Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii),provides: “Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.” INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii) [full statute] When are two convictions arising out of a single scheme? See article on “arising out of a single scheme“.

DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO UNITED NATIONS TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY § 1103 – DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO UNITED NATIONS Pub. L. 101–246, title IV, §407, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 67, as amended by Pub. L. 113–100, §1, Apr. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 1145, provided that: (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall use his authority, including the authorities contained in section 6 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80–357) [Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 482, set out as a note under 22 U.S.C. 287], to deny any individual’s admission to the United States as a representative to the United Nations if the President determines that such individual— (1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii))) directed against the United States or its allies; and (2) may pose a threat to United States national security interests. (b) WAIVER.—The President may waive the provisions of subsection (a) if the President determines, and so notifies the Congress, that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.’’

Applicants who are found to be drug abusers or addicts are inadmissible under  INA §212(a)(1)(A)(iv). Drug abuse and drug addiction are current substance-use disorders or substance-induced disorders of a controlled substance listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director. See Title II of Pub. L. 91-513 (PDF), 84 Stat. 1242, 1247 (October 27, 1970), as amended, codified at 21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq. See 42 CFR 34.2(h) (drug abuse). See 42 CFR 34.2(i) (drug addiction). HHS regulations define Director as the Director of CDC or a designee as approved by the Director or Secretary of HHS. See 42 CFR 34.2(g). How is this determination Made? The civil surgeon must check the appropriate findings box on the medical examination report that is done as part of the Adjustment of Status or Visa Interview process (the Form I-693). The finding can also be made based on statements an applicant makes to immigration officers either at a border crossing or during a USCIS interview. Admissions to using illegal drugs, even only an isolated incident, is enough for an officer to make this determination if they believe it to be true under the totality of the circumstances. How is this determination Made? The civil surgeon must check the appropriate findings box on the medical examination report that is done as part of the Adjustment of Status or Visa Interview process (the Form I-693). The finding can also be made based on statements an applicant makes to immigration officers either at a border crossing or during a USCIS interview. Admissions to using illegal drugs, even only an isolated incident, is enough for an officer to make this determination if they believe it to be true under the totality of the circumstances. Can Someone Obtain a Visa After Immigration Has Found Them Inadmissible Under INA §212(a)(1)(A)(iv) as a Drug Abuser? If the applicant is classified as a drug abuser or addict, the applicant can apply again for an immigration benefit if his or her drug abuse or addiction is in remission. Remission is now defined by DSM criteria, and no longer by a set timeframe as it was under previous Technical Instructions. Under the pre-2010 Technical Instructions, an applicant’s substance abuse or addiction was in remission if the applicant had not engaged in non-medical use of a controlled substance within the past 3 years, or non-medical use of a non-controlled substance within the past 2 years. In order for an applicant’s drug abuse or addiction to be classified as in remission, the applicant must return to a civil surgeon for a new assessment. Most applicants who are found to be drug abusers or addicts are ineligible for a waiver; the availability depends, however, on the immigration benefit the applicant seeks.Chapter five of the USCIS Policy Manual discusses the possibility and process of requesting a waiver of drug abuse and addition. In general, the rule is that there is no waiver of this ground of inadmissibility. There are however, specific statutory provisions that permit USCIS to waive this ground, for asylees and refugees seeking adjustment, and Legalization and SAW applicants. These waivers are specific to asylees and refugees. The other waiver available is under INA 212(g).  Volume 8, Admissibility, Part B, Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility [8 USCIS-PM B] for more information on inadmissibility on account of drug abuse or drug addiction. Requesting an Advisory Opinion from the CDC If an officer has a case where there is a question concerning the diagnosis or classification made by the civil surgeon or panel physician, the officer may forward the pertinent documents to CDC and request an advisory opinion. The request should include the following documents: Once the documents are received by CDC, CDC reviews the documents and forwards a response letter with results of the review to the USCIS office that submitted the request.  CDC’s usual processing time for review and response back to the requesting USCIS office is approximately 4 weeks. Upon receipt, the officer should review CDC’s response letter to determine next steps.  (h) Drug abuse. “Current substance use disorder or substance-induced disorder, mild” as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) as published by the American Psychiatric Association, or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director, of a substance listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 802). (i) Drug addiction. “Current substance use disorder or substance-induced disorder, moderate or severe” as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), as published by the American Psychiatric Association, or by another authoritative source as determined by the Director, of a substance listed in Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 802). Title 42 Chapter I, Sub-chapter C, Part 34 § 34.2 USCIS Policy Manual Chapter 8 USCIS Policy Manual Volume 8, Chapter 11, Part B

