least a year will count, but you will need to show good moral character during the gaps between service periods. 

Expeditious Naturalization Does Not Waive Other Eligibility Requirements or Speed up the Processing of the Form N-400

Good Moral Character

Naturalization applicants must prove they have been and continue to be persons of good moral character (GMC). USCIS conducts a holistic evaluation of the applicant’s conduct, adherence to social norms, and positive contributions that establish good moral character.

There are conditional bars to demonstrating GMC, such as Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude during the statutory period. There also permanent and unconditional bars to establishing GMC that rule out naturalization. They include a conviction for murder at any time, a conviction for an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990, and participation in Nazi persecutions, torture and genocide. 

English and Civics Tests

Even if you are eligible for an expedited path to naturalization, you must still pass the English language and civics tests – unless you qualify for an exemption. The English test covers basic reading, writing, and speaking. The civics test covers U.S. history and government.

The following Age and Residency-Based Exemptions apply to naturalization applicants: 
50/20 rule: If are over age 50 and have been a permanent resident for at least 20 years, you are not required to take the English test and may take the civics test in your native language.

55/15 rule: If you are over age 55 and have been a permanent resident for at least 15 years, you are not required to take the English test and may take the civics test in your native language.

65/20 rule: If you are over age 65 and have been a permanent resident for at least 20 years, you are not required to take the English test and will receive accommodation on a simplified civics test in your native language.

There is a separate exemption for applicants with a physical, developmental, or mental impairment that prevents them from meeting the English or civics requirements. Medical documentation on a Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions, must be submitted with the naturalization application. 

Lawful Admission as a Permanent Resident

USCIS will verify whether the naturalization applicant properly obtained permanent resident status. Questions regarding fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts to obtain U.S. immigration benefits or abandonment of LPR status may arise during this process. 

A person who was granted conditional residence (conditional two-year green card) must file the Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions of Residence, to maintain LPR status after the green card expires. Without LPR status, the person is not eligible for naturalization. If the I-751 petition is still pending at the time of the naturalization interview, USCIS will first make a decision on it before adjudicating the N-400 application.  

For more information, see related articles: 

5 Questions to Ask Yourself Before You File for Naturalization (U.S. Citizenship)

Staying Abroad Too Long May Affect Eligibility for Naturalization

Fraud, Lies, and USCIS: Pitfalls in Naturalization

Form I-751: Removing Conditions on Permanent Residence When Marriage is on the Rocks

Before you apply for naturalization, consult a U.S. immigration attorney to verify your eligibility and to discuss violations that may put you at risk of being placed in removal proceedings and losing your green card status. 

# # #
This content is general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on current U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on “Expeditious” Naturalization: Who Can Get It and What Does It Mean?

Posted in citizenship, good moral character, green card, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), naturalization, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged , , , ,

CBP Rescinds Expedited Removal Order + Grants Withdrawal of Application for Admission = A True Success Story

Posted on May 27, 2026 | Comments Off on CBP Rescinds Expedited Removal Order + Grants Withdrawal of Application for Admission = A True Success Story

Less than 3 months after receiving our request for relief, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) vacated its Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i) Inadmissibility Finding against my client and granted her a retroactive Withdrawal of Application for Admission. Thus, the CBP no longer deems her to be an intended immigrant without a proper visa, as charged at the U.S. port of entry. By rescinding the Expedited Removal Order, it vacated the 5-year bar to entry under INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i).

Denial of F-1 Student Admission Despite Having a Valid Passport, Visa and Other Travel Documents

Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) states a person is inadmissible to the United States if he is an intended immigrant without a valid immigrant visa or other valid entry document. It is most often used by CBP to deny entry to a nonimmigrant who is believed to have engaged in unauthorized U.S. employment or has plans to do so.

At primary inspection before the CBP, my client requested entry to the United States to begin her F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT) with a legitimate U.S. employer. Along with her valid passport containing the F-1 student visa, she had her updated Form I-20 (Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Status), Employment Authorization Document (EAD)/work card, and job offer letter.

Prior to traveling back to the United States, she had used an online platform to secure an apartment that was close to her intended workplace. She paid a deposit after communicating with the landlord through text messages. She planned to go directly to the rental property upon arrival, check the room condition, and sign the lease if everything was satisfactory.

Instead of admitting her in F-1 status, the CBP inspected her electronic devices and found her communications regarding the apartment. They searched the rental address online and discovered that it was associated with a daycare business. By telephone call, they contacted an individual who they identified as the daycare operator and said they were informed that my client was expected to work there. She had no employment authorization to perform daycare job duties, which were outside her field of study.

