EspañolРусская версия
21550 Oxnard Street, Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 91367
Tel: 818-730-3540
Fax: 509-694-9786

212(a)(9)(B) Unlawful Presence

Unlawful presence is the most frequently cited reason for inadmissibility to the United States, with more than 30,000 such decisions every year. The rules for unlawful presence are relatively simple: 1) if a person is unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 but less than 365 days and leaves the United States, he will be subject to a 3 year bar from the US; and 2) if a person is unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and leaves the United States, he will be subject to a 10 year bar from the US. The visa of a person who is even one day unlawfully present is automatically invalidated under Section 222(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

While these rules are not complicated, a source of confusion is what triggers the start of the clock for unlawful presence. Unlawful presence commences when a person enters the United States without inspection; when a person’s existing authorized status has expired; or a negative decision by the US government has been made terminating the status of the individual. Individuals in B or an employment status such as H or L have their authorized stays determined by the dates on their I-94 cards. F-1 students and J-1holders, on the other hand, have their stays determined by the dates on their I-20 andDS-2019 forms, respectively. So if a student stops going to classes, he falls out of status, but he does not become unlawfully present until the date on his I-20 expires or the government enters a decision against him (e.g., an immigration judge decides to remove him for violating his student status). The Trump Administration is currently seeking to dramatically tighten the unlawful presence rules for students, so contact us for the latest information.

Applications timely filed to extend or change status automatically legalize a person’s stay until a decision is made; even applications which are untimely filed can in some cases be forgiven. However, once a negative decision is made, an appeal or a motion to reopen or reconsider does not legalize the individual’s stay — unless the decision is overturned. So if a company’s petition to extend the L status of an employee is denied, the employee must leave the United States immediately; otherwise, he will accumulate unlawful presence. The company can file an appeal, but an appeal can take 8–9 months to adjudicate.

Another important point to remember about unlawful presence is that if a person has an advance parole document because he has a pending adjustment of status application, a departure might not trigger the unlawful presence bar. Under the Arrabally case, a brief departure from the US by such individuals is not considered a departure for purposes of triggering the unlawful presence bar.

Individuals with pending asylum applications or appeals are not subject to these unlawful presence rules as long as their application is not frivolous.

As you can see, these idiosyncratic rules on how to count accumulated unlawful presence can be confusing and can often lead to consular officers making mistakes in counting days of unlawful presence. If the consular officer is correct, nonimmigrant and immigrant waivers are usually available.

Please contact us to discuss your situation.

Case Studies

Over the course of two years, Ms. P spent most of her time in the US with her teenage daughter, who was enrolled at a famous ballet school. When Ms. P returned to her home country to renew her visa, her application was denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer accused her of illegally working in the US and spending too much time in the US; the officer made these claims despite the fact that when Ms. P had applied for the visa two years prior, she had honestly notified the Embassy in advance of her plan to accompany her young daughter for two years and presented bank statements showing her ability to support themselves in the US. Over the next two years, the Embassy denied her visa three more times. She then retained our firm, and we were able to clarify information about her refusals, present evidence to rebut the claims of the consular officers, and help her obtain a new multi-entry B-1/B-2 visa.

Case of M.P.