(c) Alien crewmen, aliens continuing or accepting unauthorized employment, and aliens admitted in transit without visa Other than an alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner, subsection (a) shall not be applicable to (1) an alien crewman; (2) subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 1151(b) of this title or a special immigrant described in section 1101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) of this title) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States; (3) any alien admitted in transit without visa under section 1182(d)(4)(C) of this title; (4) an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 1151(b) of this title) who was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 1182(l) of this title or section 1187 of this title; (5) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(S) of this title, (6) an alien who is deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title; (7) any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 1153(b) of this title and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title, or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa. – INA 245(c) / Title 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 12-IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER II (Link to Full) These bars apply not only to unauthorized employment since an applicant’s most recent entry but also to unauthorized employment during any previous periods of stay in the United States. Employment-based applicants also may be eligible for exemption from this bar under INA 245(k). An applicant employed while his or her adjustment application is pending final adjudication must maintain USCIS employment authorization and comply with the terms and conditions of that authorization. The filing of an adjustment application itself does not authorize employment. OTHER LINKS https://web.archive.org/web/20160607145933/https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume7-PartB-Chapter6.html USCIS POLICY MANUAL Volume 7 Chapter 6 – Unauthorized Employment https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1255&num=0&edition=prelim My Attorney USA

See our blog post on extreme hardship. A. Totality of the Circumstances The officer must make extreme hardship determinations based on the factors, arguments, and evidence submitted.1 Therefore, the officer should consider any submission from the applicant bearing on the extreme hardship determination. The officer may also consider factors, arguments, and evidence relevant to the extreme hardship determination that the applicant has not specifically presented, such as those addressed in Department of State (DOS) information on country conditions2 or other U.S. Government determinations regarding country conditions, including a country’s designation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Officers must base their decisions on the totality of the evidence and circumstances presented. B. Common Consequences The common consequences of denying admission, in and of themselves, do not warrant a finding of extreme hardship.3 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that the common consequences of denying admission include, but are not limited to, the following: C. Factors Must Be Considered Cumulatively The officer must consider all factors and consequences in their totality and cumulatively when assessing whether a qualifying relative will experience extreme hardship either in the United States or abroad. In some cases, common consequences that on their own do not constitute extreme hardship may result in extreme hardship when assessed cumulatively with other factors.5 For example, if a qualifying relative has a medical condition that alone does not rise to the level of extreme hardship, the combination of that hardship and the common consequences of inferior medical services, economic detriment, or readjusting to life in another country may cumulatively cause extreme emotional or financial hardship for the qualifying relative when considering the totality of the circumstances.  Ordinarily, for example, the fact that medical services are less comprehensive in another country is a common consequence of denying admission; but the inferior quality of medical services, considered along with the individual’s specific medical conditions, may create sufficient difficulties as to rise to the level of extreme hardship in combination with all the other consequences. The officer must weigh all factors individually and cumulatively, as follows: First, the officer must consider whether any factor set forth individually rises to the level of extreme hardship under the totality of the circumstances.  ​Second, if any factor alone does not rise to the level of extreme hardship, the officer must consider all factors together to determine whether they cumulatively rise to the level of extreme hardship. This includes hardships to multiple qualifying relatives.  When considering the factors, whether individually or cumulatively, all factors, including negative factors, must be evaluated in the totality of the circumstances.  D. Examples of Factors that May Support a Finding of Extreme Hardship The chart below lists factors that an applicant might present and that would be relevant to determining whether an applicant has demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. This list is not exhaustive; circumstances that are not on this list may also be relevant to finding extreme hardship.  The presence of one or more of the factors below in a particular case does not mean that extreme hardship would necessarily result from a denial of admission. But they are factors that may be encountered and should be considered in their totality and cumulatively in individual cases. All hardship factors presented by the applicant should be considered in the totality of the circumstances in making the extreme hardship determination. Some of the factors listed below apply when the qualifying relative would remain in the United States without the applicant. Other factors apply when the qualifying relative would relocate abroad. Some of the factors might apply under either circumstance.  Family Ties and Impact Qualifying relative’s ties to family members living in the United States, including age, status, and length of residence of any children. Responsibility for the care of any family members in the United States, particularly children, elderly adults, and disabled adults. Impact on the cognitive, social, or emotional well-being of a qualifying relative who is left to replace the applicant as caregiver for someone else, or impact on the qualifying relative (for example, child or parent) for whom such care is required. Social and Cultural Impact Loss of access to the U.S. courts and the criminal justice system, including the loss of opportunity to request or provide testimony in criminal investigations or prosecutions; to participate in proceedings to enforce labor, employment, or civil rights laws; to participate in family law proceedings, victim’s compensation proceedings, or other civil proceedings; or to obtain court orders regarding protection, child support, maintenance, child custody, or visitation. Fear of persecution or societal discrimination. Prior grant of U nonimmigrant status. Existence of laws and social practices in the country of relocation that would punish the qualifying relative because he or she has been in the United States or is perceived to have Western values. Access or lack of access to social institutions and structures (official and unofficial) for support, guidance, or protection. Social ostracism or stigma based on characteristics such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, race, national origin, ethnicity, citizenship, age, political opinion, marital status, or disability.6 Qualifying relative’s community ties in the United States and in the country of relocation. Extent to which the qualifying relative has integrated into U.S. culture, including language, skills, and acculturation. Extent to which the qualifying relative would have difficulty integrating into the country of relocation, including understanding and adopting social norms and established customs, including gender roles and ethical or moral codes. Difficulty and expense of travel/communication to maintain ties between qualifying relative and applicant, if the qualifying relative does not relocate. Qualifying relative’s present inability to communicate in the language of the country of relocation, as well as the time and difficulty that learning that language would entail. Availability and quality of educational opportunities for qualifying relative (and children, if any) in the country of relocation. Availability and quality of job training, including technical or vocational opportunities, for qualifying relative (and children, if any) in the country of relocation. Economic Impact Economic impact of applicant’s departure on

