Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility

Federal RegisterJul 29, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 103 and 212

[CIS No. 2557-2014; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2012-0003]

RIN 1615-AC03

Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility

AGENCY:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule, consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), expands the class of individuals who may be eligible for a provisional waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility based on the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States. The provisional unlawful presence waiver (“provisional waiver”) process allows certain individuals who are present in the United States to request from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) a provisional waiver of these grounds of inadmissibility before departing the United States for consular processing of their immigrant visas—rather than applying for a waiver abroad after their immigrant visa interviews using the Form I-601, Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (“Form I-601 waiver process”). The provisional waiver process is designed to encourage unlawfully present individuals to leave the United States, attend their immigrant visa interviews, and return to the United States legally to reunite with their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) family members. Having an approved provisional waiver helps facilitate immigrant visa issuance at DOS, streamlines both the waiver and the immigrant visa processes, and reduces the time that applicants are separated from their U.S. citizen or LPR family members, thus promoting family unity. The rule is intended to encourage eligible individuals to complete the immigrant visa process abroad, promote family unity, and improve administrative efficiency.

DATES:

This final rule is effective August 29, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roselyn Brown-Frei, Office of Policy and Strategy, Residence and Naturalization Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2099, Telephone (202) 272-8377 (this is not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule adopts the proposed rule that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published on July 22, 2015, with changes made in response to comments received. This final rule provides that eligibility for the provisional waiver will no longer be limited to the subset of statutorily qualified individuals who seek to immigrate as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens

and who can show that denial of admission will result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. Rather, this final rule makes eligibility for the provisional waiver available to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for a waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility. Under this final rule, such an individual must go abroad to obtain an immigrant visa, establish that denial of admission will result in extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, establish that his or her case warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, and meet all other regulatory requirements. Eligibility for the provisional waiver will also extend to the spouses and children who accompany or follow to join principal immigrants. The rule is intended to encourage eligible individuals to complete the immigrant visa process abroad, promote family unity, and improve administrative efficiency. DHS believes that this rule will reduce overall immigrant visa processing times for eligible immigrant visa applicants; encourage individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States to seek lawful status after departing the country; save resources and time for the Department of State (DOS), DHS, and the individual; and reduce the hardship that U.S. citizen and LPR family members of individuals seeking the provisional waiver may experience as a result of the immigrant visa process.

Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are the spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens, provided that, in the case of parents, the U.S. citizen son or daughter petitioner is over the age of 21. In certain situations, the former spouse of a deceased U.S. citizen is also considered an immediate relative.

Table of Contents:

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

B. Costs and Benefits

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

B. Proposed Rule

C. Final Rule

III. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Public Comments

B. Legal Authority

C. Eligibility for the Provisional Waiver

D. Adjudication

E. Filing Requirements and Fees

F. Comments on the Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I-601A, and the Form Instructions

G. Miscellaneous Comments

H. Comments on the Executive Orders 12866/13563 Analysis

IV. Regulatory Amendments

A. Amending 8 CFR 212.7(e)(1) To Clarify Which Agency Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Provisional Waivers

B. Removing the Provisional Waiver Reason To Believe Standard as a Basis for Ineligibility for Provisional Waivers

C. Removing the DOS Visa Interview Scheduling Cut-Off Dates in 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv) and 212.7(e)(5)(ii)(G)

D. Allowing Individuals With Final Orders of Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion To Apply for Provisional Waivers

E. Clarifying When an Individual Is Subject to Reinstatement and Ineligible for Provisional Waivers

F. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

C. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule, consistent with the INA, expands the provisional unlawful presence waiver process (hereinafter “provisional waiver process”), which specifies how an individual may be eligible to receive a provisional waiver of his or her inadmissibility for accrual of unlawful presence prior to departing the United States for processing of an immigrant visa application at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e).

Generally, individuals who are in the United States and seeking lawful permanent resident (LPR) status must either obtain an immigrant visa abroad through what is known as “consular processing” with the Department of State (DOS) or apply to adjust their immigration status to that of an LPR in the United States, if eligible. Individuals present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled are typically ineligible to adjust their status in the United States. To obtain LPR status, such individuals must leave the United States for immigrant visa processing at a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad. But because these individuals are present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled, their departures may trigger a ground of

inadmissibility based on the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).

Under subclause (I) of this provision, an individual who has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year, and who then departs voluntarily from the United States before the commencement of removal proceedings, is inadmissible for 3 years from the date of departure.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I). Under subclause (II), an individual who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then departs the United States (before, during, or after removal proceedings), is inadmissible for 10 years from the date of the departure.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). These “3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars” do not take effect unless and until the individual departs from the United States.

See, e.g.

Matter of Rodarte-Roman

, 23 I. & N. Dec. 905 (BIA 2006).

The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) may waive this ground of inadmissibility for an individual who can demonstrate that the refusal of his or her admission to the United States would result in extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). Prior to the creation of the provisional waiver process in 2013, any individual who was seeking an immigrant visa and became inadmissible under the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar upon departure from the United States, could apply for a waiver of such inadmissibility from DHS by filing an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-601, with USCIS, but only after having attended the consular immigrant visa interview abroad. Those who applied for waivers under this “Form I-601 waiver process”

were effectively required to remain abroad for at least several months while USCIS adjudicated their waiver applications.

The “Form I-601 waiver process,” for purposes of this rule, refers to the process that an applicant uses when seeking an immigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad and applying for a waiver of inadmissibility by filing an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-601.

The average adjudication time of Form I-601 applications is currently over five months. Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS Processing Time Information for the Nebraska Service Center-Form I-601,

available at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do

(last updated Feb. 11, 2016).

For some individuals, the Form I-601 waiver process led to lengthy separations of immigrant visa applicants from their family members, causing some U.S. citizens and LPRs to experience the significant emotional and financial hardships that Congress aimed to avoid when it authorized the waiver.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) (providing for an inadmissibility waiver, “if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien”). For this reason, many relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs who are eligible to obtain LPR status may be reluctant to travel abroad to seek immigrant visas and obtain such status. The Form I-601 waiver process also created processing inefficiencies for both USCIS and DOS through repeated interagency communication and through multiple consular appointments or interviews.

On January 3, 2013, DHS promulgated a final rule,

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives

, in the

Federal Register

See

78 FR 536 (Jan. 3, 2013) (“2013 Rule”). To improve administrative efficiency and reduce the amount of time that a U.S. citizen spouse or parent is separated from his or her relative while the relative completes the immigrant visa process, the 2013 Rule provided a process by which certain statutorily eligible individuals—specifically, certain parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens—may apply for provisional waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars (“provisional waivers”) before leaving the United States for their immigrant visa interviews. The final rule also limited eligibility for provisional waivers to those immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who could show extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. One reason DHS limited eligibility for the provisional waiver was to allow DHS and DOS time to assess the effectiveness of the process and the operational impact it may have on existing agency processes and resources.

See

2013 Rule, 78 FR at 541.

Administration of the provisional waiver process has shown that granting a provisional waiver prior to the departure of an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen can reduce the time that such family members are separated. The grant of a provisional waiver also reduces hardships to U.S. citizen families and lowers the processing costs for DHS and DOS. In light of these benefits, and because other individuals are statutorily eligible for waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars, DHS decided to remove restrictions that prevented certain individuals from seeking such waivers through the provisional waiver process. On July 22, 2015, DHS proposed to expand the class of individuals who may be eligible for provisional waivers beyond certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to all statutorily eligible individuals regardless of their immigrant visa classification. DHS also proposed to expand the class of individuals who could obtain provisional waivers, consistent with the statutory waiver authority, by permitting consideration of extreme hardship not only to U.S. citizen spouses or parents, but also to LPR spouses or parents.

In this final rule, DHS adopts the changes discussed in the proposed rule with several modifications in response to comments submitted on the proposed rule. The new modifications include:

(1) Clarifying that all individuals seeking provisional waivers, including those in removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), must file applications for provisional waivers with USCIS.

(2) Allowing individuals to apply for provisional waivers even if USCIS has a reason to believe that they may be subject to other grounds of inadmissibility.

(3) Eliminating the proposed temporal limitations that would have restricted eligibility for provisional waivers based on DOS visa interview scheduling.

(4) Allowing individuals with final orders of removal, exclusion, or deportation to be eligible for provisional waivers provided that they have already applied for, and USCIS has approved, an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212.

(5) Clarifying that DHS must have actually reinstated a removal, deportation, or exclusion order in order for an individual who has returned to the United States unlawfully after removal to be ineligible for a provisional waiver on that basis.

In addition, DHS made several technical and non-substantive changes.

B. Costs and Benefits

This rule's expansion of the provisional waiver process will create costs and benefits for newly eligible provisional waiver (Form I-601A) applicants, their U.S. citizen or LPR family members, and the Federal Government (namely, USCIS and DOS), as outlined in the Summary Table. This rule will impose fee, time, and travel

costs on an estimated 100,000 newly eligible individuals who choose to complete and submit provisional waiver applications and biometrics (fingerprints, photograph, and signature) to USCIS for consideration during the 10-year period of analysis (

see

Table 8). These costs will equal an estimated $52.4 million at a 7 percent discount rate and $64.2 million at a 3 percent discount rate in present value across the period of analysis. On an annualized basis, the costs will measure approximately $7.5 million at both 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates (

see

Summary Table).

Newly eligible provisional waiver applicants and their U.S. citizen or LPR family members will benefit from this rule. Those applying for provisional waivers will receive advance notice of USCIS' decision to provisionally waive their 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar before they leave the United States for their immigrant visa interview abroad. This offers applicants and their family members the certainty of knowing that the applicants have been provisionally approved for waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars before departing from the United States. Individuals with approved provisional waivers may experience shortened periods of separation from their family members living in the United States while they pursue issuance of immigrant visas abroad, thus reducing any related financial and emotional strains on the families. USCIS and DOS will continue to benefit from the operational efficiencies gained from the provisional waiver's role in streamlining immigrant visa application processing, but on a larger scale.

In the absence of this rule, DHS assumes that the majority of individuals who are newly eligible for provisional waivers under this rule will likely continue to pursue an immigrant visa through consular processing abroad and apply for waivers of grounds of inadmissibility resulting from the accrual of unlawful presence through the Form I-601 waiver process. Those who apply for unlawful presence waivers through the Form I-601 waiver process will incur fee, time, and travel costs similar to individuals applying for waivers through the provisional waiver process. However, without this rule, individuals who must seek a waiver of inadmissibility abroad through the Form I-601 waiver process after the immigrant visa interview may face longer separation times from their families in the United States and will experience less certainty regarding the approval of a waiver of the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar before departing from the United States. Absent a waiver, individuals who are subject to these bars would be unable to obtain LPR status for either 3 or 10 years.

Summary Table—Total Costs and Benefits of Rule, Year 1-Year 10

10-Year present values

3% Discount rate

7% Discount rate

Annualized values

3% Discount rate

7% Discount rate

Total Costs:

Quantitative

$64,168,205

$52,429,216

$7,522,471

$7,464,741

Total Benefits:

Qualitative

Decreased amount of time that U.S. citizens or LPRs are separated from their family members with approved provisional waivers, leading to reduced financial and emotional hardship for these families.

Provisional waiver applicants will receive advance notice of USCIS' decision to provisionally waive their 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar before they leave the United States for their immigrant visa interview abroad. This offers applicants and their family members the certainty of knowing that the applicants have been provisionally approved for a waiver before departing from the United States.

Federal Government will achieve increased efficiencies by streamlining immigrant visa processing for applicants seeking inadmissibility waivers of unlawful presence.

Note:

The cost estimates in this table are contingent upon Form I-601A filing projections as well as the discount rates applied for monetized values.

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

Under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B), an individual who has accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the United States and then leaves the United States generally is inadmissible for a specified period after the individual's departure. The inadmissibility period lasts for 3 years if the individual accrued more than 180 days but less than 1 year of unlawful presence, and for 10 years if the individual accrued 1 year or more of unlawful presence. Under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”) has discretion to waive this ground of inadmissibility if the Secretary finds that denying the applicant's admission to the United States would result in extreme hardship to the applicant's U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent. INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, gives the Secretary the authority to prescribe regulations for the administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.

B. Proposed Rule

On July 22, 2015, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking to expand eligibility for provisional waivers of certain grounds of inadmissibility based on the accrual of unlawful presence to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for a waiver

of such grounds, are seeking a provisional waiver in connection with an immigrant visa application, and meet other conditions.

See

proposed rule,

Expansion of Provisional Waivers of Inadmissibility

, 80 FR 43338 (July 22, 2015) (2015 Proposed Rule).

In response to the proposed rule, DHS received 606 public comments from individuals, advocacy groups, attorneys, organizations, schools, and local governments. Some of the comments were submitted through mass mailing or email campaigns or petitions expressing support for or opposition to the provisional waiver process in general. Opinions on the proposed rule varied, but the majority of commenters (472) were supportive of the proposed expansion. Many of these commenters made additional suggestions to improve the provisional waiver process overall. These suggestions are discussed below.

