sample cover letter for uscis form i 485

Table 2—Estimated Increased Marginal Earnings per Worker and per Year

[2023 Dollars]

DHS assumes that the estimated 234,500 in scenario 350K and 502,500 individuals in scenario 750K are currently in the informal labor force and would receive parole as well as employment authorization—increasing their earnings—as a result of this process. Consistent with standard practice in regulatory impact analyses, as well as current evidence in the labor market, [ 206 ] DHS assumes full employment (that is, that all workers looking for work can find employment in the labor market); accordingly, there is no need to consider the extent to which the labor of affected individuals substitutes for the labor of workers already employed in the economy. For further discussion of the literature on labor substitution and immigration, see “Labor Market Impacts” below.

The increased gross annual earnings from the process are estimated by multiplying the marginal increased earnings per worker due to employment authorization (Table 2) by the estimated labor force participation population numbers under scenario 350K (234,500) and 750K (502,500), respectively. Table 3 presents these estimates.

Using the 9% wage penalty as the preferred measure of central tendency, it implies increased earnings of $0.70 billion to $1.63 billion in additional earnings per year. To produce a point estimate, DHS takes the average across the two scenarios (using the 9% wage penalty) to arrive at $1.15 billion (rounded), as its preferred estimate of the gross annual increased earnings resulting from this process.

As noted above, DHS estimates an additional $1.15 billion in annual earnings stemming from this process. [ 207 ] As noted in Ortega & Hsin (2022), these short-term increased earnings are explained by group-specific occupational barriers associated with a lack of legal status that cause a misallocation of talent and human capital. The study found that providing legal status to these workers increases the productivity of these workers, and therefore represent net economic gains.

To the extent that the long-term increase in productivity is not fully captured by the increase in earnings—for example, due to employer labor market power—this earnings estimate understates the true economic gains. [ 208 ] And as previously noted, to the extent that this process leads to additional labor force participation—as per Pope (2016), Pan (2012), and Orrenius and Zavodny (2015)—the earnings estimate may also understate the benefit of this process. The total increase in earnings will also be understated if individuals, after gaining lawful status, switch from industries where they currently face lower wage penalties to industries where they would currently face higher wage penalties. In the Ortega and Hsin (2022) estimation of the effects of grants of lawful status on GDP, the direct wage effect is less than a fifth of the total increase in earnings, meaning the true effect of lawful status on earnings may be five times higher than the wage penalty estimate. In addition, Ortega & Hsin note that the long-term productivity gain may be higher because the affected population anticipates labor market barriers in occupations with high skill requirements, leading to under-investment in human capital. To the extent the process leads to closer-to-optimal investment in human capital (in a manner not reflected in the literature used to estimate the wage penalty), the long-term benefits of this process could be higher.

Beyond earnings, the process's immediate benefits include a sense of security and belonging for the affected population, their families, and communities due to the program offering a less burdensome path to adjustment of status. The population that could be eligible for parole in place through this process subsequently could apply for adjustment of status to that of an LPR and, if granted, would gain the freedom and ability to travel internationally.

Noncitizens in the population granted parole in place under this process would benefit from being able to earn lawful wages through participation in the labor market (less the value of their leisure time prior to this process) including expanded employment options not previously available to them. Noncitizens who work would contribute to Federal, State, and local taxes and would benefit from the Social Security system in retirement. Additionally, and generally, some noncitizens could benefit from eventually having access to public assistance programs only available to qualified noncitizens and U.S. citizens if a need for such assistance arises and if they are not already a beneficiary of assistance through their U.S. citizen spouse or parent. [ 209 ]

Research provides a variety of more specific evidence on the benefits of gaining lawful status for populations that have resided in the United States for periods of time without lawful status. For example, Patler and Pirtle (2018) find that reports of current psychological wellness increase for DACA recipients. [ 210 ] Hasager (2024) finds that in conditions where women's resident status is contingent on remaining married to their husbands, grants of legal status (in this case, asylum) to such women decreases their risk of being victims of violence. [ 211 ]

Research also indicates that benefits can spillover to additional individuals. For example, Cascio, Cornell, and Lewis (2024) found that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 led to higher birthweights among mothers who gained legal status. [ 212 ] This effect arose immediately after applications opened—long before the affected women would have been able to become eligible for Medicaid—indicating that the causality stemmed from factors other than improved access to prenatal care, such as higher family income and reductions in stress that come from gaining legal status. As Cascio, Cornell, and Lewis (2024) note, birthweight is a predictor of later school achievement  [ 213 ] as well as adult educational attainment rates, IQ, health, and labor market outcomes. [ 214 ]

The costs to the population affected by this process will include the various application costs (one person, parent or stepchild, per application). These costs include opportunity costs of time (OCT) of requestors and, if applicable, their representatives for filing Forms I-131F, I-765, I-130, and I-485 (OCT = [value of time based on relevant wages] * [estimated time burden to complete and submit required forms]). Requestors would also be responsible for any travel costs associated with a required biometrics collection appointment at a USCIS ASC.

The process to request parole in place requires an individual to file Form I-131F. Currently, Form I-131F has an estimated time burden of 1.1667 hours with a filing fee of $580. [ 215 ] To request employment authorization, an individual is required to file Form I-765, with a time burden of 4.317 hours, [ 216 ] and a fee of $470 if filing ( print page 67484) online. [ 217 ] Parolees who later choose to apply for adjustment of status must file Form I-485, with a time burden of 6.987 hours  [ 218 ] and submit a fee of $1,440. [ 219 ] In addition to the Form I-485, U.S. citizen spouses or parents must file Form I-130, with a time burden of 1.817 hours  [ 220 ] and a fee of $625 if filed online. [ 221 ] DHS assumes that if given the option, requestors will submit the required forms online. For all forms together, the total time burden is 14.2877 hours.

DHS calculates the costs of applying under this process as follows. Under the two earnings scenarios previously discussed, we convert the annual earnings of $33,302 and $36,135 to per hour earnings, arriving at an estimated $18.67 and $20.26 per hour, respectively. (DHS herein refers to the estimated $18.67 hourly wage as “earnings scenario 1” and the estimated $20.26 hourly wage as “earnings scenario 2.”) We do not include any wage penalty adjustments for application costs purposes as the population is not authorized at the time of application, so their OCT is their estimated informal labor earnings. For applications that are prepared by a representative, DHS estimates an hourly total compensation rate of $123.02 (rounded) using the national average hourly wage for attorneys, adjusted to include benefits, as a reasonable proxy of the opportunity cost of time. [ 222 ] Using the behavior of I-601A filers as a best-approximation for the data, DHS estimates that 81 percent of applicants could seek assistance from a lawyer or an accredited representative and 19 percent would not. [ 223 ]

Biometrics collection occurs at a designated USCIS ASC. While travel times and distances vary, DHS estimates that the average roundtrip distance to an ASC is 50 miles  [ 224 ] and travel takes about 2.5 hours on average to complete a roundtrip. [ 225 ] Furthermore, DHS estimates that a requestor spends an average of 1 hour and 10 minutes (1.17 hours) at an ASC to submit biometrics, [ 226 ] adding up to a total biometrics collection-related time burden of 3.7 hours per requestor. The per requestor biometrics travel costs are approximately $99.77 under earnings scenario 1, and $105.60 under earnings scenario 2. [ 227 ]

The costs are calculated under the two earnings scenarios and the two population scenarios, scenario 350K and scenario 750K. For scenario 350K, we estimate that approximately 66,500 individuals would not use a representative to file the required forms and 283,500 would use a representative. For scenario 750K, we estimate 142,500 individuals would not use a representative and 607,500 would use a representative. Table 4 presents the total cost estimates, including total time burden for filing required forms, per hour OCT estimates for requestors and representatives, population estimates, and biometrics travel costs estimates. To arrive at a point estimate, DHS takes the average across each population scenario and each earning scenario. As a result, the point estimate is approximately $868,583,362 ($0.87 billion).

All the fees paid for the required forms for this process represent a transfer to the federal government (see Table 5). As previously noted, an individual must file Form I-131F to request parole in place and pay a (online) filing fee of $580; file Form I-765 to request work authorization and pay a (online) filing fee of $470 and file Form I-485 to apply for adjustment of status and pay a (mail-in) fee of $1,440. Concurrently with Form I-485, U.S. citizen spouses or parents must file Form I-130, with (online) fee of $625. ( print page 67485) If the option exists to submit a form online, DHS assumes that requestors would take advantage of this option to save costs and hence we use the online form submission fees to calculate the fee transfers. Any fee waivers granted for filing forms would reduce transfers from the affected population to USCIS. [ 228 ]

Increased earnings would result in increased tax revenue to different levels of government. For Federal income taxes, DHS presents an estimate using the simplified assumption that all individuals have marginal earnings taxed at a 12% rate. This is the tax rate that DHS believes would be applicable to such earnings for most individuals. [ 229 ] The gross earnings estimates are multiplied by 12% to yield the results in Table 6.

Following the same approach to calculating the point estimate as was done previously produces an estimate of approximately $138 million in additional annual Federal income tax revenue as a result of the process.

It is difficult to quantify State tax transfers because taxation rules imposed by different levels of government vary widely. [ 230 ] For that reason, DHS is not able to monetize State income tax revenue increases that will occur as a result of this process, but DHS anticipates that at least some states will see tax revenue increases.

DHS is also able to estimate the increase in transfer payments to Federal employment tax programs, namely Medicare and Social Security, which have a combined payroll tax rate of 7.65 percent (6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively). [ 231 ] With both the employee and employer paying their respective portion of Medicare and Social Security taxes, the total estimated increase in tax transfer payments from employees and employers to Medicare and Social Security is 15.3 percent. DHS takes this rate and multiplies it by the total marginal increase in pre-tax, gross, income earnings from Table 3 to estimate the increase in employment tax transfers resulting from work authorization. Table 7 presents these estimates.

Following the same approach to calculating the point estimate as was done previously, this produces an estimate of approximately $176 million in additional annual Federal payroll tax revenue as a result of the process, half from employers and half from the employed population.

Additionally, DHS has considered the impact of the process on eligibility for Federal public benefits. Only noncitizens who are considered “qualified aliens” may access certain Federal public benefits programs. “Qualified aliens” include noncitizens paroled under INA section 212(d)(5) for a period of at least one year. However, nearly all benefits programs are available only to noncitizens who have been in “qualified” status for at least five years. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) generally requires noncitizens to have been in “qualified” status for five years before they can receive benefits. Similarly, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) generally require five years in “qualified” status for noncitizens who entered the United States after August 22, 1996. Given that noncitizens eligible for this process are estimated on average to have lived in the United States for 23 years, DHS anticipates that the majority of those who may be considered for parole in place will have entered after this date. Accordingly, most noncitizens who receive parole pursuant to this process will not be eligible to access public Federal benefits for at least five years. Beyond five years, DHS is not able to monetize the degree of additional outlays from Federal public benefit programs.

The potential fiscal impacts of this process on State and local governments would vary based on a range of factors, such as the social and economic characteristics of the population within a particular jurisdiction at a particular time (or over a particular period), including a parolee's age, educational attainment, income, and level of work-related skill as well as the number of dependents in their families. Fiscal effects would also vary significantly depending on local rules governing eligibility for public benefits. Under this process, additional earnings have the effect of increasing tax revenues. With regard to drawing on public assistance programs, the effects would be uncertain and depend on a range of factors, including personal circumstances and any State and local policies' eligibility criteria.

Compared to the baseline, there are multiple reasons to believe that any burden on State and local fiscal resources caused by the process are unlikely to be significant, and further that the rule may have a positive net effect on their fiscal resources. In the baseline, the vast majority of this population would remain in the country, but without the additional measure of security, employment authorization, and lawful presence promoted by this process. In addition, because State and local governments are already expending resources on public goods for the population gaining lawful status due to this process—for example, public K-12 education—the marginal effect of gaining lawful status on State and local public expenditures is likely to be small. By contrast, the increased earnings stemming from lawful status clearly increase tax revenues relative to baseline (State and local income tax revenues; higher earnings leading to higher spending, and therefore higher sales tax revenues; higher earnings leading to higher spending on property, and therefore higher property tax revenues), albeit one that DHS cannot fully monetize.

In the long term, DHS expects State and local governments to continue to choose how to finance public goods, set tax structures and rates, allocate public resources, and set eligibilities for various public benefit programs, and to adjust these approaches based on the evolving conditions of their respective populations. DHS acknowledges that though this process may result in some indirect fiscal effects on State and local governments, such effects would be extremely challenging to quantify fully and would vary based on a range of factors, including policy choices made by such governments, and may very well be offset by increases in tax revenue and economic productivity that are equally challenging to quantify.

The labor market impacts of increased immigration are largely not relevant to the analysis of this process because it applies to individuals who have resided in the United States for more than 10 years. Such individuals would likely continue to reside in the United States with or without this process. Nevertheless, for completeness and to the extent relevant, DHS has included discussion of the effects of increased immigration on native-born workers' employment and earnings.

Although the estimated population is small relative to the total U.S. and individual State labor forces, DHS recognizes that, in general, any potential increase in worker supply may affect wages and, in turn, the welfare of other workers and employers. However, the effects are not obvious or straightforward as changes in wages depend on many factors and various market forces, such as the type of occupation and industry, geographic market locations, employer preferences, worker preferences, worker skills, experience, and education levels, and overall economic conditions. For example, in a tight labor market, certain industries' labor demand might outpace labor supply, such as in healthcare, food services, and software development sectors. BLS projects that home health and personal care aide occupations will grow by about 34 percent over the next 10 years, cooks in restaurants by about 23 percent, and software development occupations by about 22 percent. [ 232 ] In ( print page 67487) growing industries or sectors such as these, holding everything else constant, any increases in the labor supply might not be enough to temporarily satisfy labor demand. As a result, employers might offer higher wages to attract workers. The opposite could happen in a slack labor market for industries or sectors where labor supply is greater than labor demand due to these industries not growing and/or too many workers entering theses industry relative to labor demand.

DHS also notes the possibility of positive dynamic effects from employing the population relevant to this process. Hiring persons from this population might permit businesses to grow and thus have positive, rather than negative, effects on other workers, including U.S. citizens. DHS cannot predict the degree to which this population of interest is substituted for other workers in the U.S. economy since this depends on factors such as industry characteristics as described above as well as on the hiring practices and preferences of employers, which depend on many factors, such as worker skill levels, experience levels, education levels, training needs, and labor market regulations, among others.

Assuming this population of interest would remain in the United States even without this process, there is the possibility that unauthorized noncitizens looking for work without authorization may be exploited, and employers may pay substandard wages, which in turn could potentially depress wages for some native and authorized noncitizen workers. By reducing this possibility, this process may help to protect U.S. workers and employers against the possible effects of unauthorized labor.

