KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

​What to Do If a LPR is Asked to Relinquish Their Green Card and Sign Form I-407, Abandonment of LPR Status When Returning to USA.

​This is a helpful reminder, which became important in light of recent events following an executive order when a number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) were made to sign Forms I-407, were not allowed into the U.S., and returned to the foreign countries were they came from.

First of all, upon returning to the U.S., Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) should not automatically surrender their green cards if asked to do so.

An individual does not lose LPR status as a result of time abroad. They remain an LPR until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Court and the government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which a higher evidentiary standard than clear and convincing. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988).

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no potential negative ramifications for refusing to sign. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment is grounds for detention.

***If a LPR refuses to sign Form I-407 and insists on being admitted to the United States, the CBP officer must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) so that an immigration judge can determine whether they have lost their LPR status.
When abandonment question is raised, a LPR can offer evidence of the following: their ties to the U.S., the purpose of their visit outside of the U.S., and the expected termination date of the visit abroad or occurrence of facts showing why a date certain is or was not possible. Precedent decision Matter of Kane, 15 I&N Dec. 258 (BIA 1975). The burden of proof at this stage is preponderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not (more than 51%) that you did not abandon your residence in USA. See Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 1994).

Totality of the circumstances are relevant and must be considered. If the officer is nevertheless, not convinced, you should ask for a hearing before an immigration judge.

***If your green card is confiscated, you must be provided with alternative evidence of their LPR status, such as an I-94 and/or passport stamp that says "Evidence of Temporary Residence."
Abandonment of residence is not a ground of inadmissibility. Thus, the basis for the NTA is violation of INA §237(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of admission because LPRs travel abroad and reenter the U.S. as "special immigrants" per INA §101(a)(27).

A LPR who is placed in removal proceedings, doesn't lose his or her status until a final order of removal is issued by Immigration Judge. See 8 CFR §1.2 (defining "lawfully admitted for permanent resident"). Read more at AILA Doc. No. 17012960.

In Russian:

ЗНАЙ СВОИ ПРАВА:

ЧТО ДЕЛАТЬ, ЕСЛИ ВЫ ПОСТОЯННЫЙ ЖИТЕЛЬ США (У ВАС ГРИН КАРТА), И НА ВЪЕЗДЕ В США, СОТРУДНИК ИММИГРАЦИОННОЙ СЛУЖБЫ ПЫТАЕТСЯ ОТОБРАТЬ ВАШУ ГРИН КАРТУ, ЗАСТАВЛЯЕТ ВАС ПОДПИСАТЬ ФОРМУ I-407, И ПЫТАЕТСЯ ВЫДВОРИТЬ ВАС ИЗ СТРАНЫ.

Полезная памятка для грин карт холдеров (постоянных жителей США), которые возвращаются в США и которых принуждают к отказу от грин карты и сдаче грин карты прямо в аэропорту сотруднику CBP. Эта ситуация случается нередко в аэропортах, но в последнее время требования к отказу участились, и нередко без веских оснований.

Помните, что если вас принуждают к подписи на форме I-407, Отказ от грин карты, вы не обязаны ее подписывать. Если вы не согласны и не хотите лишаться вида еа жительство в США, то не подписывайте эту форму.

Если сотрудник CBP продолжает настаивать, что вы потеряли свое резиденство (вид на жительство) в США, например, из-за длительного отсутствия за пределами США (более года), или потому, что вы являетесь лицом родившимся или имеющим паспорт из одной из семи стран на Ближнем Востоке, указанных в недавнем указе президента от 27 января 2017 г  - то они должны вас все же впустить в страну и выписать форму NTA, приглашение на явку в иммиграционный суд США, куда они должны передать ваше дело для решения вопроса о том, потеряли ли вы статус постоянного жителя или нет.

Помните, что хотя существует презумпция, что статус "автоматически" теряется после более одного года, проведенного за границей, но на самом деле все не так уж автоматически. Государство должно это доказать, и у вас есть право на доказательство своей правоты в иммиграционном суде США. Только судья может принять решение  том, чтобы отобрать у вас грин карту, а не сотрудник в аэропорту (естественно, вы можете решить отказаться от своей грин карты и добровольно ее отдать и подписать форму I-407).