DHS received 82 comments opposed to the proposed rule. In many of these instances, these commenters argued that the Executive Branch lacks the legal authority to implement the proposed changes. Commenters indicated that expanding the program amounted to an abuse of authority. One commenter asserted that the rule exceeded the Secretary's authority under the INA and that provisionally approving a waiver before an individual departs from the United States based on a family unity rationale was arbitrary and capricious. Some commenters also believed that the provisional waiver process would grant legal status to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. Others asked that USCIS prioritize the lawful immigrant community over those unlawfully present in the United States.

DHS received 52 comments that either did not clearly express an opinion in support of or in opposition to the proposed rule or that did not address any aspect of the proposed rule. For example, a few commenters provided input on immigrants in general, immigration policy, the Federal government, and other government programs that are not within the scope of this rulemaking. Because these comments address nothing in the proposed rule, DHS provides no specific response to them.

Unless mentioned in this supplementary information, commenters did not make any specific suggestions for changes to the provisional waiver process based on what DHS outlined in the proposed rule. In preparing this final rule, DHS counted and considered each public comment and other relevant materials that appear in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). All comments received may be reviewed in FDMS at

http://www.regulations.gov

, under docket number USCIS-2012-0003.

C. Final Rule

This final rule adopts most of the regulatory amendments set forth in the proposed rule except for a few provisions, as explained in this preamble. The rationale for the proposed rule and the reasoning provided in its preamble remain valid with respect to the regulatory amendments adopted. Additionally, DHS has made several changes to the regulatory provisions based on the comments received. This final rule also adopts the technical regulatory amendments suggested in the proposed rule without change. This final rule does not address comments seeking changes in U.S. laws, regulations, or agency policies that are unrelated to the provisional waiver process or the clarifying technical amendments to 8 CFR 212.7. This final rule does not change the procedures or policies of other DHS components or Federal agencies, or resolve issues outside the scope of this rulemaking.

III. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Public Comments

The 60-day public comment period for the proposed rule ended on September 21, 2015. The majority of comments came from supporters who agreed that the proposed rule would promote family unity and reduce the length of time family members would be separated. Many considered family unity as one of the core principles of U.S. immigration law and stated that this rulemaking benefitted the United States overall, not just families. Several commenters made suggestions for simplifying the provisional waiver process overall.

Some commenters identified themselves as U.S. citizens or LPR family members (including children) who were worried about their relatives' immigration situations and about being separated from their family members for prolonged time periods. Numerous commenters who urged DHS to implement the proposed expansion shared personal stories and described hardships they have experienced or may experience upon being separated from family members. Many reasoned that keeping families together assists the U.S. economy and otherwise strengthens the country, because many individuals who are undocumented work hard, pay taxes, and are concerned about the well-being of their children. Many asserted that the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars and other bars to admissibility are inhumane and cruel and that these laws need to change. Backlogs in the immigration system, such as visa backlogs, were raised generally by commenters as additional reasons for supporting this rule. Some commenters also believed that expanding eligibility for the provisional waiver process would streamline the waiver adjudication process for applicants inadmissible based on the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States, thereby making the immigrant visa process faster and more predictable. Finally, a commenter expressed the belief that expanding the process would reduce burdens on DOS.

Several commenters who disagreed with the proposed expansion argued that the Executive Branch lacks the legal authority to implement the proposed changes without congressional approval. Others stated that the proposed expansion is the Administration's way of circumventing existing laws, creating amnesty, and favoring those who are unlawfully present over lawful immigrants. Some considered the measure to be unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious. A number of commenters asserted that the expansion would reward law breakers, further illegal immigration, and lead to system abuse and fraud, as well as additional social problems.

For several commenters, unifying families was not an acceptable justification for the proposed rule. Some asserted that it is not the U.S. Government's place to accommodate people who are in the country illegally. Those commenters expressed that family separation is a natural consequence of an individual's choice to break the law. Others asserted that expanding the process would undermine the Nation's sovereignty, economy, security, and proper law enforcement efforts. Overall, these commenters believed that the expansion would erode the integrity of the immigration system.

Many of the commenters identified themselves as lawful immigrants or relatives of lawful immigrants. Some of these individuals voiced disappointment over the proposed expansion and indicated that the Federal Government's money and resources would be better invested in assisting U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants. These commenters emphasized that they have complied with the law, paid taxes, and worked hard toward maintaining lawful status,

and they asked DHS to first assist individuals who are lawfully present in the United States to obtain immigrant status by fixing the backlogged immigration system before fixing processes that benefit those who are unlawfully present in the United States.

One commenter suggested that local governments, rather than the Federal Government, should control the immigration process. This commenter indicated that local governments are in a better position to consider the costs of immigration measures to local communities. Other commenters considered the rule unnecessary and current regulations sufficient to address the immigrant community's needs. One commenter asked that DHS restrict and not expand the provisional waiver process in order to better control the U.S. border.

DHS has reviewed all of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule and addresses those comments focused on aspects in this final rule. DHS's responses to these comments are grouped by subject area, with a focus on the most common issues and suggestions raised by the commenters. The response to each comment also explains whether DHS made any changes to address the comment. DHS received no comments on the following topics addressed in the proposed rule: Inclusion of Diversity Visa selectees; inclusion of derivative spouses and children; the rejection criteria; the validity of an approved provisional waiver; and automatic revocation.

B. Legal Authority

A number of commenters questioned the Department's legal authority to expand the provisional waiver process. Some commenters expressed the view that the rule constituted an attempt to circumvent Congress, and that it was as an effort in disregard of current immigration laws, including case law. Some commenters also stated that the proposed rule exceeded DHS authorities in implementing the Secretary's directive to expand eligibility for provisional waivers. Others asserted that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

DHS disagrees that this rule's expansion of the provisional waiver process exceeds the Secretary's legal authority. As a preliminary matter, the Federal Government has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, and Congress may enact legislation establishing immigration law and policy.

See, e.g.,

Arizona

United States,

132 S. Ct. 2492, 2498 (2012) (“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. This authority rests, in part, on the National Government's constitutional power to `establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization,' and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” (citations omitted));

see also Fiallo

Bell,

430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977). The Executive Branch, which includes DHS, implements the laws passed by Congress, and Congress has specifically charged the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws.

See

6 U.S.C. 112, 202(3)-(5); INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a). The Secretary is also authorized to promulgate rules and “perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority.” INA section 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). The Secretary thus has broad discretion to determine the most effective way to administer the immigration laws.

See, e.g.,

Jean

Nelson,

727 F.2d 957, 965 (11th Cir. 1984) (“The principal responsibility for immigration matters in the Executive branch resides with the [Secretary], who is the beneficiary of broad grants of discretion under the statute.”),

aff'd,

472 U.S. 846 (1985);

Narenji

Civiletti,

617 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (observing that the INA “need not specifically authorize each and every action taken by the Attorney General [(now Secretary of Homeland Security)], so long as his action is reasonably related to the duties imposed upon him”).

More specifically, Congress provided for a waiver of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), for individuals who can demonstrate extreme hardship to certain qualifying relatives. That section does not restrict the manner in which eligible individuals can seek such waivers. In 2013, DHS created the provisional waiver process to allow certain immigrant visa applicants who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to provisionally apply for waivers before they leave the United States for their consular interviews. The creation of this process was merely a procedural change that addressed the manner in which eligible individuals can apply for the statutorily provided waiver of inadmissibility.

See Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives,

78 FR 536, 541 (Jan. 3, 2013) (“2013 Rule”). This rule expands on that process by simply expanding the pool of individuals eligible to apply for provisional waivers to statutorily eligible individuals in all immigrant visa classifications, subject to certain conditions.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e). Like the 2013 Rule, this Final Rule, therefore, does not create new waiver authority; it implements an existing authority conferred by Congress.

Neither conditioning a waiver on an individual's departure from the United States nor allowing advance application for a waiver is novel. For example, DHS regulations at 8 CFR 212.2(j) have long allowed an individual who is subject to a removal order to seek consent to reapply for admission under INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii), while the individual is in the United States and before the individual departs the United States. A grant of consent to reapply for admission, like the provisional waiver, is conditioned on the individual's eventual departure from the United States.

See

8 CFR 212.2(j). DHS and former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulations have permitted advance applications for consent to reapply for admission under INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii) since at least 1969.

See, e.g.,

34 FR 9061 (1969); 36 FR 11635 (1971). The INS also permitted advance waiver applications under former INA section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) (repealed 1996).

See

8 CFR 212.3(b); 52 FR 11620 (1987).

Finally, DHS disagrees with commenters who stated that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious. The commenters appear to assert that DHS exceeds its statutory authority by violating the substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

See

5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). A rulemaking may be considered arbitrary and capricious under the APA when an agency's action is unreasonable, unsound, or not explained, or when it fails to demonstrate that the agency has considered the circumstances surrounding its action. An agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the United States, Inc.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

463 U.S. 29, 42-43 (1983). DHS has made clear throughout the proposed rule and this preamble all of the factors that were considered in putting forth the proposal and has articulated how the expansion of the provisional waiver process is tied to the purposes of the immigration laws and efficient operation of the immigration system.

See generally

2015 Proposed Rule, 80 FR 43339. DHS believes that the assertions of these commenters are unfounded.

C. Eligibility for the Provisional Waiver

1. Categories of Eligible Individuals

Many commenters believed that expanding eligibility for the provisional waiver as proposed to all statutorily

eligible individuals—including beneficiaries in family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories, as well as Diversity Visa selectees—would offer benefits to the U.S. Government and facilitate legal immigration and family unity. These commenters indicated that the expansion would reduce the fear of many immigrants, who otherwise may worry that they would be unable to reunite with their families after leaving the United States to have their immigrant visas processed abroad.

Accordingly, some commenters suggested that all individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions should be able to participate in the provisional waiver process, regardless of whether they are located inside or outside the United States. Other commenters asked that USCIS allow individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions to apply for provisional waivers regardless of their priority dates, especially if they had been present in the United States for many years.

Many commenters asked that DHS allow the following categories of individuals to apply for provisional waivers: (1) Married or unmarried individuals over the age of 21 with U.S. citizen parents; (2) individuals over the age of 21, whether single or married; (3) spouses of U.S. citizens without a criminal record and with good standing in their communities; (4) parents of U.S. citizens with approved petitions; (5) sons-in-law and daughters-in-law; and 6) self-petitioning widows and widowers of U.S. citizens. Some commenters urged DHS to prioritize relatives of U.S. citizens over relatives of LPRs. Some commenters asked that DHS focus not only on families, but also on sponsored employees, corporations, and self-sponsored business owners. Others requested that DHS include the following categories of individuals in the provisional waiver process: (1) Those with nonimmigrant investor-type visas; (2) well-educated professionals; (3) those with approved immigrant visa petitions but without any family in the United States; (4) spouses of nonimmigrant visa holders who are beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions (Forms I-140); and (5) those with pending immigrant visa petitions. Many commenters requested that USCIS adjust an individual's status to that of an LPR upon approval of the waiver; others mistakenly believed that USCIS already does so.

The Secretary is authorized to waive the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars for individuals seeking admission to the United States as immigrants if they can show that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, and provided that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). With this final rule, DHS is allowing all individuals who are statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and who meet the legal requirements for a waiver under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), to seek a provisional waiver in accordance with new 8 CFR 212.7(e). Consistent with the current provisional waiver process, provisional waivers are available only to those who are present in the United States, who must apply for immigrant visas at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad, and who at the time of the immigrant visa interview may be inadmissible based on the accrual of unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).

DHS can only expand the pool of individuals eligible for this process to those who fall within one of the current statutory immigrant visa classifications and who meet the requirements for the unlawful presence waiver described in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). DHS cannot expand eligibility to those who are not statutorily eligible for such waivers under current law. Similarly, DHS cannot change who is statutorily eligible to adjust status in the United States. Intending immigrants who are present in the United States but ineligible to adjust status must depart the United States and obtain their immigrant visas through consular processing abroad; approval of a provisional waiver does not change this requirement.

See

INA sections 104, 202(a)(1)(B), 211, 221, 222 and 245; 8 U.S.C. 1104, 1152(a)(1)(B), 1181, 1201, 1202, and 1255.

See generally

8 CFR part 245; 22 CFR part 42.

As indicated above, many commenters asked that DHS expand the provisional waiver process to include additional categories of individuals, including sons or daughters who have approved immigrant visa petitions and are over the age of 21 or married. To clarify, in the proposed rule, DHS sought to include

all

beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions who are statutorily eligible for a waiver of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars, regardless of age, marital status, or immigration status. Individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions, including sons and daughters (married or unmarried) of U.S. citizens, as well as those who have been selected to participate in the Diversity Visa program, may participate in the provisional waiver process provided they meet the requirements stated in 8 CFR 212.7(e). Consistent with its statutory authority under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), DHS will no longer limit the provisional waiver process to certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.

Additionally, as explained throughout this preamble, DHS is changing other eligibility and ineligibility criteria in response to comments received.

2. Backlogged Immigrant Visa Categories and Eligibility for Interim Benefits

A large number of commenters suggested that individuals with approved family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa petitions should be permitted to obtain provisional waivers if immigrant visas are unavailable to them as a result of visa backlogs.

Many commenters expressed frustration with the current legal immigration system and lengthy wait times for visas, which separate families and hinder the professional development of many individuals and their family members. Some commenters said it was unfair that DHS and USCIS seek to implement rules that assist persons who came to the United States unlawfully. These commenters indicated that those who came legally to the United States but who cannot obtain immigrant status as a result of visa backlogs should also receive assistance. These commenters opined that those who immigrate lawfully, such as employment-based immigrants, bring economic advantages to the United States.