Generally, the benefits of facilitating access to employment authorization for this population outweigh potential costs to American workers or to the U.S. economy. A 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) publication concludes that providing legal status to unauthorized migrants does not harm U.S.-born and other immigrant workers in the longer term, as overall the impact of immigration on wages is very small. [ 233 ]

Research has found little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment rate of native-born workers. The 2017 NAS publication synthesizes the then-current peer-reviewed literature on the effects of immigration along with empirical findings from various publications. [ 234 ] With respect to wages, in particular, the 2017 NAS Report described recent research showing that, when measured over a period of more than 10 years, the impact of immigration on the wages of natives overall is very small. [ 235 ] However, the NAS Report described research finding that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment rate). Moreover, as with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants, suggesting a higher degree of substitutability between new and prior immigrants than between new immigrants and natives. [ 236 ]

Further, the characteristics of local economies matter with respect to wage and employment effects. For instance, the impacts to local labor markets can vary based on whether such market economies are experiencing growth, stagnation, or decline. On average, immigrants tend to locate to areas with relatively high labor demand or low unemployment levels where worker competition for available jobs is low. [ 237 ] This dissipates short-term localized labor supply shock effects and increases the efficiency of labor markets. [ 238 ]

The 2017 NAS Report also discusses the economic impacts of immigration and considers effects beyond labor market impacts. Similar to citizens, immigrants also pay taxes; stimulate the economy by consuming goods, services, and entertainment; engage in the real estate market; and take part in domestic tourism. Such activities contribute to further growth of the economy and create additional jobs and opportunities for both citizen and noncitizen populations. [ 239 ]

More recent evidence provides a stronger evidentiary basis that immigration increases the employment rate of native-born workers. Empirical evidence from Peri, Rury, and Wiltshire (2024) of the effect of Puerto Ricans who were displaced to Orlando following Hurricane Maria found “evidence that the migration event induced by Hurricane Maria caused employment growth in Orlando, in aggregate and also within sectors most likely to be affected by labor supply and demand shocks.”  [ 240 ] Peri, Rury, and Wiltshire (2024) found that this held for non-Hispanic workers and less-educated workers as well. Clemens and Hunt (2019) as well as Peri and Yasenov (2019) found evidence that previous approaches to examining the labor market effects of the Mariel Boatlift were methodologically flawed, concluding that—when properly controlled—no significant difference in labor market outcomes could be discerned. [ 241 ]

More comprehensively, Caiumi and Peri (2024) extends and improves upon a series of previous influential articles in the field that estimated how the supply of immigrant workers affected native wages in the U.S. by extending the years studies (through 2022) and using improved identification methods. [ 242 ] They find that the effect of immigration at every skill level “on natives' employment-population ratio is positive, significant and between 0.05% and 0.095%, in response to a 1% increase in immigrant employment.” On the wage side, Caiumi and Peri (2024) estimate that the “average increase of native wage by 0.01% to 0.02% for each 1% growth of immigrant share can be fully due to shifts of natives into better-paying types of occupations in response to immigration.” These estimates imply that the 2000 to 2019 immigrant flows increased the wages of native workers with a high school degree or less by 1.7% to 2.6%, had no significant wage effect on native workers with a college degree, and in aggregate increased wages for all workers by an average of 0.5% to 0.8%; regarding employment in this period, this implies that these immigrant flows increased natives' employment rate by 2.4%. Similar, but smaller, estimates are generated for the 2019-2022 period.

This Federal Register notice is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements for the following reasons.

First, DHS is merely adopting a general statement of policy, [ 243 ] i.e., a “statement issued by an agency to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.”  [ 244 ] As INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) , provides, parole decisions are made by the Secretary of Homeland Security “in his discretion” and this process leaves USCIS adjudicators the discretion to approve or deny requests consistent with the guidance described in section V.C. of this Notice as they perform their case-by-case review. [ 245 ] DHS has generally exercised its parole authority without rulemaking on the substance of parole processes through the issuance of such general statements of agency policy. [ 246 ] And it is well established that “the mere fact that an agency action,” including a policy statement, “may have a substantial impact does not transform it into a legislative rule.”  [ 247 ]

Second, even if this process were considered to be a legislative rule that would normally be subject to requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date, the process is exempt from such requirements because it involves a foreign affairs function of the United ( print page 67489) States. [ 248 ] Courts have held that this exemption applies when the rule in question “ `is clearly and directly involved' in `a foreign affairs function.' ”  [ 249 ] In addition, although the text of the Administrative Procedure Act does not require an agency invoking this exemption to show that such procedures may result in “definitely undesirable international consequences,” some courts have required such a showing. [ 250 ]

This process is exempt under both standards. Specifically, as discussed above, this process is one part of the United States' ongoing efforts to engage hemispheric partners to increase their efforts to collaboratively manage irregular migration. Regularizing certain noncitizens who have lived in and established deep ties to the United States is a key request of our partner countries, and establishment of this proposed process will help ensure our partners' continued collaboration to address irregular migration in the Western Hemisphere and improve economic stability and security in countries that are common sources of irregular migration to the United States. [ 251 ]

Delaying issuance and implementation of this process to undertake rulemaking would complicate ongoing conversations with key foreign partners about migration management on a range of priorities. These priorities include collaborating with partner countries on initiatives aimed at disrupting human smuggling, trafficking, and transnational criminal networks; increasing migration controls on bus and train routes;  [ 252 ] imposing additional visa requirements to prevent individuals from exploiting legitimate travel regimes to facilitate their irregular journey to the United States;  [ 253 ] and expanding access to lawful pathways.

The delay associated with implementing this process through notice-and-comment rulemaking would adversely affect the United States' ability to negotiate with our international partners, including Mexico and Colombia, for additional enforcement measures and increased cooperation with removals. In the context of ongoing discussions on migration management, representatives of Mexico have specifically requested that the U.S. government regularize Mexican nationals who have been long-term residents of the United States. [ 254 ] Similarly, the Government of Colombia delivered a diplomatic note in April 2024 that requested Deferred Enforced Departure for certain nationals of Colombia residing in the United States, which would enable those individuals to remain lawfully in the United States and access work authorization. The Government of Colombia made similar requests in November 2022 through its ambassador to the United States  [ 255 ] and again in May 2023 during high-level dialogues to stem the flows of irregular migration through the Darién and during negotiations to establish and extend Safe Mobility Offices  [ 256 ] beyond the initial phase.

The invocation of the foreign affairs exemption here is also consistent with DHS precedent. For example, in 2017, DHS published a notice eliminating an exception to expedited removal for certain Cuban nationals, which explained that the change in policy was consistent with the foreign affairs exemption because the change was central to ongoing negotiations between the two countries. [ 257 ] DHS similarly invoked the foreign affairs exemption more recently in connection with the parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans  [ 258 ] and family reunification parole processes for certain nationals of Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, announced in 2023. [ 259 ]

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 , all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any new reporting requirements they impose. The process announced by this notice requires a new collection of information on Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens (OMB control number 1615-NEW), which will be used for the parole in place process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens. The Form I-131F will be available for online filing only to support more efficient adjudications and will charge a filing fee of $580 per requestor. The Form I-131F will require the requestor to submit biographic data, processing information, and other supporting documentation in order to evaluate the criteria outlined in this notice, including to: establish the requestor's status as either the spouse or stepchild of a U.S. citizen; rigorously screen the applicant for public safety and national security threats; identify whether the requestor has previously filed Form I-601A with USCIS; instruct the requestor on next steps for submitting required biometrics; and determine whether the requestor meets other criteria related to presence without admission or parole and physical presence for the requisite period, among other questions.

USCIS has submitted, and OMB has approved, the request for emergency authorization of the new Form I-131F (under 5 CFR 1320.13 ) for a period of 6 months. Within 60 days of publication of this notice at the Federal Register , USCIS will begin normal clearance procedures under the PRA to obtain ( print page 67490) three-year approval for this collection. [ 260 ]

Alejandro N. Mayorkas,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

1.  Public Law 89-236 (1965).

2.  For example, in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 President's Budget, USCIS requested $865 million in appropriated funding, but Congress only provided $281 million. See Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, available at https://www.dhs.gov/​sites/​/default/​files/​/2023-03/​U.S.%20CITIZENSHIP/​%20AND%20IMMIGRATION%20SERVICES_​Remediated.pdf (last visited July 16, 2024); Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47 , div. C (2024); Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional Justification, available at https://www.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​2024-04/​2024_​0325_​us_​citizenship_​and_​immigration_​services.pdf (last visited July 16, 2024). The February 2024 Bipartisan Border Agreement would have provided $20 billion in funding for border management, including $4 billion to USCIS.

3.  U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) analysis of OHSS Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: Jan. 2018-Jan. 2022 (“OHSS Analysis”), tbl. 3.

4.   Id. tbls. 4, 5. Estimated data shows that the median amount of time the entire population of noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens has been in the United States is 20 years; the median time the PIP-eligible population of noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens (where the noncitizen spouses have been in the United States for at least 10 years) has been in the United States is 23 years.

5.  This is filed on Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.

6.  Adjustment of status is the process by which certain noncitizens may seek LPR status while remaining in the United States, as opposed to consular processing, the process by which certain noncitizens seek an immigrant visa at a United States embassy or consulate abroad and then are admitted to the United States as an LPR at a port of entry. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) ; cf. INA secs. 221-222, 8 U.S.C. 1201-1202 (immigrant visa applications).

7.  INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C 1255(a) .

8.  OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.

9.  INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) .

10.  For most of these noncitizens, their departure to pursue consular processing and seeking admission through the application of an immigrant visa makes them inadmissible, and seeking of admission through the application for an immigrant visa within three years from their departure (if they accrued more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence in the United States during a single stay), or within ten years from their departure or removal (of departure or removal (if they accrued one year or more of unlawful presence in the United States during a single stay)), will make them inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) . See, e.g., Matter of Duarte-Gonzalez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 688, 689-90 (BIA 2023); Matter of Rodarte-Roman, 23 I. & N. Dec. 905, 908-10 (BIA 2006) (holding that the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars are not triggered unless and until the noncitizen departs from the United States). This ground of inadmissibility may be waived, but approval of such a waiver is discretionary and requires applicants to “establish [ ] . . . that the refusal of [the applicant's] admission . . . would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or [LPR] spouse or parent” of the applicant. INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) .

11.  As discussed in greater detail in this notice, the provisional waiver process through the Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, permits certain noncitizens to apply for a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) , prior to their departure from the United States. While an important mechanism, the Form I-601A provisional waiver process has become significantly backlogged in recent years, still requires the noncitizen to depart and remain separated from their U.S. citizen relatives during consular processing, and does not provide a guarantee that an immigrant visa will ultimately be granted. See 8 CFR 212.7(e) (describing the provisional unlawful presence waiver process).

12.  Exec. Order No. 14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration System and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021).

13.   See USCIS, Completing an Unprecedented 10 Million Immigration Cases in Fiscal Year 2023, USCIS Reduced Its Backlog for the First Time in Over a Decade (Feb. 9, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/​EOY2023 ; USCIS Fiscal Year 2022 Progress Report (Dec. 2022), www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​reports/​OPA_​ProgressReport.pdf .

14.  The White House, FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Keep Families Together, June 18, 2024, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2024/​06/​18/​fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-keep-families-together/​ .

15.  INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (“The [Secretary] may . . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States . . .”).

16.   See Section II.B. of this notice for additional information on parole in relation to adjustment of status.

17.   See INA sec. 245(a), (c), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) , (c); 8 CFR part 245 .

18.  And in the case of certain widows or widowers, where eligible as described in this notice, Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.

19.  Noncitizens who have been convicted of serious offenses, such as felonies, will be ineligible for this process. See Section V.A. of this notice for additional detail on disqualifying criminal history.

20.   See INA sec. 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1) .

21.   See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) ; see also INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (“An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”).

22.  Noncitizens who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen and were admitted to the United States on a valid nonimmigrant visa but have remained in the United States beyond the period of stay authorized will generally meet the “inspected and admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment of status without the need for parole in place. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) ; INA sec. 245(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2) . Similarly, noncitizens who were paroled into the United States on or after their last arrival would also meet this requirement.

23.  OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.

24.   See, e.g., Memorandum from Paul W. Virtue, INS General Counsel, to INS officials, Authority to Parole Applicants for Admission Who Are Not Also Arriving Aliens, Legal Op. No. 98-10, 1998 WL 1806685 (Aug. 21, 1998), superseded in part on other grounds by Memorandum from Gus P. Coldebella, DHS General Counsel, to DHS officials, Clarification of the Relation Between Release under Section 236 and Parole under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sept. 28, 2007) (“Coldebella Memo”), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​legal-docs/​Coldebella_​Memo.pdf ; see also, e.g., Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing 1998 INS General Counsel Memo and 1999 INS Cuban parole policy, and stating that “[w]e see nothing [in the INA] that would preclude the government from paroling . . . into the United States under § 1182(d)(5)(A)” noncitizens “who are currently present in the United States but who were not inspected upon arrival at a port of entry” and that “[t]he [INS] General Counsel's memorandum is consistent with our conclusion . . . that there is no per se bar on paroling unlawful entrants into the United States pursuant to § 1182(d)(5)(A)”).

25.   Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and Women, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigr., Citizenship, Refugees, Border Sec., & Int'l L. of the Comm. on the Judiciary, H.R., 110th Cong. 15 (2008) (testimony of Margaret Stock, Attorney and Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, United States Army Reserve).

26.  While the USCIS policy memorandum articulating the use of parole in place for military family members was issued in 2013, as a matter of practice, USCIS has been issuing parole in place for members of this population since 2010. Making this process available only to certain spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens is consistent with past sparing uses of parole in place. See id. DHS continues to view use of parole in place as consistent with the best reading of the statute, as described in section II in this notice. For reasons discussed throughout this notice, making it available to this population also is a better practice than retaining the status quo. See USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0091, Parole of Spouses, Children and Parents of Active Duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Former Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and the Effect of Parole on Inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (Nov. 15, 2013) (“USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum”), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​memos/​2013-1115_​Parole_​in_​Place_​Memo_​.pdf , superseded in part by USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-1104, Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees (Nov. 23, 2016), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​memos/​PIP-DA_​Military_​Final_​112316.pdf .

27.   See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92 , sec. 1758 (2019) ( 8 U.S.C. 1182 note ) (NDAA 2020) (“the importance of the parole in place authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security is reaffirmed”).

28.   See, e.g., Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1990, Public Law 101-167, sec. 599E ( 8 U.S.C. 1255 note ) (authorizing granting permanent residence to parolees from the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208 , div. C, sec. 646 ( 8 U.S.C. 1255 note ) (providing for adjustment of status for noncitizens from Poland and Hungary who had been denied refugee status but who had been “inspected and granted parole into the United States”); NDAA 2020, sec. 1758, supra note 27 (expressing congressional support for an ongoing parole program for relatives of U.S. military members and considering in each case-by-case determination whether parole would advance family unity that would constitute a significant public benefit); Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act of 2021, Public Law 117-43 , sec. 2502 ( 8 U.S.C. 1101 note ) (providing refugee benefits to Afghans paroled under INA section 1182(d)(5) and funds to support those benefits); Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, Public Law 117-128 , sec. 401 ( 8 U.S.C. 1101 note ) (providing benefits to Ukrainians paroled under INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) and funds to support those benefits).

29.   See Economic Analysis section in this notice.

30.   See Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (Delegation No. 0150.1, Sec. II(O)) (June 5, 2003) (vesting parole authority in USCIS through its Director and subordinate officers).

31.   See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A) ,) (defining the terms “admission” and “admitted” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer”); INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) ; see also USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, Adjustment of Status, Part B, 245(a) Adjustment, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements, Section 3, Parole [7 USCIS PM B.2 (A)(3)] (“Parole in Place: Parole of Certain Noncitizens Present Without Admission or Parole”), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​policy-manual/​volume-7-part-b-chapter-2 (last updated July 16, 2024).

32.   See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) ; INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (“An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of [the INA] an applicant for admission. A noncitizen placed in removal proceedings pursuant to INA sec. 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , may also be an applicant for admission, and such an individual could be considered for this parole in place process even if released from custody under INA sec. 236(a), 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) , as long as they have not been admitted. See INA sec. 240(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(a)(2) (“An alien placed in proceedings under this section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) of this title. . .”).

33.   See supra note 24 and Section II.C of this notice.

34.  INA sec. 101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B) ; INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) .

35.  INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) .

36.   8 CFR 212.5(e) (providing that a noncitizen's parole may terminate automatically or upon written notice). In addition, neither the denial of a parole in place request nor a parole termination determination is subject to judicial review. See INA sec. 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) ; Bolante v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 2007); Samirah v. O'Connell, 335 F.3d 545, 549 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Vazquez Romero v. Garland, 999 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We have previously concluded that the jurisdiction-stripping provision of [8 U.S.C.] 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies to discretionary parole decisions under sec. 1182(d)(5).” (citing Hassan v. Chertoff, 593 F.3d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2010))).

37.   8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) .

38.  INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) (“[A]n alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.”).

