On November 21, 2019, USCIS published a Memorandum explaining a new policy regarding second Adjustment of Status for Conditional Permanent Residents after termination of the conditional residence.

​New policy will make it easier for a former conditional resident, whose status was terminated by USCIS, to reapply for adjustment of status under another petition or eligibility basis without having to go through Immigration Court removal proceedings. USCIS will consider the date of admission to be the date USCIS approved the subsequent (second) adjustment application. Time spent in the prior terminated conditional resident status does not count toward the residency requirement for naturalization purposes. The clock will restart after second adjustment.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to update and clarify when USCIS may adjust the status of an applicant whose conditional permanent resident (CPR) status was terminated. Background Sections 245(d) and 245(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bar an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis from adjusting status under INA 245(a).

However, in Matter of Stockwell, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that INA 245(d) does not prohibit an alien whose CPR status had been terminated from adjusting his or her status under INA 245(a).

USCIS is updating its guidance to ensure consistent adjudication of Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) filed by applicants whose CPR status was terminated.

The guidance contained in Volume 7, Part B of the Policy Manual, replaces guidance found in Chapter 25.1(d) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual. The guidance contained in the Policy Manual is controlling and supersedes any related prior USCIS guidance.

This policy is effective on November 21, 2019, and only applies to adjustment applications received on or after that date.

New Policy Highlights
• Explains how USCIS applies Matter of Stockwell and clarifies when USCIS may adjust the status of an alien whose CPR status was terminated in certain circumstances.
• Clarifies that the time an alien spent in prior CPR status does not count towards his or her residency requirement for naturalization purposes.


In general, an alien granted lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis[20] is ineligible to adjust status on a new basis under the provisions of INA 245(a).[21] Instead, conditional permanent residents (CPRs) must generally comply with the requirements of INA 216 or 216A to remove the conditions on their lawful permanent resident status.[22]

This bar to adjustment, however, only applies to an alien in the United States in lawful CPR status. In Matter of Stockwell (PDF),[23] the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted a narrow interpretation of the regulation implementing this adjustment bar,[24] stating that the bar no longer applies if USCIS terminates the alien’s CPR status.[25]

USCIS can terminate CPR status for reasons specified in INA 216 or INA 216A. [26] Although the immigration judge may review the termination in removal proceedings, the bar no longer applies upon USCIS terminating the CPR status; it is not necessary that an immigration judge have affirmed USCIS’ decision to terminate the alien’s CPR status before the alien may file a new adjustment application.

Therefore, under INA 245(a), USCIS may adjust the status an alien whose CPR status was previously terminated, if:[27]

• The alien has a new basis for adjustment;
• The alien is otherwise eligible to adjust;[28] and
• USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment application.[29]

When seeking adjustment of status again, the alien may not reuse the immigrant petition associated with the previous CPR adjustment or admission. Therefore, the alien must have a new basis to adjust.
An alien seeking to adjust status again who was admitted as a fiancé(e) (K nonimmigrant) may only re-adjust based on an approved Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) filed by the same U.S. citizen who filed the Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) (Form I-129F) on his or her behalf.[30]
The alien must also be otherwise eligible to adjust status including not being inadmissible or barred by INA 245(c).

If the alien successfully adjusts status on a new basis, USCIS generally considers the date of admission to be the date USCIS approved the subsequent adjustment application.[31] Time spent in the prior CPR status does not count toward the residency requirement for naturalization purposes.[32]


​More here.

​

NEW USCIS Polity Memo: When a I-751 PERMANENT GREEN CARD INTERVIEW Can be WAIVED? Effective date of this new guidance is today, December 10, 2018.

General rule applicable to all I-751 petitions: conditional permanent residents who file a Form I-751 must appear for an interview. 

However, in practice, in most of the cases the interviews were waived, if USCIS officer was satisfied that the petition is approvable and can be approved without an interview.

Under the new Memo, USCIS officers may consider waiving an interview if they are satisfied that:

• They can make a decision based on the record because it contains sufficient evidence
of a good faith marriage;

• For Form I-751 cases received on/after December 10, 2018, USCIS has previously
interviewed the I-751 principal petitioner (for example, for a Form I-485 or Form I-130);

• There is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation in the Form I-751 or the supporting
documentation; and

• There are no complex facts or issues that require an interview to resolve questions or
concerns.
​
When determining whether to waive an interview, the considerations listed above apply regardless of whether the Form I-751 is filed as a joint petition or as a waiver of the joint filing requirement. Cases involving fraud or national security concerns must be referred to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate according to local procedures.

Briefly in Russian:

10 декабря 2018 вступили в силу новые правила (меморандум USCIS), о том в каких случаях офицеры USCIS могут утвердить петицию на снятие условностей, форма I-751, без вызова петиционера и супруга на интервью. Этот новый меморандум относится именно к петиции на снятие условностей.
 
