Commentary on new Proposed Rule by USCIS to Unify Families Faster

USCIS has made an announcement that it seeks to seeks to unify families faster by allowing potential immigrants who are the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to apply for waivers of the unlawful presence bars while in the United States rather than waiting for the decisions of these waivers outside the country.  See  ANNOUNCEMENT.

I had previously speculated as to what I thought the Obama Administration should do with the immigration issue(see OBAMA’S NEXT LIKELY MOVE IN IMMIGRATION).  The issue has been especially important to the Administration going into an election year and coming off the heels of a year where it had deported record numbers of people.

This is an improvement, but is this the right step forward?  To me, this does not make proper sense.  The potential beneficiary would still have to prove extreme hardship to the U.S. Citizen spouse to qualify for the waiver.  Proving extreme hardship is very difficult and USCIS does not grant this standard lightly.  The key term in the provision is “extreme hardship” and thus only in cases of great actual or prospective injury to the United States citizen would USCIS remove the bar and approve the waiver.  USCIS does not consider issues such as separation or financial difficulties in themselves sufficient to warrant approval of such a waiver.  A good waiver case would be if the U.S. Citizen is on kidney dialysis or has some other serious medical issue and the beneficiary/green card applicant is actively taking care of the U.S. citizen.  Lesser cases are in grey areas and USCIS can and does deny them.

The actual web site where USCIS discusses the proposed rule shows a glaring inconsistency.  Here is the language I refer to:  Q: Why is this proposed streamlined process limited to the spouses and children of U.S. citizens? A: The policy objective of this proposed process change is to alleviate extreme hardship suffered by U.S. citizens. SOURCE .  Well, you want to alleviate the extreme hardship suffered by U.S. citizens, but you are still requiring them to prove it for approval of the waiver?   I am really not following this logic.  Why not just use the Parole in Place program instead, as I had suggested in my earlier blog?  Why not just ‘punt’ on the waiver issue?   That way, the Administration could obtain more revenue because these potential immigrants would adjust status in the United States and pay filing fees here.  Under the proposed rule, the immigrant would apply for the waiver and wait for a year or so in the United States for that decision.  They would not have any status here while they wait for the decision on the waivers and the Administration would not receive any further revenues other than the filing fee for the actual waiver.