In particular, some commenters requested that DHS include married and unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens for whom an immigrant visa is unavailable due to immigrant visa backlogs.

A few commenters suggested that individuals with or without approved provisional waivers should be given interim benefits while awaiting visa availability. For example, one commenter requested that USCIS grant deferred action and work authorization to undocumented individuals who are U.S.-educated professionals in nursing, medical, or engineering fields, are the beneficiaries of family-sponsored petitions, and have displayed good conduct. Another commenter requested that an individual with an approved provisional waiver be issued a temporary Social Security number and renewable work authorization for a minimum of 3 years. A commenter asked USCIS to provide work authorization and advance parole documents to enable travel outside of,

and facilitate return to, the United States to lawfully present individuals affected by visa backlogs if they otherwise complied with the immigration laws. Another commenter believed that USCIS should grant parole in place to an individual with an approved immigrant visa petition and provisional waiver, if the petitioner's or beneficiary's disability makes travel abroad hazardous due to a condition covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

After receiving parole in place, the commenter reasoned, the beneficiary could adjust his or her status in the United States and would not have to risk the petitioner's or the beneficiary's life by traveling. Finally, many commenters expressed the desire that individuals be able to adjust status in the United States if they have an approved petition or provisional waiver.

See

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336), as amended.

DHS acknowledges the concerns many intending immigrants face due to backlogs in available immigrant visa numbers. As noted, DHS is broadening the availability of the provisional waiver process to include all statutorily eligible individuals—including all beneficiaries of family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant visa petitions, as well as Diversity Visa selectees—who have a qualifying relative under the statute for purposes of the extreme hardship determination. Beneficiaries in family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories, as well as Diversity Visa immigrants, are subject to annual numerical limits that have been set by Congress.

See

INA sections 201, 202 and 203; 8 U.S.C. 1151, 1152 and 1153. Neither DOS nor DHS can change the number of visas that Congress allocates for particular immigrant visa categories, nor can they alter the statutory requirements for adjustment of status in the United States. Addressing those recommendations would require legislative changes.

DHS does not consider it appropriate to make an application for a provisional waiver, or the approval of such an application, a basis for granting interim benefits, including an advance parole document or employment authorization. In particular, because an approved immigrant visa petition and a waiver of inadmissibility do not independently confer any immigration status or otherwise afford lawful presence in the United States, neither may typically serve as the basis for interim benefits. Furthermore, issuance of interim benefits to individuals who are granted provisional waivers may encourage them to postpone their timely departures from the United States to pursue their immigrant visa applications. The purpose of the provisional waiver process is not to prolong an applicant's unlawful presence in the United States. Rather, the purpose is to facilitate the applicant's departure to attend an immigrant visa interview abroad so that they may complete their application process for an immigrant visa. Moreover, providing an advance parole document is unnecessary because the premise of the provisional waiver process is that the applicant, if eligible, will depart the United States and return with an immigrant visa.

The provisional waiver process is designed to encourage unlawfully present individuals to leave the United States, attend their immigrant visa interviews, and return to the United States legally to reunite with their U.S. citizen or LPR family members. Having an approved provisional waiver helps facilitate immigrant visa issuance at DOS, streamlines both the waiver and the immigrant visa processes, and reduces the time that applicants are separated from their U.S. citizen or LPR family members, thus promoting family unity.

3. Individuals Outside the United States

A few commenters asked DHS to extend eligibility for provisional waivers to individuals outside the United States. Commenters argued that such individuals should be eligible for provisional waivers because they are often relatives of U.S. citizens with approved immigrant visa petitions and have immigrant visa applications pending with DOS. These commenters also suggested that those who need waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars but are now outside the United States should not be disadvantaged by their decision to ultimately comply with the immigration laws by departing the United States. The commenters believed that DHS should apply the same rules and processes to all visa applicants.

DHS understands the difficulties that U.S. citizens and LPRs face when their family members are outside the United States and are attempting to navigate the immigrant visa process. DHS notes, however, that individuals who are outside the United States and are eligible for waivers of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars may apply for such waivers through the preexisting Form I-601 waiver process. Considering the existence of the Form I-601 waiver process, DHS continues to believe that expanding the provisional waiver process to those individuals abroad would duplicate steps already incorporated in the DOS immigrant visa process and would not be an efficient use of agency resources. DHS thus will not adopt the suggestion.

For additional discussion relating to this suggestion, please refer to the 2013 Rule, 78 FR at 543.

However, to alleviate some of the delays in waiver processing for those filing from abroad, USCIS has implemented the centralization of Form I-601 application filings, which no longer requires that applicants schedule “waiver filing” appointments with a U.S. embassy or consulate. Instead, Form I-601 applicants now file the waiver application directly with USCIS at a centralized location in the United States, thereby significantly reducing the time they are required to be outside the United States. By centralizing the processing of these waiver applications at locations in the United States, USCIS is able to better ensure that applications are processed in the most efficient manner possible.

4. Extreme Hardship

Several commenters requested that USCIS clarify the term “extreme hardship” in guidance or regulations. Others suggested that the proposed rule was legally flawed because DHS had not promulgated the requirements for establishing extreme hardship. Commenters requested that DHS clearly define the term and apply it fairly, including by considering the financial, emotional, and other harmful effects that result from separating families. Commenters believed that clarifying the term would lead to greater consistency in adjudication. One commenter asked that extreme hardship examples be included in guidance and in the provisional waiver application form.

Many commenters also requested that USCIS ease the extreme hardship standard and its documentary requirements, including, for example, by presuming extreme hardship in certain cases involving vulnerable families. Commenters often referenced the interim rule at 8 CFR 240.64(d)

as a precedent that DHS could consider for purposes of adopting one or more presumptions of extreme hardship. Commenters also urged USCIS to extend the special accommodation for beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions described in INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l), to self-petitioning widows and widowers of U.S. citizens when such

citizens died before filing immigrant visa petitions on behalf of their spouses. INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l), allows for immigrant visa petitions and related applications to be approved or reinstated for certain beneficiaries despite the death of the petitioner or principal beneficiary. Under the special accommodation, the death of the petitioner or principal beneficiary is treated as the “functional equivalent” of a finding of extreme hardship in cases where he or she could have served as a “qualifying relative” for purposes of waiving the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars.

This regulation was promulgated under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Public Law 105-100 (Nov. 19, 1997).

See

USCIS AFM Chapter 10.21(c)(5),

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/Chapter10-21.html.

This guidance does not refer to the accommodation as a “presumption,” even though it has similar effect to a presumption. As with any finding of extreme hardship, the accommodation permits, but does not require, approval of the waiver, which remains a matter of USCIS discretion.

Other commenters believed that if an applicant demonstrates some or all of the factors listed in the Secretary's November 20, 2014 memorandum directing expansion of the provisional waiver program

—such as those relating to the age of the affected U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, length of U.S. residence, and family ties in the United States—USCIS should apply a rebuttable presumption and find that the applicant has established extreme hardship. Having a presumption, some believed, would ease the burden of proof for many families. Some commenters also indicated that it was often very difficult for families to produce documentation to demonstrate extreme hardship, which the commenters viewed as an unnecessary barrier.

See

Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security to Léon Rodríguez, Director, USCIS, Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program (Nov. 20, 2014),

available at

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_i601a_waiver.pdf.

A considerable number of commenters suggested alternative standards of extreme hardship or asked that DHS include additional individuals as qualifying relatives for purposes of the extreme hardship determination. For example, commenters believed that USCIS should find extreme hardship if: (1) The applicant has a U.S. citizen spouse or parent; (2) a family is separated, or a child is separated from his or her parents; (3) family members lose their jobs because they have to travel to other countries; (4) the applicant's child would experience extreme hardship; (5) the applicant's sibling would experience extreme hardship; (6) the applicant would trigger the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar when departing the United States; (7) the applicant has waited for a prolonged period for an immigrant visa to become available; (8) the applicant is the beneficiary of an employment-based immigrant visa petition (because beneficiaries of such petitions may not have U.S. citizen or LPR qualifying relatives);

or (9) the applicant has family in the United States but not a qualifying relative. Many commenters also requested that DHS give consideration to extreme hardship that would be suffered by U.S. citizen or LPR sons and daughters who are over the age of 21 or who are married.

One commenter requested that special consideration be given to those in “special situation[s]” with respect to extreme hardship determinations, even if they do not have qualifying relatives. That commenter appeared to suggest that USCIS should create two classifications for assessing waiver eligibility, one for individuals with LPR family members and one for individuals without LPR family members. A few commenters asked DHS to eliminate the extreme hardship standard altogether. Many such commenters felt that taxpaying citizens who are “good people” should be able to keep their families together and that it is unfair to separate families simply because certain individuals cannot establish extreme hardship.

Some commenters asked USCIS to accept a showing of extreme hardship to an employer, but such consideration is not authorized by the statutory waiver authority at INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).

In many instances, it was unclear whether commenters were requesting additional eligibility criteria for provisional waivers in general, or whether they were requesting that DHS consider additional classes of individuals to be qualifying relatives for purposes of the extreme hardship determination.

One commenter suggested that USCIS should contact experts and declarants claiming personal knowledge of a qualifying relative's hardship claim by mail in order to verify that such claims are legitimate. This commenter also suggested that DHS should only consider hardship flowing from a qualifying relative's decision to remain in the United States and not the hardship such a relative may confront if he or she chooses to depart with the inadmissible applicant. That commenter viewed as “hypothetical” the hardship that may result if the qualifying relative chooses to depart, but as “verifi[able]” the hardship resulting from the choice of a qualifying relative to stay behind in the United States. According to the commenter, considering hypothetical hardship in another country is unnecessary and too difficult to document.

Other commenters proposed that DHS provide in its regulations a list of consequences or other factors typically associated with removal that adjudicators would consider when making extreme hardship recommendations. These commenters suggested that such a list of factors be drawn from historical data and precedent decisions. The commenters further suggested that such a list would be analogous to what is provided in the regulation for NACARA

applicants at 8 CFR 1240.58(b). The commenters considered such an approach invaluable to achieving consistent adjudication of all waiver applications under the INA, not just provisional waiver applications. The commenters also believed that such an approach would reduce the incentive for individuals to make conclusory and unsupported allegations when applying for provisional waivers. According to these commenters, the lack of such a regulation was a “capricious political benefit” to those unlawfully present in the United States.

See

note 8,

supra.

Finally, another commenter requested that USCIS establish specific questions related to hardship so that USCIS officers can quickly determine whether a threshold level of extreme hardship has been demonstrated.

As an alternative to an extreme hardship showing, another commenter suggested that USCIS permit applicants to explain why they violated U.S. immigration laws. Another commenter indicated that it was important to train officers in this area.

The commenter cited the Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal, Form I-881, which contains a list of questions relating to factors considered when evaluating extreme hardship as drawn from the NACARA special rule regulations at 8 CFR 1240.58(b).

DHS cannot adopt suggestions to revise the statutory requirements for waivers of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B). The authorizing statute requires the applicant to show extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent, and DHS does not have the authority to change the statutory requirement. DHS also cannot approve a provisional waiver application if the applicant has not demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative as required by the INA.

DHS also declines in this rulemaking to define extreme hardship for purposes of the provisional waiver (or more generally), or to create a rebuttable

presumption related to such determinations. The INA does not define extreme hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that extreme hardship is not a definable term of fixed and inflexible meaning, and that establishing extreme hardship is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez,

22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999) (describing factors to be considered in extreme hardship analysis),

aff'd, Cervantes-Gonzales

INS,

244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, DHS will continue to make extreme hardship determinations for purposes of provisional waivers on a case-by-case basis, consistent with agency guidance. On October 7, 2015, USCIS posted proposed guidance on extreme hardship determinations for public comment on its Web site at

www.uscis.gov.

USCIS also continually trains its officers on all aspects of the provisional waiver adjudication, including the extreme hardship determination.

The BIA and immigration judges, both under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), also make extreme hardship determinations for purposes of adjudicating applications for extreme hardship waivers under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), and for other immigration benefits and relief from exclusion, deportation, or removal.

The proposed guidance on extreme hardship determinations can be viewed at

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Policy%20Review/DRAFT_Extreme_Hardship_Policy_Manual_Guidance_for_public_comment.pdf.

Finally, DHS cannot extend the special accommodation for beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions described in INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l), to self-petitioning widows and widowers of U.S. citizens when such citizens died prior to filing immigrant visa petitions on behalf of their spouses. Under this section, USCIS may approve, or reinstate the approval of, an immigrant visa petition despite the death of the petitioner or principal beneficiary, if at least one beneficiary was residing in the United States when the relative died and continues to reside in the United States. If USCIS approves or reinstates the approval of the immigrant visa petition, USCIS also has discretion to act favorably on “any related applications.” INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l). When Congress enacted INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l), USCIS interpreted “any related applications” to include waiver applications that a beneficiary would have been able to file had the qualifying relative not died. But that section applies, by its express terms, only to an individual who “immediately prior to the death of his or her qualifying relative was . . . the beneficiary of a pending or approved petition.” If the deceased qualifying relative had not filed an immigrant visa petition at the time of death, there is no “pending or approved” petition to which INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l), can apply. Nor can there be said to be any “related applications.”