39.   See infra notes 65-72 and Section II.D. of this notice for a discussion of Existing Family Unity Parole Policies; see also, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 313-14 (1993) (holding that a statute requiring “individualized determination[s]” does not prevent immigration authorities from using “reasonable presumptions and generic rules”); Fook Hong Mak v. INS, 435 F.2d 728, 730 (2d Cir. 1970) (upholding INS's authority to “determine[ ] certain conduct to be so inimical to the statutory scheme that all persons who have engaged in it shall be ineligible for favorable consideration” and observing that there is no legal principle forbidding an agency that is “vested with discretionary power” from determining that it will not use that power “in favor of a particular class on a case-by-case basis”); cf. INA sec. 212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B) (providing that DHS may parole a noncitizen determined to be a refugee only if DHS “determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee” (emphasis added)).

40.   See supra note 28.

41.  INA sec. 245(a); 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) . To apply for adjustment of status under INA sec. 245(a), the noncitizen must also have an immigrant visa “immediately available to him” or her at the time of filing. INA sec. 245(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(3) . Because there is no numerical limit on immigrant visas for spouses of U.S. citizens, see INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) , immigrant visas are immediately available to them upon approval of a Form I-130. See 8 CFR 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) . Cuban nationals who are paroled also may be eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Public Law 89-732 (1966) ( 8 U.S.C. 1255 note ), without regard to the availability of an immigrant visa.

42.  DHS may also release a noncitizen present without admission or parole from custody on “conditional parole,” also known as a release on one's own recognizance, under INA sec. 236(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B) , pending INA sec. 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , removal proceedings. Conditional parole under INA sec. 236(a)(2)(B), however, does not equate to parole under INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) , and therefore does not constitute parole for purposes of adjustment of status under INA sec. 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255 , or the Cuban Adjustment Act. See Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 747, 748-50 (BIA 2023) (reaffirming Matter of Castillo-Padilla, 25 I&N Dec. 257 (BIA 2010), aff'd, 417 F. App'x 888 (11th Cir. 2011)); Coldebella Memo, supra note 24 (clarifying that “conditional parole” under section INA 236(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B) , does not constitute parole under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) ). However, such noncitizens may remain eligible to request a grant of parole in place if they have not otherwise been “admitted” to the United States and meet the other requirements.

43.   See INA sec. 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (requirements for adjustment of status); INA sec. 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (grounds of inadmissibility). While noncitizens generally must also have “maintain[ed] continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States” to qualify for adjustment of status under INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) , this restriction does not apply to immediate relatives, which includes spouses and children (including stepchildren) of U.S. citizens. See INA sec. 245(c), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c) (bars to adjustment of status eligibility); INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (defining “immediate relatives”); INA sec. 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1) (defining “child”). See also discussion of unlawful presence supra note 10.

44.  INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) .

45.   Duarte v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 1044, 1058 (5th Cir. 2022); see INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing that parole shall not be regarded as admission); INA sec. 101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B) (same); see also, e.g., Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 175 (1993) (observing that “[u]nder the INA, both then and now, those seeking `admission” and trying to avoid `exclusion' were already within our territory (or at its border)” could be paroled under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) , “but the law treat[s] them as though they had never entered the United States at all”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 189 (1958) (noting the legal fiction that a parolee is considered to be constructively remaining at the border applying for admission); Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d 189, 197 n.12 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Although [noncitizens] paroled under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) physically enter the United States temporarily, they are nevertheless deemed to remain constructively detained at the border.”).

46.  The phrase “parole into the United States” in INA section 212(d)(5)(A) allows for the temporary release or continued presence of “any” applicant for admission—even though already present in the United States—within U.S. territory pending accomplishment of the purpose of the parole. INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) . At the same time, as described in settled case law, the parolee is deemed to be constructively at the border, and courts have consistently understood “parole into the United States” as being applicable to applicants for admission who are already present in U.S. territory ( e.g., arriving noncitizens who were subject to detention pending exclusion proceedings), even if, under pre-IIRIRA law, they were not considered to have effected an “entry,” as that term was formerly defined, see 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13) (1994), into the United States for immigration purposes). See, e.g., Sale, 509 U.S. at 175; Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 189; see also Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 179 (2014) (“[W]e must (as usual) interpret the relevant words in a statute not in a vacuum, but with reference to the statutory context, structure, history and purpose.”) (quotation marks omitted); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (underscoring the “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme”); cf. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 243 (2011) (emphasizing the force of “consistent judicial gloss” assigned to a statutory “term or concept”).

47.  INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) .

48.  INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) ; see Cruz-Miguel, 650 F.3d at 197-98 & n.12.

49.   Cruz-Miguel, 650 F.3d at 198; see also Ortega-Cervantes, 501 F.3d at 1116 (same).

50.  INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) . For purposes of the parole statute, “applying for admission” is synonymous with “applicant for admission.” See id. (providing that when DHS determines the purposes of parole of the noncitizen “have been served,” the noncitizen's “case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States”) (emphasis added); 8 CFR 212.5 (1959) (referring to parole at ports of entry under INA sec. 212(d)(5) of “any . . . applicant for admission” at the INS district director's discretion).

51.   Id.; see Ortega-Cervantes, 501 F.3d at 1116.

52.  Memorandum from Paul W. Virtue, INS General Counsel, to INS officials, Authority to Parole Applicants for Admission Who Are Not Also Arriving Aliens, Legal Op. No. 98-10, 1998 WL 1806685 (Aug. 21, 1998). Based on that 1998 INS legal opinion, the INS Commissioner issued a policy statement authorizing the parole of certain Cuban nationals who entered the United States without inspection, taking into consideration the fact that parole could allow an application for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 after one year. See Memorandum from Doris Meissner, INS Commissioner, to INS officials, Eligibility for Permanent Residence Under the Cuban Adjustment Act Despite Having Arrived at a Place Other than a Designated Port-of-Entry (Apr. 19, 1999), reprinted in 76 Interpreter Releases 676, 684, App. 1 (May 3, 1999).

53.  Memorandum from Gus P. Coldebella, DHS General Counsel, to DHS officials, Clarification of the Relation Between Release under Section 236 and Parole under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sept. 28, 2007) (“Coldebella Memo”), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​legal-docs/​Coldebella_​Memo.pdf .

54.   Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal Under Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 67 FR 68924 , 68925 (Nov. 13, 2002). The Department, likewise, for the past two decades, has routinely “parole[d] into the United States” under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) certain applicants for admission who are encountered within 14 days and 100 miles of the U.S. land border after having crossed into the country without inspection and being placed in expedited removal proceedings. See Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 FR 48877 , 48879 (Aug. 11, 2004).

55.  USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum, supra note 26.

56.  Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Families of U.S. Armed Forces Members and Enlistees (Nov. 20, 2014) (directing USCIS to issue expanded policies on the use of both parole in place and deferred action for certain spouses, children, and parents of individuals seeking to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces as well as those currently serving), available at https://www.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​14_​1120_​memo_​parole_​in_​place.pdf .

57.   See NDAA 2020 sec. 1758(a) (referring to “parole in place under section 212(d)(5)”), supra note 27.

58.  NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(b)(3), supra note 27.

59.  NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(a) and (b), supra note 27.

60.   See Northern Mariana Islands Long-Term Legal Residents Relief Act, Public Law 116-24 , sec. 2 (2019) ( 48 U.S.C. 1806(e)(6) ).

61.   See NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(b)(3), supra note 27.

62.   See Cruz-Miguel, 650 F.3d at 198; Ortega-Cervantes, 501 F.3d at 1116.

63.  DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Computer-Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) 3 (queried 6/2024).

64.   See Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 947 (5th Cir. 2021) (noting that “[q]uintessential modern uses of the parole power include . . . paroling aliens who qualify for a visa but are waiting for it to become available”) (citing T. Alexander Aleinikoff et al., Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy 299 (9th ed. 2021)), rev'd on other grounds, 597 U.S. 785 (2022).

65.   Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 72 FR 65588 (Nov. 21, 2007).

66.   Implementation of Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, 79 FR 75581 (Dec. 18, 2014).

67.   Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Policy, 81 FR 28097 (May 9, 2016).

68.   Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Colombians, 88 FR 43591 (July 10, 2023).

69.   Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Ecuadorians, 88 FR 78762 (Nov. 16, 2023).

70.   Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Salvadorans, 88 FR 43611 (July 10, 2023).

71.   Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Guatemalans, 88 FR 43581 (July 10, 2023).

72.   Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Hondurans, 88 FR 43601 (July 10, 2023).

73.   Implementation of Changes to the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 54639 (Aug. 11, 2023); Implementation of Changes to the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 54635 (Aug. 11, 2023).

74.  INA sec. 101(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B) (defining “child” as an unmarried person under age twenty-one, who is, inter alia, “a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred”).

75.   See Section VI. of this notice for additional information regarding proper filing of a request for parole in place under this process.

76.   See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) .

77.   See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8) .

78.   See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) .

79.  As discussed further in Section V.A. of this notice, there is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

80.   See Section V.A. of this notice.

81.   See, e.g., Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security to Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (Sept. 30, 2021) (“September 2021 Guidelines”), available at https://www.ice.gov/​doclib/​news/​guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf .

82.  As noted above and discussed further in Section V.A. of this notice, noncitizens present border security concerns if they were apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully or if they entered unlawfully after November 1, 2020. There is an exception to this for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

83.  A noncitizen with an unexecuted final removal order who overcomes this presumption and is granted parole in place, and who wishes to pursue adjustment of status, may file a motion to reopen or a motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings with EOIR. Noncitizens may request U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) to join (or not oppose) a motion to reopen and dismiss or terminate submitted to EOIR, depending on the facts and circumstances. Any such motion would be decided on its own merits in a distinct and separate process from the parole in place adjudication.

84.   See Matter of Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. 257, 261 (BIA 2010), aff'd, 417 F. App'x 888 (11th Cir. 2011).

85.   See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81.

86.   Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1680); see also Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 566 U.S. 583, 594 (2012) (recognizing that the “objectives of providing relief to [noncitizens] with strong ties to the United States and promoting family unity . . . underlie or inform many provisions of immigration law,” even if “they are not the INA's only goals, and Congress did not pursue them to the n th degree”) (quotation marks omitted) (citing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 795 n.6 (1977), and INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 220 (1966)).

87.  OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.

88.   Id. tbl. 5.

89.   Id. tbl. 4. While the total number of U.S. citizens living in families with noncitizen spouses who lack lawful status is over 2.5 million, including over 1.6 million children, the subset of U.S. citizens living with noncitizen spouses who lack lawful status, who have lived in the country for 10 or more years, and who entered without inspection is estimated to be 1.65 million, including an estimated 1.1 million U.S. citizen children.

90.  Edward Vargas & Vickie Ybarra, U.S. Citizen Children of Undocumented Parents: The Link Between State Immigration Policy and the Health of Latino Children, J. Immigr. Minor Health (Aug. 2017), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pmc/​articles/​PMC5236009 . The impact of this instability is particularly profound for children in these families. See “Preventing violence through the development of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and their parents and caregivers,” World Health Organization and Centre for Public Health (2009), https://iris.who.int/​bitstream/​handle/​10665/​44088/​9789241597821_​eng.pdf ; Vincent J. Felitti et al., Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, Am. J. Preventive Medicine 14 no. 4, 245-258 (1998), https://www.ajpmonline.org/​article/​S0749-3797(98)00017-8/​fulltext ; A. Martinez, L. Ruelas, and D. Granger, Household fear of deportation in Mexican-origin families: Relation to body mass index percentiles and salivary uric acid, Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2017, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​28726338/​ ; L. Rojas-Flores, M. Clements, J. Hwang Koo, and J. London, Trauma and psychological distress in Latino citizen children following parental detention and deportation, Psychol. Trauma 2017, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​27504961/​ .

91.  USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum, supra note 26.

92.   See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) . Noncitizens who apply for adjustment of status to that of an LPR under INA sec. 245 may also apply for and obtain employment authorization while their adjustment application remains pending. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9) .

93.  Cecilia Rouse, Lisa Barrow, Kevin Rinz, and Evan Soltas, White House Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of Extending Permanent Legal Status to Unauthorized Immigrants (Sept. 17, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/​cea/​written-materials/​2021/​09/​17/​the-economic-benefits-of-extending-permanent-legalstatus-to-unauthorized-immigrants/​ .

94.   Id.

95.  Felipe González Morales, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, How to Expand and Diversify Regularization Mechanisms and Programmes to Enhance the Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants, at 3, U.N. Doc. A/HRC.52/26 (Apr. 20, 2023).

96.   See supra note 93.

97.   See Migration Policy Institute, “Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States,” available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/​data/​unauthorized-immigrant-population/​state/​US (last visited June 16, 2024).

98.  Cecilia Rouse, Lisa Barrow, Kevin Rinz, and Evan Soltas, White House Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of Extending Permanent Legal Status to Unauthorized Immigrants (Sept. 17, 2021) (describing the ways in which the presence of immigrants helps stimulate the economy), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​cea/​written-materials/​2021/​09/​17/​the-economic-benefits-of-extending-permanent-legal-status-to-unauthorized-immigrants/​ .

99.   Id.; see also U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Number of unemployed persons per job opening, seasonally adjusted, available at https://www.bls.gov/​charts/​job-openings-and-labor-turnover/​unemp-per-job-opening.htm #.

100.  Memorandum from Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, and the Dignity of the Individual (Oct. 12, 2021), available at https://www.dhs.gov/​publication/​memorandum-worksite-enforcement .

101.   See, e.g., Annette Bernhardt, Ruth Milkman, and Nik Theodor, National Employment Law Project, Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities 25, 42-45 (Sept. 21, 2009), available at https://www.nelp.org/​insights-research/​broken-laws-unprotected-workers-violations-of-employment-and-labor-laws-in-americas-cities/​ .

102.   See, e.g., Tsedeye Gebreselassie, Nayantara Mehta, and Irene Tung, National Employment Law Project, How California Can Lead on Retaliation Reforms to Dismantle Workplace Inequality 8 (Nov. 2, 2022), available at https://www.nelp.org/​insights-research/​how-california-can-lead-on-retaliation- reforms-to-dismantle-workplace-inequality/ (noting that only 10 percent of respondents who experienced labor violations reported those violations to a government agency).

103.  U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Process Enhancements for Supporting Labor Enforcement Investigations (Jan. 13, 2023) (describing how deferred action protects undocumented workers who may then come forward to participate in enforcement agency investigations of potential violations of labor laws), available at https://www.dhs.gov/​news/​2023/​01/​13/​dhs-announces-process-enhancements-supporting-labor-enforcement-investigations .

104.   See, e.g., Carl Davis, Marco Guzman, and Emma Sifre, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants (July 30, 2024), available at https://itep.org/​undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024 .

105.   See, e.g., Nat'l Taxpayer Advocate, Annual Report to Congress, Vol. 1, 199 (2015) (“In 2015, 4.4 million ITIN filers paid over $5.5 billion in payroll and Medicare taxes and $23.6 billion in total taxes”), available at https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​08/​ARC15_​Volume1.pdf ; Stephen Goss et al., Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, Actuarial Note No. 151, Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds (Apr. 2013) (“For the year 2010, we estimate that the excess of tax revenue paid to the [Social Security] Trust Funds over benefits paid from these funds based on earnings of unauthorized workers is about $12 billion.”), available at https://www.ssa.gov/​oact/​NOTES/​pdf_​notes/​note151.pdf .

106.  Rouse et al., supra note 93 (citing Elizabeth U. Cascio & Ethan G. Lewis, Distributing the Green (Cards): Permanent Residency and Personal Income Taxes after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 172 J. Pub. Econ. 135 (2019)); Davis et al., supra note 104.

107.   See, e.g., National Academies, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (2017), available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/​our-work/​economic-and-fiscal-impact-of-immigration .

108.  USCIS, Appendix: Eligibility for Public Benefits (describing limitations on when “qualified aliens,” including parolees and LPRs, can access public benefits, typically after five years), available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​policy-manual-resources/​Appendix-EligibilityforPublicBenefits.pdf ; see also 8 U.S.C. 1641(b) (defining “qualified alien”). Cuban and Haitian nationals who are granted parole, however, are generally eligible for “Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program” (CHEP) benefits. See Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, Public Law 96-422, sec. 501 ( 8 U.S.C. 1522 note ); 8 CFR 212.5(h) ; see also U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Benefits for Cuban/Haitian Entrants (Fact Sheet), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/​orr/​fact-sheet/​benefits-cuban/​haitian-entrants . Eventually, with LPR status, these parolees could potentially become eligible for other public benefits, but their uptake of these public benefits would likely be curtailed by their access to lawful employment and offset by the increased taxes they would pay as formal contributors to the economy. Rouse et al., supra note 93. However, as discussed elsewhere in this section, DHS estimates that only 13 percent of noncitizens likely to access this parole in place process are nationals of Western Hemisphere countries other than Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador.