После 10 декабря 2018 офицеры должны будут приглашать на интервью тех заявителей, которых никогда не приглашали на интервью в USCIS. Простое истолкование новых правил означает, что если вы получили иммиграционную визу через посольство, и вас никогда не интервьюировали в офисе в USCIS при получении первой условной грин-карты, то вас должны (могут?) вызвать на интервью по петиции I-751. Эти новые правила относятся одинаково к тем, кто подает петицию совместно с американским супругом, и к тем, кто подает сам как вейвер или исключение, например, после развода.

Становится еще более важно подготовить и подать сильный пакет сопроводительных документов, чтобы в соответствии с новыми правилами, у офицера не было необходимости вызывать вас на интервью.

Видео-обзор адвоката с анализом нового меморандума вы можете посмотреть тут.

Putro v. Lynch, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case on July 07, 2016. This case clarified application of a joint filing exemption for an alien seeking to obtain unconditional lawful permanent resident status as a result of her marriage to a U.S. citizen, when applying as a widow after the death of her/his US citizen husband (USCIS Petition I-751).

Vera Putro, a citizen of Latvia, married a U.S. citizen in 2004 and based on that marriage gained conditional permanent residency. Her residency did not become unconditional, however, because her husband passed away before they could petition jointly to remove the conditions. Putro petitioned on her own to have the conditions removed. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services construed the petition as a request for a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirement, denied the waiver, and ordered Putro removed.

Decision: The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided that in fact, Putro did not need a waiver because her husband’s death during the conditional period exempted her from the joint-filing requirement. In mistakenly evaluating her petition as a request for a waiver, the agency erroneously placed on Putro the burden of proving that the marriage was bona fide.

The Court of Appeals granted petition and remanded the case to Immigration Judge for determination under the proper standard. 

Finally, after 8 years the petitioner might have her petition for unconditional permanent resident status approved (it's not approved yet, merely was remanded for another review and decision following the correct standard of proof by the same IJ immigration judge). When the I751 is approved, she will become eligible to apply for USA citizenship as well (because it's been over five years since the grant of her conditional residence in 2006).

********************************
To read in Russian - please scroll down. По-русски смотрите внизу страницы.
*******************************

Facts: Ms. Putro first entered the U.S. on a 4-month, foreign exchange student visa in 1999 and overstayed. In November 2004 she married Michael Zalesky, a U.S. citizen. Putro was granted conditional legal permanent residence (“LPR”) status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen in July 2006, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.1. Four months later, in November, Zalesky died. Zalesky’s untimely death complicated Putro’s immigration status. To gain unconditional LPR status, Putro and Zalesky had to jointly petition the agency for removal of the conditions within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of her obtaining conditional permanent residency (i.e., between mid-April and mid-July of 2008). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(1)(A), (d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(1). Of course filing a joint petition was no longer possible, so in June 2008 Putro filed a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, checking the box specifying that she sought a waiver of the joint-filing requirement because her spouse had died.

USCIS had denied her I-751 petition filed as a waiver for failure to prove a good faith marriage.

She reapplied in Immigration court removal proceedings, and was denied again. The IJ immigration judge denied Putro’s application for the waiver of the joint-filing requirement and concluded that she was removable. The IJ found that Putro had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she and Zalesky had a bona fide marriage. Her testimony and that of her witnesses, he said, was “unpersuasive.” The government, in contrast, had presented “reliable” evidence that family members and Armstrong had told investigators that the marriage was a fraud.

Putro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it upheld the IJ’s ruling and dismissed her appeal.

On petition for review, Putro argued that the IJ had misapplied the standard of proof, and at oral argument we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how this case is affected by the decision in Matter of Rose, and particularly the portion of the decision in which the Board states:
[T]he death of a petitioning spouse during the 2-year conditional period excuses the general requirement that a petition to remove the conditional basis of an alien spouse’s status must be “joint.” Thus, a separate waiver under section 216(c)(4) of the Act is not required if the surviving spouse timely files an I-751 petition requesting removal of the conditional basis of his or her status and appears for a personal interview. 25 I. & N. Dec. 181, 182 (BIA 2010).
We agree with Putro that the IJ mishandled her petition to remove conditions on her status by construing it as a request for a waiver of the joint-filing requirement rather than recognizing that she qualified for an exemption of that requirement. Because Zalesky died within the two-year conditional period and Putro timely petitioned to remove her conditional status, she should have been excused from the joint-filing requirement. Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 182.

This conclusion was applied in the only federal appellate decision (an unpublished one) to address the issue. See Zerrouk v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 553 F. App’x. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing exemption of “joint” filing requirement for alien whose spouse dies within two-year conditional period, but concluding that substantial evidence supported determination that marriage was not bona fide).
Moreover, the discretionary waiver does not even apply to Putro, because that waiver requires that the marriage be “terminated (other than through the death of the spouse).” 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4)(B). That requires divorce or annulment, see Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Director, USCIS, to Directors, I-751 Filed Prior to Termination of Marriage (Apr. 3, 2009). Though Putro separated from her husband before his death, they never divorced, and the marriage was terminated by his death.