5. Applicants With Other Grounds of Inadmissibility

A large number of commenters supporting this rule stated that U.S. immigration laws are overly harsh, and that these laws harm families of U.S. citizens and LPRs. In general, many commenters asked DHS to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility for which the INA does not currently provide relief for immigrants.

Other commenters asked DHS to consider expanding the provisional waiver process to cover additional grounds of inadmissibility for which waivers are statutorily available. These commenters specifically referenced the waiver for fraud and willful misrepresentation under INA section 212(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(i), or alien smuggling under INA section 212(d)(11), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(11). Some commenters recommended that when an applicant is granted a provisional waiver based on a finding of extreme hardship, the Department should conclude that the applicant has established extreme hardship for other types of waiver applications that apply the same standard. One commenter suggested that the standard for the waiver to overcome inadmissibility for alien smuggling is lower than the extreme hardship standard

and that USCIS should thus consider the lower standard as encompassed by the extreme hardship standard. The commenter thus believed that the waiver to overcome the alien smuggling inadmissibility ground could easily be incorporated into the provisional waiver process. Overall, commenters suggested that DHS allow individuals to apply for all available waivers of inadmissibility through the provisional waiver process, which the commenters believed would further streamline the waiver and immigrant visa processes.

For example, some commenters asked for a waiver for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship under INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Another commenter asked that all parents who illegally reentered after having been previously deported should be pardoned, because, according to the commenter, most parents enter to reunite with their children and family. Many commenters felt that children are being punished for the actions of their parents. Other commenters asked that the inadmissibility ground under INA section 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C), be changed and the penalty reduced to a lesser inadmissibility period for which a waiver is available. All of these requests are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, which solely concerns the provisional waiver of the grounds of inadmissibility described in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), as authorized by INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).

DHS may waive the ground of inadmissibility described in INA section 212(a)(6)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest, provided the individual meets all other requirements.

See

INA section 212(d)(11), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(11).

Of the commenters who asked DHS to expand the provisional waiver process to include waivers of other grounds of inadmissibility, many requested that DHS specifically include the Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212.

Several commenters requested that the provisional waiver process be available to individuals who are barred for unlawful reentry after previous immigration violations under INA section 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C). Others suggested making the process available to individuals who are inadmissible under that section if they are spouses of U.S. citizens or LPRs. A few commenters asked that certain categories of individuals receive special treatment.

For example, a commenter requested that DHS create a special waiver for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. Others asked that DHS add special provisions to benefit the relatives of active members or veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

It was often unclear if the commenters sought implementation of new waivers or an expansion of the provisional waiver to include these grounds of inadmissibility.

DHS considered these comments but did not adopt the suggested changes. DHS cannot waive grounds of inadmissibility for those who are not authorized to receive waivers under the immigration laws. Implementation of these suggestions thus would have exceeded DHS's statutory authority. Other suggestions did not support a principal goal of the provisional waiver process, which is to streamline immigrant visa issuance for individuals who are eligible for an immigrant visa and otherwise admissible to the United States

but whose family members would experience extreme hardship due to application of certain unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility. As explained in the 2013 Rule, DOS consular officers are charged with

determining whether individuals are eligible for issuance of immigrant visas, including whether they are affected by one or more grounds of inadmissibility. Expanding the provisional waiver process to other grounds of inadmissibility would introduce additional complexity and inefficiencies into the immigrant visa process, create potential backlogs, and likely delay and adversely affect the processing of immigrant visas by DOS. Furthermore, USCIS generally assesses waiver applications for inadmissibility due to fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal history through an in-person interview at a USCIS field office. Because DOS already conducts a thorough in-person interview as part of the immigrant visa process, DHS believes that this type of review would be unnecessarily duplicative of DOS's efforts.

Upon departure from the United States to attend a consular interview, an individual no longer would be inadmissible as a result of being present in the United States without admission or parole under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), or for lacking proper immigrant entry documents under INA section 212(a)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A).

Because the text of the statute forecloses the issue, DHS also rejects the suggestion to expand the provisional waiver process to include individuals who are inadmissible based on a return (or attempted return) without admission after previous immigration violations under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i). The relevant forms of relief for individuals who are inadmissible under that section are found at INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii) and (iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii) and (iii).

See Matter of Torres-Garcia,

23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006). Under the statute, waivers under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), cannot be used to relieve an applicant from inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i).

6. Reason-to-Believe Standard

Under current regulations, USCIS must deny a provisional waiver application if USCIS has “reason to believe” that the applicant may be subject to a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence at the time of the immigrant visa interview abroad (“reason-to-believe standard”). 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(i).

Commenters asked DHS to clarify the reason-to-believe standard and to train officers

so that they properly apply the standard. Many argued that USCIS often applies the standard too rigidly by denying applications on mere suspicion, rather than actually adjudicating the relevant inadmissibility concerns consistent with applicable law relating to these grounds.

That regulation reads: “Ineligible aliens. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(3) of this section, an alien is ineligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver under paragraph (e) of this section if: (i) USCIS has reason to believe that the alien may be subject to grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II) of the Act at the time of the immigrant visa interview with the Department of State.” 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(i).

USCIS has continually trained its officers on all aspects of the provisional waiver adjudication, including how to determine whether individuals may be subject to additional inadmissibility grounds at the time of the immigrant visa interview. However, since USCIS is removing the reason-to-believe standard as a basis for eligibility, we will no longer be training officers on application of this specific standard.

Commenters also urged DHS to expand the scope of the January 24, 2014 field guidance memorandum on the reason-to-believe standard.

Commenters specifically asked DHS to direct USCIS officers to consider the totality of the evidence when assessing whether other grounds of inadmissibility apply to an applicant, and to issue Requests for Evidence (RFEs) related to such grounds prior to denying a provisional waiver application for mere suspicion that such grounds apply. Commenters criticized the lack of issuance of RFEs or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), as well as USCIS' use of standard denial template language when denying a provisional waiver application under the reason-to-believe standard. Commenters stated that the use of these denial templates implies that USCIS does not consider the evidence that applicants submit to show that they are in fact not inadmissible on other grounds. In addition, the commenters stated that the templates did not provide sufficient information to indicate why USCIS determined it had reason to believe that the applicant would be inadmissible at the time of the immigrant visa interview, thus preventing applicants from addressing the agency's concerns upon reapplication. Commenters requested that USCIS instruct its officers to clearly articulate the fact specific circumstances that led them to deny an application for “reason to believe” that the applicant is inadmissible on other grounds.

A couple of commenters suggested that DHS make exceptions to the reason-to-believe standard for certain circumstances or classes of individuals.

See

USCIS Memorandum, Guidance Pertaining to Applicants for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers (Jan. 24, 2014),

available at

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/2014-0124_Reason_To_Believe_Field_Guidance_Pertaining_to_Applicants_for_Provisional_Unlawful_Presence_Waivers-final.pdf.

These commenters suggested adding specific regulatory text in 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4) and 8 CFR 212.7(e)(9) that would require officers to consider the totality of the circumstances and to recount particular facts of the case when denying waiver applications under the reason-to-believe standard.

Considering the confusion that has resulted from application of the reason-to-believe standard, DHS is eliminating the standard from the provisional waiver process in this final rule. Under the 2013 Rule, an approved provisional waiver would take effect if DOS subsequently determined that the applicant was ineligible for an immigrant visa only on account of the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). Accordingly, DHS had originally incorporated the reason-to-believe standard in the 2013 Rule to preclude individuals from obtaining provisional waivers if they may have triggered other grounds of inadmissibility. DHS reasoned, in part, that because the goal of the provisional waiver process was to streamline immigrant visa processing, it would be of little benefit to applicants or to DHS to grant provisional waivers to applicants who would eventually be denied immigrant visas based on other grounds of inadmissibility.

Since the implementation of the provisional waiver program, however, stakeholders have raised concerns over the application of the reason-to-believe standard. Among other things, DHS understands that the standard causes confusion for applicants, as evidenced by the comments submitted to this rule. Despite the Department's repeated attempts to explain the reason-to-believe standard, for example, commenters continue to erroneously believe that when USCIS denies a provisional waiver application under the reason-to-believe standard, the agency has actually made an inadmissibility determination with respect to the relevant other ground(s) of inadmissibility.

Alternatively, as explained in the 2013 Rule, it would be counterproductive for USCIS to make other inadmissibility determinations during the adjudication of provisional waiver applications, given DOS's role in the immigrant visa process. It is DOS, and not USCIS, that generally determines admissibility under INA section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), as part of the immigrant visa process, which includes an in-depth, in-person interview conducted by DOS consular officers. Moreover, it is U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that ultimately determines admissibility at the time that individuals seek admission at a port of entry.

See

INA sections 204(e), 221(h); 8 U.S.C. 1154(e), 1201(h). It is thus generally not USCIS's role to determine whether an individual applying for an immigrant visa, or for admission as an immigrant at a U.S. port of entry, is admissible to the United States. Any assessment by USCIS with respect to other grounds of inadmissibility would be, at best,

advisory in nature and would likely cause even greater confusion for applicants.

These considerations have prompted DHS to revisit the current approach. In this final rule, DHS has decided to eliminate the reason-to-believe standard as a basis for denying provisional waiver applications. Accordingly, when adjudicating such applications, USCIS will only consider whether extreme hardship has been established and whether the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. However, although this final rule eliminates the reason-to-believe standard, the final rule retains the provision that provides for the automatic revocation of an approved provisional waiver application if the DOS consular officer ultimately determines that the applicant is ineligible for the immigrant visa based on other grounds of inadmissibility.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(14)(i). DHS thus cautions and reminds individuals that even if USCIS approves a provisional waiver application, DOS may still find the applicant inadmissible on other grounds at the time of the immigrant visa interview. If DOS finds the applicant ineligible for the immigrant visa or inadmissible on grounds other than unlawful presence, the approval of the provisional waiver application is automatically revoked. In such cases, the individual may again apply for a waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility, in combination with any other waivable grounds of inadmissibility, by using the Form I-601 waiver process. As in all discretionary matters, DHS also has the authority to deny provisional waiver applications as a matter of discretion even if the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(2)(i). Additionally, USCIS may reopen and reconsider its decision to approve or deny a provisional waiver before or after the waiver becomes effective if it is determined that the decision was made in error.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(13) and 8 CFR 212.7(a)(4)(v).

As has always been the case, DHS will continue to uphold the integrity and security of the provisional waiver process by conducting full background and security checks to assess whether an individual may be a threat to national security or public safety. If the background check or the individual's immigration file reveals derogatory information, including a criminal record, USCIS will analyze the significance of the information and may deny the provisional waiver application as a matter of discretion.

Under current USCIS policy, officers adjudicating provisional waiver applications may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) to address deficiencies in the extreme hardship showing or to resolve issues that may impact their exercise of discretion. USCIS will retain this practice. To maintain the streamlined nature of the program, USCIS retains the 30-day response time to any RFE issued in connection with provisional waiver applications.

See

USCIS Memorandum, Standard Timeframe for Applicants to Respond to Requests for Evidence Issued in Relation to a Request for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I-601A (Mar. 1, 2013),

available at http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2013/I-601A_30-Day_RFE_PM.pdf.

Finally, the extreme hardship and discretionary eligibility assessments made during a provisional waiver adjudication could be impacted by additional grounds of inadmissibility and other information that was not known and therefore not considered during the adjudication. Accordingly, USCIS is not bound by these determinations when adjudicating subsequent applications filed by the same applicant, such as an application filed to waive grounds of inadmissibility, including a waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility. In other words, because separate inadmissibility grounds and material information not before USCIS at the time of adjudication may alter the totality of the circumstances present in an individual's case, a prior determination that an applicant's U.S. citizen or LPR spouse would suffer extreme hardship if the applicant were refused admission (and that the applicant merits a provisional waiver as a matter of discretion) does not dictate that USCIS must make the same determination in the future, although the factors and circumstances underlying the prior decision may be taken into account when reviewing the cases under the totality of the circumstances.

7. Individuals With Scheduled Immigrant Visa Interviews

The proposed rule would have made certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens ineligible for provisional waivers if DOS had initially acted before January 3, 2013 to schedule their immigrant visa interviews. DHS had also proposed to make other applicants ineligible if DOS initially acted before the effective date of this final rule to schedule their immigrant visa interviews.

See

80 FR 43338, 43343 (July 22, 2015). These date restrictions were intended to make the provisional waiver process more operationally manageable and to avoid processing delays in the immigrant visa process. Commenters suggested that DHS either eliminate these restrictions or apply the January 3, 2013 restriction to all potential applicants.

Some commenters argued that DHS should eliminate these restrictions altogether for humanitarian reasons. Other commenters pointed out that the cutoff dates will cause preference-based immigrants difficulties with their priority dates.

One commenter also asked that DHS allow individuals to reopen their “visa cases” and to file applications for provisional waivers. The commenter explained that many individuals let their DOS National Visa Center (NVC) cases lapse because they cannot leave to seek their visas and because ameliorative immigration legislation had failed to pass. The commenter asked that the DOS NVC reopen cases for those who have approved petitions so that they may apply for provisional waivers. DHS will not adopt this suggestion. DOS—and not DHS—will continue to determine whether to reopen immigrant visa application cases. Any visa applicant seeking to reopen such a case should consult with DOS. An individual may file a provisional waiver if he or she meets the provisional waiver requirements, as outlined in 8 CFR 212.7(e).