On December 27, 2016,  the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated as precedential the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) decision in Matter of Dhanasar.  This precedent decision vacated the previous precedent, NYSDOT --  Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998). 
  
The Dhanasar case overview:
 
Mr. Dhanasar has a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering, 2 M.S. degrees and an impressive credentials and resume, a "rocket scientist". However, when he self-petitioned for a green card under the National Interest Waiver program, the USCIS denied his I-140 petition under the old law (old 1998 precedent, case NYSDOT, which was now overruled by Dhanasar case). The AAO applied a preponderance of the evidence standard and a new NIW test, and decided that: (1) the petitioner’s research in aerospace engineering has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance his research; and (3) on balance, it is beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. We find that the petitioner has established eligibility for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

On appeal, on 12/27/2016 the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the old precedent, NYSDOT test, was overly restrictive and approved the I-140 petition as a National Interest Waiver. AAO also changed the NIW test.
 
On December 27, 2016, DHS had relaxed rules for applying for NIW National Interest Waiver green card in EB-2 category. It will benefit many potential immigrants who consider applying for a green card under NIW. Many will be able to concurrently submit I-140, I-485, and applications for a work permit and advance parole. Except for India and China, where because of a backlog in EB-2 category, applicants from India and China will be unable to apply immediately for adjustment of status. Being able to qualify for a EB-2 green card as a NIW, will help many to avoid PERM and having an employer to petition for them, and will speed up the process of becoming a permanent resident.
 
This new precedent decision means that USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner proves three elements of the test:

(1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; and
(2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
 
The new NIW test still leaves discretion in the USCIS hands to determine whether to approve or deny the National Interest Waiver I-140 EB-2 petition. However, each of the three NIW requirements has been relaxed to make it easier for an applicant to prove his case.  
 
For more information on the AAO please visit www.uscis.gov/aao.
The case can be found in the Virtual Law Library of the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
 
Вкратце по-русски:

27 декабря 2016 решение Административного аппеляционного офиса по иммиграционным делам по делу Дханасар было официально признано DHS / USCIS новым прецедентом для всех последующих дел и петиций USCIS I-140 на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах (National Interest Waiver).
Вкратце факты дела Дханасар: Г-н Дханасар имеет степень доктора наук и две степени мастера, а также длинный послужной список и впечатляюшее резюме, он эксперт в области ракетостроения и космоса. Когда он подал заявление на грин карту по программе Вейвера в Национальных Интересах, ему было отказано по причине несоответствия тесту на NIW в предыдущем прецеденте, деле 1998 года NYSDOT. Старый тест было очень сложно доказать, особенно третье требование.
Новое прецедентное решение ААО в корне изменило старый тест на NIW: все три требования по тесту были изменены и облегчены. В результате многим заявителям будет проще получить грин карту по этой программе, и избежать PERM и петицию от работодателя. Также многие смогут сразу подать заявления на грин карту adjustment of status, разрешение на работу и поездки за границу пока adjustment of status находится на рассмотрении.
Дело Дханасар тут: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/920996/download

​

On September 30, 2016, USCIS has published Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation), a new form that allows lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to apply for a travel document (carrier documentation) if they:

• Are returning from temporary overseas travel of less than one year, and their Green Card has been lost, stolen or destroyed, or
• Are returning from temporary overseas travel of less than two years, and their Reentry Permit has been lost, stolen or destroyed.

Note: The length of the absence will be measured from the time the LPR departed the U.S. to the time he or she pays the Form I-131A fee.
Applying for Carrier Documentation
To file Form I-131A, LPRs must pay the required fee online and then apply in person at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
The embassy or consulate will generally issue the carrier documentation within two weeks. The LPR should present the carrier documentation, which may be a boarding foil (similar to a visa) or transportation letter, to a transportation carrier instead of their Green Card or Reentry Permit.
The carrier documentation allows an LPR to prove to a transportation carrier only that they are authorized to travel to a United States port of entry to apply for admission to the United States. It is not a guarantee of admission or parole into the United States. CBP will conduct all required inspections when the LPR arrives at a United States port of entry and will make the final determination of whether to admit or parole the LPR to the United States.
Filing a Form I-131A does not give an LPR a new Green Card. To apply for a new Green Card, they must file Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, and pay the filing fee. Visit our Form I-90 page at uscis.gov/I-90 for more information.
LPRs with Expired Green Cards
LPRs with expired Green Cards may not need to file Form I-131A. We encourage LPRs to check with their airline or vessel before determining whether to file Form I-131A.
Although regulations generally require an LPR to travel with a valid Green Card, CBP policy permits a transportation carrier bound for the United States to board an LPR  without carrier documentation if:

• They have an expired Green Card that was issued with a 10-year expiration date, or
• They have an expired Green Card with a 2-year expiration date AND a Form I-797, Notice of Action, showing that they have filed a Form I-751 or Form I-829 to remove the conditions on their permanent resident status. The Notice of Action extends the validity of the card for a specified length of time, generally one year.

Filing Fee
The filing fee for Form I-131A is $360. There is no biometric services fee. The fee for this form must be paid online using a credit or debit card or U.S. bank account through our online payment system.
Applicants cannot use a fee waiver for this form. As with all immigration fees, USCIS does not issue refunds, regardless of the decision on the application.
Because USCIS fees change periodically, please verify the current fee at uscis.gov/forms.
Where to File
Before appearing at a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate to file Form I-131A, LPRs must submit the filing fee on the USCIS website. When appearing in person at a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate to file Form I-131A, they must bring evidence that they paid the fee. Please contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate or visit its website to verify that they can process the Form I-131A and to read instructions on how to file.

​Read here.

Putro v. Lynch, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case on July 07, 2016. This case clarified application of a joint filing exemption for an alien seeking to obtain unconditional lawful permanent resident status as a result of her marriage to a U.S. citizen, when applying as a widow after the death of her/his US citizen husband (USCIS Petition I-751).

Vera Putro, a citizen of Latvia, married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and based on that marriage gained conditional permanent residency. Her residency did not become unconditional, however, because her husband passed away before they could petition jointly to remove the conditions. Putro petitioned on her own to have the conditions removed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services construed the petition as a request for a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirement, denied the waiver, and ordered Putro removed.

Decision: The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided that in fact, Putro did not need a waiver because her husband’s death during the conditional period exempted her from the joint-filing requirement. In mistakenly evaluating her petition as a request for a waiver, the agency erroneously placed on Putro the burden of proving that the marriage was bona fide.

The Court of Appeals granted petition and remanded the case to Immigration Judge for determination under the proper standard. 

Finally, after 8 years the petitioner might have her petition for unconditional permanent resident status approved (it's not approved yet, merely was remanded for another review and decision following the correct standard of proof by the same IJ immigration judge). When the I751 is approved, she will become eligible to apply for USA citizenship as well (because it's been over five years since the grant of her conditional residence in 2006).

********************************
To read in Russian - please scroll down. По-русски смотрите внизу страницы.
*******************************

Facts: Ms. Putro first entered the U.S. on a 4-month, foreign exchange student visa in 1999 and overstayed. In November 2004 she married Michael Zalesky, a U.S. citizen. Putro was granted conditional legal permanent residence (“LPR”) status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen in July 2006, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.1. Four months later, in November, Zalesky died. Zalesky’s untimely death complicated Putro’s immigration status. To gain unconditional LPR status, Putro and Zalesky had to jointly petition the agency for removal of the conditions within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of her obtaining conditional permanent residency (i.e., between mid-April and mid-July of 2008). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(1)(A), (d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). Of course filing a joint petition was no longer possible, so in June 2008 Putro filed a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, checking the box specifying that she sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement because her spouse had died.

USCIS had denied her I-751 petition filed as a waiver for failure to prove a good faith marriage.

She reapplied in Immigration court removal proceedings, and was denied again. The IJ immigration judge denied Putro’s application for the waiver of the joint-filing requirement and concluded that she was removable. The IJ found that Putro had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she and Zalesky had a bona fide marriage. Her testimony and that of her witnesses, he said, was “unpersuasive.” The government, in contrast, had presented “reliable” evidence that family members and Armstrong had told investigators that the marriage was a fraud.

Putro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it upheld the IJ’s ruling and dismissed her appeal.

