Link to USCIS page with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
This policy memorandum (PM) applies to and will be used to guide referrals and the issuance of NTAs by all USCIS employees, unless otherwise specifically provided in this PM or other USCIS policy or guidance documents. This PM supersedes Policy Memorandum 602-0050, Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens, dated November 7, 2011.
Click here to access the NTA Practice Update, June 2019: Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Denied Humanitarian-based Immigration Cases.
These annotated notes have been compiled by ASISTA, AILA and ILRC, commenting on the information shared by USCIS during the November 15, 2018 national stakeholder teleconference. We added practice pointers and clarification to USCIS responses.
This memo applies to certain abused spouses who were last admitted to the United States under non-immigrant visa holders, and may obtain employment authorization under INA section 106 for a period of 2 years.
The amendment of this memo provide for continued eligibility for adjustment of status under section 1 of the CAA for an abused spouses or child of a qualifying Cuban principal.
This memo provides guidance to USICS officers in adjudicating VAWA cases, filed by a self-petitioning adopted child, when the adopted child has been battered or abused.
The purpose of this policy memorandum (PM) is to clarify the role of Requests for Further Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) in the adjudication of petitions, applications, and other requests. It revised Chapter 10.5(a) of the Adjudicators' Field Manual (AFM)- AFM Updated AD12-04.
This policy memorandum (PM) provides guidance to USCIS officers regarding an amendment to the that provides eligibility for employment authorization to the beneficiary of an approved VAWA self-petition. This PM revises Adjudicators' Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 21.14(I) and 30.13 (AFM Update AD07-16). The guidance contained in the PM will become effective, in advance of regulatory amendment, once the new information collection is approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
This policy memorandum (PM) provides guidance on VAWA self-petitions for "children" who file between age 21 and 25.
This policy memorandum (PM) details the revision to the Adjudicators' Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21.15 (AFM Updated AD 06-32).
This policy memorandum (PM) restates the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) revocation policy.
This policy memorandum (PM) offers information regarding Reapplication of Admission and Adjustment of Status after a prior Removal Order or inadmissibility under section 212 (a)(9)(C)(i)(II).
This policy memorandum (PM) details USCIS revisions and regulation on unlawful presence and inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B) and (C).
This memorandum guidance significantly modifies a prior interpretation of certain provision under CSPA. In particular, it changes how the agency interprets the statute to apply to aliens who age out prior to the enactment date of the CSPA. It also permits those individuals who were ineligible under the prior policy to file a new application for permanent residency. Under certain circumstances, this guidance also permits those individuals who were previously denied for CSPA to file motions to reopen or reconsider without filing fee. It also explains what steps certain aliens who do not automatically benefit from the CSPA can take to protect their status as a child.
This memorandum offers guidelines and clarification on matting the "extreme hardship", "battered or subjected to extreme cruelty", and "credible evidence" under VAWA.
This memo offers information on the policy allowing adjustment of status to VAWA petitioners who do not have "inspection and admission or parole" status.
ICE memo focusing on confidentiality, determining admissibility or deportability solely by information from people involved in the battery or extreme cruelty, etc.
This is one of the several memoranda discussing CIS discretion to not place non-citizens in removal proceedings in certain circumstances, including VAWA (p. 2) (but read the whole memo). Read along with other documents in this section.
Reminder for USCIS adjudicators to follow the typical approach of law enforcement checks, legal analysis, waivers, with special attention to discretionary analysis.
This is an amendment allowing self-petitioning eligibility for spouses and children of abusive U.S. Citizens or Legal Permanent Residents if the abuser lost his or her status "related to" or "due to" domestic violence during the two-year period immediately preceding the petition.
Clarification that individuals who obtained lawful permanent residence by an approved waiver of the joint filing requirement under section 216 (c)(4)(C) of the INA are also eligible for naturalization under section 319(a).
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicators at the Vermont Service Center (VSC) of the change of the law concerning determination of good moral character made in connections with VAWA-based self-petitions (Form I-360). This memorandum on good moral character should be read along with its two attachments and accompanying notes, and the ASISTA newsletter article on good moral character from fall 2008, located below.
This memo prohibits local CIS offices from re-adjudicating self-petitions. Useful tool for educating local officers about their role in adjusting self-petitioners.
This first attachment to the good moral character memo provides a chart of various statutory bars to establishing good moral character and whether they are "waivable" for purposes of overcoming good moral character problems for VAWA self-petitioners. CIS has acknowledged that its reference to 212(a)(9)(A) is no longer statutorily accurate; that bar applies to bigamy at 212(a)(10), not prior removals at (9)(A).
This second attachment to the good moral character memo discusses the standards for the good moral character bar based on false testimony. Please not that the only false USC claim that IS a bar to GMC is a false claim to vote. General false claims to USC are NOT a GMC bar but implicates the "residual" GMC category. CIS agrees with this approach, so to the degree that this memo implies otherwise, it is legally inaccurate.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (CIS) personnel concerning these tow laws.
This memo is issued in order to provide guidance in the adjudication of application for Naturalization (Form N-400).
This memo prohibits local CIS offices from re-adjudicating self-petitions. Useful tool for educating local officers about their role in adjusting self-petitioners.
This memo provides a list of situations in which a person would qualify for an authorized period of stay, temporary protected status (TPS), or deferred enforced departure (DED).
This memo states that is the self-petitioner can demonstrate that the divorce from the abusive spouse is connected to the battering or extreme mental cruelty and the self -petitioner files his/her self-petition within two years of the divorce, that self-petition should not be denied on the grounds that a legal marriage no longer exists.
This old memo has excellent language near the end on the "any credible evidence" standard -- "documentary requirements"-- and why it exists. The discussion of "extreme hardship" is no longer relevant to VAWA self-petitions but may be helpful to those seeking VAWA cancellation, where that requirement still exists. Click here to see the Paul Virtue Memo on Any Credible Evidence Standard and Extreme Hardship in word version.
Some of this second INS memo on self-petitioning has been supplanted by subsequent statutory changes, but the actions on what CIS districts are supposed to do (pages 6-7) and the prima facie/public benefit system (pages 4-5 and attachments) are still valid and helpful.
This is the first government memo on self-petitioning, so changes in the law may have affected some of it, but the information on annulments (p. 6) and transferring previous priority dates (p. 2) is still valid and helpful.
Whether a K-1 is eligible for adjustment of status more than two years after marriage to petitioner.