In response to comments, and after consulting with DOS, DHS is eliminating the restrictions based on the date that DOS acted to schedule the immigrant visa interview. USCIS will adjust its processing of petitions and applications so that neither DOS nor USCIS will be adversely affected by the elimination of this restriction. Please note, however, that elimination of these date restrictions does not alter other laws and regulations relating to the availability of immigrant visas. Applicants will still be unable to obtain immigrant visas until an immigrant visa number is available based on the applicant's priority date. Applicants will need to act promptly, once DOS notifies them that they can file their immigrant visa application. If applicants do not apply within one year of this notice, DOS has authority to terminate their registration for an immigrant visa.

See

INA section 203(g), 8 U.S.C. 1153(g);

see also

22 CFR 42.8(a). That action will also result in automatic revocation of the approval of the related immigrant visa petition. 8 CFR 205.1(a)(1).

In such a situation, applicants will have two options for continuing to pursue a provisional waiver. One option is for an applicant to ask DOS to reinstate the registration pursuant to 22 CFR 42.83(d). If DOS reinstates the registration, approval of the immigrant visa petition is also reinstated. Once such an applicant has paid the immigrant visa processing fee for the related immigrant visa application, the applicant can apply for a provisional waiver. A second option is for the

relevant immigrant visa petitioner to file a new immigrant visa petition with USCIS. If USCIS approves the new immigrant visa petition, the beneficiary could then apply for the provisional waiver after paying the immigrant visa processing fee based on the new petition if otherwise eligible.

8. Individuals in Removal Proceedings

Commenters requested that DHS eliminate restrictions that prevent individuals in removal proceedings from seeking provisional waivers. Under the current regulations, those in removal proceedings may apply for and be granted provisional waivers only if their removal proceedings have been and remain administratively closed.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(v). Rather than excluding individuals whose removal proceedings are not administratively closed from obtaining provisional waivers, commenters asserted that DHS should find a way to allow them to apply for such waivers. Commenters suggested that once an individual in removal proceedings has a provisional waiver, he or she should be able to move to either dismiss or terminate proceedings or seek cancellation of the Notice to Appear (NTA)

so that he or she may depart to seek consular processing of an immigrant visa application. According to commenters, such a process would also ensure that an individual who is issued an NTA while his or her provisional waiver application is pending does not automatically become ineligible for the waiver.

Notices to Appear (NTAs) are the charging documents that DHS issues to individuals to initiate removal proceedings.

Another commenter noted that immigration courts are severely backlogged and that individuals in removal proceedings often have to wait months or years before their cases can be scheduled or heard. This commenter asserted that requiring the case to be administratively closed before an individual may apply for the provisional waiver places an undue burden on the courts and also creates significant delays. Commenters generally believed that it would be more efficient if individuals were able to pursue provisional waivers and request termination or dismissal of proceedings upon approval of the waivers. They requested that the regulations and the provisional waiver application (Form I-601A) clarify that removal proceedings may be resolved by termination, dismissal, or a grant of voluntary departure if the provisional waiver is approved. Commenters believed that such a solution would simplify the provisional waiver process, improve efficiency in the immigration court system, and further the spirit of expanding the process to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for waivers of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility at INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).

Due to agency efficiency and resource concerns, DHS declines to adopt the above recommendations. On November 20, 2014, the Secretary directed the Department's immigration components—USCIS, ICE, and CBP—to exercise prosecutorial discretion, when appropriate, as early as possible in proceedings to ensure that DHS's limited resources are devoted to the greatest degree possible to the pursuit of enforcement priorities.

Prosecutorial discretion applies not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel an NTA, but also to other broad ranges of discretionary measures.

To promote docket efficiency and to ensure that finite enforcement resources are used effectively, ICE carefully reviews cases pending before the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to ensure that all cases align with the agency's enforcement and removal policies. As such, once an NTA is issued, ICE attorneys are directed to review the case, at the earliest opportunity, for the potential exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) likewise instructs its immigration judges to use available docketing tools to ensure fair and timely resolution of cases, and to ask ICE attorneys at master calendar hearings whether ICE is seeking dismissal or administrative closure of a case.

In general, those who are low priorities for removal and are otherwise eligible for LPR status may be able to apply for provisional waivers. Among other things, ICE may agree to administratively close immigration proceedings for individuals who are eligible to pursue a provisional waiver and are not currently considered a DHS enforcement priority. ICE also works to facilitate, as appropriate, the timely termination or dismissal of administratively closed removal proceedings once USCIS approves a provisional waiver.

See

Memorandum from Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson, DHS, Policies for Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014),

available at

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf.

See id.

See

Memorandum from Riah Ramlogan, Acting Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Guidance Regarding Cases Pending Before EOIR Impacted by Secretary Johnson's Memorandum Entitled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal Of Undocumented Immigrants (Apr. 6, 2015),

available at

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FOIA/2015/guidance_eoir_johnson_memo.pdf.

See

Memorandum from Brian M O'Leary, Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 15-01: Hearing Procedures for Cases Covered by New DHS Priorities and Initiatives (Apr. 6, 2015),

available at

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/pages/attachments/2015/04/07/15-01.pdf.

DHS believes the aforementioned steps being undertaken by ICE and EOIR to determine whether cases should be administratively closed effectively balances the commenters' provisional waiver eligibility concerns and agency resources in considering the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, this rule has not changed the provisional waiver process and will not permit individuals in active removal proceedings to apply for or receive provisional waivers, unless their cases are administratively closed. The Department believes that current processes provide ample opportunity for eligible applicants to seek a provisional waiver, while improving the allocation of government resources and ensuring national security, public safety, and border security.

9. Individuals Subject to Final Orders of Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion

Commenters asked DHS to provide eligibility for provisional waivers to individuals who are subject to final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion. Commenters asserted that many of these individuals may already request consent to reapply for admission, under 8 CFR 212.2(j), by filing an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212, before departing the United States for immigrant visa processing. Upon receiving such consent, the individual's order of removal, deportation, or exclusion would no longer bar him or her from obtaining an immigrant visa abroad. One commenter reasoned that providing eligibility to spouses and children with removal orders would permit more families to stay together.

Many commenters suggested that USCIS allow individuals to file provisional waiver applications “concurrently”

with Form I-212 applications for consent to reapply for admission. These commenters believed that requiring separate or consecutive processing of the two applications when a domestic process already exists for

both is unnecessary, inefficient, and a waste of USCIS' resources. In support of their argument, commenters also referenced 2009 USCIS procedures for the adjudication of Form I-601 applications for adjudication officers stationed abroad. Under these procedures, an individual whose Form I-601 application is granted would also normally obtain approval of a Form I-212 application, as both forms require that the applicant show that he or she warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.

Filing two or more immigration benefit requests together is often referred to as “concurrent” filing.

As a preliminary matter, DHS notes that requiring the filing of separate Forms I-601A and I-212 simply reflects the fact that they are intended to address two separate grounds of inadmissibility, each with different waiver eligibility requirements. In response to the comments, however, DHS has amended the rule to allow individuals with final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion to apply for provisional waivers if they have filed a Form I-212 application seeking consent to reapply for admission and such an application has been conditionally approved.

Anyone who departs the United States while a final order is outstanding is considered to have executed that order.

See

INA section 101(g), 8 U.S.C. 1101(g); 8 CFR 241.7. The execution of such an order renders the individual inadmissible to the United States for a period of 5-20 years under INA section 212(a)(9)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A). Certain individuals, however, may seek consent to reapply for admission to the United States before the period of inadmissibility has expired.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii). DHS regulations provide a process for those in the United States to apply for such consent by filing a Form I-212 application before departing the United States.

See

8 CFR 212.2(j). As with the provisional waiver process, the pre-departure approval of a Form I-212 application is conditioned on the applicant subsequently departing the United States. Thus, if an individual who is inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A), obtains a conditional approval of his or her Form I-212 application while in the United States and thereafter departs to attend the immigrant visa interview abroad, he or she generally is no longer inadmissible under that section at the time of the immigrant visa interview and can be issued an immigrant visa.

Given that an applicant still has to demonstrate visa eligibility, including admissibility, at the time of the immigrant visa interview and that DHS has decided to eliminate the reason-to-believe standard, the Department believes the goals of the provisional waiver process are supported by making it available to those with final orders only if they already have conditionally approved a Form I-212 application. The final rule thus extends eligibility for provisional waivers to such individuals.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv). Such an individual, however, must have the conditionally approved Form I-212 application at the time of filing the provisional waiver application.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv). USCIS will deny a provisional waiver application if the applicant's Form I-212 application has not yet been conditionally approved at the time the individual files his or her provisional waiver application. Additionally, if during the immigrant visa interview the consular officer finds that the applicant is inadmissible on other grounds that have not been waived, the approved provisional waiver will be automatically revoked.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(14)(i).

In such cases, however, the approved Form I-212 application will generally remain valid and the individual may apply for any available waivers, including waiver of the 3- and 10-year bars, by filing a Form I-601 application after the immigrant visa interview.

Finally, DHS notes that approval of Forms I-601A and I-212 does not waive inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C), for having returned to the United States without inspection and admission or parole after a prior removal or prior unlawful presence.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii);

Matter of Briones,

24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007);

Matter of Torres-Garcia,

23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006).

Although DHS received no comments on the issue, DHS has also amended the regulatory text to provide additional clarity with respect to provisional waiver eligibility for certain individuals who have previously been removed. Prior to the changes made by this rule, 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(vii) provided that an alien who is “subject to reinstatement of a prior removal order under section 241(a)(5) of the Act” is not eligible for a provisional waiver. DHS recognizes that this regulatory text was unclear with respect to whether it applies to (1) an individual who is a “candidate” for reinstatement of removal or (2) an individual whose prior removal order has already been reinstated. To avoid confusion, DHS has amended the regulatory text in 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(v) to clarify that the prior removal order must actually be reinstated for an individual to be ineligible to apply for a provisional waiver under this provision. DHS notes, however, that USCIS is likely to deny as a matter of discretion a provisional waiver application when records indicate that the applicant is inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C), for having unlawfully returned to the United States after a prior removal or prior unlawful presence. Moreover, even if such an individual obtains approval for a provisional waiver, such approval will be automatically revoked if he or she is ultimately determined to be inadmissible under that section.

10. Individuals Granted Voluntary Departure

Commenters requested that DHS address how voluntary departure under INA section 240B, 8 U.S.C. 1229c, affects provisional waiver eligibility. One commenter asked that USCIS provide eligibility for provisional waivers to individuals who have been granted voluntary departure but who failed to depart as required. Another commenter requested that regulations and instructions should clarify that an individual in compliance with an order of voluntary departure is considered by USCIS: (a) Not to be currently in removal proceedings; and (b) not subject to a final order of removal.

DHS has determined that individuals granted voluntary departure will not be eligible for provisional waivers. First, if an individual obtains voluntary departure while in removal proceedings, the immigration judge is required by law to enter an alternate order of removal.

See

8 CFR 1240.26(d). DHS cannot execute the alternate order of removal during the voluntary departure period because such an order is not yet in effect. But if the individual does not depart as required under the order of voluntary departure, the alternate order of removal automatically becomes fully effective without any additional proceeding.

See

8 CFR 1240.26(d). Thus, an individual who fails to leave as required under a grant of voluntary departure will have an administratively final order of removal, and will thus be ineligible for a provisional waiver.

See

INA section 240B(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)(1); 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv). Under current law, removal proceedings for such individuals are considered to have ended when the grant of voluntary departure, with an alternate removal order, becomes administratively final.

See

INA sections 101(a)(47), 240(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47), 1229(a)(c)(1)(A); 8 CFR 241.1, 1003.39, 1241.1;

Matter of Shih,

20 I&N Dec. 697 (BIA 1993).

Second, a fundamental premise for a grant of voluntary departure is that the individual who is granted voluntary departure intends to leave the United States as required.

See

INA section 240B(b)(1)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(1)(D);

Dada

Mukasey,

554 U.S. 1, 18 (2008). Allowing an individual whose voluntary departure period has not expired to apply for a provisional waiver would suggest that the individual is excused from complying with the order of voluntary departure. This result would contradict the purpose of voluntary departure—allowing the subject to leave promptly

without incurring the future inadmissibility that results from removal. For these reasons, DHS did not modify the rule to allow those with grants of voluntary departure to apply for provisional waivers.

11. Applications for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Status

Under current regulations, an individual is ineligible for a provisional waiver if he or she has an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485 (“application for adjustment of status”), pending with USCIS, regardless of whether the individual is in removal proceedings.

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(viii). One commenter suggested that USCIS should allow those seeking LPR status to file applications for adjustment of status concurrently with provisional waiver applications, and that USCIS should hold such applications for adjustment of status in abeyance until final resolution of the provisional waiver applications. According to the commenter, this would provide applicants present in the United States the opportunity to obtain work authorization and to appeal any denial of their provisional waiver applications. The commenter suggested that upon approval of a provisional waiver application, USCIS should route the application for adjustment of status to DOS for consular processing of the applicant's immigrant visa abroad.