Fraud & Misrepresentation Ground of Inadmissibility Inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2018). Willful Misrepresentation Matter of O-M-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 191, 196 (BIA 2021) Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1465 (2017) Matter of MENSAH, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) Link to case Materiality of a Statement See Matter of Munroe, 26 I&N Dec. 428, 430 (BIA 2014). Matter of MENSAH, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) Link to case Authority to Inquire into Bona Fides of Marriage at Adjustment of Status See MARRIAGE FRAUD for more on this. Matter of Bosuego Matter of Bosuego, 17 I&N Dec. 125 (BIA 1979, 1980) In Matter of Bosuego, the Board concluded that the materiality requirement in former section 212(a)(19) was satisfied if one of the following was true: 1. “The alien is excludable on the true facts”; or 2. “The misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien’s eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded.” Id. at 127. Matter of Y-L- Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151, 159 (BIA 2007) [PDF version] Matter of D-R- Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) (“Matter of D-R- 2011”) [PDF version] Matter of KAGUMBAS, 28 I&N Dec. 400 (BIA 2021) An Immigration Judge has the authority to inquire into the bona fides of a marriage when considering an application for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2018). FULL DECISION FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION WAIVER

The I-601A Waiver is for individuals who are inadmissible pursuant to INA §212(a)(9)(B) for unlawful presence. Typically this waiver is for the spouse or child of a US citizen or legal permanent resident (LPR), who entered the US without inspection (usually by crossing the US-Mexico or US-Canada border). Since someone who enters the US without inspection is ineligible for adjustment of status they have to leave the US to attend a consular interview to obtain legal permanent residency. If the person has been unlawfully present in the US for more than six months then they can’t leave the US to attend the visa interview without tripping the three or ten-year unlawful presence bar. The I-601A Waiver, if approved, waives the wait period that the applicant would normally be subject under the unlawful presence bar, allowing them to obtain their visa at the consular interview and reenter the US as a legal permanent resident without having to wait three/ten years outside the country. An I-601A waiver requires that the applicant be the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition that is immediately available to them (petitions for immediate relatives, family-sponsored or employment-based immigrants as well as Diversity Visa selectees), that they have paid the visa fees, they are otherwise admissible to the United States, they deserve favorable discretion, and they can establish that their qualifying relative will suffer extreme hardship if their application is denied. A qualifying relative for an I-601A waiver can be a US citizen/LPR spouse or US citizen/LPR parent (children are not qualifying relatives). One cannot apply for an I-601A waiver without a qualifying relative. The eligibility details are available below and at the USCIS.gov website. NOTE: The Form I-601 Waiver (without an A) still exists. The original I-601 Waiver does the same thing as an I-601A but it is filed by someone who has already tripped the unlawful presence bar and is outside of the US. Individuals who do not wish to seek or do not qualify for a provisional unlawful presence waiver can still file Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, after a DOS consular officer determines that they are inadmissible to the United States. ELIGIBILITY An alien who is inadmissible for unlawful presence in the U.S. under Section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v). Eligibility requirements enumerated under 8 CFR 212.7(e) are as follows: (i) Is present in the United States at the time of filing the application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver; (ii) Provides biometrics to USCIS at a location in the United States designated by USCIS; (iii) Upon departure, would be inadmissible only under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act at the time of the immigrant visa interview; (iv) Has a case pending with the Department of State, based on: (A) An approved immigrant visa petition, for which the Department of State immigrant visa processing fee has been paid; or (B)Selection by the Department of State to participate in the Diversity Visa Program under section 203(c) of the Act for the fiscal year for which the alien registered; (v) Will depart from the United States to obtain the immigrant visa; and (vi) Meets the requirements for a waiver provided in section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act. BURDEN OF PROOF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD The Applicant must establish eligibility for a waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) (identifying preponderance of the evidence as the standard for immigration benefits generally, in that case naturalization). MORE LIKELY THAN NOT The preponderance of evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrates that denial of the Applicant’s admission will “more likely than not” result in extreme hardship to the Applicant’s qualifying relative(s). Id. at 376. QUALIFYING RELATIVE The requirements for a waiver provided at section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act are that he establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, which is defined as a citizen or resident parent or spouse. Hardship to and Applicant’s USC children must be considered insofar as it results in hardship to any of the qualifying relatives. See Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002); Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002); *Matter of Monreal,*23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001). Additionally, hardship to the Applicant’s three USC Children, other family members, members of the community, and the Applicant himself, may serve as favorable factors to be considered in the determination of whether the Secretary should exercise favorable discretion by approving the waiver. See Matter of Mendez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996). EXTREME HARDSHIP The definition of “extreme hardship,” according to immigration law, is “not . . . fixed and inflexible, and the elements to establish extreme hardship are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999). Further, in assessing extreme hardship, one “must consider the entire range of factors concerning hardship in their totality and determine whether the combination of hardships takes the case beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with deportation.” Matter of O-J-O-, 21 I&N Dec. 381 (BIA 1996). Extreme hardship in the context of an I-601A Provisional Waiver has a significantly lower burden of proof than the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement of cancellation of removal referenced throughout this brief. Extreme hardship in this context must go “beyond that typically associated with deportation.” See 8 CFR 1240.58(b); See also USCIS Policy Manual Volume 9, Part B, Chapter 2. The federal courts and the BIA have frequently relied on cases involving the former suspension of deportation statute when interpreting extreme hardship waiver statutes, as these statutes employed the same language. See Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 467 (9th Cir. 1991). See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560, 565 (BIA 1999), aff’d, Cervantes-Gonzales v. INS, 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). The USCIS