The error was significant because it had the effect of shifting the burden of proof that Putro’s marriage to Zalesky was bona fide. Because the IJ thought that Putro needed a waiver, he placed the burden of proof on her and ultimately found that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she had a bona fide marriage. Had the burden of proof properly been applied, the government would have had to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was not bona fide. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 185; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D); cf. Lara v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2015) (noncitizen applying for discretionary waiver of joint filing petition bears burden of proving that marriage at time of inception was bona fide). Moreover, unlike a grant of the waiver—which is discretionary—the agency “shall” remove the conditional basis of the petitioner’s status as long as he or she meets the petitioning requirements and the government cannot disprove that the marriage is bona fide. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186(a)(3)(B).

This case must be remanded to the agency so that the IJ can evaluate her petition under the proper standard of proof. See Matter of Rose, 25 I. & N. Dec., at 184–85. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition and REMAND the case for determination under the proper standard.

Read the text of the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals here. 
Or you can download file here.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D07-07/C:14-2430:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1788032:S:0

Вкратце по-русски:

Вера Путро, гражданка Латвии, приехала в США в 1999 году по летней программе по обмену студентов,  J1 summer work-travel program. Она осталась в США нелегально, и через много лет вышла замуж за американского гражданина. Ее первая условная грин карта была утверждена без особых проблем в 2006. Через 4 месяца после этого ее американский муж умер от передозировки наркотиков. В 2008 Вера подала петицию на постоянную грин карту сама, без участия мужа (так как он к тому времени уже не мог поставить свою подпись по причине своей смерти). По фактам дела не понятно, но скорее всего Вера не проконсультировалась со знающим адвокатом перед подачей петиции, и подавала петицию либо сама, либо при помощи кого-то, кто не является экспертом в этой области права.

В результате, Вера получила отказ от USCIS и ее дело передали на депортацию с иммиграционный суд. 

Судья также приняла решения отказать Вере в виде на жительстве (постоянной грин карте) и приказала ей выехать из США (депортация).

Вера подала аппеляцию в следующую инстанцию, и там тоже получила отказ и указание покинуть страну.

В конце концов через 8 лет после начала этой эпопеи (дело тянется с 2008 г), Аппеляционный Суд 7 Округа США принял решение в пользу Веры. Но это еще не конец пути. Суд передал ее дело на повторное рассмотрение в суд нижестоящей инстанции с указаниями пересмотреть дело еще раз, и принять решение на основании ПРАВИЛЬНОЙ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЗАКОНА. Как оказалось, все предыдущие суды просто напросто неверно трактовали закон и неправильно применяли закон к Вериной ситуации. Вот такая простая ошибка стоила человеку 8 лет ее жизни и многих тысях долларов, потраченных на адвокатов и судебные разбирательства.

В конце концов, если ее петицию утвердят (пока еще только передали на повторное рассмотрение), то Вера сможет сразу же подать заявление на американское гражданство (так как прошло более 5 лет), если она докажет, что соответствует всем требованиям закона о гражданстве.

​Текст судебного решения на английском тут: 

Update from USCIS: If you live in one of the states listed below, USCIS has changed the filing location for Form I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence, as of January 14, 2015, from the Vermont Service Center (VSC) to the California Service Center (CSC): 

-- Louisiana -- New Mexico -- Oklahoma -- South Carolina -- Tennessee -- Texas.

How New Petitions Will Be Affected:

If you are filing a new petition, please refer to the Form I-751 Landing Page on our website, www.uscis.gov,for the current filing locations.  

• Vermont Service Center will continue to accept and work all petitions received at their facility until February 16, 2015 for the states listed above. 

• Vermont Service Center will forward petitions received between February 17, 2015 through March 16, 2015 to the California Service Center for processing. 

• Vermont Service Center will begin rejecting petitions for incorrect jurisdiction received on or after March 17, 2015. 

How Pending Cases Will Be Affected:

The Vermont Service Center will continue to process pending cases that have been received before the filing location changes went into effect for your state of residence. The filing location change will apply only to newly filed petitions. 

How to Track the Status of Your Case:

You can check the status of your case by entering your receipt number in Case Status Online. You can also sign up to receive automatic case status updates by email.

You can ask us about the status of your new or pending case if you do not receive a decision within the published processing time for the California Service Center to process your Form I-751.

You may submit an inquiry using e-Request or call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. For TDD (hearing-impaired) assistance, please call 1-800-767-1833.

If you received a RFE Request for evidence or other notice: 

If you have filed Form I-751 and we send you any notice, such as a request for evidence, please read the notice carefully. Make sure you respond to the service center that sent you the notice.

 If You Move:

If you move while your case is pending, let us know your new address as soon as possible after you move. You can change your address online or call the National Customer Center. It is important that you tell us about any change of address so we can notify you of any action on your case.

See more at http://www.uscis.gov