Based on this incorrect information, my client was taken to secondary inspection for further questioning. Ultimately, the CBP presumed that she would work at the daycare business located on the first floor of the residential home where she had arranged to live. But she had actually planned to rent the room on the second floor because it was close in proximity to her place of employment.

Facts and Arguments Supporting Rescission of Expedited Removal Order and INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i) Finding

During secondary inspection, my client explained that she had learned of the daycare business, on the first floor, from the previous tenant who mentioned it may cause some noise. She made clear that daycare work was never discussed or agreed upon, and that such employment would violate F-1 OPT regulations and conflict with her scheduled work hours, as stated in the employer’s offer letter and recruitment posting. The F-1 OPT position also required in-office presence and did not permit remote work. 

After searching her personal belongings and inspecting her phone, the CBP found only text-based conversations with the landlord regarding rental matters—no phone calls, no agreements, and no employment-related discussions with anyone from the daycare. Despite her repeated explanations, the CBP officers stated that if no employment arrangement existed, the daycare operator would not have provided details about workhours and pay on the telephone call.

In the Motion to Reconsider to CBP, I explained that my client’s sole purpose for requesting entry was to begin her lawful OPT employment. She had no plans or agreements to work at a daycare center or outside her field of study. It made no sense for her to work without authorization when she had already secured a full-time, paid OPT position.

Because she possessed all required travel documentation, had a qualifying F-1 OPT position directly related to her degree, and did not seek to work outside the scope of her authorization, there was no basis to determine that she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The evidentiary record showed that her intent was fully compliant with U.S. immigration laws and rules.

The CBP made no finding that she had failed to maintain her F-1 status during prior stays, committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts to obtain U.S. immigration benefits, or otherwise violated U.S. immigration laws, rules or policies. Instead, it based its adverse decision on a presumption that she intended to engage in unauthorized employment upon entry. It disregarded my client’s credible testimony and documentary evidence showing she had a legitimate F-1 OPT position.

To support the Motion, we presented the employment offer letter and email communications with the F-1 OPT employer – both before and after the Expedited Removal Order – establishing she had intended to work in her field of study. We also provided documentary evidence reflecting my client had arranged to rent a 2nd floor room in a two-story residential home, not in a commercial building. But when she requested admission at the U.S. port of entry, the CBP looked up the address and found that it was associated with a daycare business (kindergarten service).

In her affidavit (written testimony), my client clarified that she knew a daycare was located on the first floor, but she never inquired about working there. In addition, we presented written declarations from the daycare manager and the landlord stating they did not discuss any employment, work or job arrangements with my client. All her text messages with the landlord and the prior tenant indicate that she sought to rent the 2nd floor room only.

In the legal memorandum, I described the hardships that the Expedited Removal Order caused or would cause my client. For example, the section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) finding would make it very difficult for her to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, under INA 214(b), to receive an F-1 student visa, B1/B2 visitor visa or other nonimmigrant visa in the future.

Furthermore, the 5-year bar would require her to apply for and obtain a Consent to Reapply for Admission Following Expedited Removal before a visa could be issued. Frequently called the “I-212 waiver” – which is different from the 212(d)(3) waiver – the CTR is the official remedy for lawfully returning to the U.S. before the 5-year bar expires. But it has several drawbacks.

If the person needs a visa stamp for the purpose of her trip to the U.S., she must go through the U.S. Consulate or Embassy to request the CTR in connection with the visa application. This creates an extra hurdle because the U.S. Consulate or Embassy must first recommend the CTR for it to be forwarded to the CBP’s Admissibility Review Office (CBP-ARO) for adjudication. If there is no recommendation, there is no review by CBP-ARO on the merits of the application.

In addition, even when the CTR is recommended, it takes several months for CBP-ARO to make a decision. And when granted, it is not transferrable to a new visa. Until the 5-year bar expires, the applicant must go through the process again if she needs a new visa for re-entry to the United States.

CBP Grants Request for Relief

In its decision, the CBP noted that based on the applicable documents and information, a grant of discretion was appropriate. It rescinded the Expedited Removal order and all related charges, including the 5-year bar to entry. In lieu of an Expedited Removal Order, the CBP updated my client’s records to reflect that she withdrew her application for admission.

This is a true success story for the client and Dyan Williams Law PLLC.