109.  OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.

110.   Id.

111.  The White House, Fact Sheet: Third Ministerial Meeting on the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection in Guatemala (May 7, 2024) (“White House Fact Sheet”), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2024/​05/​07/​fact-sheet-third-ministerial-meeting-on-the-los-angeles-declarationon-migration-and-protection-in-guatemala/​ .

112.   See U.S. Dep't of State, Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas at a Joint Press Availability (Apr. 27, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/​secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-secretary-of-homeland-security-alejandro-mayorkas-at-a-joint-press-availability .

113.  White House Fact Sheet, supra note 111.

114.  The White House, Mexico-U.S. Joint Communique: Mexico and the United States Reaffirm Their Shared Commitments on an Orderly, Humane and Regular Migration (Dec. 28, 2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2023/​12/​28/​mexico-u-s- joint-communique-mexico-and-the-united-states-reaffirm-their-shared-commitments-on-an-orderly-humane-and-regular-migration/.

115.   See, e.g., Government of Mexico, En diálogo con su homólogo estadounidense, presidente López Obrador ratifica propuesta en materia migratoria (In Dialogue with His American Counterpart, President López Obrador Ratifies Proposal on Immigration Matters) (Feb. 3, 2024), available at https://www.gob.mx/​presidencia/​prensa/​en-dialogo-con-su-homologo-estadounidense-presidente-lopez-obrador-ratifica-propuesta-en-materia-migratoria .

116.   See, e.g., Department of State, U.S.-Colombia Joint Commitment to Address the Hemispheric Challenge of Irregular Migration (June 4, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/​u-s-colombia-joint-commitment-to-address-the-hemispheric-challenge-of-irregular-migration/​ ; see also Department of State, U.S. Relations with Mexico (Sept. 13, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/​u-s-relations-with-mexico/​ .

117.   See, e.g., Jose Ivan Rodriguez-Sanchez, An Economic Lifeline? How Remittances from the U.S. Impact Mexico's Economy, Baker Institute of Rice University (Nov. 13, 2023), available at https://www.bakerinstitute.org/​research/​economic-lifeline-how-remittances-us-impact-mexicos-economy .

118.  Jeremy Harris and René Maldonado, Migrant wages and remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2023, Migration Unpacked, Inter-American Development Bank (May 15, 2024), available at https://blogs.iadb.org/​migracion/​en/​migrant-wages-and-remittances-to-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-in-2023/​ .

119.   See id.

120.  Certain immigrant visa applicants may use Form I-601A to request a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility under INA section 212 (a)(9)(B) before departing the United States to appear at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate for an immigrant visa interview. 8 CFR 212.7(e)(3) .

121.  Every submission completed online rather than through paper provides cost savings and operational efficiencies to both USCIS and its customers. USCIS scans some applications, petitions, and requests received on paper so that they can be processed electronically. USCIS offers recommendations to avoid delays when filing paper; if more documents were filed electronically, it would reduce the time spent on scanning paper documents and free up more time for adjudication rather than administrative tasks. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).

122.   See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(7) ; 106.1(g) .

123.   8 CFR 212.7(e)(12)(i) .

124.   8 CFR 212.7(e)(14) .

125.  U.S. Dep't of State, Immigrant Visa Interview-Ready Backlog Report (July 2024), available at https://travel.state.gov/​content/​travel/​en/​us-visas/​visa-information-resources/​visas-backlog.html .

126.   Id.

127.  A grant of parole in place pursuant to this process does not automatically result in removal proceedings before DOJ EOIR being terminated or dismissed. Generally, a party to the removal proceedings (either the noncitizen or ICE) must move for termination or dismissal of removal proceedings. DOJ EOIR (either an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals) will evaluate and issue a decision on the motion for termination or dismissal under applicable standards. See, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.1(m) , 1239.2(b) ; 8 CFR 1003.18(d) .

128.  If removal proceedings are not terminated or dismissed, the immigration judge generally retains exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment of status. 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(1) (providing that in “the case of any [noncitizen] who has been placed in . . . removal proceedings (other than as an arriving alien), the immigration judge . . . has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment of status”); see also 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(1)(ii) (describing exceptions for certain “arriving aliens”); 8 CFR 245.2(a)(1) (providing that USCIS “has jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any [noncitizen], unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application”).

129.  As discussed further in Section V.A. of this notice, there is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

130.   See, e.g., Stefano Comino et al., Silence of the Innocents: Undocumented Immigrants' Underreporting of Crime and their Victimization, 39 J. of Pol'y Analysis, 1214, 1215 (2020) (“Undocumented victims' reporting rate is less than half the size of documented ones.”).

131.   See Roberto G. Gonzales, Here's How DACA Changed the Lives of Young Immigrants, According to Research, Vox (Feb. 16, 2018), available at https://www.vox.com/​2017/​9/​2/​16244380/​daca-benefits-trump-undocumented-immigrants-jobs . Similar to deferred action, however, parole may be revoked at any time and does not constitute a right against enforcement action.

132.   Id.

133.   See, e.g., Stacey Ivie & Natalie Nanasi, The U Visa: An Effective Resource for Law Enforcement, 78 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 10, 10-16 (Oct. 2009).

134.  Noncitizens who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen and had a valid nonimmigrant visa but have remained in the United States beyond the period of stay authorized were admitted and paroled may be eligible to apply for adjustment of status without seeking parole in place. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) .

135.   See section VI.B. of this notice for a list of documents that may be provided to establish continuous physical presence.

136.   See Matter of Hosseinian, 19 I. & N. Dec. 453, 455 (BIA 1987) (“the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes is generally governed by the law of the place of celebration of the marriage”); Matter of Rodriguez-Cruz, 18 I. & N. Dec. 72, 73 (BIA 1981) (citing Matter of P-, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610, 613-14 (A.G. 1952) (observing that in the absence of a legislative definition of marriage for immigration purposes, “the generally accepted rule is that the validity of a marriage is governed by the law of the place of celebration”)).

137.   See 8 CFR 204.2(a)(2) (requiring certificate of marriage issued by civil authorities).

138.   See Adjudicator's Field Manual, Chapter 21, Family-based Petitions and Applications available at https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​policy-manual-afm/​afm21-external.pdf ; see also USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12, Part G, Spouses of U.S. Citizens, Chapter 2, Marriage and Marital Union for Naturalization, Section A, Validity of Marriage [12 USCIS-PM G.2(A)], available at https://www.uscis.gov/​policy-manual/​volume-12-part-g-chapter-2 (last updated June 28, 2024).

139.  This includes polygamous marriages and marriages involving minors, or marriages involving close relatives. See Matter of Manjoukis, 13 I. & N. Dec. 705 (BIA 1971) (14 year old not able to enter into legally valid marriage as it would be void under state law); Matter of H-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 640 (BIA 1962) (a polygamous marriage, though valid where contracted, is not recognized for immigration purposes); see also INA sec. 101(a)(35), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(35) ; Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I. & N. Dec. 746, 752 n.3 (BIA 2005); Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 698 (BIA 1954).

140.  USCIS does not recognize marriages that violate strong Federal public policy, see Matter of H-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 640 (BIA 1962), and there is a strong Federal policy against marriages to which one or both parties do not consent. The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 added a definition of forced marriage (“a marriage to which 1 or both parties do not or cannot consent, and in which 1 or more elements of force, fraud, or coercion is present”), and provided for grants for victims' services and legal assistance for victims of forced marriage. See 34 U.S.C. 12291(a)(16) .

141.   See INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) .

142.  An immediate relative child's age is frozen at the time their Form I-130 or Form I-360 is filed in order to protect them from aging out before being able to adjust status. See INA sec. 201(f), 8 U.S.C. 1151(f) .

143.   See INA sec. 101(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B) .

144.   See Section VI.B. of this notice for a list of documents that may be provided to establish continuous physical presence.

145.  For the stepchild to be eligible for an immigrant visa petition or adjustment of status, additional requirements must be met, including that a bona fide relationship exists between the stepchild and U.S. citizen stepparent and, if applicable, eligibility for certain surviving relative benefits. See Matter of Pagnerre, 13 I. & N. Dec. 173 (BIA 1971) (when marriage is terminated by death but there was a continuing relationship thereafter between petitioner and beneficiary, petitioner is regarded as the stepparent of beneficiary for immigration purposes and petition); Matter of Mowrer, 17 I. & N. Dec. 613 (BIA 1981) (where the parents have legally separated or where the marriage has been terminated by divorce or death, the appropriate inquiry is whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a matter of fact between the stepparent and stepchild); see also INA secs. 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 204( l ), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) , 1154 ( l ) (describing additional requirements with respect to benefits for certain surviving relatives); 8 CFR 204.2(b) (same).

146.  Indicators of national security concerns include, but are not limited to, participation in activities that threaten the United States or gang membership. Indicators of public safety concerns include, but are not limited to, serious criminal conduct or criminal history. Indicators of border security concerns include recent apprehension while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully or apprehension following unlawful entry after November 1, 2020; however, there is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

147.  These categories of convictions also generally overlap with inadmissibility grounds for purposes of adjustment of status. See INA sec. 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) . DHS reserves its discretion to determine that other offenses are disqualifying, even if not listed.

148.  Noncitizens who were under the age of 18 but convicted of a felony or a disqualifying misdemeanor are considered to have disqualifying criminal history and are not eligible for this process.

149.  Although not generally considered convictions for immigration purposes, USCIS will nonetheless consider juvenile delinquency adjudications as resulting in a presumption of ineligibility. However, the presumption may be overcome by factors such as the nature of the underlying offense, requestor's age at the time of the commission of the underlying offense, the length of time that has passed since the adjudication, the sentence or penalty imposed, evidence of rehabilitation, and any other relevant information.

150.  Arrests or criminal charges that do not result in a conviction, such as where a requestor had been arrested but no charges were lodged, or a requestor had been arrested with charges lodged that were later dismissed, does not result in a presumption of ineligibility.

151.  Presumptive ineligibility applies to any removal order issued under INA 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , INA 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1) , or any other provision of law. A final removal order under INA 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , is defined at INA 101(a)(47), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47) , and 8 CFR 1241.1 .

152.  These examples solely concern DHS's determination regarding whether the presumption of ineligibility for parole in place has been overcome; they are distinct from any standards considered by DOJ EOIR in the context of a motion to reopen.

153.  A decision by USCIS to grant parole in place to a requestor with an unexecuted removal order does not rescind, cancel, vacate, or otherwise remove the existence of the unexecuted removal order. DOJ EOIR has sole jurisdiction over the decision to reopen removal proceedings under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , see INA sec. 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7) ; such reopening vacates any final removal order issued under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 429 n.1 (2009). An unexecuted removal order issued by DOJ EOIR under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a , remains in existence, notwithstanding a grant of parole in place, unless and until the INA section 240 proceedings are reopened by an immigration judge or the BIA. Unexecuted removal orders issued by DHS (such as an order of expedited removal under INA section 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1) , or an administrative order of removal under INA section 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b) ), likewise remain in existence unless and until they are vacated, canceled, or rescinded by the relevant issuing authority within DHS in that agency's sole discretion.

154.  This includes those with a pending appeal to the BIA, as their removal order would not be administratively final pending resolution of the appeal.

155.   See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81. As noted in the September 2021 Guidelines, noncitizens present border security concerns if they were apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully or if they entered unlawfully after November 1, 2020. There is an exception to this for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

156.  Expired documents may be provided in conjunction with other documents.

157.  As authorized by the INA, biometric information collected in this process may be used by other DHS components. See also 8 CFR 103.16 . See also discussion on information use and disclosure in this notice.

158.   See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) .

159.   See INA secs. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) , 8 U.S.C. 1154(l) .

160.  Furthermore, by avoiding the need to depart the United States to seek an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate, the noncitizen would not trigger the inadmissibility grounds at INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) , by seeking admission after such departure.

161.  Additionally, there may be instances where the noncitizen would also have to file the Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.

162.   See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81.

163.   See 78 FR 536 (Jan. 6, 2013).

164.   See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(12)(i) (noting the conditions that must be satisfied for the provisional unlawful presence waiver to take effect).

165.   8 CFR 212.7(e) .

166.   See INA sec. 240A(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A) .

167.   See INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) ; 8 CFR 204.1(a)(1) .

168.   See, e.g., INA sec. 245(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2) .

169.   See Section V.A. of this notice for the full list of disqualifying criminal convictions.

170.   See id. for a list of factors USCIS may consider in determining whether the requestor has overcome the presumption.

171.  There is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

172.   See Historical National Median Processing Time (in Months) for All USCIS Offices for Select Forms by Fiscal Year, available at https://egov.uscis.gov/​processing-times/​historic-pt .

173.   See, e.g., Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Colombians, 88 FR 43591 (July 10, 2023); Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Ecuadorians, 88 FR 78762 (Nov. 16, 2023); Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Salvadorans, 88 FR 43611 (July 10, 2023); Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Guatemalans, 88 FR 43581 (July 10, 2023); Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Hondurans, 88 FR 43601 (July 10, 2023); Implementation of Changes to the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 54639 (Aug. 11, 2023); Implementation of Changes to the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 54635 (Aug. 11, 2023).

174.   See Section V.A. of this notice for a list of examples of information that may be relevant to DHS in its determination as to whether the requestor has overcome the presumption of ineligibility.

175.  DOS also requests applicants or beneficiaries of certain immigration benefit requests submit Form I-134 in certain circumstances.

176.   See 8 CFR 213a.3(e)(2)(i) .

177.   See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193 , title IV, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260-77 (Aug 22, 1996).

178.   8 U.S.C. 1613 .

179.  OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 5.

180.   See Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, Public Law 96-422, sec. 501 ( 8 U.S.C. 1522 note ); 8 CFR 212.5(h) ; see also U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Benefits for Cuban/Haitian Entrants (Fact Sheet), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/​orr/​fact-sheet/​benefits-cuban/​haitian-entrants .

181.   See Public Law 109-13 , div. B, secs. 201-207 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30301 note ); see also 6 CFR pt. 37 .

182.   See, e.g., Zachary Liscow and William Woolson, Does Legal Status Matter for Educational Choices? Evidence from Immigrant Teenagers, American Law and Economics Review (Dec. 11, 2017), available at https://dx.doi.org/​10.2139/​ssrn.3083026 .

183.  DHS cannot accurately predict the behavior of the affected population and hence cannot accurately forecast how many individuals would choose to pursue this policy. The two population scenarios can therefore better inform stakeholders of possible impacts, showing estimated impacts if less (more) individuals than the point estimate of 550,000 choose to pursue this policy.

184.  Bryan Baker and Robert Warren, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2018-January 2022, available at https://ohss.dhs.gov/​topics/​immigration/​unauthorized-immigrants/​estimates-unauthorized-immigrants (last visited June 17, 2024).

185.  This rate is on average 12%. Source: Migration Policy Institute, Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States, available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/​data/​unauthorized-immigrant-population/​state/​US (last visited June 17, 2024).

187.  In 2023, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born increased to approximately 67 percent (rounded value). See BLS Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2023 (May 21, 2024) https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​forbrn_​05212024.pdf .

Calculation: 350,000 * 67 percent = 234.500, and 750,000 * 67 percent = 502,500.

188.  Nolan G. Pope, The Effects of DACAmentation: The Impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on Unauthorized Immigrants, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 143, 2016: 98-114.

189.  Pan, Y. The Impact of Legal Status on Immigrants' Earnings and Human Capital: Evidence from the IRCA 1986. J. Labor Res. 33, 119-142 (2012).

190.  Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. 2015. “The Impact of Temporary Protected Status on Immigrants' Labor Market Outcomes.” American Economic Review, 105(5): 576-80.

