March 10, 2016 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529-2140 Submitted via e-mail: ope.feedback@uscis.dhs.gov Re: USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7: Adjustment of Status, and PA-2016-001: General Adjustment of Status Policies and Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act To Whom It May Concern: The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submits the following comments in response to the release of two new sections of Volume 7 of the USCIS Policy Manual: Part A, Adjustment of Status Policies and Procedures; and Part B: 245(a) Adjustment. Founded in 1946, AILA is a voluntary bar association of more than 14,000 attorneys and law professors practicing, researching, and teaching in the field of immigration and nationality law. AILA s mission includes the advancement of the law pertaining to immigration and nationality and the facilitation of justice in the field. AILA members regularly advise and represent businesses, U.S. citizens, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals regarding the application and interpretation of U.S. immigration laws. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Policy Manual and believe that our collective expertise and experience makes us particularly well-qualified to offer views that will benefit the public and the government. We welcome USCIS s efforts to move to a centralized Online Policy Manual and believe this will become a more useful tool as new chapters, sections, and volumes are rolled out. However, we are concerned by the lack of visibility into substantive policy changes as they are implemented. USCIS introduced major policy changes in this volume of the manual, without any clear indication as to what specific changes were being made, what new policies were added, or exactly which policy memoranda were superseded. The accompanying Policy Alert merely states that the new sections replace the Adjudicator s Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 20.1, 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.5(a), 23.5(b), 23.5(d), 23.5(k), 23.5(p), related AFM appendices, and policy memoranda, without going into further detail. When a new section of the Policy Manual is published, or when an existing section is updated, USCIS should provide a list of the specific policy changes that are being implemented so that the public is aware of the substantive changes and can offer meaningful comments. It should also consider red-lining the changes made to the latest version of the AFM.
Page 2 of 11 Additionally, while a two-week comment period may be sufficient for some smaller sections or Policy Manual updates, in printed format, the two Adjustment of Status sections referenced herein amounted to more than 200 pages of material. USCIS should provide a comment period that is reasonably tailored to the amount of material that is being released. In this case, USCIS should have given stakeholders at least 30 days, and up to 60 days, to comment given the breadth of the topics covered. General Comments There are a number of places in Volume 7 Adjustment of Status where complex legal concepts are oversimplified, including issues that have been interpreted differently by various circuit courts, which without adequate explanation, could ultimately prove harmful to the applicant. For example, the Policy Manual often only explains the most common type of case, without stating that there are situations that will diverge from how cases are generally handled, what those divergent cases might look like, and that an approval might be warranted in certain situations where the case might otherwise be denied, and vice versa. USCIS should review the entirety of the Policy Manual to ensure that each section is nuanced and thorough, and where appropriate, add disclaimers so that both adjudicating officers and applicants will know that sections of the manual may not be comprehensive. Additionally, the purpose of the Policy Manual should be to accurately explain the statute and regulations, and set forth implementing policies and procedures that are well-balanced and reasoned. Instead, read as a whole, the manual seems to emphasize reasons to deny an application. For example, in discussing nonimmigrant fiancé(e)s who marry within the requisite 90-day time period, but the marriage is legally terminated prior to adjustment, the manual states (without a legal citation): If the evidence would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the marriage was not bona fide, adjustment would properly be denied. This could just as easily, and accurately, say that adjustment would be properly approved if a reasonable fact finder concluded that the marriage was bona fide. We are concerned that language such as this, which emphasizes the negative, can influence adjudicators to lean towards denial. The same issue is presented in the section discussing individuals who are waved-through a port of entry, and apply to adjust status under Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). In addition to serious substantive inaccuracies discussed later in these comments, the language throughout the portion of Part B, Chapter 2 titled Waved Through at Port-of-Entry, appears to discourage adjudicators from finding that an applicant has supported a Quilantan-type entry with sufficient evidence. USCIS should rework these and other sections to ensure that the manual presents policies and procedures that are balanced. Specific Comments on Volume 7 Part A, Chapter 3 B. Definition of Properly Filed, 2. Fees, Fee Waivers Footnote 8 instructs readers to go to the USCIS website for more information on fee waivers. It would be helpful if it cited to a specific section or sections of the website.