# # #
This content is general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on current U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and even cases that seem similar can have different outcomes. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on CBP Rescinds Expedited Removal Order + Grants Withdrawal of Application for Admission = A True Success Story

Posted in expedited removal, nonimmigrant visa, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver

Tagged , , ,

USCIS Policy Alert: Approval of Form I-485, Adjustment (Green Card) Applications is Now an “Extraordinary” Relief

Posted on May 26, 2026 | Comments Off on USCIS Policy Alert: Approval of Form I-485, Adjustment (Green Card) Applications is Now an “Extraordinary” Relief

Form I-485, Adjustment of Status is for eligible applicants who are already in the United States and are seeking to obtain a green card. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, issued on May 21, 2026, instructs USCIS officers to consider adjustment of status an “extraordinary” relief. This means USCIS may deny adjustment applications, as a matter of discretion, if it determines the applicant must instead apply for an Immigrant Visa at the U.S. Embassy/Consulate abroad.

The policy does not change the eligibility requirements to obtain a green card through the Form I-485 application process. Rather, it emphasizes that adjustment to permanent residence within the United States is a discretionary benefit, instead of an entitlement or normal path to receiving a green card.

USCIS officers must now carefully consider whether a Form I-485 applicant deserves approval, based on the totality of circumstances and the best interest of the United States. Under prior policy, USCIS would normally issue an Approval Notice if the applicant met the statutory eligibility requirements under INA 245(a) and had no inadmissibility bars.

The Policy Memo directs USCIS officers to apply higher discretionary scrutiny in weighing the positive versus the negative factors. Unless Form I-485 applicants have unusual or outstanding equities (extraordinary circumstances), USCIS may not permit them to bypass the Immigrant Visa application process.

The Policy Memo states that with limited exceptions, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress expects paroled and nonimmigrant applicants to depart for Immigrant Visa processing, rather than apply for adjustment of status. It adds that a “contravention of this expectation and attempt to avoid the ordinary consular immigrant visa process, usually accompanied by their violation of our immigration laws, are adverse factors,” which the applicant “may need ‘to offset…by a showing of unusual or even outstanding equities.'”

Positive Factors that USCIS Will Consider

In deciding whether to approve the Form I-485 application, on discretionary grounds, USCIS will consider positive factors, such as:

  • Family ties, such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
  • Hardship to the applicant or close relatives if the adjustment application is denied.
  • Long lawful residence in the U.S. in valid nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B, L-1, O-1, E-2 and TN.
  • Compliance with U.S. immigration laws and conditions of the U.S. nonimmigrant status held.
  • Property, investment, or business ties in the United States.
  • Long and stable authorized employment in the United States.
  • Education, skills or training obtained at a U.S. educational institution, which is relevant to the applicant’s current or prospective employment.
  • Lack of a criminal record.
  • Compliance with tax laws.
  • Voluntary community service and contributions to society.

New applicants or applicants with pending cases should prepare to show favorable factors to warrant an approval, under the totality of the circumstances. They may proactively submit the information to USCIS or in response to a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny from USCIS.

Negative Factors that USCIS Will Consider

In determining whether to deny the application, as a matter of discretion, USCIS will consider negative factors, such as:

  • Absence of close family, community and residence ties in the United States.
  • Failure to maintain lawful status or to comply with the terms of the status, such as overstaying the authorized period.
  • Engaging in conduct that conflicts with the purpose of the temporary admission, parole, or nonimmigrant status, like switching quickly to another status following arrival in the U.S. as an F-1 student or a B1/B2 visitor.
  • Fraud or false testimony in dealings with USCIS or any other government agency.
  • Unauthorized employment in the United States.
  • Criminal history, especially when it involves serious crimes, multiple offenses, or recent violations.
  • Failure to pay taxes owed or child support.

Although the shift in policy will affect a wide range of applicants, it is likely to have LESS of an impact on:

  • H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants who are allowed to have dual intent and do not have to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent under INA 214(b).
  • O-1, TN, E-2, and E-3 visa holders who are maintaining continuous lawful status through authorized employment in the U.S.
  • Immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen because they have statutory exemptions for certain status violations, such as failing to maintain lawful status or overstaying the authorized period. (An Immediate Relative is a U.S. citizen’s spouse; a U.S. citizen’s unmarried child under 21; or a U.S. citizen’s parent – if the citizen is age 21 or older).
  • Refugees and asylees.
  • VAWA-based applicants.
  • Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs).

Options if USCIS Denies Your Form I-485 Application

When USCIS denies a benefit request, it must issue a written denial notice explaining the specific reasons for the decision. If the denial is based on an unfavorable exercise of discretion, the denial notice must describe the positive and negative factors considered, along with an explanation of why the negative factors outweigh the positive factors.