191.  Despite being labeled as a “wage penalty,” such estimates are generally reported as a percentage of earnings before work authorization, rather than after.

192.   See George J. Borjas and Hugh Cassidy, The wage penalty to undocumented immigration, Lab. Econ. 61, art. 101757 (2019) (hereinafter Borjas and Cassidy (2019)), https://scholar.harvard.edu/​files/​gborjas/​files/​labourecon2020.pdf .

193.   Id.

194.  Francesc Ortega and Amy Hsin, Occupational barriers and the productivity penalty from lack of legal status, https://docs.iza.org/​dp11680.pdf Labour Economics 76 (2022): 102181, https://www.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​abs/​pii/​S0927537122000720 .

195.  Albert, Cristoph The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 13(1) 2021, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/​doi/​pdfplus/​10.1257/​mac.20190042 .

196.  Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning About Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population, Lab. Econ. 20(3) 2002, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/​doi/​epdf/​10.1086/​339611 .

197.   Id.

198.  Evin Millet and Jacquelyn Pavilon, Demographic Profile of Undocumented Hispanic Immigrants in the United States (Oct. 14, 2022), at https://cmsny.org/​publications/​hispanic-undocumented-immigrants-millet-pavilon-101722/​ . This report also provides that, in comparison, the mean and median wages for Hispanic documented immigrants are $40,032 and $30,000, respectively. Accordingly, the 2022 Center for Migration Studies (CMS) data indicate a wage gap of 40 percent for mean earnings and 20 percent for median earnings. However, DHS excludes the 20 percent to 40 percent wage gap identified in the report from this analysis because the CMS report compares only the average wages between documented and undocumented workers. The CMS report did not state it made any adjustments for other factors that may affect the differences in wages between the two populations, such as age, education, or skills. Without these adjustments, the wage gap between the two populations may not necessarily equate to the wage penalty for being undocumented.

Note: This study uses 2019 Census ACS data. Earnings to be adjusted to 2023 dollars.

199.  Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2018-January 2022, DHS, Office of Homeland Security Statistics (May 6, 2024), at https://www.dhs.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​2024-05/​2024_​0418_​ohss_​estimates-of-the-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january-2018%E2%80%93january-2022.pdf , Table 2 Unauthorized Immigrant Population Estimates by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2018-2020 and 2022.

200.  Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/​series/​ECIWAG . Calculation: Earnings CY 2019 *(Average CY 2023 ECIWAG/Average CY 2019 ECIWAG) = $28,252 * 1.17874 = $33,302 (rounded).

201.   See Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants, 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (final rule), https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2024-04-08/​pdf/​2024-07345.pdf ; Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for “T” Nonimmigrant Status, 89 FR 34864 (Apr. 30, 2024) (final rule), https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2024-04-30/​pdf/​2024-09022.pdf .

202.  See Occupational Employment Statistics program, All Occupations, available at https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​2023/​may/​oes_​nat.htm#00-0000 . 10th percentile hourly wages used here are available in the “national_M2023_dl” excel file at https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​special.requests/​oesm23nat.zip (last visited July 11, 2024).

203.  The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: (total employee compensation per hour)/(wages and salaries per hour) = $42.48/$29.32 = 1.45 (rounded). See Bureau of Labor Stat., U.S. Dep't of Labor, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—December 2023,” https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​ecec_​03172023.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

204.  Bureau of Labor Stat., U.S. Dep't of Labor, https://www.bls.gov/​news.release/​archives/​empsit_​01052024.htm (last visited July 10, 2024).

205.  Calculation: ((4% + 6%)/2 + 5% + 8% + (14% + 24%)/2)/4 = 9% (rounding).

206.  The prime-age (25-54) employment-to-population ratio has been over 80% since November 2022. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/​series/​LNS12300060 (last accessed July 10, 2024). Methods that isolate the effect of population aging (capturing, for example, aging within the 25-54 cohort) indicate that the adjusted employment-to-population ratio is at historical highs. https://www.whitehouse.gov/​cea/​written-materials/​2023/​07/​27/​labor-market-indicators-are-historically-strong-after-adjusting-for-population-aging/​ . Other measures of full employment provide evidence that there is not substantial slack in the labor market; for example, in the July 2024 Summary of Economic Projections of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the unemployment rate is projected to remain below the longer-run stable value in 2024. https://www.federalreserve.gov/​monetarypolicy/​2024-07-mpr-part3.htm .

207.  Not all of these earnings are retained by workers; some are taxed, both through payroll taxes and other taxes, as previously discussed.

208.   See, e.g., David Card, Who Set Your Wage?, American Economic Review, vol. 112, no. 4, April 2022: 1075-90.

209.  For example, without this policy and all else equal, stepchildren that become adults and become independent of parents would not have access to public assistance program only available to authorized noncitizens or naturalized citizens. The same could apply in the cases of divorce.

210.  Caitlin Patler and Whitney Laster Pirtle, From Undocumented to Lawfully Present: Do Changes to Legal Status Impact Psychological Wellbeing Among Latino Immigrant Youth Adults?, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 199 (2018): 39-48.

211.  Linea Hasager, Does Granting Refugee Status to Family-Reunified Women Improve Their Integration?, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 234 (2024): 105119.

212.  Elizabeth U. Cascio, Paul Cornell and Ethan G. Lewis, The Intergenerational Effects of Permanent Legal Status, NBER Working Paper No. 32635 (June 2004), https://www.nber.org/​papers/​w32635 .

213.  Figlio, David, Jonathan Guryan, Krzysztof Karbownik, and Jeffrey Roth. 2014. “The Effects of Poor Neonatal Health on Children's Cognitive Development.” American Economic Review 104(12): 3921-3955.

214.  Behrman, Jere R. and Mark R. Rosenzweig. 2004. “Returns to Birth Weight.” Review of Economics and Statistics. 86(2): 586-601; Black, Sandra E., Paul J. Devereux, and Kjell G. Salvanes. 2007. “From the Cradle to the Labor Market? The Effect of Birth Weight on Adult Outcomes.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(1): 409-439; Philip Oreopoulos, Mark Stabile, Randy Walld, and Leslie L. Roos, Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Consequences of Poor Infant Health: An Analysis Using Siblings and Twins, Journal of Human Resources, January 2008, 43 (1) 88-138; Royer, Heather. 2009. “Separated at Girth: U.S. Twin Estimates of the Effects of Birth Weight.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(1): 49-85.

215.  Estimated burden hours, subject to revision based on public comments.

216.   See USCIS, Form I-765, Instructions for Application for Employment Authorization, OMB Control Number 1615-0040 (expires Feb. 28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-765instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

217.   See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 2024, p. 33 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

218.   See USCIS, Form I-485, Instructions for Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, OMB Control Number 1615-0023 (expires Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-485instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

219.   See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 2024, p. 14 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

220.   See USCIS, Form I-130, Instructions for Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and Form I-130A, Supplemental Information for Spouse Beneficiary, OMB Control Number 1615-0012 (expires Feb. 28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-130instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

221.   See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 2024, p. 7 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).

222.  DHS assumes the preparers with similar knowledge and skills necessary for filing an application have average wage rates equal to the average lawyer wage of $84.84 per hour. DHS adjusts by the benefits-to-wage multiplier for a total compensation rate of 84.84 * 1.45 = $123.02 (rounded). See Bureau of Labor Stat., DOL, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023, 23-1011 Lawyers,” https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​2023/​may/​oes231011.htm .

223.  Source: OP&S, PRD, C3. Queried July 17, 2024.

224.  A mileage rate for travel-related automobile costs is assumed. A rate of $0.625 per mile is adopted from the U.S. General Services Administration website at https://www.gsa.gov/​travel/​plan-book/​transportation-airfare-pov-etc/​privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/​pov-mileage-rates-archived for privately owned vehicle mileage reimbursement rates. Rate effective July 1, 2022.

225.   See Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses, 80 FR 10284 (Feb. 25, 2015); Provisional and Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, 78 FR 536 , 572 (Jan. 3, 2013).

226.  Source: USCIS, DHS, Instructions for Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485), OMB No. 1615-0023 (expires Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​document/​forms/​i-485instr.pdf .

227.  Calculations: (((50 * $0.625) + ((2.5+1.17) * $18.67))) = $99.77 (rounded).

228.  DHS cannot accurately and confidently estimate how many potential waivers could be granted across all of the required forms. For the purposes of this FRN, DHS assumes that if requestors have the ability to submit a new form I-131F and pay the $580 fee, they would generally have the ability to pay the rest of the required form filing fees in this process created by this policy and would generally not qualify for any fee waivers. Nevertheless, if some fee waivers were to be granted, the total amount of transfer payments would not change, but the fee waivers would represent a transfer from the USCIS-fee paying population to the requestors.

229.  Internal Revenue Service, Federal Income Tax Rates and Brackets, https://www.irs.gov/​filing/​federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets .

230.   See, e.g., Tonya Moreno, “Your Guide to State Income Tax Rates,” The Balance, https://www.thebalance.com/​state-income-tax-rates-3193320 (last updated July 11, 2024).

231.  Internal Revenue Service, Topic No. 751 Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates, https://www.irs.gov/​taxtopics/​tc751 (last updated July 11, 2024).

232.   See BLS, Employment Projections (Sept. 2020), Occupations with the most job growth, Table 1.4. Occupations with the most job growth, 2019 and projected 2029, available at https://www.bls.gov/​emp/​tables/​occupations-most-job-growth.htm .

233.   See, e.g., National Academies, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (2017), https://www.nationalacademies.org/​our-work/​economic-and-fiscal-impact-of-immigration .

234.  NAS, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (2017), at 195 https://www.nap.edu/​catalog/​23550/​the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration .

235.   Id. at 5.

236.   Id. at 5-6.

237.   Id. at 5.

238.  Joan Monras, Immigration and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from the Mexican Peso Crisi, Journal of Political Economy, 2020, vol. 128, no. 8: 3017-89.

239.  NAS Report at 6-7.

240.  Giovanni Peri, Derek Rury, and Justin C. Wiltshire, The Economic Impact of Migrants from Hurricane Maria, Journal of Human Resources (2022): 0521-11655R1.

241.  Clemens, M.A., & Hunt, J. (2019). The Labor Market Effects of Refugee Waves: Reconciling Conflicting Results. ILR Review, 72(4), 818-857; Giovanni Peri and Vasil Yasenov, The Labor Market Effects of a Refugee Wave: Synthetic Control Method Meets the Mariel Boatlift, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 54, no. 2 (2019): 267-309.

242.  Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri, Immigration's Effect on US Wages and Employment Redux, NBER Working Paper No. 32389 (Apr. 2024), https://www.nber.org/​papers/​w32389 .

243.   5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) .

244.   See Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 197 (1993) (quoting Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 n.31 (1979)).

245.  A general policy statement typically uses permissive, rather than binding, language that leaves the agency free to exercise discretion. See, e.g., Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243, 251-52 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing legislative rules from general statements of policy, observing that “[a]n agency action that merely explains how the agency will enforce a statute or regulation—in other words, how it will exercise its broad enforcement discretion or permitting discretion under some extant statute or rule—is a general statement of policy”); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (rejecting the EPA's characterization of its document as guidance exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, reasoning that the guidance “commands, . . . requires, . . . orders, [and] dictates”); Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (noting as primary considerations whether the agency action (1) “impose[s] any rights and obligations,” or (2) “genuinely leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion” (quotation marks omitted)).

246.   See, e.g., Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (Nov. 21, 2007), supra note 65; Central American Minors Parole Program (Dec. 1, 2014), discussed at 82 FR 38926 ; Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program (Oct. 27, 2014), supra note 66; Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Policy (May 9, 2016), supra note 67; Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Colombians, et al. (July 10-Aug. 11, 2023), supra notes 68-72. Prior to these parole policy statements, even after Congress's limiting amendment to the parole statute in 1996 to require “case-by-case” consideration, the parole authority continued to be used expansively to create new parole programs and processes. In 2000, for example, the parole authority was used to entirely replace the statutorily sunsetting Visa Waiver Pilot Program under INA section 217, in order to provide the significant public benefit of avoiding the wholesale disruption of international travel and commerce, and the serious harm to the U.S. economy and foreign relations that would have been caused by suddenly imposing visa requirements on visitors for business or pleasure from most developed countries. See, e.g., Visa Waiver Pilot Program Expires; INS Puts In Place Interim Procedures, 77 Interpreter Releases 597 (May 8, 2000); Congressional Research Service, Visa Waiver Program (revised Aug. 1, 2016) at 29, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/​product/​pdf/​RL/​RL32221/​42 . Under that parole process, tens of millions of foreign visitors were paroled into the United States on a case-by-case basis between May 1 and October 30, 2000, without rulemaking. Although DHS prescribed certain guidelines for determinations on parole from custody of certain noncitizens, see 8 CFR 212.5(b) , and established the international entrepreneur parole process, see 8 CFR 212.19 , through notice-and-comment rulemaking, this does not preclude the Department from electing, consistent with the APA, to forgo formal rulemaking. See, e.g., Hoctor v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 82 F.3d 165, 171-72 (7th Cir. 1996) (observing that there is nothing in the APA that forbids an agency's use of notice-and-comment procedures even if not required under the APA, and that courts should attach no weight to an agency's varied approaches involving similar rules).

247.   Cent. Texas Tel. Coop. v. FCC, 402 F.3d 205, 214 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); accord Sec. Indus. and Fin. Mkts. Ass'n v. CFTC, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373, 423 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing cases).

248.   See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) .

249.   Mast Indus., Inc. v. Regan, 596 F. Supp. 1567, 1582 (C.I.T. 1984) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 79-1980, at 23 (1946)).

250.   See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 437 (2d Cir. 2008).

251.   See, e.g., The White House, Fact Sheet: The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection U.S. Government and Foreign Partner Deliverables (June 10, 2022), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​statements-releases/​2022/​06/​10/​fact-sheet-the-los-angeles-declaration-on-migration-and-protection-u-s-government-and-foreign-partner-deliverables/​ .

252.  U.S. Dep't of State, Discussions with Mexican Officials on Migration at the Department of State (Jan. 20, 2024), available at https://www.state.gov/​discussions-with-mexican-officials-on-migration-at-the-department-of-state .

253.  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Visas: Important Information, available at https://embamex.sre.gob.mx/​peru/​index.php/​sconsulares/​visas (last visited June 16, 2024).

254.  The White House, Mexico-U.S. Joint Communique, supra note 114.

255.  Manuel Rueda and Elliot Spagat, Colombia asks for legal status for its people already in US, Associated Press, Nov. 29, 2022, available at https://apnews.com/​article/​venezuela-colombia-caribbean-united-states-immigration-7ed5fcde20338d56b04ff56925e54aff .

256.  The Safe Mobility Initiative is one of the many ways the United States facilitates access to lawful pathways from partner countries in the region at no cost, so migrants do not have to undertake dangerous journeys in search of safety and better opportunities. See U.S. Safe Mobility Initiative—United States Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Safe Mobility Initiative, available at https://www.state.gov/​refugee-admissions/​safe-mobility-initiative/​ (last visited July 24, 2024).

257.   Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Encountered in the United States or Arriving by Sea, 82 FR 4902 (Jan. 17, 2017).

258.   See Implementation of a Parole Process for Cubans, 88 FR 1266 (Jan. 9, 2023); Implementation of a Parole Process for Haitians, 88 FR 1243 (Jan. 9, 2023); Implementation of a Parole Process for Nicaraguans, 88 FR 1255 (Jan. 9, 2023); and Implementation of Changes to the Parole Process for Venezuelans, 88 FR 1279 (Jan. 9, 2023).

259.   See U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Family Reunification Parole Processes for Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (July 17, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/​news/​2023/​07/​07/​dhs-announces-family-reunification-parole-processes-colombia-el-salvador-guatemala ; see also Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Colombians, et al., supra notes 68-72.

260.   See 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.10(e) .

[ FR Doc. 2024-18725 Filed 8-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Create Account

Frequently Asked Questions About Keeping Families Together

ALERT: On Aug. 19, 2024, DHS posted for public inspection a Federal Register notice implementing the Keeping Families Together process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens. Additional information on eligibility criteria, the application process, and examples of required documentation is available on the  Keeping Families Together page, this FAQ page, and in the Federal Register notice .

