Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Amicus Invitation No. 16-03-1, posted Mar. 17, 2016 - "The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:
1) Does the present respondent remain in valid U nonimmigrant status at this time?
2) In light of the definition of “admission” at section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, can a person granted U nonimmigrant status from within the United States properly be considered to be “in and admitted to the United States” within the meaning of section 237(a) of the Act? In responding to this question, please discuss the Board’s decisions in Matter of Agour, 26 I&N Dec. 566 (BIA 2015); Matter of Fajardo Espinoza, 26 I&N Dec. 603 (BIA 2015); Matter of V-X, 26 I&N Dec. 147 (BIA 2013); and Matter of Reza, 25 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 2010).
3) Was the Immigration Judge correct in ruling that a grant of U nonimmigrant status from within the United States must be an “admission,” otherwise such grantees would be disqualified from adjustment of status by section 245(m)(1)(A) of the Act, which limits adjustment to (U) nonimmigrants who have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least 3 years “since the date of admission as a nonimmigrant”?
4) Does the legislative or regulatory history of the U nonimmigrant program reflect that Congress or the Attorney General intends or understands the phrase “in and admitted to the United States” to include a grant of U nonimmigrant status from within the United States?
5) How should the Board reconcile the text of section 245(m)(1) of the Act, which authorizes the DHS to “adjust the status of an alien admitted into the United States (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) under section 101(a)(15)(U),” with the text of 8 C.F.R. § 245.24(b)(2)(i), which states that an applicant for section 245(m) adjustment must prove that he/she was “lawfully admitted to the United States as either a U-1, U-2, U-3, U-4, or U-5 nonimmigrant”?
6) What is meant by § 245(m)(1)’s parenthetical language? In answering this question, please discuss whether similar asymmetries exist between the statutory and regulatory provisions governing the adjustment of status of (S), (T), and (V) nonimmigrants.