If USCIS denies your Form I-485 application as a matter of discretion, but you otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to obtain a green card, you have four main options:

Submit a Motion to Reconsider or Reopen to USCIS, Administrative Appeals Office. This involves timely filing the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion with the appropriate USCIS office, explaining how USCIS made the wrong decision or requesting USCIS consider new and relevant evidence that was unavailable in the prior application.

File a new Form I-485 Application with USCIS. This must include new, material information and documents demonstrating extraordinary circumstances to obtain the extraordinary relief of adjustment of status.

Apply for an Immigrant Visa through consular processing. This requires you to depart the United States, submit the Form DS-260 Immigrant Visa application and other required documents to the U.S. Department of State, and attend a scheduled visa interview at the U.S. Embassy/Consulate. You will also need to obtain a Form I-601 or I-601A waiver if you are subject to being found inadmissible due to accrual of unlawful presence (prior to departure from the United States).

Remain in the U.S. without lawful status (if you have no other valid status). This will subject you to removal proceedings before the Immigration Court through a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. You may present the Form I-485 application as a defense to removal, assuming you are statutorily eligible for such relief, but USCIS has denied it only as a matter of discretion.

In some cases, pursuing Form I-485 adjustment in removal proceedings may be less risky than consular processing, where you could be stuck abroad due to the unlawful presence bar or administrative delays or U.S. travel bans preventing Immigrant Visa grants.

Whether this USCIS Memo will stand up against federal court litigation or application of laws passed by Congress is uncertain. There could be more guidelines instructing USCIS officers on how to apply the policy on a case-by-case basis and to different categories of applicants.

In any event, eligible Form I-485 applicants are not forbidden from applying for adjustment when U.S. immigration law does not prohibit them from doing so.

Consult an experienced U.S. immigration attorney to help you (1) assess your eligibility for Form I-485, adjustment of status, (2) demonstrate the positive factors to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion, and (3) supplement your pending Form I-485 application or strengthen a new application.

For more information on the Form I-485 adjustment process, see:

Who is Eligible (and Not Eligible) for Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status?

Adjusting to Permanent Resident Status Under INA 245(a): Bars, Exceptions and Exemptions

A Key Requirement for I-485 Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status: Inspection and Admission OR Inspection and Parole

The current USCIS Policy Manual – shown below – may be updated after the release of the Policy Memo titled, Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary
Consular Visa Process.

USCIS Policy Manual – Chapter 10 – Legal Analysis and Use of Discretion – as of May 26, 2026Download

# # #

USCIS Policy Manual – Chapter 8- Discretionary Analysis – as of May 26, 2026Download

This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on USCIS Policy Alert: Approval of Form I-485, Adjustment (Green Card) Applications is Now an “Extraordinary” Relief

Posted in adjustment of status, bona fide marriage, green card, green card, I-485, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged , , ,

Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

Posted on January 16, 2026 | Comments Off on Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

On January 14, the Trump Administration announced the suspension of Immigrant Visa processing for citizens of 75 countries.  The list includes:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

This U.S. immigration policy takes effect on January 21. This is an indefinite pause with no set date for when it will end.

“The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” the U.S. Department of State said. “Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassess immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.”

What are the Exceptions?

There is an exception for dual nationals who apply with a valid passport from a country not included in the suspension.

In addition, the suspension does not restrict applicants seeking non-immigrant visas, such as B1/B2 temporary tourist or business visas, who make up the larger percentage of visa applicants. Demand for non-immigrant visas is expected to rise for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics, which the U.S. will host or co-host.

What are the Effects on U.S. Immigration?

U.S. Consulates will not issue Immigrant Visas to applicants who are from any of the 75 countries, even if they are otherwise eligible for the visa. Although they may submit their forms and documents to the DOS, their applications will not be granted while the suspension is in effect.

During the pause, the legal paths to U.S. immigration and permanent residence will be tightened. After the suspension is lifted, applicants will still have to meet long-existing eligibility requirements.

How Does This Policy Support the Trump Administration’s U.S. Immigration Stance? 

The Trump Administration has already restricted immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing for citizens of dozens of countries, many of them in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In June 2025, it imposed U.S. travel restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The suspension is based on a November guidance directed to U.S. Embassy and Consulate officials to comprehensively and thoroughly vet visa applicants to demonstrate that they will not need to rely on public benefits from the U.S. government any time after they are admitted to the United States.

What U.S. Immigration Law Creates Public Charge Requirements?

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits applicants from receiving an immigrant visa or adjusting to permanent residence if they are likely, at any time, to become a public charge. To show they are not inadmissible on this ground, a Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, filed on their behalf is required in most family-based and some employment-based immigrant visa or adjustment cases.

In his first term, Trump and his Administration introduced a new Final Rule on August 14, 2019, which amended how U.S. immigration agencies applied section 212(a)(4). The 2019 Rule gave USCIS more discretionary power to deny Form I-485 green card requests and Form I-129 and Form I-539 applications to change status or extend status, on the public charge ground. The rule was set to take effect on October 15, 2019, i.e. 60 days after its publication. But federal court litigation delayed the implementation of the rule to February 24, 2020.

Then on March 9, 2021, the Public Charge rule under the prior Trump Administration was vacated and removed. USCIS and the U.S. Department of State returned to the old 1999 rule to determine whether a person is likely to become a public charge on the U.S. government.

The August 8, 2024 (08-28-2024) update in the DOS’ Foreign Affairs Manual instructs officers to consider the “Totality of Circumstances” to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge. They are to consider, at a minimum, the applicant’s:

(a) Age;

(b) Health;

(c) Family status;

(d) Assets, resources, and financial status; and;

(e)  Education or skills.

A properly filed, non-fraudulent Form I-864 in cases where it is required, is normally enough to meet the INA 212(a)(4) requirements and satisfy the “totality of the circumstances” test. But the factors cited above could be relevant in usual cases in which a Form I-864 has been submitted and should also be considered in cases where a Form I-864 is not required.

The public charge rule is forward looking, so officers are instructed to focus on the applicant’s present circumstances at the time of the visa application.  A visa may not be refused based on speculation about financial issues that may occur in the future, such as a loss of job or medical emergency.

Past or current receipt of cash benefits for income maintenance by a family member of the visa applicant may be factored in only when such benefits also constitute(d) the primary means of subsistence of the applicant.

It’s not clear whether or how exactly the State Department will modify instructions relating to INA 212(a)(4) inadmissibility.

For more information, see:

Form I-864: Key to Meeting the Financial Requirements for Permanent Residence and Avoiding a Public Charge Determination

Form I-864: Alternatives to Meeting the Financial Requirement for Permanent Residence and Avoiding a Public Charge Determination

2019 Public Charge Rule Gets Tossed; 1999 Rule is Back

Immigrant Visa Process: Delays and Setbacks

# # #

The Legal Immigrant provides general information and is for educational purposes only. It is based on U.S. immigration law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for your situation. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on Immigrant Visa Suspension for 75 Countries: Public Charge Concerns Cited as the Reason

Posted in adjustment of status, green card, green card, immigrant petition, immigrant visa, nonimmigrant visa, public charge, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog

Tagged

Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

Posted on December 13, 2025 | Comments Off on Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

USCIS approved the Form I-129F, K-1 fiancé petition of our U.S. citizen client, after issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny it under INA 204(c). In the NOID, USCIS claimed her foreign national fiancé entered a prior sham marriage to a Form I-485 green card applicant solely to gain permanent residence as a derivative beneficiary.

After receiving our Response to the NOID, USCIS vacated the 204(c) charge and approved the petition. Still, the U.S. Consulate refused the K-1 visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and instructed the applicant to file for an I-601 waiver. Ten days after receiving our Motion to Reconsider the Inadmissibility Finding, the U.S. Consulate rescinded the (6)(C) refusal and then granted the visa.

USCIS Charges Beneficiary with INA 204(c)/Marriage Fraud Bar in Form I-129F Petition

Section 204(c) of the Immigration & Nationality Act prohibits USCIS from approving a visa petition (e.g. Form I-129F or I-130) if the beneficiary entered or conspired to enter a marriage for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws. If there is substantial and probative evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy in the beneficiary’s file – regardless of whether the benefit was received – USCIS will deny the petition under 204(c).

In its Notice of Intent to Deny the Form I-129F petition, USCIS claimed it was apparent the beneficiary entered a prior sham marriage to a Form I-485 green card applicant for the sole purpose of circumventing U.S. immigration laws. It determined that it was prohibited from approving the petition under 204(c).

The NOID marked the first opportunity to respond to the allegations of a prior sham marriage. In its earlier Request for Evidence (RFE), USCIS had asked only for proof of a real relationship and engagement between the couple. There was no mention of the 204(c) bar. The petitioner responded to the RFE on her own and then USCIS took several months to issue the NOID on section 204(c) grounds.