Q. What is Keeping Families Together?

A. Keeping Families Together is a process that allows certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to apply for parole in place to enable them to apply for lawful permanent resident status without having to be separated from their families by leaving the United States for processing. Parole is an exercise of DHS’s discretionary authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow certain noncitizen “applicants for admission” to be present in the United States on a temporary, case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit. The INA defines an “applicant for admission,” in relevant part, as a noncitizen “present in the United States who has not been admitted.” Noncitizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole may be considered for parole in place under this process because they remain “applicants for admission.” Parole in place is available only for noncitizens who are present in the United States. Those who receive parole are eligible to apply for work authorization for the period of parole

Q. Which form should I file to apply for Keeping Families Together? Can I file online?

A. Requestors (the noncitizen spouse or stepchild) must file Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens , under this process. The form can only be filed online. Paper-based applications sent to USCIS by mail will be rejected (not accepted or receipted). We have created a  Filing Guide for Form I-131F (PDF, 8.95 MB) to help individuals as they prepare to file a request for parole in place through the online process.

Q. What fee is required to file a request under Keeping Families Together (Form I-131F)?   Can I obtain a fee waiver or fee exemption for this process?

A. The fee to apply is $580. No fee waivers or fee exemptions are available for this process at this time.

Q. Someone told me if I pay them a fee, they can expedite my Form I-131F or guarantee that it will be approved. Is this true?

A. No. While an attorney or accredited representative may charge a fee to prepare your request, anyone who guarantees faster processing or a positive outcome by USCIS if you pay them a fee may be trying to scam you. Visit our  Avoid Scams  page to learn how you can protect yourself from immigration scams.

Please also remember that USCIS will begin accepting requests for this process on Aug. 19, 2024. Any filings received before this date will be rejected by USCIS (not accepted or receipted) .

Q. If my Keeping Families Together request is granted, how long will my parole period last?

A. In general, if you are granted parole as a noncitizen spouse or noncitizen stepchild of a U.S. citizen under this process, your parole period will be valid as of the date USCIS approves your Form I-131F and will expire 3 years from that date. However, parole terminates automatically if you depart the United States. Parole may also be terminated at any time in DHS’s discretion upon a determination that parole is no longer warranted, for example, following the commission of criminal conduct.

As long as your parole remains valid (that is, is not expired or terminated), you will be considered in a period of authorized stay. As a parolee, you may apply for any immigration status for which you may be otherwise eligible, including adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

Q. What are the eligibility criteria for Keeping Families Together?

A. To be considered for this process as a noncitizen spouse of a U.S. citizen, you must:

• Be present in the United States without admission or parole;
• Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2014, through the date of filing your request;
• Have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024;
• Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security; and
• Submit biometrics and undergo required background checks and national security and public safety vetting.

To be considered for this process as a noncitizen stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must:

• Have been under the age of 21 and unmarried on June 17, 2024;
• Have been continuously physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, through the date of filing your request;
• Have a noncitizen parent who entered into a legally valid marriage with a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and before your 18th birthday;
• Have no disqualifying criminal history and otherwise not deemed to be a threat to public safety, national security, or border security*; and

*NOTE:  Consistent with the Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF) , a noncitizen who poses a threat to border security will be generally disqualified from receiving parole in place pursuant to this process. However, there is an exception for stepchildren who entered the United States unlawfully after Nov. 1, 2020, and who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

All such requests for parole in place are considered on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, in the exercise of discretion, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of each individual request.

Q. If I meet the criteria listed above, will I be guaranteed to have my Form I-131F approved under this process?

A. No. All requests under this process are considered on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of discretion, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of each individual request and evaluating whether parole is warranted as a matter of discretion for significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons.

Q. If I entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa or was admitted in another status and overstayed, am I eligible for Keeping Families Together?

A. No. Parole in place is only available to an “applicant for admission,” which the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines, in relevant part, as a noncitizen “present in the United States who has not been admitted.” This means that noncitizens who were last admitted on valid nonimmigrant visas or were admitted in another status but have remained in the United States beyond their authorized period of stay cannot request parole in place under this process. However, a noncitizen who was previously “inspected and admitted” to the United States may be eligible under the law to apply for adjustment of status as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, if they are the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition. For more information, please visit the  Adjustment of Status webpage.

Q. I have already departed the United States for an immigrant visa interview appointment at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. Can I make a request for Keeping Families Together?

A. No. This process is only available to noncitizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole. Noncitizens who have already departed the United States may be eligible for consular processing abroad.

Q. I have Deferred Action under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Am I eligible to make a request for Keeping Families Together?

A. If you are a current DACA recipient or TPS beneficiary, you may request parole in place under this process if you are currently present in the United States without admission or parole and you are otherwise eligible. However, if you previously departed the United States and re-entered with a TPS Travel Authorization Document or an Advance Parole Document, you are not eligible for parole in place under this process because you have already been admitted or paroled into the United States.

If you are in a valid period of parole at the time your DACA renewal request is adjudicated, USCIS will deny your DACA renewal request as a matter of discretion.

Q. I once had Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS), but my DACA or TPS has lapsed. Am I eligible to make a request for Keeping Families Together?

A. If your DACA or TPS has lapsed, you may request parole in place under this process if you are currently present in the United States without admission or parole. However, if you previously departed the United States and re-entered with a TPS Travel Authorization Document or an Advance Parole Document, you are not eligible for parole in place under this process because you have already been admitted or paroled into the United States.

If you submit a DACA renewal request while in a valid period of parole or are in a valid period of parole at the time your DACA renewal request is adjudicated, USCIS will deny your DACA renewal request as a matter of discretion.

Q. Will I be able to request re-parole (a new period of parole) and renew my employment authorization when the duration of my parole under Keeping Families Together ends?

A. DHS is not planning a re-parole process. If you do not apply for adjustment of status or receive another immigration status before your period of parole expires, you may begin to accrue or resume accruing  unlawful presence . Any parole-based employment authorization granted by USCIS (category (c)(11)) will also generally expire at the same time your parole period expires.

However, if you file for adjustment of status, you may request employment authorization on the basis of your pending adjustment application, Form I-485 (category (c)(9)). If approved, you can receive employment authorization with a five-year validity date under category (c)(9). If your parole under this process is granted, you should not delay in filing their subsequent I-130 petition and I-485 application.

Q. How do I make a request under Keeping Families Together?

A. You (the noncitizen spouse or stepchild) must submit Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens , online with the applicable filing fee of $580. You may not file for this process using a paper form. Any paper filing received by USCIS will be rejected (not accepted or receipted) and you will have to file again to have your request considered.

You must submit with your online request documentation establishing that you meet all eligibility criteria and evidence of any additional factors you would like USCIS to consider. Each requestor, including stepchildren, must have their own USCIS online account to prepare and file the Form I-131F individually.

A parent or legal guardian may create an online account for their minor child if the purpose is to submit a form on behalf of the minor. If a parent or legal guardian is not available, a primary caregiver or legal assistance provider may also help a child create their own USCIS online account.

For information on creating a USCIS online account, visit our  How to Create a USCIS Online Account page .

Q. Is there a deadline after which USCIS will no longer accept requests for Keeping Families Together?

A. There is no filing deadline for this process.

Q. What evidence can I submit to show my continuous physical presence in the United States since June 17, 2014 (if I am the spouse of a U.S. citizen), or since June 17, 2024 (if I am the stepchild of a U.S. citizen)?

A. If you are making a request for this process as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, you must submit documentation that shows you have been continuously physically present in the United States from June 17, 2014, up until the time of filing your request, to meet the continuous physical presence requirement.

If you are the stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must submit documentation that shows you have been continuously physically present in the United States from June 17, 2024, until the time of filing your request.

You should provide documentation to account for as much of the period as reasonably possible, but there is no requirement that every day or month of that period be specifically accounted for through direct evidence.

It is helpful to submit evidence of your physical presence during at least each year of the required period. We will review the documentation in its totality to determine whether you have established by a preponderance of the evidence that you were continuously physically present in the United States for the required period.

If gaps in your documentation raise questions about whether you were continuously physically present in the United States for the required period, we may issue, at our discretion, a Request for Evidence to allow you to submit additional documentation that supports your claimed continuous physical presence.

Q. What evidence can I submit to show I merit a favorable exercise of discretion for this process?

A. Our decision whether to grant your request is a discretionary, case-by-case determination. Even if you establish that you have met all the criteria for eligibility, we will examine the totality of the circumstances in your individual case to determine whether your request should be granted based on a significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons and whether you merit a favorable exercise of discretion based on a review of all positive and negative factors present in your case. If there are negative factors that outweigh the positive factors presented by the evidence, we may deny your request. If you have a final unexecuted removal order or non-disqualifying criminal history, you may provide additional documentation that you believe demonstrates that you merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Such documentation may relate to, but is not limited to:

• Community ties;
• Your particular vulnerability related to advanced or young age;
• Length of presence in the United States;
• Existence of a mental or physical condition or illness requiring care or treatment in the United States;
• Your status as a parent or caregiver of a U.S. citizen child, or elderly parent or in-law;
• Your status as a caregiver for an individual with disabilities, including a U.S. citizen parent, in-law, or sibling;
• Your status as a victim or witness of a crime, or civil rights violation, or labor rights violation under investigation by a labor agency;
• Effect on other family members, including family members who are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents; or
• Other positive factors about which you wish to provide information.

This is a non-exhaustive list of factors; we may consider any relevant factors in the discretionary analysis, including mitigating factors that relate to the specific criminal conduct or prior removal order at issue.

Q. Will USCIS verify documents or statements I provide to support my request?

A. USCIS has the authority to verify documents, facts, and statements provided to support immigration requests, including requests under this process. We may contact relatives, educational institutions, other government agencies, or other entities to verify information. In addition, USCIS will conduct background and security checks. If USCIS determines you have made a material misrepresentation or engaged in fraud as part of your request, your request will be denied, and you may be ineligible or inadmissible for other immigration benefits in the future. You may also be subject to criminal prosecution.

Q. Am I required to demonstrate that I am not inadmissible in order to qualify for this process?

A. No. Parole is neither an admission to the United States nor a determination of admissibility. As a result, requestors do not need to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible as part of this process. However, USCIS may consider facts and circumstances that may give rise to one’s inadmissibility in making the case-by-case discretionary parole determination, and requestors who subsequently apply for adjustment of status will be evaluated for admissibility at that stage.

Q. Will I be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility when I request parole in place?

A. No. Parole is neither an admission to the United States nor a determination of admissibility. As a result, requestors do not need to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible under the public charge ground of inadmissibility as part of this process. However, requestors who subsequently apply for adjustment of status will be evaluated for admissibility, including the public charge ground of inadmissibility, at that stage.

Q. Will the information I share in my Keeping Families Together request be used for immigration enforcement purposes?

A. DHS generally will not use information contained in a request under this process for the purpose of initiating immigration enforcement action, unless DHS determines, in its discretion, that you pose a threat to national security, public safety, or border security.

This process does not preclude DHS from, in its discretionary authority, taking enforcement actions in accordance with the INA and consistent with governing policies and practices, against noncitizens who may be eligible or who have pending requests for parole under this process.

DHS may disclose information in the request to national security and/or law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, for purposes other than initiation of immigration enforcement proceedings. These purposes include assistance in the consideration of parole, identification or prevention of fraudulent claims, investigation of a possible national security threat, investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, or as otherwise needed, consistent with statutory authorities, obligations, and restrictions, as well as governing privacy and information-sharing policies.

Q. If my request is pending and I am encountered by CBP or ICE, will I be placed into removal proceedings?

A. The Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF)   direct DHS to focus its limited resources on noncitizens who pose a threat to our national security, public safety, or border security.

Those  guidelines  remain in effect. Filing a request under this process, or eligibility to file a request for parole in place under this process, does not prevent CBP or ICE from taking enforcement action against an individual when otherwise appropriate under applicable law and policy.

Q. If USCIS denies my request, will I be placed in removal proceedings?

A. If we deny your request under this process, we generally will not issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) or refer your case to ICE for possible enforcement action solely based on our denial. USCIS maintains discretion to issue an NTA or refer the case to ICE for possible enforcement action consistent with governing policies and practices, including initiating immigration enforcement proceedings based on a threat to national security, public safety or border security*.

* NOTE : Consistent with the Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF) , a noncitizen who poses a threat to border security will be generally disqualified from receiving parole in place pursuant to this process. However, there is an exception for stepchildren who entered the United States unlawfully after Nov. 1, 2020, and who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

Q. What is considered a legally valid marriage?

A. USCIS will generally recognize a marriage as valid for purposes of Keeping Families Together if it is legally valid in the place where the marriage was celebrated, the parties to the marriage were legally free to marry, and the marriage is not contrary to the public policy of the United States or of the state where the couple resides.

The place of celebration is generally where the ceremony took place or where the officiant of the ceremony was located and where the marriage certificate was issued. Even if a marriage is valid in the place of celebration, there are circumstances where USCIS may not recognize a marriage relationship as valid for the purposes of this process, consistent with existing case law and policies for family-based immigrant visa petitions and other benefits.

Examples of the types of marital relationships that USCIS generally will not recognize for the purposes of this process include, but are not limited to:

• Civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other relationships that do not confer the same legal rights and responsibilities to the parties as a marriage recognized by a civil authority;
• Marriages that are contrary to public policy in the United States; and
• Marriages where one or both parties to the marriage are not legally free to marry or have not given consent to the marriage.

Q. Are common law marriages considered legally valid marriages for purposes of Keeping Families Together?

A. USCIS recognizes common law marriages in adjudicating immigration benefits in certain circumstances and will similarly recognize them for purposes of Keeping Families Together if:

• The parties live in a jurisdiction that recognizes common law marriages;
• The parties meet the qualifications for common law marriage for that jurisdiction;
• The marriage is valid and recognized by the jurisdiction in which the marriage was established; and
• The marriage was established on or before June 17, 2024.

If you live in a different state than where you entered into your marriage, you may still be eligible. Some states may recognize a common law marriage contracted in another state even if the recognizing state does not accept common law marriage as a means for its own residents to contract marriage.

If you are requesting parole in place under Keeping Families Together on the basis of a common law marriage, you should submit a copy of the statute, regulation, or case law that states the requirements in that jurisdiction for establishing a common law marriage. You should also submit evidence that demonstrates you met the requirements in the jurisdiction for establishing a common law marriage on or before June 17, 2024. USCIS will review the laws of the relevant jurisdiction on common law marriages and the evidence you submit to determine whether you and your spouse should be considered to be married for purposes of this process and when the marriage was established.

Q. If my U.S. citizen spouse has died, am I still eligible for Keeping Families Together?

A. If your U.S. citizen spouse has died and you have not remarried, you may still be eligible for the Keeping Families Together process. However, to be eligible for immigrant visa petition approval and eligible to apply to adjust status as a widow(er) of a U.S. citizen, you must meet other eligibility requirements. For more information, see FAQ under “Eligibility for Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjustment of Status” below.

Q. What are the age requirements to be eligible for Keeping Families Together as a stepchild?

A. To be considered for this process as a stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must have been under 21 and unmarried as of June 17, 2024. In addition, the legally valid marriage between your noncitizen parent and your U.S. citizen stepparent must have occurred on or before June 17, 2024, and before your 18th birthday.

Q. I was under 21 and unmarried as of June 17, 2024, and am the stepchild of a U.S. citizen. Am I eligible for Keeping Families Together?

A. Yes, if you meet all other criteria. You may be eligible for this process if, as of June 17, 2024, you were under age 21, unmarried, and met the definition of a stepchild under INA 101(b)(1)(B), including being under the age of 18 at the time of your parent’s marriage to your U.S. citizen stepparent. If you pursue adjustment of status, USCIS will determine whether, at the time of the Form I-130 filing, you met the INA definition of a child or of a son or daughter of a U.S. citizen. For more information on family-based immigration processes, please refer to  USCIS resources .

