Immigration Law Wiki
ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
ONE YEAR PHYSICAL PRESENCE REQUIREMENT
USCIS announced the policy change last year and I didn’t see it.
POLICY UPDATE FOR ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Asylees do not have to wait a year to file an I-485 because USCIS will now count the year from the date of adjudication of the I-485 not its filing date.
REFERENCES
USCIS Policy Manual Volume 7 Part A
REQUIREMENTS TO ADJUST STATUS
According to the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7 – Adjustment of Status, Part M – Asylee Adjustment, an asylee may adjust their status to a lawful permanent resident if they meet the following four requirements:
✅ 1 year physical presence in the US after being granted asylum
✅ Continuing to meet the definition of a refugee or being the spouse/child of the principal asylee
✅ Not having firmly resettled in a foreign country
✅ Admissible to the US as an immigrant at the time of adjustment of status examination
The first and foremost requirement for Asylees to be eligible for a green card is to have been physically present in the US for at least 1 year after being granted asylum. This requirement is crucial in determining the eligibility of an asylee for a green card.
👉 The recent update from USCIS regarding the requirement for Asylees and Refugees to have a physical presence in the United States for a full year prior to filing for a Green Card has caused some confusion among immigration lawyers. Some interpret this update as a change in policy, allowing Asylees to file for a Green Card after only several months of physical presence in the US, while others believe that the one year requirement still holds.
It’s important to note that, according to USCIS policy, an Asylee must have been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum in order to be eligible for Adjustment of Status to a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). Despite this, there seems to be some uncertainty surrounding the new USCIS rule and its potential impact on the timeline for Asylees to apply for a Green Card.
Until further clarification from USCIS, it remains a point of debate among immigration lawyers. Some believe that Asylees should still wait the full year before filing for a Green Card, while others think that the shortened time frame is acceptable. In either case, it is crucial for Asylees to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer to understand their options and ensure they are following all the necessary steps in their Green Card asylum journey.
See Matter of Chawathe (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Certain documentation requirements do not apply to asylees adjusting status. See INA 212(a)(7)(A).
Matter of Chawathe
(1) For purposes of establishing the requisite continuous residence in naturalization proceedings pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), a publicly held corporation may be deemed an “American firm or corporation” if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock exchange markets.
(2) When an applicant’s employer is a publicly held corporation that is incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets, the applicant need not demonstrate the nationality of the corporation by establishing the nationality of those persons who own more than 51% of the stock of that firm. Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979), clarified.
(3) In most administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought.
(4) Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989), followed.
(5) If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. See, e.g., Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997) (noting that the petitioner must prove eligibility by a preponderance of evidence in visa petition proceedings); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965) (finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence because the submitted evidence was not credible); cf. Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 774, 782-3 (BIA 1988) (noting that section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1986), requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent prior marriage).
See more info at the BURDEN OF PROOF — PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE page.