DHS declines to adopt this suggestion. DHS believes that the commenter misunderstands the purpose of filing applications for adjustment of status. Those applications may be filed only by individuals who are in the United States and meet the statutory requirements for adjustment of status. If the applicant is eligible for adjustment of status, approval of the application adjusts one's status to that of an LPR in the United States, thus making it unnecessary to go abroad and obtain an immigrant visa. For those who are in the United States but are not eligible for adjustment of status, filing an application for adjustment of status serves no legitimate purpose. These individuals may not adjust status in the United States and must instead depart the United States and seek an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate through consular processing. As these individuals are not eligible for adjustment of status, DHS believes it is inappropriate to invite them to submit applications seeking adjustment of status. Moreover, DOS has its own application process for immigrant visas. Thus, even if USCIS were to forward a denied application for adjustment of status to DOS, that application would have no role in the individual's application process with DOS. The individual would still be required to submit the proper DOS immigrant visa application to seek his or her immigrant visa.

12. Additional Eligibility Criteria

A few commenters suggested that DHS consider imposing restrictions in the provisional waiver process, including by adding eligibility criteria for provisional waivers, to better prioritize the classes of individuals eligible to seek such waivers.

Two commenters suggested that the provisional waiver process should prioritize family members of U.S. citizens over those of LPRs. One commenter suggested using level of education as a factor for prioritizing applicants. This commenter implied that applicants should be prioritized if they have advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics fields. Additional suggestions included: (1) Making provisional waivers easier to obtain for couples who have children or have been married more than two years; (2) limiting the number or percentage of waivers that are made available to particular demographic groups within the United States; (3) combining eligibility for provisional waivers with “cross-chargeability” rules in the INA;

(4) prioritizing waivers for those with high school degrees or who paid their taxes; (5) making waivers available only to those who submit three letters of recommendation from community members; and (6) making waivers available only to those who can demonstrate proficiency with the English language or who enroll in English language classes.

Many of the commenters who suggested additional eligibility criteria also believed that approved waivers should entitle individuals to adjust to LPR status in the United States. Others suggested that provisional waiver applicants should pay fines, and some of these commenters believed that paying fines should allow individuals to apply for adjustment of status as an alternative to consular processing. Many of these commenters believed that such changes would create efficiencies for both the applicant and the government. As explained throughout this rule, DHS cannot change the statutory requirements for adjustment of status in the United States. Similarly, USCIS cannot impose fines as part of its filing fees.

Cross-chargeability is a concept employed by the INA in the context of applying the INA's numerical limits on immigrant visas, particularly the “per country” limitations that restrict the percentage of such visa numbers that may go to nationals of any one country.

See

generally INA sections 201, 202, and 203; 8 U.S.C. 1151, 1152, and 1153. Generally, an immigrant visa number that is allotted to an individual is “charged” to the country of his or her nationality. However, when application of the “per country” limits may lead to family separation, the immigrant visa number allotted to an individual may instead be charged to the country of nationality of that individual's spouse, parent, or child.

See

INA sections 202(b), 8 U.S.C. 1152(b);

see also

22 CFR 42.12; Department of State, 9 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) ch. 503.2-4A,

available at https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050302.html

(last visited Apr. 26, 2016).

DHS declines to impose limitations or eligibility requirements for obtaining provisional waivers beyond those currently provided by regulation or statute.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(B)(v); 8 CFR 212.7. In the 2013 Rule, DHS originally limited eligibility to seek such waivers through the provisional waiver process to ensure operational feasibility and reduce the risk of creating processing delays with respect to other petitions or applications filed with USCIS or DOS. Considering the agency's capacity and the efficiencies gained through the provisional waiver process, DHS now believes that the provisional waiver process should be made available to all statutorily eligible individuals. DHS is confident that the expansion will reduce family separation and benefit the U.S. Government as a whole, and that all agencies involved possess the operational capacity to handle the additional casework.

13. Bars for Certain Inadmissible Individuals

Two commenters suggested that those who have committed crimes should be precluded from participating in the provisional waiver process, and another commenter cautioned DHS against adopting a standard that would allow provisional waiver eligibility to the “wrong people,” in the commenter's view, such as those who hate American values and principles.

One of these commenters believed that, although accrual of unlawful presence is not desirable, serious criminality and evidence of violent behavior should be the deciding factors when determining whether to separate families. Absent these factors, the commenter reasoned, immediate family members of U.S. citizens and LPRs should be allowed to remain with their loved ones in the United States before consular processing.

As indicated above, DHS continues to uphold the integrity and security of the provisional waiver process by conducting full background and security checks to assess whether an applicant may be a threat to national security or public safety. If the background check or the applicant's immigration file reveals derogatory information, including a criminal record, USCIS analyzes the significance of the information and may deny the provisional waiver application as a matter of discretion.

D. Adjudication

1. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent To Deny (NOIDs)

Several commenters criticized USCIS' practice with respect to issuing Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) in cases where the agency ultimately denies provisional waiver applications. Commenters criticized USCIS for both (1) issuing denials without first submitting RFEs that provide applicants the opportunity to correct deficiencies, and (2) issuing RFEs that failed to clearly articulate the deficiencies in submitted applications. With respect to the latter, commenters indicated that RFEs tend to use boilerplate language that makes it impossible for applicants to respond effectively, especially with respect to assessments of extreme hardship or application of the reason-to-believe standard. Noting that terms such as “reason to believe” and “extreme hardship” are vague, commenters requested that USCIS issue detailed and case-specific RFEs or NOIDs (rather than templates) when the agency intends to deny applications, thereby giving applicants an opportunity to cure any deficiencies before such denials are issued.

Commenters also raised concerns with the number of days that USCIS provides applicants to respond to often lengthy RFEs, noting that, in most instances, USCIS provides only 30 days for such responses.

One commenter requested that USCIS ensure transparent processing of applications. USCIS is committed to providing processing information on its adjudication processes by including information on the form and its instructions. USCIS also intends to include a section in the USCIS Policy Manual on provisional waivers.

As provided in 8 CFR 212.7(e)(8), and notwithstanding 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16), USCIS may deny a provisional waiver without issuing an RFE or NOID. USCIS, however, is committed to issuing RFEs to address missing and critical information that relates to extreme hardship or that may affect how USCIS exercises its discretion. USCIS officers also have the discretion to issue RFEs whenever the officer believes that additional evidence would aid in the adjudication of an application. Due to the streamlined nature of the program, USCIS currently provides applicants only 30 days to respond to an RFE in such cases.

See

USCIS Memorandum, Standard Timeframe for Applicants to Response to Requests for Evidence Issued in Relation to a Request for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I-601A (Mar. 1, 2013), available at

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2013/I-601A_30-Day_RFE_PM.pdf.

USCIS will continue to issue RFEs in provisional waiver cases based on the current USCIS RFE policy

and to assess the effectiveness of its RFE practice in this area. In response to comments, however, the agency has instructed its officers to provide additional detail regarding application deficiencies in RFEs relating to claims of extreme hardship in order to better allow applicants to efficiently and effectively cure such deficiencies. USCIS will retain the 30-day RFE response period, because USCIS and DOS closely coordinate immigrant visa and provisional waiver application processing. The 30-day RFE response time streamlines USCIS processing, prevents lengthy delays at DOS, and allows applicants to complete immigrant visa processing in a timely manner.

See

USCIS Memorandum, Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny (June 3, 2013), available at

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/June%202013/Requests%20for%20Evidence%20(Final).pdf.

As explained in the 2013 Rule, a NOID gives an applicant the opportunity to review and rebut derogatory information of which he or she may be unaware. Because provisional waiver adjudications do not involve full assessments of inadmissibility, however, USCIS is not issuing NOIDs describing all possible grounds of inadmissibility that may apply at the time of the immigrant visa interview. Rather, USCIS continues to decide an applicant's eligibility based on the submitted provisional waiver application and related background and security checks. If the applicant's provisional waiver is ultimately denied, he or she may file a new Form I-601A application in accordance with the form's instructions. Alternatively, the individual can file an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-601, with USCIS after he or she attends the immigrant visa interview and after the DOS consular officer determines that the individual is inadmissible.

2. Motions To Reopen, Motions To Reconsider, and Administrative Appeals

A number of commenters requested that USCIS amend the regulations to allow applicants the opportunity to appeal, or otherwise seek reconsideration, of denied applications. Commenters stated that the only option for challenging wrongful denials is to file new applications or to hope that USCIS will exercise its

sua sponte

authority to reopen cases. Commenters felt that this policy damages the public's trust and fails to hold USCIS officers accountable for errors. One commenter also noted that although denied applicants remain eligible to apply for waivers through the Form I-601 waiver process after the immigrant visa interview abroad, some still choose not to pursue their immigrant visas because of the uncertainty and hardships associated with consular processing. Commenters argued that these individuals are likely to remain in the United States, thereby diminishing the benefits of the provisional waiver process. Consequently, commenters requested that DHS amend its regulations to institute a mechanism for administrative appeal or reconsideration. According to these commenters, such a mechanism would provide additional due process protections for those whose applications are erroneously denied, those who experience changed circumstances, and those without legal representation (including those who have a deficient or improper application filed by a notario or other individual not authorized to practice law in the United States).

DHS declines to allow applicants to appeal or otherwise seek reconsideration of denials. The final rule retains the prohibition on appeals and motions, other than

sua sponte

motions entertained by USCIS. As a preliminary matter, DHS disagrees that there is a legal due process interest in access to or eligibility for discretionary provisional waivers of inadmissibility.

See, e.g.,

Darif

Holder,

739 F.3d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 2014) (no due process interest in discretionary extreme hardship waiver).

Additionally, and as stated in the 2013 Rule, section 10(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 704, permits an agency to provide an administrative appeal if the agency chooses to do so.

See Darby

Cisneros,

509 U.S. 137 (1993). Due to efficiency concerns, DHS continues to believe that administrative appeals should be reserved for actions that involve a comprehensive, final assessment of an applicant's admissibility and eligibility for a benefit. The provisional waiver process does not involve such a comprehensive assessment, and the denial of such an application is not a final agency action for purposes of the APA.

See

8 CFR

212.7(e)(9)(ii). If a provisional waiver application is denied, the applicant may either file a new provisional waiver application or seek a waiver through the Form I-601 waiver process after DOS conclusively determines that he or she is inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). In contrast to denial of a Form I-601A application for a provisional waiver, the denial of a Form I-601 application is appealable. In this regard, the final eligibility determination as it relates to the Form I-601 application lies with the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and the final immigrant visa eligibility determination rests with DOS.

See

2013 Rule, 78 FR at 555.

Other courts of appeals have recognized that due process does not require an agency to provide for administrative appeal of its decisions.

See, e.g.,

Zhang

U.S. Dep't of Justice,

362 F.3d 155, 157 (2d Cir. 2004);

Loulou

Ashcroft,

354 F.3d 845, 850 (9th Cir. 2003);

Mendoza

U.S. Att'y Gen.,

327 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003);

Albathani

INS,

318 F.3d 365, 376 (1st Cir. 2003);

Guentchev

INS,

77 F.3d 1036, 1037-38 (7th Cir. 1996).

Moreover, the provisional waiver process is intended to be a streamlined process that is closely coordinated with DOS immigrant visa processing. Holding cases during an administrative appeal of a provisional waiver application would produce logistical complications for the respective agencies, interrupting the regular adjudication flow, and therefore would be counterproductive to streamlining efforts.

3. Confidentiality Provisions

As with the 2013 Rule, commenters asked DHS to include confidentiality protections so that denials of provisional waiver applications would not automatically trigger removal proceedings. The commenters asserted that the Department should provide regulatory assurances stating that DHS will not put provisional waiver applicants in removal proceedings, even if their applications are denied. According to the commenters, such assurances were necessary because a new Administration might institute a change in policy in this area.

DHS declines to adopt these suggestions as the Department already has effective policies on these issues. DHS focuses its resources on its enforcement priorities, namely threats to national security, border security, or public safety.

Similarly, USCIS continues to follow current agency policy on the issuance of NTAs, which are focused on public safety threats, criminals, and those engaged in fraud.

Consistent with DHS enforcement policies and priorities, the Department will not initiate removal proceedings against individuals who are not enforcement priorities solely because they filed or withdrew provisional waiver applications, or because USCIS denied such applications.

See

Memorandum from Secretary Jeh Charles Johnson, DHS, Policies for Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014),

available at

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf.

See

USCIS Memorandum, Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens (Nov. 7, 2011), available at

www.uscis.gov/NTA.

E. Filing Requirements and Fees

1. Concurrent Filing

One commenter requested that DHS allow for the concurrent filing of a Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130 (“family-based immigrant visa petition”), with the application for a provisional waiver. The commenter reasoned that allowing the concurrent filing of the provisional waiver application and a family-based immigrant visa petition would create efficiencies for applicants and the U.S. Government by reducing paperwork and wait times. Other commenters asked that USCIS allow concurrent filing of a Form I-212 application for consent to reapply for admission with the provisional waiver application if the applicant also needs to overcome the inadmissibility bar for prior removal under INA section 212(a)(9)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A), at the time of the immigrant visa interview. Given that processing of Form I-212 applications already takes place in the United States, these commenters believed that it would make sense to adjudicate the Form I-212 and provisional waiver applications at the same time and by the same officer.