Q. If I am a stepchild of a U.S. citizen, do I have to file my own individual request?

A. Yes. You must file your own Form I-131F, pay the $580 filing fee, and submit documentation establishing you meet the criteria for this process. Parents or legal guardians may sign and submit a request on behalf of a minor child under the age of 14. Children may also sign a request for themselves. If a parent is filling out the information on behalf of their child, the parent must include their information in the “preparer” section of Form I-131F.

Q. If I am making a request for this process as the stepchild of a U.S. citizen, must I have at least 10 years of continuous physical presence?

A. No. As a stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, through the date of filing. You are not required to demonstrate that you have been continuously physically present for 10 years before June 17, 2024.

Q. I am the stepchild of a U.S. citizen, and my noncitizen parent or U.S. citizen stepparent is deceased. Am I eligible under Keeping Families Together?

A. You may be eligible for this process if your noncitizen parent or U.S. citizen stepparent is deceased. However, a grant of parole does not guarantee eligibility for immigrant visa petition approval or adjustment of status.

Q. If I am granted parole in place under Keeping Families Together as a stepchild of a U.S. citizen, what will happen to me if my parent and U.S. citizen stepparent divorce before I am able to apply to adjust my status (before my parole period ends)?

A. If your noncitizen parent and U.S. citizen stepparent divorce, you may continue to be eligible as an immigrant petition beneficiary and for adjustment of status if your stepparent demonstrates an ongoing bona fide parent-child relationship to you. This might include evidence that you and your stepparent reside together or that your stepparent provides financial and emotional support for your care.

Q. Do brief departures from the United States interrupt the continuous physical presence threshold criterion? Also, if I am granted parole, will a brief, casual, and innocent absence from the United States affect my eligibility for adjustment of status?

A. No. A brief, casual, and innocent absence from the United States will not interrupt your continuous physical presence in the United States during the required period for the purpose of Keeping Families Together. For the purpose of this process, a brief, casual, and innocent absence means an absence from the United States that took place prior to June 17, 2024, and:

• The absence was short and reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose for the absence;
• The absence was not because of a departure under an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal;
• The absence was not because of an order of voluntary departure, or an administrative grant of voluntary departure before you were placed in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings;
• The purpose of the absence and your actions while outside the United States were not contrary to law; and
• You are not a threat to border security (apprehended while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on/after Nov. 1, 2020, or apprehended in the United States after unlawfully entering after Nov. 1, 2020). See DHS’s Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF) .

However, to be eligible for adjustment of status, you must be admissible to the United States. If you were unlawfully present in the United States before your departure and absence from the United States, you may be inadmissible to the United States under INA section 212(a)(9)(B) or (C) and ineligible for adjustment of status under INA section 245(a), even after a grant of parole in place, depending on certain factual circumstances, including how long you were unlawfully present in the United States before your departure and whether you departed after being ordered removed from the United States. If you were removed or departed the United States under an outstanding order of exclusion, deportation, or removal and subsequently reentered without being admitted or paroled, USCIS will not grant you parole in place under Keeping Families Together, regardless of the date of your removal, departure, or reentry.

More information concerning unlawful presence is available on the  USCIS website , including information about the availability of a waiver for inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B) or consent to reapply for admission after spending 10 years outside the United States for inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(C). Determining if you are inadmissible after accruing unlawful presence can be complex. If you need help or legal advice on immigration matters, make sure the person helping you is authorized to give legal advice. You can find information about authorized legal services on our  Avoid Scams  page.

CAUTION:  If you need to travel during your parole period or while your adjustment of status application is pending, please carefully review the “Travel” section of these FAQs below , which refers to obtaining an Advance Parole document prior to departing the United States.

Q. I am currently in removal proceedings. Am I eligible for Keeping Families Together?

A. Yes. If you are otherwise eligible for parole in place under this process, including that you are present in the United States without admission or parole, USCIS will consider your request if you are currently in removal proceedings before an immigration judge (also called INA Section 240 proceedings), including if your case is on appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals, or if you have a case that is administratively closed. This includes if you were released on bond or on your own recognizance.

However, USCIS will consider any relevant information related to your removal proceedings, and any other relevant factors, in determining whether to grant parole in place as a matter of discretion. If you constitute an enforcement priority based on national security, public safety, or border security* concerns/issues, USCIS will deny your request for parole in place under this process.

* NOTE:  Consistent with the Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF) , a noncitizen who poses a threat to border security will be generally disqualified from receiving parole in place pursuant to this process. However, there is an exception for stepchildren who entered the United States unlawfully after Nov. 1, 2020, and who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process. 

Q. How do I find out if I am in removal proceedings or have a removal order?

A. If you do not know if you have a removal order or are currently in immigration proceedings, you can use your A-Number to look up your immigration court case status at  https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ . You can also call the EOIR hotline: 800-898-7180 / 304-625-2050 / TDD: 800-828-1120. ‘A-Number” refers to the immigration file number provided to you by U.S. immigration officials. It is an eight or nine-digit number that begins with an “A” and can be found on correspondence you have received from DHS or USCIS or on immigration court records.

Q. I have a final removal order but have not departed or been removed from the United States or have not departed after a grant of voluntary departure. Am I eligible for the Keeping Families Together process?

A. You may request parole in place under Keeping Families Together if you otherwise meet the criteria, but if you have a final removal order and have not departed the United States after the entry of that order, or have not been removed from the United States—sometimes called an “unexecuted” removal order (including a removal order that resulted from failure to depart after a grant of voluntary departure)—you are subject to a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for this process.

Q. If my removal proceedings were administratively closed, am I eligible for Keeping Families Together?

A. Yes. USCIS may grant your parole in place request, if you otherwise meet the eligibility criteria and merit a favorable exercise of discretion. However, to apply for adjustment of status, you may need to seek re-calendaring, termination, or dismissal of your removal proceedings, depending on your circumstances.

Q. I was removed from the United States with a final order of removal and reentered without being admitted or paroled. Am I eligible for parole in place under Keeping Families Together?

A. No. If you were removed or departed the United States under an outstanding order of exclusion, deportation, or removal and subsequently reentered without being admitted or paroled, USCIS will not grant you parole in place under Keeping Families Together, regardless of the date of your removal, departure, or reentry.

Q. What factors will USCIS consider in determining whether I have rebutted the presumption of ineligibility for parole in place because I have a final unexecuted removal order?

A. USCIS will evaluate, in the exercise of its discretion on a case-by-case basis, all positive and negative factors presented in your case, including the facts and circumstances underlying the unexecuted final removal order, in determining whether you overcome the presumption of ineligibility and be granted parole in place. Examples of information that may be relevant to overcoming the presumption of ineligibility include, but are not limited to:

• Lack of proper notice;
• Your age when the removal order was issued;
• Lack of counsel, ineffective assistance of counsel or being a victim of fraud in connection with immigration representation;
• Language access issues;
• Status as a victim of domestic violence;
• A physical or mental condition requiring care or treatment;
• Other extenuating personal factors, such as requestor’s limited resources (for example, a lack of housing that would have affected the requestor’s ability to appear);
• Other mitigating factors.

Q. I was granted parole in place under this process but am in removal proceedings before an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals or had my removal proceedings administratively closed. Can I apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident with USCIS?

A. Not immediately. If you want to file for adjustment of status with USCIS, you must ask the immigration judge to first terminate or dismiss your removal proceedings. Even if USCIS grants you parole in place, the immigration court generally retains sole jurisdiction over your application for adjustment of status (Form I-485) as long as you remain in removal proceedings, including if your removal proceedings were administratively closed.

If you are in INA section 240 proceedings, you should contact the appropriate local ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) field office where your removal case is located and provide information about your approved parole request. Contact information for local ICE OPLA field offices for prosecutorial discretion requests is available in the “OFL Email Addresses for PD Requests” section under “Additional Information” on the Doyle Memorandum: Frequently Asked Questions and Additional Instructions | ICE page. You may request that ICE OPLA work with you, at their discretion, to jointly request that the court terminate or dismiss your removal proceedings, or if your case is administratively closed, to request that the court re-calendar and then terminate or dismiss your removal proceedings.

Q. I was granted parole in place under Keeping Families Together but have a final unexecuted removal order issued by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. Can I apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident before USCIS?

A. No. USCIS generally will not have jurisdiction to adjudicate your application for adjustment of status (Form I-485), unless your removal proceedings are first reopened and terminated or dismissed by an immigration judge.

If you have a final unexecuted removal order, you may  contact ICE OPLA to request that they work with you, at their discretion, to jointly submit a motion asking the immigration court to reopen and terminate or dismiss your removal proceedings.

Q. What impact does having a criminal conviction have on eligibility for this process?

A. All felony offenses will be disqualifying under this process. Convictions for the following offenses are also disqualifying regardless of whether the conviction was a felony or misdemeanor. DHS reserves its discretion to determine that other offenses are disqualifying, even if not listed.

• Murder, torture, rape, or sexual abuse;
• Offenses involving firearms, explosive materials, or destructive devices;
• Engaging in activities relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons;
• Aggravated assault;
• Offenses relating to child pornography, sexual abuse or exploitation of minors, or solicitation of minors;
• Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment; and
• Controlled substance offenses (other than simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana).

All other criminal convictions not listed above, excluding minor traffic offenses, will result in a presumption of ineligibility for this process. To overcome the presumption of ineligibility, you must provide documentation demonstrating positive factors that can be considered in overcoming this presumption and showing that you warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. You should include copies of arrest records and certified court dispositions for each arrest or criminal charge, as well as evidence that you completed your sentence, if applicable.

Even if you establish that you have met all the criteria for eligibility, and have rebutted the presumption of ineligibility, USCIS will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether your request should be granted as a matter of discretion for significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons.

Q. If I have a conviction for a felony offense, am I eligible for this process?

A. No. If you have been convicted of a felony offense, you are not eligible for this process, and we will deny your request.

Q. What offenses qualify as felonies?

A. A felony is a federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. A single conviction for a felony offense is disqualifying for purposes of this process.

Q. I have pending criminal charges. Am I eligible for this process while the charges remain pending?

A. No. If you have been charged with any criminal offense and the charges remain pending, we will deny your request and not refund your filing fee. You may make a request for this process once your charges are resolved. However, if your criminal charges result in a conviction, and you are convicted of a crime that renders you ineligible for this process, your request will be denied. If your charges result in a conviction and the conviction does not render you ineligible for this process, the conviction will result in a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility, which may be overcome by demonstrating positive factors that outweigh the negative factors in your case.

You should include copies of arrest records and certified court dispositions for each arrest or criminal charge, as well as evidence that you completed your sentence, if applicable. USCIS will weigh the seriousness of the conviction against the positive factors and any other relevant information in each individual case. We will consider all criminal history in determining whether you merit a favorable exercise of discretion under this process.

Q. What qualifies as a national security, public safety, or border security concern?

A. If the background check or other information uncovered during the review of your request indicates that you pose a public safety, national security, or border security concern, we will not grant your parole request. Indicators of national security concerns include, but are not limited to, participation in activities that threaten the United States. Indicators of public safety concerns include, but are not limited to, serious criminal conduct and criminal history. Indicators of border security concerns include apprehension following entry into the United States without authorization on or after Nov. 1, 2020; however, stepchildren who otherwise meet the eligibility criteria will not be disqualified if they entered on or after Nov. 1, 2020.

Q. Are dismissed, expunged, vacated, pardoned, deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or sealed convictions subject to the presumption of ineligibility?

A. Yes. Convictions that were, for example, dismissed, expunged, vacated, pardoned, deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or sealed will still create a presumption of ineligibility for purposes of this process, even if they may no longer constitute convictions for immigration purposes. You may be able to overcome this presumption, however, depending on the specific facts of your case, including but not limited to the fact that the conviction was expunged or vacated under state law, the reasons for the expungement or vacatur, the nature of the underlying offense, your age at the time of the commission of the underlying offense, and any other relevant facts surrounding the original conviction. In addition, USCIS may consider your entire criminal history, if any, along with other facts to determine, whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.

NOTE : If you were never convicted (for example, you were only arrested), you are not subject to the presumption of ineligibility.

Q. If I have a criminal conviction that makes me presumptively ineligible for Keeping Families Together, how can I overcome that presumption?

A. The presumption may be rebutted on a case-by-case basis by providing evidence that demonstrates positive and mitigating factors that overcome the presumption. USCIS will weigh the seriousness of the conviction against mitigating factors relating to the conviction as well as other positive factors that suggest you merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The weight of the presumption will be guided by the nature and seriousness of the conviction. A less serious conviction, or a conviction that does not indicate you are a public safety concern, will carry less weight and can be more easily rebutted. In adjudicating parole in place requests on an individualized, case-by-case basis, the nature and seriousness of the conviction will determine the evidence needed to overcome it.

You should submit a detailed statement explaining the circumstances of the conviction, any mitigating factors, and any positive factors you want USCIS to consider and any other evidence you think may support your case. USCIS may request additional evidence from you if the evidence you submit initially is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of ineligibility. Examples of factors we will consider in determining whether the presumption of ineligibility based on a criminal conviction can be overcome – such as the age and nature of the conviction, as well as positive factors about the requestor – are described below.

Q. What factors will USCIS consider to determine whether I have overcome the presumption of ineligibility because of a criminal conviction?

A. Factors that can be considered in overcoming the presumption of ineligibility due to a criminal conviction may include, but are not limited to:

• Age of the conviction(s) (remoteness in time);
• Your age at the time of the offense and conviction, including whether you were a juvenile at the time of the offense;
• Sentence or penalty imposed;
• Evidence of subsequent rehabilitation;
• Nature of the conviction, including whether the conduct at issue was non-violent;
• Whether the conviction was an isolated offense when considered against the rest of your history, if any (including consideration of whether multiple criminal convictions were on the same date and may have arisen out of the same act, omission or scheme of conduct);
• Existence of a mental or physical condition that may have contributed to the criminal conduct;
• Your particular vulnerability, including any physical or mental condition requiring treatment or care in the United States;
• Your status as a victim of criminal activity, including domestic violence, particularly if related to the criminal conduct at issue;
• Your status, or that of your U.S. citizen spouse, as a current or former member of the U.S. military;
• Your status as the primary caregiver for a U.S. citizen child or elderly U.S. citizen parent or in-law;
• Your good character, such as property ties, business ties, or value and service to the community; or
• Other factors USCIS considers in its exercise of discretion.

Q. If I have a misdemeanor conviction for driving without a license, or driving with an expired license, will it make me ineligible for this process?

A. No. Misdemeanor convictions for minor traffic offenses, including driving without a license or driving with an expired license, will not make you ineligible for this process or create a presumption of ineligibility.

Q. Are juvenile delinquency dispositions subject to the presumption of ineligibility?

A. Yes. Juvenile delinquency dispositions will create a presumption of ineligibility for purposes of this process, even if they do not constitute convictions for immigration purposes. However, the factors considered when determining whether the presumption has been overcome, such as the nature of the underlying offense, your age at the time of the commission of the underlying offense, the length of time that has passed since the adjudication, and any other relevant facts surrounding the offense may be especially relevant in such cases. In addition, we may consider your entire criminal history, if any, along with other positive factors to determine, whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.

If you cannot provide the record of the disposition because it is sealed or because State law prohibits its disclosure (even to you), USCIS still may request a statement or other information from you to determine whether the presumption has been overcome and a favorable exercise of discretion is otherwise warranted.

Q. Will USCIS conduct a background check when reviewing my request?

A. Yes. USCIS will conduct biographic and biometric background checks as part of its consideration of your request.

Q. What do background checks involve?

A. You must submit biometrics at an application support center (ASC), and USCIS will conduct background and security checks. Following your submission of your request, USCIS will send you a notification via your myUSCIS account that explains when and where to appear for your biometrics collection appointment.  You must print your biometric services appointment notice and bring it with you to your appointment.   If you are unable to attend the appointment, you can reschedule using our online rescheduling request process. For more information, see the Preparing for Your Biometric Services Appointment page and  Vol. 1, Part C, Chapter 2 – Biometrics Collection  in the USCIS Policy manual. 