On petition for review, Putro argued that the IJ had misapplied the standard of proof, and at oral argument we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how this case is affected by the decision in Matter of Rose, and particularly the portion of the decision in which the Board states:
[T]he death of a petitioning spouse during the 2-year conditional period excuses the general requirement that a petition to remove the conditional basis of an alien spouse’s status must be “joint.” Thus, a separate waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act is not required if the surviving spouse timely files an I-751 petition requesting removal of the conditional basis of his or her status and appears for a personal interview. 25 I. & N. Dec. 181, 182 (BIA 2010).
We agree with Putro that the IJ mishandled her petition to remove conditions on her status by construing it as a request for a waiver of the joint-filing requirement rather than recognizing that she qualified for an exemption of that requirement. Because Zalesky died within the two-year conditional period and Putro timely petitioned to remove her conditional status, she should have been excused from the joint-filing requirement. Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 182.

This conclusion was applied in the only federal appellate decision (an unpublished one) to address the issue. See Zerrouk v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 553 F. App’x. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing exemption of “joint” filing requirement for alien whose spouse dies within two-year conditional period, but concluding that substantial evidence supported determination that marriage was not bona fide).
Moreover, the discretionary waiver does not even apply to Putro, because that waiver requires that the marriage be “terminated (other than through the death of the spouse).” 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4)(B). That requires divorce or annulment, see Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Director, USCIS, to Directors, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage (Apr. 3, 2009). Though Putro separated from her husband before his death, they never divorced, and the marriage was terminated by his death.

The error was significant because it had the effect of shifting the burden of proof that Putro’s marriage to Zalesky was bona fide. Because the IJ thought that Putro needed a waiver, he placed the burden of proof on her and ultimately found that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a bona fide marriage. Had the burden of proof properly been applied, the government would have had to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 185; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D); cf. Lara v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (noncitizen applying for discretionary waiver of joint filing petition bears burden of proving that marriage at time of inception was bona fide). Moreover, unlike a grant of the waiver—which is discretionary—the agency “shall” remove the conditional basis of the petitioner’s status as long as he or she meets the petitioning requirements and the government cannot disprove that the marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(3)(B).

This case must be remanded to the agency so that the IJ can evaluate her petition under the proper standard of proof. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec., at 184–85. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND the case for determination under the proper standard.

Read the text of the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals here. 
Or you can download file here.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D07-07/C:14-2430:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1788032:S:0

Вкратце по-русски:

Вера Путро, гражданка Латвии, приехала в США в 1999 году по летней программе по обмену студентов,  J1 summer work-travel program. Она осталась в США нелегально, и через много лет вышла замуж за американского гражданина. Ее первая условная грин карта была утверждена без особых проблем в 2006. Через 4 месяца после этого ее американский муж умер от передозировки наркотиков. В 2008 Вера подала петицию на постоянную грин карту сама, без участия мужа (так как он к тому времени уже не мог поставить свою подпись по причине своей смерти). По фактам дела не понятно, но скорее всего Вера не проконсультировалась со знающим адвокатом перед подачей петиции, и подавала петицию либо сама, либо при помощи кого-то, кто не является экспертом в этой области права.

В результате, Вера получила отказ от USCIS и ее дело передали на депортацию с иммиграционный суд. 

Судья также приняла решения отказать Вере в виде на жительстве (постоянной грин карте) и приказала ей выехать из США (депортация).

Вера подала аппеляцию в следующую инстанцию, и там тоже получила отказ и указание покинуть страну.

В конце концов через 8 лет после начала этой эпопеи (дело тянется с 2008 г), Аппеляционный Суд 7 Округа США принял решение в пользу Веры. Но это еще не конец пути. Суд передал ее дело на повторное рассмотрение в суд нижестоящей инстанции с указаниями пересмотреть дело еще раз, и принять решение на основании ПРАВИЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЗАКОНА. Как оказалось, все предыдущие суды просто напросто неверно трактовали закон и неправильно применяли закон к Вериной ситуации. Вот такая простая ошибка стоила человеку 8 лет ее жизни и многих тысях долларов, потраченных на адвокатов и судебные разбирательства.

В конце концов, если ее петицию утвердят (пока еще только передали на повторное рассмотрение), то Вера сможет сразу же подать заявление на американское гражданство (так как прошло более 5 лет), если она докажет, что соответствует всем требованиям закона о гражданстве.

​Текст судебного решения на английском тут: