What Happened With The I-601A Waiver?

Thứ Tư, 31 Tháng Mười 201200:00(Xem: 41005)
What Happened With The I-601A Waiver?

CIS still does not know when the I-601A will take effect. All they say is “Maybe by the end of this year”.

In the past, the regulations allowed a US citizen’s immediate relative, usually the spouse, to apply for a green card even after entering the US illegally. To do this, they had to pay a penalty fee of $1,000. This rule expired long ago and now immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who entered illegally are not eligible for adjustment of status to permanent residence in the U.S. In order to apply for permanent residence, they have to leave the US and be processed for a visa at the US Consulate in their home country.

But, if they have been in the US illegally for six months, they have to remain outside the US for 3 years. If in the US illegally for more than one year, the re-entry bar is ten years.

So, the question is, How to leave the US to apply for a visa without being forced to remain outside the US for 3 or 10 years? The answer is the I-601A waiver. 

The special benefit about this waiver is that the application is submitted to CIS before the alien spouse returns home to apply for a visa.

If CIS in the US approves the waiver, then in most cases, the US Consulate abroad will issue the immigrant visa without any difficulty. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens will be able to travel overseas to immigrant visa interviews without fear that their visa applications will be turned down because of their illegal stay in the States.

And, if CIS in the US does not approve the first waiver application, the alien spouse can re-apply and hopefully be approved for the waiver before leaving the US.

The basic requirement of the waiver is that the alien must prove extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse or parent if the applicant must remain outside the US for 3 or 10 years.

The I-601A proposed rule is not yet approved and anyone filing under the I-601A right now would be rejected.

In order to apply for the I-601A waiver, the alien must be in the US, be at least 17 years old, have an approved immediate relative visa petition filed on his or her behalf, and have already paid the Department of State immigrant visa processing fee.

All individuals eligible for this process are still required to depart the United States and must meet all legal requirements for issuance of an immigrant visa and admission to the United States. And, once again, they must be able to demonstrate that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

The I-601A waiver procedure would only be available to people who have NOT yet applied for a Green Card, people who are NOT under an order of removal, and people who have NOT already been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q.1. Can spouses and children of permanent residents also qualify to submit the new I-601A waiver form?
A.1. No. USCIS will only make the proposed unlawful presence waiver process available to immediate relatives because visas for them are always available without a waiting time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q.2. Can people use the current Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Admissibility, to apply for a provisional waiver?
A.2. No. USCIS is developing a new form for the proposed provisional unlawful presence waiver process – Form I-601A. The application filing fee is $585.00, the same fee required for the Form I-601. There is an additional biometric fee of $85.00 for applicants who are under 79 years of age.

 
ROBERT MULLINS INTERNATIONAL www.rmiodp.com 
Immigration Support Services - Tham Van Di Tru

9070 Bolsa Ave., Westminster CA 92683 (714) 890-9933
779 Story Road, Ste. 70, San Jose, CA 95122 (408) 294-3888
6930 65th St. Ste. #105, Sacramento CA 95823 (916) 393-3388
42 Dang Thi Nhu, P. Nguyen Thai Binh, Q1, HCM (848) 3914-7638
Thứ Tư, 27 Tháng Tám 2014(Xem: 17431)
Question 1: In September, the cutoff date for F2A cases will advance 8 months, to January 1st, 2013. What does this mean for Permanent Residents who have filed petitions for their spouse and children?
Thứ Tư, 20 Tháng Tám 2014(Xem: 14218)
Records that are stored and reviewed on the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD).
Thứ Tư, 13 Tháng Tám 2014(Xem: 14213)
There are rumors that on a case-by-case basis, Consulates will waive nonimmigrant visa requirements for admission into the United States for applicants whose U.S. travel involves an “emergency” (i.e., humanitarian travel and life-and-death situations) or impacts U.S. national interests.
Thứ Tư, 06 Tháng Tám 2014(Xem: 14520)
On July 30, 2014, the U.S. Department of State issued the following update related to the recent computer crash that has led to delays in visa and passport processing:
Thứ Tư, 30 Tháng Bảy 2014(Xem: 21182)
The process of sponsoring a fiancée is only for American citizens. It requires submitting Form I-129F to USCIS and obtaining a K-1 nonimmigrant visa.
Thứ Tư, 23 Tháng Bảy 2014(Xem: 13716)
Not counting family members: This means that only one visa per family would be required instead of requiring a separate visa for each spouse and child.
Thứ Tư, 16 Tháng Bảy 2014(Xem: 14564)
A listener says: I am an American citizen, sponsoring my daughter, son-in-law and two grand-daughters.
Thứ Tư, 09 Tháng Bảy 2014(Xem: 15299)
We received some interesting questions from our listeners and we will share the responses with our audience.
Thứ Tư, 25 Tháng Sáu 2014(Xem: 20231)
The CIS Fraud Detection Unit is responsible for making site visits at the homes of married couples in spousal permanent residence ("green card") cases, when the alien spouse is applying for a permanent Green Card.
Thứ Tư, 11 Tháng Sáu 2014(Xem: 14036)
The Supreme Court decision is a major disappointment because Congress probably did not intend such a narrow interpretation of the law.