Q. Can I appeal USCIS denial of my request under Keeping Families Together?

A. No. You cannot appeal the decision if we deny your parole in place request. However, you can file a new request, with new or additional evidence demonstrating your eligibility for parole in place, with the accompanying $580 filing fee.

Q. Can I file a motion to reopen or reconsider USCIS denial of my request under Keeping Families Together?

A. No. You cannot file a motion to reopen or reconsider the denial of your parole in place request under Keeping Families Together. However, you can file a new request, with new or additional evidence demonstrating your eligibility for parole in place, with the accompanying $580 filing fee.

Q. What will I receive if USCIS approves my request under Keeping Families Together?

A. If USCIS approves your parole in place request, you will receive a Form I-797, Approval Notice, that indicates the grant and validity period of parole in place. It will also include a copy of your Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, and Form I-94 number.

Q. If my request for Keeping Families Together is approved, will I accrue unlawful presence?

A. No. If you are granted parole in place under Keeping Families Together, you are in a period of authorized stay, which means you do not accrue unlawful presence while your parole remains valid (that is, not expired or terminated). Importantly, however, if you receive parole in place under Keeping Families Together, it does not erase any unlawful presence accrued  before  the start of your parole period. Furthermore, a pending request for parole in place does not stop the accrual of unlawful presence.

If your parole expires or is otherwise terminated, you will begin accruing  unlawful presence  unless you are maintaining or obtain another status during the parole period. Parole may be terminated at any time in DHS’s discretion upon a determination that parole is no longer warranted, for example, following the commission of criminal conduct. It is recommended that you apply for lawful permanent resident status as soon as possible after obtaining parole in place under this process. For more information on applying for lawful permanent resident status, please visit the  How to Apply for a Green Card webpage.

Q. If USCIS does not grant my request, will I be placed in removal proceedings?

A. If we deny your request for parole in place, we will generally not issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) or refer your case to ICE for possible enforcement action solely based on the denial, unless DHS is initiating immigration enforcement proceedings against you because you are considered a priority under the Sept. 30, 2021,  Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (PDF)   as a threat to national security, public safety, or border security.*

* NOTE:  Consistent with these guidelines, a noncitizen who poses a threat to border security will be generally disqualified from receiving parole in place pursuant to this process. However, there is an exception for stepchildren who entered the United States unlawfully after Nov. 1, 2020, and who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.

Q. What happens if my request under Keeping Families Together is granted, but I do not apply for or receive adjustment of status during my parole period?

A. When the parole period terminates, a noncitizen returns to the same immigration status or category that they maintained before the parole in place, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or terminated), and their case will be dealt with in the same manner as any other applicant for admission, unless they obtained another immigration status or category during the parole period that is still valid beyond the parole end date. As stated above, DHS is not contemplating a re-parole process.

Q. I have a pending Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. Can I still make a request under Keeping Families Together?

A. Yes, you may make a request for this process while you have a pending Form I-601A. If you are granted parole in place under this process, you may then be eligible to apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident by filing Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in the United States without first seeking a provisional unlawful presence waiver. If your Form I-131F request is granted and you then apply for adjustment of status with USCIS, you will no longer be eligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, and we will deny your Form I-601A.

Q. What will happen with my pending Form I-601A if I file a request under Keeping Families Together?

A. Your Form I-601A will remain pending and will be adjudicated in the normal course. We will not refund the fee you paid for Form I-601A if you file a request for parole in place under this process. In addition, note that if your parole in place is granted and you apply to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident (Form I-485), you will no longer be eligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, and we will deny your Form I-601A.

Q. My Form I-601A was approved, but I have not left the United States to attend a consular interview yet. May I make a request under Keeping Families Together?

A. Yes. If you are present in the United States without admission or parole, are otherwise eligible for this process, and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, we may approve your request even though we already approved your Form I-601A.

Q. I previously filed a Form I-601A and now am filing a Form I-131F. Do I have to pay the Form I-131F fee?

A. Yes. You must pay the $580 fee for the Form I-131F, even if you previously filed a Form I-601A.

Q. I previously filed a Form I-601A. Will you prioritize consideration of my Form I-131F?

A. USCIS may prioritize your Form I-131F if you have a pending or approved Form I-601A and you include your Form I-601A receipt number on your Form I-131F request. For this reason, you should make sure to include your Form I-601A receipt number on your Form I-131F.

NOTE:  For your case to be identified and potentially prioritized, you must ensure that all biographic information on Form I-131F, including your name, exactly match the information you provided on the Form I-601A you previously filed.

Q. I have a pending Form I-601A. What happens to that request if my request under Keeping Families Together is granted?

A. Your Form I-601A will remain pending and will be adjudicated in turn. However, one of the eligibility requirements for the Form I-601A is that you do not have a pending application for lawful permanent residence with USCIS. Therefore, if you are granted parole in place and file for adjustment of status with USCIS, your pending Form I-601A will be denied.

Q. If I am granted parole in place under Keeping Families Together and no longer need a provisional unlawful presence waiver, will USCIS refund the filing fee for my Form I-601A?

A. No. Keeping Families Together is voluntary and requires payment of the requisite fee even if you have filed a Form I-601A. Filing fees are final and non-refundable, regardless of any action we take on your application, petition, or request, or if you withdraw your request.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is denied, does this affect the decision on my pending Form I-601A?

A. No. The denial of a request for parole in place does not affect the adjudication of the Form I-601A, but the reasons that led to the denial of a parole in place request may also affect eligibility for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, including the determination of whether you merit a favorable exercise of discretion.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is denied, can I still file a Form I-601A?

A. Yes. Form I-601A has different eligibility requirements than parole in place. A denial of parole in place does not make you ineligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver; however, you should review the reasons for the denial of your parole in place request to determine if any of those reasons also make you ineligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.

Q. If my request for Keeping Families Together is granted, will I be eligible to request employment authorization?

A. Yes. If USCIS approves your request for Keeping Families Together, you can apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) by filing  Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization , under eligibility category (c)(11). You can only apply for employment authorization after your Keeping Families Together request is approved. If you file your Form I-765 Employment application before USCIS approves your I-131F request under this process, USCIS will reject or deny your Form I-765.

Q. Will there be a fee to apply for employment authorization (Form I-765)?

A. Yes. If you file online through your myUSCIS account, the filing fee for Form I-765 is $470. If filing on paper and sending by mail, the filing fee for  Form I-765 is $520. If you would like to request a fee waiver, you must file your Form I-765 by mail and your filing must include a completed  Form I-912 or a written request for a fee waiver with supporting evidence of your financial inability to pay the fee. At present, you cannot request a fee waiver if you file your Form I-765 online.

Please visit our  Request for Fee Waiver webpage for additional information, guidance and tips on fee waiver requests. You can also review the  Form G-1055 for a complete fee schedule.

Q. Can I file my Form I-131F at the same time (concurrently) as an application for employment authorization (Form I-765)?

A. No, at this time, you must submit these two forms separately. If your Form I-131F is approved and you are granted parole in place, you can then file Form I-765 to apply for an EAD based on your authorized period of parole.

Q. How long will I be authorized for employment?

A. If your request for this process is approved and you are later granted an employment authorization document (EAD) under eligibility category (c)(11), your EAD will generally be valid for the same duration as your parole period, which can be up to three years under this process. Once you apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, you will then be eligible to apply for employment authorization pending adjudicating of your adjustment application under eligibility category (c)(9). You can receive employment authorization with a five-year validity under category (c)(9). If your parole under this process is granted, you should not delay in filing a subsequent I-130 petition and I-485 application.

Q. What should I do if my Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was lost, stolen, or damaged?

A. If your parole period is currently valid, and you need to replace a valid EAD because yours was lost, stolen, or damaged, please review the “Replace an EAD” section on the  Employment Authorization Document page.

NOTE: Do not  file Form I-131F with this replacement Form I-765. If you submit Form I-131F when you are filing to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged EAD, we will deny your Form I-I31F, and we will not refund the filing fee for Form I-131F.

Q. As an employer, if I provide my employee with information regarding their employment to support a request for parole in place, will that information be used for immigration enforcement purposes against me or my company?

A. An employer may, as they determine appropriate, provide individuals requesting parole in place under this process with documentation verifying their employment. This information will not be shared with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes under section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to unlawful employment of noncitizens), except in cases involving unscrupulous employers who exploit undocumented workers by engaging in illegal acts ranging from the payment of substandard wages to imposing unsafe working conditions and facilitating human trafficking and child exploitation, and who therefore may be a DHS worksite enforcement priority as described in the Oct. 12, 2021 memorandum entitled “ Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, and the Dignity of the Individual .”

Q. How can I tell if an employer is discriminating against me because I am a parolee?

A. An employer may be engaging in discrimination if they:

• Demand that an employee only show specific documents from the  Lists of Acceptable Documents or ask for more or different documents than are required to complete  Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, or create an  E-Verify case; or
• Reject documents from the  Lists of Acceptable Documents  that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee, including documentation showing employment authorization because it has a future expiration date or because of an employee’s prior unauthorized status.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has an office dedicated to ensuring that employers do not discriminate against individuals who are permitted to work in the United States. These include parolees who have been granted work authorization. If you think your employer may be discriminating against you, contact the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) at 800-255-7688 (TDD for the deaf and hard of hearing: 800-237-2515).

Q. What happens to my employment authorization if USCIS terminates my parole before it expires?

A. If USCIS terminates your grant of parole, there will no longer be a basis for your parole-based employment authorization. USCIS may therefore revoke your employment authorization.

Q. Can I file a family-based petition (Form I-130) at the same time as my parole in place request (Form I-131F)?

A. Each form must be filed separately with their own fees, but there is no requirement to wait to file a Form I-130. The Form I-131F may only be filed online, whereas the Form I-130 may be filed online or on paper by regular mail. The timing in which you file a Form I-130 will not affect the adjudication time of your Form I-131F.

Q. USCIS granted my request under Keeping Families Together. Does my U.S. citizen spouse or stepparent need to file Form I-130 for me so that I am able to apply to adjust to lawful permanent resident status?

A. Yes, unless your U.S. citizen spouse or stepparent has already filed a Form I-130 on your behalf. To be eligible for lawful permanent resident status on the basis of your marriage or stepchild relationship to a U.S. citizen, you must have an approved Form I-130. If you requested parole as the stepchild of a U.S. citizen, you must have a separate Form I-130 filed on your behalf.

Q. What are the requirements for my U.S. citizen spouse to file Form I-130?

A. In addition to having a legally valid marriage that is valid in the place of celebration, and that is not contrary to the public policy of the United States or state in which you and your spouse reside, your petitioning U.S. citizen spouse must demonstrate that your marriage is bona fide and was not entered into for the primary purpose of seeking an immigration benefit. For additional information on requirements and filing procedures for Form I-130, please see our  Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative page.

Q. What are the requirements for my U.S. citizen stepparent to file Form I-130?

A. To be a beneficiary of a Form I-130 as a stepchild, and eligible to apply to adjust status, the child’s stepparent must demonstrate that their marriage to the child’s noncitizen parent was bona fide. For additional information on requirements and filing procedures for Form I-130, please see our  Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative page.

Q. What additional documents can I provide to demonstrate that my marriage is bona fide for purposes of the Form I-130?

A. At the time of filing the Form I-130, your U.S. citizen spouse, as the Form I-130 petitioner, will need to provide evidence that your marriage is bona fide. Such evidence may include but is not limited to:

• Documentation showing joint ownership of property or evidence that you and your spouse reside together;
• Documentation showing that you and your spouse have shared financial resources;
• Birth certificates of children born to you and your spouse;
• Affidavits from others who have personal knowledge of your marriage; and
• Any other documentation to establish that there is an ongoing marital union.

Additionally, your marriage must not be contrary to the public policy of the United States or state where you and your spouse reside.

Q. What are the requirements for widow(er)s and what do I file?

A. If you are a  widow(er) , you must have a pending or approved Form I-130 filed prior to your spouse’s death, which will be converted to a  Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant . If a Form I-130 was not already filed on your behalf, you may file a Form I-360 petition as a self-petitioner but must do so within two years of your spouse’s death. You also must not have been legally separated from your spouse at the time of death and you must not remarry prior to the adjudication of your Form I-360.

Q. Can I apply for adjustment of status (Form I-485) concurrently with my Keeping Families Together request (Form I-131F)?

A. No. You must first be granted parole in place before applying for adjustment of status.

Q. If USCIS grants my request under Keeping Families Together, does this mean I will be eligible to adjust my status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR)?

A. This process does not change the eligibility criteria for LPR status but provides an opportunity for eligible noncitizen spouses and children of U.S. citizens to adjust their status under existing legal authorities without having to depart the United States to seek an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate. To qualify for adjustment of status under  INA 245(a) , an applicant must prove that they have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States, among other requirements. A grant of parole in place will satisfy the parole requirement under INA 245(a). Eligibility for  Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status , and any related forms that might be required, including  Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility , will be determined on their own merits in a distinct and separate process from the parole in place decision.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is granted, am I subject to the “3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars” and the “permanent bar”?

A. If you are granted parole in place under this process and subsequently apply for adjustment of status, you will be evaluated for admissibility at that stage. For more information about how unlawful presence impacts the determination of inadmissibility, please visit  Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility .

Determining if you are inadmissible after accruing unlawful presence can be complex. If you need help or legal advice on immigration matters, make sure the person helping you is authorized to give legal advice. You can find information about authorized legal services on our  Avoid Scams  page.

Q. If I have previously worked in the United States without employment authorization, am I ineligible for adjustment of status under INA section 245(c)(2) and 245(c)(8)?

A. The bars to adjustment of status at INA section 245(c)(2) and INA section 245(c)(8), which are related to accepting or engaging in unauthorized employment, generally do not apply to noncitizens seeking adjustment of status based on an approved Form I-130 as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. Spouses and children of U.S. citizens are considered immediate relatives under the INA.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is granted, what will happen to me if my spouse passes away before I am able to apply to adjust my status (before my parole period ends)?

A. If your U.S. citizen spouse has died, you may still be eligible for  adjustment of status if you meet the eligibility requirements. To qualify, you must not have been legally separated from your spouse at the time of death and you must not remarry before USCIS adjudicates your adjustment application.

If you qualify as a widow(er), and you have a pending or approved Form I-130 filed before your spouse’s death, it will be automatically converted to a Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.

If a Form I-130 was not already filed on your behalf, you may file a Form I-360 as a self-petitioner, but you must do so within two years of your spouse’s death.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is granted, what will happen to me if my spouse and I divorce before I am able to apply to adjust my status (before my parole period ends)?

A. Generally, you will be ineligible to adjust status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen if you and your spouse divorce before you apply to adjust status. To be eligible for immigrant petition approval or to adjust status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, you must still be married to your spouse at the time of application and final adjudication.

Q. If my request under Keeping Families Together is granted, will I be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility when I apply to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident?

A. If you apply for adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident after you are granted parole under this process, you must demonstrate that you are not inadmissible under the public charge ground of inadmissibility at INA 212(a)(4) (unless you are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility), as well as the other grounds of inadmissibility in INA section 212.

For more detailed information on the public charge ground of inadmissibility, please refer to  USCIS Public Charge Resources, as well as  USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 8, Part G, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility .

Q. If my request under the Keeping Families Together is granted, can I travel outside the United States during my period of parole?

A. A grant of parole in place through Keeping Families Together does not authorize parole back into the United States if you decide to depart. If you depart the United States after being granted parole in place, your period of parole will automatically terminate. If you depart the United States without first obtaining an Advance Parole Document, you run a significant risk of not being able to return to the United States and you may also be ineligible for future immigration benefits.

CAUTION: Travel outside of the United States, even with advance parole, may have severe immigration-related consequences, including with respect to potential inadmissibility or execution of an outstanding order of removal. Parole into the United States is not guaranteed even if you have been granted advance parole prior to leaving the country. You are still subject to immigration inspection at a U.S. port of entry to determine whether you may be paroled into the United States and whether you are eligible for the immigration status you seek. For further information, see  Travel Documents | USCIS . Consultation with a qualified attorney or accredited representative is strongly advised prior to any travel outside of the United States.