USCIS Vacates INA 204(c) Charge and Approves Form I-129F Petition Based on NOID Response

The petitioner and beneficiary contacted Dyan Williams Law for representation in addressing the NOID. Within 30 days, I filed a timely and persuasive Response to the NOID, which contained credible testimonies, objective evidence and legal argument establishing the beneficiary and his prior spouse entered a good-faith marriage, but it ended due to unresolved differences.

Eight months later, USCIS issued a Form I-797, Approval Notice for the I-129F petition. They agreed there was no substantial and probative evidence to sustain the 204(c) finding. The parties then consulted with Dyan Williams Law to complete the K-1 visa application at the U.S. Consulate.

U.S. Consulate Issues K-1 Visa Refusal Notice under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

Because the 204(c) charge was vacated, we expected the visa interview to go well. But at the end of the interview, the U.S. Consulate issued a K-1 visa refusal notice citing to “6C1.” The consular officer merely stated it was based on the prior marriage, even though USCIS had already resolved this issue in the applicant’s favor.

To find that an applicant is inadmissible or ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the consular officer must find all the following elements are met:

  • The applicant made a false representation;
  • The false representation was willfully made;
  • The fact misrepresented is material;
  • The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, such as a consular officer; and
  • The applicant, by using fraud or misrepresentation, seeks to procure, sought to procure, or procured, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws, such as a visa or admission to the United States.

U.S. Consulate Rescinds INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Finding and Grants K-1 Fiancé Visa Based on Motion to Reconsider

The petitioner and beneficiary contacted Dyan Williams Law for representation in overcoming the (6)(C)(i) inadmissibility finding. We discussed the option of filing a Form I-601 waiver of inadmissibility with USCIS. This would involve a long processing time and the high evidentiary burden of proving the petitioner would face “extreme hardship” if the beneficiary was denied admission to the United States.

Ultimately, with counsel’s recommendation, they pursued another option: a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Inadmissibility Finding with the U.S. Consulate.

We took several months to gather the necessary documentary evidence and written testimonies, including a declaration from the prior spouse confirming her marriage to the beneficiary was bona fide. In the legal argument, I also pointed out the applicant had never used fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts in any request for U.S. immigration benefits. I also noted the (6)(C)(i) finding conflicted with USCIS’ approval of the Form I-129F petition, after it dropped the 204(c) charge.

USCIS’ approval of the petition did not necessarily mean the elements of fraud or willful misrepresentation were not met, but only that it lacked substantial and probative evidence of a prior sham marriage. Thankfully, it did not take long for the U.S. Consulate to make a positive decision.

Ten days after receiving the Motion to Reconsider, the U.S. Consulate sent an email notice stating it removed the (6)(C)(i) bar and provided further instructions for the K-1 visa process. The applicant completed the next steps and, three months later, received the visa for lawful admission to the U.S. in K-1 status.

USCIS Approves Form I-485 Application for Permanent Residence

Within 90 days of the K-1 visa holder’s arrival in the United States, he and his U.S. citizen fiancée married and began their life together. They then contacted Dyan Williams Law to represent them in the Form I-485 green card application.

Less than three months after USCIS received the Form I-485 application, they appeared for their scheduled Adjustment of Status interview before USCIS. The application was readily approved on the spot, with no doubts from USCIS regarding the beneficiary’s prior marriage or his existing marriage to the petitioner. The USCIS officer said they had great documentary evidence for an approval and did not ask about the NOID, the (6)(C)(i) visa refusal notice, or their relationship.

USCIS granted a two-year conditional green card because the marriage was less than two years old at the time it approved the Form I-485 application. The beneficiary will need to file a Form I-751 petition to remove the condition on his residence and to keep his U.S. immigration status. He may also file for naturalization (U.S. citizenship) when he meets the continuous residence requirement and other eligibility criteria.

It took 6 years for the applicant to receive his permanent residence from the time the Form I-129F petition was filed with USCIS. This long and complicated U.S. immigration journey is a true success story for the clients and Dyan Williams Law.

# # #
The Legal Immigrant provides general information only from Dyan Williams Law. It is based on U.S. immigration laws, regulations and policies that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Comments Off on Rescission of INA 204(c) Charge + Removal of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Bar in K-1 Visa Case= A True Success Story

Posted in adjustment of status, bona fide marriage, green card, INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), K-1 visa, marriage fraud, success story, The Legal Immigrant - Immigration Blog, waiver, willful misrepresentation

Tagged , ,