Page 3 of 11 B. Definition of Properly Filed, 4. Visa Availability Requirement Footnote 11 says that USCIS will reject adjustment applications filed before a visa number is available. This note is confusing in light of the Filing Dates and Final Action Dates that are now included in the Department of State Visa Bulletin and referenced on USCIS s website. This section should be revised to be include the difference between the two and to note that an application filed in accordance with the Filing Date chart, if appropriate, will not be rejected. Part A, Chapter 4 A. Initial Evidence, 4. Birth Certificate This section says that a copy of the applicant s foreign birth certificate should be submitted to establish his or her country of citizenship, when it should say that it would be submitted to establish his or her country of birth, in order to determine the appropriate country for visa chargeability purposes. A. Initial Evidence, 5. Evidence of Admission or Parole The following documents can also prove inspection and admission or parole: combination EAD/advance parole cards, legacy Form I-444, and/or a Border Crossing Card. A. Initial Evidence, 7. Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record According to Volume 8 of the USCIS Policy Manual, a medical examination report may be submitted to USCIS concurrently with the immigration benefit application; or at any time after filing the immigration benefit application but prior to the adjudication of that application. 1 Additionally, the medical examination report can be submitted to USCIS up to one year after completion of the examination, and remains valid as long as the application is adjudicated no more than one year after the date the medical examination report was submitted to USCIS. However, this section in Volume 7 of the Policy Manual states, [a] medical examination and vaccination record must be completed as closely as possible to submission of the adjustment application. This section should be revised to clearly note that the Form I-693 can be completed and submitted in accordance with Volume 8 of the Policy Manual. A. Initial Evidence, 9. Evidence of Underlying Basis to Adjust Status This section should include information as to how a diversity lottery winner who is in the U.S. and filing an adjustment of status application should show evidence of their eligibility. Part A, Chapter 5 B. Relocating Cases for Adjustment of Status Interviews 1 Volume 8 Admissibility, Part B Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility, Chapter 4 Review of Medical Examination Documentation.
Page 4 of 11 There are a number of reasons for relocation specified in this section that may not actually require a file to be sent to the local office. For example, this section says that a case may be sent to a field office for interview if the applicant entered the United States without inspection or there are other unresolved issues regarding the foreign national s manner of entry. However, if the applicant clearly establishes 245(i) eligibility through evidence submitted with the filing, it should not be necessary to send to the field office for interview. Additionally, if the applicant s fingerprints have been rejected twice, the service center could issue an RFE for the police records in place of sending to the field office. Part A, Chapter 6 C. Verify Visa Availability, 3. Priority Dates The first paragraph in this section says that the priority date is generally the date when the applicant s employer filed the immigrant visa petition on the applicant s behalf with USCIS. Given that there are a number of situations in which the priority date is not determined by the date that the petition is filed with USCIS, including the situations outlined later in the same section of the manual, this sentence should be deleted to avoid confusion. C. Verify Visa Availability, 5. Visa Retrogression The second sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate, and oversimplifies priority date retrogression. It should be replaced with the following language which more accurately describes what visa retrogression is and when it might happen: This is called visa retrogression, which can occur when the demand for a particular visa category and country of chargeability increases relative to the number of visas that remain available for that category and country for the remainder of the fiscal year. C. Verify Visa Availability, 6. Derivatives, Derivative Child The sentence that begins [a] principal s natural child born after is confusing and should be replaced with the following language: A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien s admission is entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien s admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien s admission. D. Determine Admissibility, 1. Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record (Form I- 693) While this section references the portion of the Policy Manual that covers the validity period of Form I-693, 2 it may still be helpful to note that the medical examination report can be submitted to USCIS up to one year after completion of the examination, and remains valid as long as the 2 Volume 8 Admissibility, Part B Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility, Chapter 4 Review of Medical Examination Documentation