What is a Misrepresentation? A misrepresentation is a statement that “tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to the alien’s admissibility and that would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to his or her eligibility for a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States.” Inadmissibility for Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation 212(a)(6)(C) Misrepresentation (i) In general Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible. Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) [PDF version] The Board took the position that the “tends to shut off a line of inquiry” test from Matter of Bosuego leads to the same results as the “natural tendency” test from Kungys. Accordingly, the Board adopted the “natural tendency” test from Kungys for determining whether a misrepresentation is “material” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). The Board stated that it will consider whether a misrepresentation “tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to the alien’s admissibility and that would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to his or her eligibility for a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States.” The Board reaffirmed its conclusion from Matter of Bosuego, 17 I&N Dec. at 131, regarding the “burden-shifting test.” The Board stated that once the DHS meets its burden of proof the burden shifts to the alien “to establish that no proper determination of inadmissibility could have been made.” The Board cited to Maslenjak, 137 S.Ct. at 1930 in noting that an alien should have the opportunity to rebut the Government’s case. After having defined the term “material” and clarified its rules on determining materiality in the section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) context, the Board moved to apply the new rule to the facts of the Matter of D-R-. In this case the Board referenced again the testimony of a Special Assistant with the Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS during hearings before the Immigration Judge. To summarize, this officer, Todd Gardner, testified that the respondent’s misrepresentation: 1. Would have prevented an appropriate line of inquiry regarding whether he was a persecutor; 2. Would have prevented further questioning; and 3. Was material because refugee officers in Bosnia were trained to assess human rights issues in Bosnia with applicants. The Board concluded that the Immigration Judge was correct in finding that the respondent’s misrepresentations had a “natural tendency” to influence the decision of local asylum officers. This is because, as the Board determined, the respondent’s misrepresentations shut off a line of inquiry into issues relevant to his eligibility for asylum. The Board also noted that the respondent was given “ample opportunity” to cross examine the DHS’s witnesses and provide his own testimony, and he still failed to establish that he would have been admissible had the facts of his Bosnian War service been exposed. Accordingly, the Board determined that the respondent was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA and removable under section 237(a)(1)(A). More info at https://myattorneyusa.com/matter-of-d-r-27-iandn-dec-105-bia-2017-determining-whether-misrepresentation-is-material-for Matter of Bosuego Matter of Bosuego, 17 I&N Dec. 125 (BIA 1979, 1980) In Matter of Bosuego, the Board concluded that the materiality requirement in former section 212(a)(19) was satisfied if one of the following was true: 1. “The alien is excludable on the true facts”; or 2. “The misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien’s eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded.” Id. at 127. OTHER CASES Matter of O-M-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 191, 196 (BIA 2021) Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1465 (2017) Matter of MENSAH, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) Link to case Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151, 159 (BIA 2007) [PDF version] Monter v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546, 556-58 (2d Cir. 2005) [PDF version]) See also Mwongera v. INS, 187 F.3d 323, 330 (3d Cir. 1999) [PDF version])