April 22, 2003
New Interpretations: Did You File an Extension or Change of Your Status?
Are You Sure You Are Not Accruing Unlawful Presence?
On April 21, 2003, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
(BCIS) released an internal memo discussing and clarifying its interpretation
of "period of stay authorized by the Attorney General" in the context of
determining whether a foreign national has accrued "unlawful presence" and
maintenance of "status" while in the U.S. When or how unlawful presence
is accrued is critical due to the fact that time spent in the U.S. unlawfully
can potentially bar a foreign national from obtaining any other lawful status
in the U.S., as well as from obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate or embassy
abroad to enter the U.S.
Generally, when a foreign national is in the U.S. and his or her status
is about to expire, as long as an extension of status or change of status
request is filed before the current status expires, he or she may remain
in the U.S. while the request is pending without accruing "unlawful presence."
Originally, this tolling period was limited by regulation to 120 days. However,
due to the fact that BCIS processing times often exceed 120 days, the BCIS
implemented a revised policy in March 2000 extending the tolling period
from 120 days to the length of time the request is pending at BCIS. It is
very important to note that this tolling period applies only to those whose
I-94 cards expired while the extension or change of status was pending.
The BCIS memo basically reiterates and clarifies the distinction between
maintaining "status" and "period of stay authorized by the Attorney General."
This is important because for an extension of status or a change of status
to be approvable, the applicant must have maintained his or her "status"
prior to filing. An applicant’s "status" expires on the date stated on his
or her I-94 arrival/departure card issued at the port of entry or issued
by the BCIS subsequent to later filed petitions. After the expiration of
the I-94 card the individual will be considered to be "unlawfully present"
in the U.S. Therefore, when filing an extension or change of status request,
it is not enough to prove that the individual was in the U.S. during a "period
of stay authorized by the Attorney General," there must be a showing that
the request was filed before the individual’s "status" expired.
For example, in a typical factual scenario, John Smith a Brazilian citizen
enters the U.S. in B-1 status as a visitor for business on January 1, 2003
and his I-94 card is stamped with an expiration date of July 1, 2003. This
means that he would have to leave the U.S. on or before July 1, 2003 to
avoid accrual of unlawful presence. However, if Mr. Smith finds an employer
who sponsors him for an H-1B, if the H-1B petition with a request for a
change of status from B-1 to H-1B is filed on or before July 1, 2003, Mr.
Smith will be authorized to stay in the U.S. until the BCIS makes a final
decision. During this time Mr. Smith does not accrue unlawful presence.
However, from July 2, 2003, Mr. Smith is no longer "in status." This means
from that date he is no longer eligible for a change of status or extension
of status request filed after his status has expired. If the BCIS ultimately
denies the petition, then Mr. Smith will begin accruing unlawful presence
from the date of denial and should depart the U.S. in a timely fashion,
there is no grace period. In addition, to avoid reentry bars he should depart
before accruing 180 days of unlawful presence.
The importance of the BCIS distinction becomes apparent when the factual
scenario becomes more complex. In Mr. Smith’s case, for example, if the
BCIS issues a request for evidence that signals a possible denial of the
H-1B, Mr. Smith may then decide to also file a request to extend his B-1
status just in case the H-1B is denied. If his extension request for the
B-1 is filed before July 1, 2003, then if the H-1B is denied he can lawfully
remain in the U.S. while he waits for a final decision to be made on this
new B-1 extension request. However, if Mr. Smith files the B-1 extension
anytime after July 1, 2003 while the H-1B is pending, then he did not file
this request while he was in "status." This means that this B-1 extension
does not provide him with a tolling period that was provided with the timely
filing of the H-1B change of status request. Therefore, when the H-1B is
denied, he will begin accruing unlawful presence as of the date of denial
regardless of the fact that he has a B-1 extension pending at BCIS.
When strategizing on the filing and timing of petitions, it is very important
to understand and apply the distinction between maintaining "status" and
"lawful presence." Otherwise, the foreign national may risk filing applications
that are not approvable at the time of filing for failure to maintain "status,"
which in turn could jeopardize his or her eligibility for immigration benefits
from the BCIS or the Department of State. Maintaining an open dialogue with
immigration counsel while making such decisions is very important to ensure
that all parties understand the implications of status expiration dates
and requests filed with the BCIS.
|
|