Page 5 of 11 benefits application is adjudicated no more than one year after the date the medical examination report was submitted to USCIS. D. Determine Admissibility, 2. Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act (Form I-864) The third bullet point under this section says that the sponsor must submit his or her most recent tax returns. USCIS should revise this section to specify that there are situations in which tax returns will not be available, and that alternate evidence can be submitted. D. Determine Admissibility, 2. Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act (Form I-864) Part of this section reads: [o]ther applicants are also exempt from filing an Affidavit of Support if they filed a Form I-485 prior to December 19, 1997 [59] or if they qualify. The end of this sentence appears to be missing. E. Security Checks and National Security Concerns There are parts of this section where the wording is unclear or awkward. For example, it says that [a]n officer must consider activities, foreign nationals, and organizations described in statute, to determine if a national security concern exists. It appears that what this section is trying to say that an officer should consider the activities of the applicant with respect to other persons or organizations specified in the statute to determine if a security concern exists. In addition, this section states that [t]he officer should consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an articulable link exists between the foreign national (or organization) and prior, current, or planned involvement in, or association with an activity, any foreign national (or organization) described in any of these sections. This sentence should also be clarified to ensure that its proper meaning is understood. Part A, Chapter 7 A. Eligibility Requirements, 5. Exercise of Discretion This section of the Policy Manual appears to discourage adjudicators from granting a request to transfer the basis of an adjustment application, noting that adjudicators should not assume transfer requests will be granted, saying that [r]equests that involve jurisdiction constraints or difficulties may result in the request being denied, and overly emphasizing the effect of processing delays. This language diverges from the prior guidance from USCIS in the AFM, which merely says that there are factors to take into consideration when deciding whether to grant a request to transfer an adjustment application. 3 It should be revised so as not to discourage adjudicators from approving transfer requests and to make it clear that, while there are factors to weigh when considering a transfer request, such requests can be granted. D. Portability Provisions 3 AFM 23.2(l) ( While in many cases it is perfectly legal to convert the pending adjustment application to the new basis without requiring a new adjustment application or a new fee, there are a number considerations which must be taken into account before granting adjustment under the new basis. )
Page 6 of 11 The second paragraph in this section states: If such an employment-based applicant requests to transfer the adjustment application to a different employment-based category, the applicant may not utilize the portability provisions, if applicable, until 180 days or more after making the transfer request. In essence, transferring the basis of the adjustment application resets the adjudication clock for purposes of portability eligibility. However, this provision exceeds the scope of INA 204(j), which simply requires the individual to have an adjustment of status application that has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more in order to take advantage of the AC21 permanent portability provisions. This second paragraph should be deleted from the Policy Manual. D. Portability Provisions, National Interest Waiver Physicians This section is legally inaccurate as currently written, and should be replaced with the following language, which correctly states the law on National Interest Waiver Physicians: Physicians with an approved or pending immigrant petition based on a national interest waiver (NIW) may qualify for permanent resident status by agreeing to provide full-time medical services for five years in a federally designated medically underserved area/health professional shortage area or at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. [13] See 65 FR 53889 (September 6, 2000); 8 CFR 204.12; 8 CFR 245.18. Some physicians who pursue an NIW may also be subject to the two-year home residence requirement of INA 212(e) which generally makes them ineligible to file an I-485 adjustment of status application until they complete a three year clinical service obligation under INA 214(l). However, NIW physicians are nevertheless permitted to file an adjustment application based on an NIW petition before they complete their 214(l) three year clinical service obligation or their five year NIW service obligation. In all cases, USCIS holds adjudication of the adjustment application in abeyance until the applicant has fulfilled and documented the 214(l) and the NIW medical service requirements. After filing the adjustment application but before final adjudication, an NIW physician may seek employment in a different underserved area. An NIW physician can self-petition based either on employment with a new medical practice or by establishing his or her own medical practice. 