DHS has considered these comments but maintains that concurrent filing would undermine the efficiencies that USCIS and DOS gain through the provisional waiver process. Currently, denials of family-based immigrant visa petitions are appealable to the BIA.

See

8 CFR 1003.1(b)(5). Denials of other petitions also are generally appealable to the AAO.

See

8 CFR 103.3.

If the denial of an immigrant visa petition is challenged on appeal, USCIS would have to either 1) hold the provisional waiver application until the decision on appeal is issued, or 2) deny the provisional waiver application and subsequently consider reopening it if the denial is overturned on appeal. Both scenarios produce administrative inefficiencies and could cause USCIS to incur additional costs for storing provisional waiver applications and transferring alien registration files (A-files) or receipt files between offices until the administrative appeals process is complete. Therefore, DHS has decided against allowing the concurrent filing of provisional waiver applications and immigrant visa petitions.

See also AAO's Practice Manual, Chapter 3, Appeals,

available at

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/administrative-appeals-office-aao/administrative-appeals-office-aao.

DHS also declines to allow concurrent filing of Form I-212 and provisional waiver applications. In the event that a Form I-212 application is denied, the applicant may file an administrative appeal with the AAO. If USCIS allowed the concurrent filing of Form I-212 and provisional waiver applications, USCIS would again be faced with administratively inefficient options in cases where the Form I-212 application is denied and the applicant seeks to appeal that denial. As noted above, the agency would again be faced with the choice of either 1) holding the provisional waiver application in abeyance until the appeal is decided, or 2) denying the provisional waiver application and later reopening it if the appeal is sustained. As previously discussed, the provisional waiver process is intended to streamline DHS and DOS processes ahead of immigrant visa interviews at consular posts. The delay in the adjudication of provisional waiver applications that would result from allowing additional procedural steps would decrease the efficiencies derived from the provisional waiver process and thus be counterproductive to these streamlining efforts. As indicated previously in this preamble, however, DHS will allow an individual who has been approved for consent to reapply for admission under 8 CFR 212.2(j) to seek a provisional waiver. By allowing individuals with conditionally approved Form I-212 applications to apply for provisional waivers, DHS further expands the class of eligible individuals who can benefit from provisional waivers and, at the same time, maintains the program's streamlined efficiency.

2. Fines or Penalties

Several commenters believed that DHS should require provisional waiver applicants to pay fines or fees of up to several thousand dollars to remain in the United States and obtain LPR status. Other commenters appeared to suggest that DHS should generally impose financial penalties on individuals unlawfully in the United States.

Congress has given the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.

See

6 U.S.C. 112, 202(3)-(5);

see also

INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a). The Secretary also is authorized to set filing fees for immigration benefits at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of

providing adjudication and naturalization services, including services provided without charge to refugees, asylum applicants, and other immigrants.

See

INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). This fee revenue remains available to DHS to provide immigration and naturalization benefits.

See

INA section 286(n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(n). DHS has already established an appropriate filing fee for the Form I-601A application as authorized by the statute. Congress, however, has not imposed a specific fine or penalty on provisional waiver applicants or individuals unlawfully present in the United States. Congress also did not authorize any type of independent lawful status for such applicants. Such fines, as with a general fine for unlawful presence, would be unrelated to the costs incurred during the adjudication of immigration benefits. USCIS does not have the authority to impose such civil penalties.

3. Fees

DHS received several comments related to fees. One commenter noted that Congress has already approved DHS's funding for this fiscal year, and that Congress did not authorize changes to the Department's budget. The commenter thus requested an explanation as to why DHS believes that funding is available to effectuate the changes proposed by this rule. Another commenter believed that DHS and DOS should return immigrant visa fees to applicants if their provisional waiver applications are ultimately denied. One commenter stated that the derivative spouses of primary beneficiaries should pay separate application fees.

In contrast to many other U.S. Government agencies, USCIS does not rely on appropriated funds for most of its budget. Rather, USCIS is a fee-based agency that is primarily funded by the fees paid by applicants and petitioners seeking immigration benefits. USCIS relies on these fees to fund the adjudication of provisional waiver applications; none of the funds used for these adjudications comes from funds appropriated annually by Congress.

Furthermore, as noted above, the fees received with provisional waiver applications and immigrant visa petitions cover the costs of adjudication. These fees are necessary regardless of whether the application or petition is ultimately approved or denied. Therefore, USCIS does not return fees when a petition, application, or request is denied. For its part, DOS determines its own fees pursuant to its own authorities.

See, e.g.,

INA section 104, 8 U.S.C. 1104; 8 U.S.C. 1714;

see also

22 CFR 22.1, 42.71(b).

Finally, an individual who applies for a provisional waiver must submit the application with the appropriate filing and biometrics fees, as outlined in the form's instructions and 8 CFR 103.7, even if the individual is a derivative beneficiary.

4. Premium Processing

A few commenters recommended that DHS establish a premium processing fee to expedite processing of provisional waiver applications. One commenter indicated that the processing time for a provisional waiver application should not exceed 30 days under premium processing.

DHS declines to adopt the suggestion to extend premium processing to provisional waiver applications. The INA permits certain employment-based petitioners and applicants for immigration benefits to request premium processing for a fee.

See

INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u). DHS has established the current premium processing fee at $1,225.

See

8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(RR);

see also

8 CFR 103.7(e) (describing the premium processing service). The premium processing fee, which is paid in addition to the base filing fee, guarantees that USCIS processes a benefit request within 15 days.

See

8 CFR 103.7(e)(2). If USCIS cannot take action within 15 days, USCIS refunds the premium processing fee.

Id.

The fee was originally set at $1,000, and may be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

See

INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u).

Even if USCIS refunds this fee, USCIS generally continues expedited processing of the benefit request.

DHS has not extended premium processing to any immigration benefit except for those authorized under INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u). Notably, INA section 286(u) expressly authorizes premium processing only for employment-based petitions and applications. Even if USCIS could develop an expedited processing fee for other benefits, USCIS would not apply it to the provisional waiver process, as that process requires background checks over which USCIS does not control timing. Additionally, determining an appropriate fee for such a new process would require USCIS to estimate the costs of that service and engage in separate notice-and-comment rulemaking to establish the new fee. Thus, DHS will not establish a Form I-601A premium processing fee at this time.

5. Expedited Processing

One commenter stated that the processing time for a provisional waiver application should generally not exceed 30 days. Other commenters urged USCIS to expedite the processing of applications for family members of active duty members or honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. One commenter asked that DHS and DOS expedite the immigrant visa interviews of individuals with approved provisional waivers.

One commenter also urged CBP to expedite Freedom of Information Act requests so that individuals are able to obtain the information they need to assess eligibility and complete their applications. The commenter indicated that expanding the provisional waiver process is useless unless potential applicants are given access to their files. DHS declines to adopt this suggestion as it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

DHS did not incorporate these suggestions in this final rule. DHS believes the provisional waiver process is well managed, and officers adjudicate cases quickly after receiving an applicant's background check results. Creating an expedited process for certain applicants, including relatives of military members and veterans, would create inefficiencies and potentially slow the process for all provisional waiver applicants.

Each time USCIS has to set aside a regularly filed case to prioritize the adjudication of another case, it delays those cases that were filed prior to the prioritized case and disrupts the normal adjudication process.

Additionally, even if DHS were to expedite the provisional waiver process for certain applicants, they would still be required to spend time navigating the DOS immigrant visa process. DHS believes that expediting the processing of provisional waiver applications for certain individuals would generally not significantly affect the processing time of their immigrant visa processing with DOS. Individuals often file their provisional waiver applications with USCIS while the DOS National Visa Center (NVC) pre-processes their immigrant visa applications. The NVC pre-processing of immigrant visa applications usually runs concurrently with the USCIS processing of provisional waiver applications. Thus, even if DHS were to expedite the provisional waiver process for certain applicants, those applicants would nevertheless be required to wait for DOS to complete its process. Additionally, the processing time for immigrant visa applications at the NVC largely depends on other outside factors, including whether applicants submit necessary documents to the NVC on a timely basis throughout the process. In many cases, including those in which applicants

delay in getting necessary documents to the NVC, immigrant visa processing would not be affected by the expediting of other processes.

DHS reminds applicants, however, that they may request expedited adjudication of a provisional waiver application according to current USCIS expedite guidance.

Also, relatives of current and former U.S. Armed Forces members may seek USCIS assistance through the agency's special military help line.

For guidance on USCIS expedite procedures, please visit

http://www.uscis.gov/forms/expedite-criteria.

Information about the military help line is available at

http://www.uscis.gov/military/military-help-line.

DHS encourages military families that need assistance to reach out to USCIS through the help line.

6. Background Checks and Drug Testing

One commenter requested that USCIS conduct background checks and drug testing for provisional waiver applicants.

Two commenters also asked that USCIS allow provisional waiver applicants to include medical examinations performed by USCIS-designated civil surgeons with their provisional waiver applications. These commenters believed that the opportunity to provide the results of the medical examination before departure for the immigrant visa interview would further streamline the process. The commenters also believed that applicants could either avoid the higher panel physician examination fee abroad, or detect and treat possible medical conditions that would render them ineligible for their immigrant visas before departure. One of these commenters also indicated that such a process would allow an applicant's representative to check the panel physician's work. DHS did not adopt this suggestion. Under DOS regulations, each immigrant visa applicant must be examined by a DOS-designated panel physician,

see

22 CFR 42.66, and altering DHS regulations to permit submission of medical examinations with a provisional waiver application would not eliminate that requirement.

DHS is not modifying the background checks and biometrics requirement in this rule to include drug testing. Individuals seeking provisional waivers already must provide biometrics for background and security checks. Based in part on the background check results, USCIS determines whether the applicant is eligible for the waiver, including whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. DHS only collects the biometric information needed to run such checks and to adjudicate any requested immigration benefit. Additional testing, such as a medical examination, is required within the DOS immigrant visa process and for DOS's visa eligibility determinations. Performing medical tests as part of the provisional waiver process would duplicate the DOS process.

F. Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking

DHS received a number of comments that are outside the scope of this rule. For example, one commenter asked USCIS to publish guidance on whether an individual who is subject to the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar, but who has already returned to the United States, could satisfy the requisite inadmissibility period while in the United States. Other commenters suggested that those with approved provisional waivers should be permitted to seek adjustment of status in the United States. Many asked DHS to extend the period for accepting adjustment of status applications pursuant to INA section 245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). Others requested that DHS: create a new waiver for people who leave the United States because of family emergencies; make certain immigrant visa categories immediately available or create new immigrant visa categories; Create new inadmissibility periods for purposes of INA sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) and 1182(a)(9)(C); and generally modify immigration laws, particularly those perceived as harsh.

Other commenters requested changes to DOS consular processes or regulations, which are also not within the scope of this rule. For example, commenters asked DHS to instruct DOS consular officers to issue immigrant visas to applicants with approved provisional waiver applications.

One commenter criticized the inability to appeal immigrant visa denials to DHS as unfair, even though DOS, not DHS, adjudicates immigrant visa applications.

See generally

22 CFR part 42. Similarly, another commenter stated that individuals whose immigrant visa applications have been denied by DOS must be allowed to reopen those applications so that they can be allowed to file provisional waiver applications.

To the extent that these comments are read to suggest that DOS should issue immigrant visas to individuals with approved provisional waiver applications without assessing whether such individuals are inadmissible for other reasons, DHS believes those comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. To the extent that the comments are read to suggest that DOS should not re-adjudicate or “second-guess” USCIS's provisional waiver determinations, DHS notes that DOS does not reassess USCIS' provisional waiver determination. DOS, however, is required to assess whether an individual is ineligible for an immigrant visa, including whether an applicant is inadmissible. If the individual is inadmissible on a ground other than unlawful presence, or is otherwise ineligible for the immigrant visa, DOS may deny the individual's immigrant visa application, even if the provisional waiver was approved.

As with other DOS processes, review of the denial of a visa application is governed by DOS regulations, not DHS regulations.

Because DHS believes that these suggestions are outside the scope of this rule, the suggestions will not be addressed in this rule.

G. Comments on the Executive Orders 12866/13563 Analysis

In one comment requesting that the DOS visa interview scheduling cut-off date be eliminated as an ineligibility requirement, the commenter cited DHS's acknowledgement that the 2013 Rule's provisional waiver application projections were overestimated. Because of the overestimation in the 2013 Rule, the commenter suggested that DHS likely overestimated provisional waiver applications resulting from the 2015 Proposed Rule. Since publication of the 2015 Proposed Rule, DHS has adjusted its application projection method based on new, revised data from DOS and this rule's new provisional waiver eligibility criteria. DHS believes this new method will better project the provisional waiver applications resulting from the rule.

DHS received many comments affirming the benefits of the provisional unlawful presence waiver described in the 2015 Proposed Rule. Commenters agreed that the provisional waiver's expansion would provide greater certainty for families, promote family unity, improve administrative efficiency, improve communication between DHS and other government agencies, facilitate immigrant visa issuance, save time and resources, and relieve the emotional and financial hardships that family members experience from separation.

