Basic HTML Version

|  | Table of Contents |  | View Full Version

Page 36 - The Indian EYE 031326
P. 36

    IMMIGRATION                                                            MARCH 13, 2026      |  The Indian Eye 36

                        Board of Immigration

                    Appeals Limits Scope of

               Entry Fraud Waiver under

                                INA 237(a)(1)(H)

            BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND      States after inspection and   children by another woman
                                       authorization by an immi-   during his marriage to the
            KAITLYN BOX*
                                       gration  officer.  Mr.  Fortjoe   U.S. citizen spouse. In 2012
                                       was a citizen of Ghana who   he applied for naturalization
                   n February 26, 2026,   was admitted to the United   and disclosed the two chil-
                   in Matter of Fort-
            Ojoe, the BIA held         States as a nonimmigrant in   dren born outside of his mar-
                                       1995, and later entered into
                                                                   riage. USCIS denied his nat-
            that “’admission’ in section   a fraudulent marriage with a   uralization application and
            237(a)(1)(H) of the INA,   U.S. citizen. In a 2007 visa in-  DHS initiated removal pro-
            8  U.S.C.  §  1227(a)(1)(H),   terview, he failed to disclose   ceedings  pursuant  to  INA
            refers only to an alien’s law-  that he had fathered two   237(a)(1)(A), which renders
            ful entry into the United
                                                                     a noncitizen “who at the
                                                                      time of entry or adjust-
                                                                      ment of status was with-
                                                                      in one or more of the
                                                                      classes  of  aliens  inad-
                                                                      missible by the law exist-
                                                                      ing at such time” remov-
                                                                      able. Mr. Fortjoe sought
                                                                      a waiver of inadmissi-
                                                                      bility pursuant to INA
                                                                      237(a)(1)(H),  which  is
                                                                      available to noncitizens
                                                                      who are in removal pro-
                                                                      ceedings, are the spouse,
                                                                      parent, or child of a U.S.
                                                                      citizen or LPR, and are
                                                                      admissible to the U.S.
                                                                      aside from the fraud or
                                                                      misrepresentation, but
                                                                      the Immigration Judge
                                                                      denied  the  waiver  on
                                                                      discretionary grounds.
                         m of                                             In 2015, in Matter   “the plain and natural mean-  ‘admission’ appears to have
              CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC                          of Agour, the BIA had   ing of the language of section   been merely a conforming
                                                                                                                         amendment, rather than one
                                                                                              237(a)(1)(H) limits the waiv-
                                                                      previously held that “ad-
                                                                                                 justment of status con-  er to fraud or misrepresenta-  intended to have a substan-

                 stitutes an ‘admission’   tion at the time of an alien’s   tive effect”, and that Con-
                                                                      for purposes of deter-  lawful entry into the United   gress did not make a cor-

                        mining an alien’s eligi-  States after inspection and   responding  change  to  INA
                                                                      bility to apply for a waiv-  authorization by an immigra-  237(a)(1)(A), which renders

                                                                      er” under INA 237(a)    tion  officer.”  The  BIA  also   noncitizens who were inad-
                                                                      (1)(H). In Matter of    examined the statutory his-  missible “at the time of entry
                                                                      Fortjoe, the BIA over-  tory  of  this  provision,  find-  or adjustment of status” re-
              2              6th Floor                                ruled Matter of Agour.   ing that Congress’ “change   movable.
                                                                      The BIA reasoned that   in language from ‘entry’ to     In overruling Matter

                                                                   www.TheIndianEYE.com

| 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 |