8 CFR 204.12. When this happens, the applicant may request transfer of the adjustment application to the new NIW employment and retain the initial priority date. [14] See 8 CFR 204.12(f)(1) or 8 CFR 204.12(f)(2). If an NIW physician seeks to transfer his or her adjustment application to a new basis that does not involve employment in a medically underserved area or VA facility, USCIS may grant the transfer after the applicant has fulfilled the required three-year clinical medical service for the INA 212(e) waiver, if applicable, or has obtained a waiver in some other way. Part A, Chapter 9 A. Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof The Policy Manual should elaborate on what the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof means and how it should be interpreted. For example, USCIS should add language similar
Page 7 of 11 to that found in PM-602-0122, 4 such as an explanation that [t]his is a lower standard of proof than that of clear and convincing evidence or the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and that [a]n applicant does not need to remove all doubt from the adjudication. B. Discretion This section says that approval of an adjustment application is a matter of administrative grace that shows the application is worthy of favorable consideration. We are concerned that this section will be read to justify denying deserving applications. Given that it is abundantly clear throughout the rest of the manual that adjustment of status is a discretionary determination, this sentence should be deleted. B. Discretion, 2. Issue and Factors to Consider. The manual incorrectly states: [i]n cases where a removal order has been issued to an arriving alien but not executed, USCIS generally does not exercise favorable discretion. The USCIS officer may consult with the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) office concerning the merits and equities of the case and whether the removal order might be withdrawn. If ICE withdraws or rescinds the removal order or obtains a withdrawal or rescission of the removal order from EOIR, then the local USCIS field office adjudicates the case as appropriate. If the removal order is not withdrawn or rescinded, then the removal order should be considered a significant adverse factor and any denial of adjustment may include the grounds cited in the removal order. This language was not previously included in the AFM and it is contrary to current, longstanding practice. As far back as 1961, the Regional Commissioner found it appropriate to adjust a person under a final order of exclusion (the equivalent of an arriving alien under a final order) based upon normal weighing of the equities of the case, without any consideration of the final order as a significant adverse factor and without any need for the person to get the exclusion proceeding reopened and the order rescinded. See Matter of C H--, 9 I. & N. Dec. 265, Interim Decision (BIA) 1136, 1961 WL 12155 (BIA). In 2007, following issuance of the interim regulation which removed the regulatory bar to adjustment of arriving aliens who were in removal proceedings and designated USCIS as the agency with jurisdiction over these applications, 5 Michael Aytes issued a memorandum on the topic which made it clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment of status for arriving aliens with a final order and that such a person is not made inadmissible due to the final order. 6 That memo did not set forth any limitations on the exercise of discretion in such final order cases. Since that time, clients of AILA members who are arriving aliens and are under an unexecuted final order of removal have successfully adjusted, 4 Draft Memorandum, Determining Whether a New Job is in the Same or a Similar Occupational Classification for Purposes of Section 204(j) Job Portability (November 20, 2015), available at http://www.aila.org/infonet/uscisdraft-memo-same-or-similar-classification (AILA Doc No. 15112004). 5 71 Fed. Red 27585. 6 Michael L. Aytes, Eligibility of Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings to Apply for Adjustment of Status and Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Applications for Adjustment of Status (January 12, 2007), available at http://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-adjustment-by-arriving-aliens-in-removal (AILA Doc No. 07030661).