DHS also received several economic-related comments that were outside the scope of this rule. Several commenters mentioned that obtaining legal status, which both the provisional and general unlawful presence waivers may facilitate, provides a significant benefit to the undocumented individual as well as American society. According to the commenters, this is because obtaining legal status tends to increase taxable income, reduce poverty, contribute to job growth, help businesses gain qualified employees, and add to consumer spending. Although DHS agrees that obtaining legal status provides important economic benefits to once-undocumented individuals, and the United States in general, those benefits are not directly attributable to the provisional waiver eligibility

provided by this rule. Rather, obtaining a waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility (provisional or not) is just one step in the process for gaining legal status, which USCIS hopes this rule will facilitate.

A different commenter asserted that non-U.S. citizen workers hurt the economy. DHS disagrees with this comment and finds that it is beyond the scope of this rule because obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility (provisional or not) for unlawful presence does not provide employment authorization for someone who is unlawfully present. Receiving such a waiver is just one step in the process for gaining the legal status required to lawfully work in the United States.

IV. Regulatory Amendments

After careful consideration of the public comments, as previously summarized in this preamble, DHS adopts the regulatory amendments in the proposed rule without change, except for the provisions noted below. In addition to these substantive changes, DHS also has made edits to the text of various provisions that do not change the substance of the proposed rule.

A. Amending 8 CFR 212.7(e)(1) To Clarify Which Agency Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Provisional Waivers

Currently, 8 CFR 212.7(e)(1) specifies that all provisional waiver applications, including an application made by an individual in removal proceedings before EOIR, must be filed with USCIS. The provision implies, but does not specifically state, that USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide provisional waivers. With this final rule, DHS modifies the regulatory text to clarify that USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of whether the applicant is or was in removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(2).

B. Removing the Reason-to-Believe Standard as a Basis for Ineligibility

Under the 2013 Rule, an individual is ineligible for a provisional waiver if “USCIS has reason to believe that the alien may be subject to grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) or (II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(I) or (II), at the time of the immigrant visa interview with the Department of State.” 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(i). The 2015 Proposed Rule proposed to retain this requirement but requested any alternatives that may be more effective than the current provisional waiver process or the amended process in the proposed rule.

See

80 FR 43343. In response to comments, DHS is removing this standard as a basis for ineligibility for provisional waivers.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4). DHS, however, retains 8 CFR 212.7(e)(14)(i), which provides that a provisional waiver is automatically revoked if DOS determines, at the time of the immigrant visa interview, that the applicant is inadmissible on any grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence under INA section 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B). Revocation of the provisional waiver based on inadmissibility on other grounds, however, does not prevent the individual from applying for a general waiver under 8 CFR 212.7(a) to cure his or her inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) or any other ground of inadmissibility for which a waiver is available.

C. Removing the DOS Visa Interview Scheduling Cut-Off Dates in 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv) and 212.7(e)(5)(ii)(G)

In the proposed rule, DHS sought to retain date restrictions that prevented immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from obtaining provisional waivers if DOS acted prior to January 3, 2013 to schedule their immigrant visa interviews.

See

80 FR at 43343. DHS also proposed that other individuals (

i.e.,

individuals other than certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens) would be ineligible for provisional waivers if DOS had acted on or before the effective date of this final rule to schedule the immigrant visa interview.

Id.

Furthermore, DHS proposed to reject provisional waiver applications that were not filed consistent with the above date restrictions.

See

proposed 8 CFR 212.7(e)(5)(G)(ii)(1) and (2). In response to comments, DHS has decided to eliminate these filing restrictions.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4) and (5).

D. Allowing Individuals With Final Orders of Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion To Apply for Provisional Waivers

Since the inception of the provisional waiver process, individuals have been ineligible for provisional waivers if they are 1) subject to final orders of removal issued under INA sections 217, 235, 238, or 240, 8 U.S.C. 1187, 1225, 1228, or 1229a; 2) subject to final orders of exclusion or deportation under former INA sections 236 or 242, 8 U.S.C. 1226 or 1252 (pre-April 1, 1997), or 3) subject to final orders under any other provision of law (including an

in absentia

order of removal under INA section 240(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)).

See generally

2013 Rule, 78 FR 536. As indicated in the response to comments on this subject in the preamble, DHS is amending the rule to provide eligibility for provisional waivers to certain individuals who are subject to an administratively final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and therefore will be inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) or (ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) or (ii), upon departure from the United States. Under the final rule, such individuals will be eligible to apply for provisional waivers if they have been granted consent to reapply for admission under INA section 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii) and 8 CFR 212.2(j).

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4) (iv). However, they cannot file Form I-212 applications and provisional waiver applications concurrently.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv).

Notwithstanding this change, individuals will remain ineligible for provisional waivers if 1) they have returned unlawfully to the United States after removal, and 2) CBP or ICE, after service of notice under 8 CFR 241.8, has reinstated a prior order of removal, deportation, or exclusion. Under INA section 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), reinstatement of a such an order makes the individual ineligible for waivers of inadmissibility and other forms of relief.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(v). Moreover, even in the absence of reinstatement, the individual's unauthorized return to the United States may be considered as an adverse discretionary factor in adjudicating a provisional waiver application. Finally, the approval of a provisional waiver application will be automatically revoked if the applicant is ultimately determined to be inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(9)(C), for having unlawfully returned to the United States after a prior removal or prior unlawful presence.

E. Clarifying When an Individual Is Subject to Reinstatement and Ineligible for Provisional Waivers

Currently, an individual is ineligible for a provisional waiver if he or she is subject to reinstatement of a prior order under INA section 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5).

See

8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(vii). DHS retained this ineligibility criteria in the proposed rule. In this final rule, however, DHS clarifies which individuals are ineligible for provisional waivers based on application of the reinstatement of removal provision at INA section 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5). Under the final rule, an individual will be ineligible for a provisional waiver if ICE or CBP, after service of notice under 8 CFR 241.8, has reinstated the removal, deportation, or

exclusion order prior to the individual filing the provisional waiver or while the provisional waiver application is pending.

See

new 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(v).

F. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments

In this final rule, DHS made several technical and non-substantive changes. First, DHS amended 8 CFR 212.7(e)(2) by adding the word “document” after the terms “employment authorization” and “advance parole.” Additionally, DHS simplified the text of 8 CFR 212.7(e)(5). Currently, that provision outlines filing conditions, which are also provided in the instructions to provisional waiver applications. DHS, therefore, revised the provision to refer individuals to the filing instructions of the form.

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

C. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is a “significant regulatory action,” although not an economically significant regulatory action, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this regulation. This effort is consistent with Executive Order 13563's call for agencies to “consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”

1. Summary

After careful consideration of public comments on the 2015 Proposed Rule,

DHS adopts most of the regulatory amendments specified in the proposed rule without change, except for the provisions addressing ineligibility for: 1) reason to believe that the applicant may be inadmissible on grounds other than unlawful presence at the time of the DOS immigrant visa interview (8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(i)); 2) DOS initially acting before January 3, 2013 or before the effective date of this final rule to schedule an applicant's immigrant visa interview (proposed 8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(iv) and 212.7(e)(5)(ii)(G)); and 3) the applicant being subject to an administratively final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal (“final order”)(8 CFR 212.7(e)(4)(vi)). With the adoption of most of the proposed regulatory amendments, DHS largely applies the 2015 Proposed Rule's economic analysis approach to this final rule. However, some changes to the analysis are necessary to capture the population of individuals now eligible for provisional waivers through this final rule's elimination and modification of certain ineligibility provisions just described and source data revisions.

See

80 FR 43338 (July 22, 2015).

This rule's expansion of the provisional waiver process will create costs and benefits to newly eligible provisional waiver (Form I-601A) applicants, their U.S. citizen or LPR family members, and the Federal Government (namely, USCIS and DOS), as outlined in Table 1. This rule will impose fee, time, and travel costs on an estimated 100,000 newly eligible individuals who choose to complete and submit provisional waiver applications and biometrics (fingerprints, photograph, and signature) to USCIS for consideration during the 10-year period of analysis (

see

Table 1).

Newly eligible provisional waiver applicants and their U.S. citizen or LPR family members will benefit from this rule. Individuals applying for a provisional waiver will receive advance notice of USCIS' decision to provisionally waive their 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar under INA section 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B), before they leave the United States for their immigrant visa interviews abroad. This offers applicants and their family members the certainty of knowing that the applicants have been provisionally approved for a waiver of certain unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility before departing from the United States. Individuals with approved provisional waivers may experience shortened periods of separation from their family members living in the United States while they pursue immigrant visas abroad, thus reducing related financial and emotional strains on the families. USCIS and DOS will continue to benefit from the operational efficiencies gained from the provisional waiver's role in streamlining immigrant visa application processing, but on a larger scale than currently in place.

In the absence of this rule, DHS assumes that the majority of individuals who would have been newly eligible for provisional waivers under this rule will likely continue to pursue an immigrant visa through consular processing abroad and apply for waivers of unlawful presence through the Form I-601 process. Those who apply for unlawful presence waivers through the Form I-601 process will incur fee, time, and travel costs similar to individuals applying for waivers through the provisional waiver process. However, without this rule, those who must seek a waiver of inadmissibility abroad through the Form I-601 process after the immigrant visa interview may face longer separation times from their families in the United States and experience less certainty regarding the approval of a waiver of the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence bar before departing from the United States.

Table 1—Total Costs and Benefits of Rule, Year 1-Year 10

10-Year present values

3% Discount rate

7% Discount rate

Annualized values

3% Discount rate

7% Discount rate

Total Costs:

Quantitative

$64,168,205

$52,429,216

$7,522,471

$7,464,741

Total Benefits:

Qualitative

Decreased amount of time that U.S. citizens or LPRs are separated from their family members with approved provisional waivers, leading to reduced financial and emotional hardship for these families.

Federal Government will achieve increased efficiencies by streamlining immigrant visa processing for applicants seeking inadmissibility waivers of unlawful presence.

Note:

The cost estimates in this table are contingent upon Form I-601A filing projections as well as the discount rates applied for monetized values.

2. Background

Individuals who are in the United States and seeking LPR status must either obtain an immigrant visa abroad through consular processing with DOS or apply to adjust status in the United States, if eligible. Those present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled are typically ineligible to adjust status in the United States. To obtain LPR status, such individuals must leave the United States for immigrant visa processing at a U.S. Embassy or consulate abroad. Because these individuals are present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled, many have accrued enough unlawful presence to trigger the 3- or 10-year unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility when leaving the United States for immigrant visa processing abroad.

See

INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). While there may be limited exceptions, the population affected by this rule will consist almost exclusively of individuals who are eligible for immigrant visas but are unlawfully present in the United States without having been inspected and admitted or paroled.

Individuals who depart the United States after accruing more than 180 days, but less than 1 year, of unlawful presence are generally inadmissible for 3 years. Those who depart the United States after accruing 1 year or more of unlawful presence are generally inadmissible for 10 years.

Before the introduction of the provisional waiver process, individuals seeking immigrant visas through consular processing were only able to apply for a waiver of a ground of inadmissibility, such as unlawful presence,

after

attending the immigrant visa interview abroad. If a consular officer identified any ground(s) of inadmissibility during an immigrant visa interview, the applicant was tentatively denied an immigrant visa and allowed to seek a waiver of any waivable ground(s) of inadmissibility. The individual could apply for such a waiver by filing Form I-601 with USCIS. Those who applied for Form I-601 waivers were required to remain abroad while USCIS adjudicated their Forms I-601, which currently takes over five months to complete.

If USCIS approved the waiver of the inadmissibility ground(s), DOS subsequently scheduled a follow-up consular interview. Provided there were no other concerns raised by the consular officer, DOS generally issued the immigrant visa during the follow-up consular interview.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “USCIS Processing Time Information for the Nebraska Service Center- Form I-601.”

Available at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do

(last updated Feb. 11, 2016).

In some instances, the Form I-601 waiver process led to lengthy separations of immigrant visa applicants from their U.S. citizen or LPR spouses, parents, and children, causing financial and emotional harm. The Form I-601 waiver process also created processing inefficiencies for both USCIS and DOS through repeated interagency communication and through multiple consular appointments or interviews.

With the goals of streamlining the inadmissibility waiver process, facilitating efficient immigrant visa issuance, and promoting family unity, DHS promulgated a rule that established an alternative inadmissibility waiver process on January 3, 2013 (“2013 Rule”).

The 2013 Rule created a provisional waiver process for certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (namely, spouses, children (unmarried and under 21), and parents of U.S. citizens (provided the child is at least 21)) who are in the United States, are seeking immigrant visas, can demonstrate extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent, would be inadmissible upon departure from the United States due to only the accrual of unlawful presence, and meet other eligibility conditions. That process currently allows eligible individuals to apply for a provisional waiver and receive a notification of USCIS' decision on their provisional waiver application before departing for DOS consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. The provisional waiver process contrasts to the Form I-601 waiver process, which requires

applicants to wait abroad, away from their family members in the United States, while USCIS adjudicates their application for a waiver of inadmissibility. Once approved for a provisional waiver, they are scheduled for the immigrant visa interview abroad. During the immigrant visa interview, a DOS consular officer will determine whether the applicant is otherwise admissible to the United States and eligible to receive an immigrant visa. Since the provisional waiver process's inception, USCIS has approved more than 66,000 provisional waiver applications for certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens,

allowing these individuals and their families to enjoy the benefits of such waivers.

See

78 FR 536 (Jan. 3, 2013).

This

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.