It
is not only lawful permanent residents
(green card holders), as discussed in a previous article, but also certain
nonpermanent residents (without a green card) who are placed in removal (aka
deportation) proceedings are eligible for relief known as cancellation of
removal if they meet the requirements prescribed by the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), and case law. An LPR who obtained such
status by fraud or mistake and was barred from applying for cancellation for
lawful permanent residents under INA § 240A(a) may apply for cancellation of
removal as a nonpermanent resident under INA § 240A(b), provided it is timely.
See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 2005)
Statutory eligibility
INA § 240A(b)(1) [8 USC §
1229b(b)(1)] provides:
“The Attorney General may
cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United
States if the alien-
(A) has been physically
present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years
immediately preceding the date of such application [The period of continuous
physical residence is deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear
or when the alien has committed an offense referred to in INA section 212(a)(2)
that renders the alien inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(2) or removable
under section 237(A)(2) or 237(a)(4). An alien is considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence if the alien has departed from the U.S.
for any period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate
exceeding 180 days];
(B) has been a person of good
moral character during such period;
(C) has not been convicted of
an offense under INA section 212(a)(2) [certain criminal offenses], 237(a)(2)
[certain criminal offenses], or 237(a)(3) [failure to register and
falsification of documents], subject to paragraph (5); and
(D) establishes that removal
would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's
spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See Matter of Recinas, 23
I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002).
INA § 240A(b)(2) [8 USC §
1229b(b)(2)] provides a special rule for a battered spouse or child.
Aliens ineligible for cancellation of removal
Cancellation of removal is not available to the following aliens:
(1) An alien who entered the
United States as a crewman subsequent to June 30, 1964.
(2) An alien who was admitted
to the United States as a nonimmigrant exchange alien as defined in section
101(a)(15)(J), or has acquired the status of such a nonimmigrant exchange alien
after admission, in order to receive graduate medical education or training,
regardless of whether or not the alien is subject to or has fulfilled the
two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e).
(3) An alien who- (A)
was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant exchange alien as defined
in section 101(a)(15)(J) or has acquired the status of such a nonimmigrant
exchange alien after admission other than to receive graduate medical education
or training, (B) is subject to the two-year foreign residence requirement
of section 212(e), and (C) has not fulfilled that requirement or received
a waiver thereof.
(4) An alien who is
inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) [security and related grounds] or
deportable under of section 237(a)(4) [security and related grounds].
(5) An alien who is described
in section 241(b)(3)(B)(i) [persecuted others].
(6) An alien whose removal
has previously been canceled under this section [240A] or whose deportation was
suspended under section 244(a) or who has been granted relief under section
212(c), as such sections were in effect before the date of the enactment of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Factors considered in exercising discretion
As in cancellation of removal for lawful permanent
residents, the nonpermanent resident must also establish that he/she warrants a
favorable exercise of discretion by the Attorney General, represented by the
Immigration Judge. That discretion is not absolute. In Matter of Mendez, 21
I&N Dec. 296, 300-301 (BIA 1996),
the Board of Immigration Appeals said that the IJ must balance the positive
equities and adverse factors with the social and humane considerations presented
on the alien’s behalf to determine whether the grant of relief in the exercise
of discretion appears to be in the best interests of this country.
In Matter of Mendez, 21
I&N Dec. 296, 300-301 (BIA 1996), the Board set out the factors used in weighing
the positive factors or equities and negative factors of an alien seeking
cancellation of removal.
Positive Factors or Equities:
(1) Family ties within the United States; (2) residency of long duration in
this country; (3) evidence of hardship to the alien and family if the alien is
excluded and deported; (4) service in the Armed Forces; (5) history of
stable employment ; (6) existence of
property or business ties; (7) existence of value and service to the community;
(8) evidence of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists; and (9)
other evidence attesting to the alien’s good character.
Negative Factors: (1) Nature
and underlying circumstances of exclusion ground at issue; (2) additional
significant violations of this country’s immigration laws; (3) existence of
criminal record, and if so its nature, recency, and seriousness, and (4) the
presence of other evidence indicative of the alien’s bad character or
undesirability as a permanent resident of this country.
Form EOIR-42B is used in
applying for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents. The
Form contains advice and instructions. There is a filing fee of $100 and a
biometrics fee of $85.
PRACTICE TIP: The alien
should consider retaining the services of an experienced, competent, and
hardworking (not hardly working) attorney who must establish the eligibility
requirements with evidence, particularly the requirement of “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship,” and who must successfully answer the ultimate question
to be resolved: is it in the “best interests of this country” to grant
cancellation of removal?
(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School where he
specialized in Constitutional Law. He has also a Bachelor of Laws degree from
the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the Philippine Bar
Examination in 1956. His current practice focuses on immigration law and
criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book
publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. He has also a
radio show in Honolulu, Hawaii with his son Noel, senior partner of the Bilecki
& Tipon law firm, where they discuss legal and political issues. Office:
American Savings Bank Tower, 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2305, Honolulu, Hawaii,
U.S.A. 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: www.MilitaryandCriminalLaw.com.
He was born in Laoag City, Philippines. He served as a U.S. Immigration
Officer. He is co-author with retired Manila RTC Judge Artemio S. Tipon of the
best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws” and co-author of
“Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration
officers and lawyers. This article is a general overview of the subject matter
discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No warranty is made by the
writer or publisher as to its completeness or correctness at the time of
publication. No attorney-client relationship is established between the writer
and readers relying upon and/or acting pursuant to the contents of this article.)
Comments
Post a Comment