Page 8 of 11 with USCIS exercising discretion in accord with Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970). There is no justification and the Policy Manual does not suggest one for reversing this longstanding practice and applying a new standard which treats the final order as a significant adverse factor. Additionally, the manual sets forth an unworkable procedure for overcoming the significant adverse factor standard. It suggests that USCIS officers can consult with ICE ERO officers to determine whether the final order can be withdrawn or rescinded, and that [i]f ICE withdraws or rescinds the removal order, or gets EOIR to do the same, the local USCIS field office will adjudicate the case as appropriate. The manual misstates the procedures, since ICE cannot simply withdraw most removal orders. Instead, where an immigration judge or the BIA issued the order, ICE can only move to reopen the case and seek termination of the removal proceedings in order to give the individual the opportunity to adjust. The BIA has made clear, in a decision that is binding on all immigration judges, that this is not an appropriate basis for reopening. Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103 (BIA 2009). Consequently, in the vast majority of these cases, the final order will remain in place and under this policy change will trigger application of the significant adverse factor standard. Finally, and significantly, USCIS s adoption of this new standard for the exercise of discretion is contrary to the position that DHS took at the time that the interim regulations were adopted. There, DHS specifically sought comments on whether to adopt limitations on the exercise of discretion or a presumption against favorably exercising discretion in the adjustment cases of arriving aliens. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585, 88 (May 12, 2006). Specifically, DHS sought comments on whether, and if so, under what circumstances, any factor in these cases should be viewed categorically as a significant adverse factor that would weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion. Id. (citing Matter of Arai,13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970)). DHS made it clear that any such restrictions would be adopted by means of a future regulation. Id. at 27589 (emphasis added) ( Accordingly, the Secretary and the Attorney General are soliciting public comment on whether the regulations should be amended to structure the exercise of discretion further. ) DHS noted that the Supreme Court recognized that an agency could adopt a categorical rule for the exercise of discretion when it did so by regulation. Id. (emphasis added) (citing Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 244 (2001)). It is improper for USCIS to adopt such a restriction by amendment to a policy rather than by regulation. C. Summary of Adjudication Involving Discretion The table titled Summary of Adjudication Involving Discretion is an oversimplification of the adjudicatory process and should be deleted. It appears to encourage a zero sum approach to determining whether an application is worthy of discretion instead of encouraging adjudicators to consider the totality of the evidence submitted and the individual circumstances of the applicant. Part B, Chapter 2 A. Inspected and Admitted or Inspected and Paroled, 3. Parole, Paroled for Deferred Inspection
Page 9 of 11 This section incorrectly states that CBP grants deferred inspection to arriving foreign nationals who are found inadmissible during a preliminary inspection at a port of entry. It would be more accurate to say that CBP defers the inspection of foreign nationals whose admissibility it is unable to conclusively determine. A. Inspected and Admitted or Inspected and Paroled, 5. Temporary Protected Status In Flores v. USCIS, the Sixth Circuit held that, under the plain language of the TPS statute, a grant of TPS constitutes an admission for purposes of adjustment of status under INA 245(a). Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013). However, the Policy Manual specifically states that a foreign national who enters the United States without inspection and subsequently is granted temporary protected status (TPS) does not meet the inspected and admitted or inspected and paroled requirement. This interpretation frustrates Congressional intent and leads to the absurd result of forcing long-term residents with families and employment to return to countries the government has deemed unsafe in order to purse lawful permanent residence. Other district courts have followed Flores, and USCIS should take this opportunity to reevaluate its interpretation of the relevant sections of the INA. At a minimum, USCIS should state in the text of the Policy Manual (and not merely in a footnote) that the law on this issue is in flux, and that adjudicators are required to follow the Flores v. USCIS in the 6 th Circuit. A. Inspected and Admitted or Inspected and Paroled, 7. Waved Through at Port-of-Entry The manual inaccurately states that individuals who are waved-through a port of entry, and then apply to adjust their status under Matter of Quilantan 7 must support and sufficiently establish the claim that he or she was admitted as a foreign national and not as a presumed U.S. citizen and that the applicant should submit persuasive evidence to establish he or she was admitted as a foreign national. There is no requirement in Quilantan or Matter of Areguillin 8 to show that the inspector thought that the individual was a foreign national. In fact, this contradicts the holding of both cases, which only requires that the individual makes no knowing false claim to citizenship 9 and prove procedural regularity in his or her entry, which does not require the alien to be questioned by immigration authorities or be admitted in a particular status. 10 As a result, USCIS should delete the following language: Accordingly, the applicant must support and sufficiently establish the claim that he or she was admitted as a foreign national and not as a presumed U.S. citizen. For example, if the applicant was in a car with U.S. license plates and with U.S. citizens onboard, the applicant should submit persuasive evidence to establish he or she physically presented himself or herself to the inspector and was admitted as a foreign national. Part B, Chapter 3 A. Lawful Immigration Status 7 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). 8 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA, 1980). 9 Matter of Areguillin at 308. 10 Matter of Quilantan at 285.
Page 10 of 11 The last bullet point should add the words filing the so that it reads: Foreign nationals lawfully present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) between November 28, 2009 and November 27, 2011 based on a valid, unexpired, and lawfully obtained period of stay that was CNMI-authorized prior to November 28, 2009 that remains valid on the date of filing the adjustment application. B. Unlawful Immigration Status Though INA 245(c) uses the term unlawful immigration status, we note that this could easily be confused with unlawful presence, a separate term of art defined at INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) and interpreted at length in the May 6, 2009 memorandum, Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act. Given that unlawful presence is distinctly different from unlawful immigration status, we recommend that USCIS include a paragraph at the beginning of this section, explaining that the two terms, though similar sounding, should not be confused with one another. The distinction between unlawful immigration status and unlawful presence is explained in more detail in section D, Difference between Lawful Immigration Status and Period of Authorized Stay. This section should be cross-referenced in this introductory paragraph. C. Time in Unlawful Immigration Status The second bullet point in this section states that the foreign national s unlawful status generally begins [o]n the day the foreign national violates the terms or conditions of his or her nonimmigrant status. The third bullet point states that unlawful status generally begins [o]n the day after the foreign national s authorized status has been violated which is inconsistent with the second bullet. Therefore, we recommend deleting the words has been violated and revising the third bullet to read: On the day after the foreign national s authorized status has expired, been rescinded, revoked, or otherwise terminated while he or she is physically present in the United States. E. Effect of Pending Application or Petition The second sentence in this first paragraph should be amended to reflect the fact that in general, a person with a pending application for adjustment of status or a petition to change/extend status is permitted to remain in the United States pending adjudication. We recommend changing the second sentence to read: Though a pending application or petition does not automatically afford protection against removal if the foreign national s status expires after submission of the application, in general, an applicant for adjustment of status, change of status, or extension of status, is permitted to remain in the United States pending final decision on the application. Part B, Chapter 4 Footnote 4 says that [a]n example of violating the terms of a nonimmigrant status would be if a B-2 visitor were to enroll in college and attend class. However, the Foreign Affairs Manual expressly states that a tourist may enroll in a short course of study. See 9 FAM 41.31 N13.6. This example should be replaced with a better example of how applicants may have violated the terms of his or her nonimmigrant status.
Page 11 of 11 Part B, Chapter 4 Period of Time to Consider and Effect of Departure, Example: Effect of Departure Following Grant of Advance Parole on INA 245(c)(7) Bar This example may be confusing to readers because it appears to indicate that a foreign national, regardless of status, can depart the United States before the advance parole document is approved. In this example, presumably the H-2B nonimmigrant could leave prior to approval of the advance parole document because the H-2B nonimmigrant was in valid H-2B status. This would not be the case if the foreign national were in, for example, E-3, TN, O-1, and any other nonimmigrant status other than H or L. Part B, Chapter 6 A. Definitions, 2. Authorized Employment For purposes of INA 245(c)(2), a USCIS I-797 approval notice should be sufficient to show an applicant was authorized to work. As a result, USCIS should revise the second to last sentence of this section to read: This includes refraining from employment after the applicant s workauthorized status or previously approved EAD expires until USCIS approves his or her Application for Employment Authorization. Part B, Chapter 8 E. Employment-Based Exemption Under INA 245(k) The first sentence of the second paragraph in this section is confusing as written. USCIS should replace it with the following sentence, which more clearly describes the 180-day period: This exemption applies to a foreign national who has failed to maintain a lawful status, engaged in unauthorized employment, or violated the terms and conditions of his or her admission for an aggregate period not exceeding 180 days. Conclusion Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the newly published sections of the USCIS Policy Manual. We look forward to a continuing dialogue on this an related matters. THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION