Adjustment of Status Raised as a Defense to Removal
Once a removal case is filed, an application for permanent residence usually stops being a benefits application and becomes a defense. The judge takes exclusive jurisdiction over it, but not over the petition it depends on.
The rule in short
For most people placed in removal proceedings, the immigration judge acquires exclusive jurisdiction over any adjustment of status application. The underlying visa petition stays with the benefits agency, which splits a single family case across two forums and drives most of the continuance practice in adjustment cases. Arriving noncitizens are treated differently, and no relief of this kind may be granted until security and identity checks have been reported complete.
A person in removal proceedings who is eligible for permanent residence does not apply for it in the ordinary way. Jurisdiction shifts. The application becomes a defense presented to an immigration judge, filed against a court deadline, and decided in the same hearing that decides whether the person is removable at all.
Where jurisdiction sits
The regulation is direct. In the case of any person placed in deportation or removal proceedings, other than as an arriving noncitizen, the immigration judge hearing the proceeding has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any adjustment application that person may file.
Exclusive means what it says. Once the charging document is filed with the court, the benefits agency does not decide the application, and a pending application there is renewed before the judge rather than continued where it was. The filing is rebuilt: the form, the fee, the supporting documents and an index, submitted to the court under its own filing rules.
What does not move is the petition. A relative petition, an employment petition and the visa number system all remain with the benefits agency and the visa office. The judge cannot approve a petition, cannot expedite one, and cannot grant adjustment before one is approved.
The split that causes the delay
That division is the single largest source of scheduling difficulty in adjustment cases. The judge controls the calendar; another agency controls the document the case depends on. The result is a case that is ready in every respect except the one that matters.
The usual response is a continuance, granted for good cause, and the factors that apply are described in continuances, good cause and waiting on another agency. A judge weighing the request looks at how likely the petition is to be approved, what has already been filed, whether the parties agree, and how long the case has been running.
Where the wait is long and the outcome reasonably certain, the alternative is to ask that the case come off the active calendar entirely, or to seek an ending of the proceedings, both of which are compared in dismissal without prejudice and termination of proceedings.
| Decision | Who makes it | Effect on the removal case |
|---|---|---|
| Approval of the visa petition | The benefits agency | None directly; it makes the application viable |
| Availability of an immigrant visa number | The visa allocation system | Controls when the application can be properly filed |
| Adjudication of the adjustment application | The immigration judge | Grant ends the case with residence; denial produces an order |
| Waiver of a ground of inadmissibility | The immigration judge, where within that authority | Filed with the application, decided together |
| Identity and security check results | The government's own agencies | No grant is possible until they are reported complete |
Arriving noncitizens
The exclusive jurisdiction rule carves out arriving noncitizens, and for them the judge generally has no jurisdiction over adjustment at all. Four conditions must all be met before an exception applies: the application was properly filed with the benefits agency while the person was in the United States; the person departed and returned under a grant of advance parole to pursue that filed application; the agency denied the application; and the person was placed in proceedings either on that return or after the denial.
Outside those four conditions, an arriving person's adjustment application stays with the benefits agency even though a removal case is pending. This produces the awkward situation of a case moving toward an order in one forum while the application that would end it is decided in another.
An immigrant visa must be immediately available for an adjustment application to be properly filed. Where approval of a pending petition would make a visa immediately available, the application can be filed concurrently with or after the petition. Where the category is backlogged, no amount of preparation makes the filing proper, and a court deadline to file relief applications cannot be met by lodging one that is premature.
What the judge must tell you
The regulation governing ancillary applications requires the judge to inform a person of apparent eligibility to apply for relief and to afford an opportunity to apply during the hearing. That advisory is a real protection, and its absence is a recognized ground of complaint on appeal.
It is not a substitute for preparation. The advisory is given on the face of the record before the judge, so eligibility that depends on facts not yet in the record will not prompt it. Someone who has been present for many years, has a citizen spouse and has never mentioned either will not be advised of anything.
Eligibility also has to survive the statutory bars, which sit outside the petition entirely. Working without authorization, failing to maintain lawful status, and entering without inspection each block adjustment for most categories, with an exception for immediate relatives of citizens that covers the first two. A separate grandfathering provision preserves eligibility for people covered by a qualifying filing made before the statutory cutoff, on payment of a penalty sum.
Those bars decide more adjustment cases than the merits do. Establishing that a person was inspected and admitted or paroled, and identifying which exception applies, is the first analysis rather than the last.
The check that holds up every grant
A separate regulation applies to nearly all relief that permits a person to reside in the United States, including adjustment, waivers, cancellation and asylum. It requires identity, law enforcement and security investigations to be completed before the application is adjudicated, and it states that in no case may a judge grant covered relief until the government has reported that the appropriate investigations are complete and current and has reported any relevant information from them.
If those checks are not reported complete by the scheduled hearing, the judge may continue the case for their completion or hear the merits and reserve the decision. Missing a biometrics appointment is therefore not a minor administrative slip: it can stall a case that is otherwise ready, sometimes for months.
Where a criminal record sits behind the checks, the classification of the conviction usually decides whether the application exists at all, an analysis run through the categorical approach. Where a ground of inadmissibility is established and a waiver is the only route through it, the available waivers are set out in waivers that forgive a criminal ground. Coordinating a petition with one agency, an application with the court and a waiver alongside it is precisely the work an adjustment defense attorney does before the first filing deadline rather than after it.
Points to carry away
- The immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over an adjustment application once proceedings have commenced.
- The visa petition on which adjustment depends remains with the benefits agency, not the court.
- An arriving noncitizen cannot generally file adjustment before the judge, with narrow listed exceptions.
- An immigrant visa must be immediately available for an adjustment application to be properly filed.
- No covered relief may be granted until the government reports that identity and security checks are complete and current.
Questions readers ask
What happens to an application already pending with the benefits agency?
Filing of the charging document with the court moves jurisdiction, so the pending application generally cannot be adjudicated by the agency and is renewed before the immigration judge instead. The practical steps are to file the application with the court, pay the required fee to the correct office, and attend a biometrics appointment scheduled by the government. Documents already submitted do not transfer automatically; the filing before the court is assembled again from scratch, with a fresh index and fresh supporting evidence.
Can adjustment be pursued while a spouse's petition is still pending?
The application cannot be granted until the petition is approved and a visa number is immediately available, so a case with an unapproved petition is a case waiting on another agency. The usual mechanism is a continuance, sought on a showing of good cause, or in some circumstances a motion asking the judge to take the case off the active calendar. Whether either is granted depends on the likelihood the petition will be approved and on how far the case has otherwise progressed.
Does a denial by the judge end the possibility of a green card?
Not necessarily. A denial can be appealed, and where the reason for the denial is a ground of inadmissibility a waiver may be available and can be filed with the application rather than after it. What a denial does end is the ability to make the same argument again on the same facts. Where a fresh basis arises later, the route back is a motion, and the time and numerical limits on motions are strict.
Sources
- 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2 — ApplicationGives the immigration judge exclusive jurisdiction and sets the exceptions for arriving noncitizens.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1255 — Adjustment of statusSets the eligibility requirements and the statutory bars to adjustment.
- 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11 — Ancillary matters, applicationsRequires the judge to advise about apparent eligibility and governs applications made during the hearing.
- 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 — Identity, law enforcement, or security investigationsBars a grant of covered relief until the government reports the checks complete and current.
- USCIS Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust StatusThe application form and its instructions, used whether filed with the agency or the court.
- USCIS Form I-130, Petition for Alien RelativeThe petition that remains with the benefits agency even after proceedings have commenced.
Metro Law Advisors is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in Removal Defense
Calling an Expert Witness in Immigration Court
There is no formal admissibility test for expert testimony in immigration court, so the judge decides qualification and weight in the same breath. The written report filed before the hearing does most of the work: it establishes qualifications, states the materials reviewed, sets out the methodology and connects the opinion to the individual applicant. Filing deadlines are enforced, and an expert not listed by the deadline may not be heard.
Proving Hardship to a Qualifying Relative
Cancellation of removal for a non-permanent resident requires exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child. The list of qualifying relatives is closed, hardship to the applicant does not count, and the standard demands hardship substantially beyond what ordinarily follows from removal. The record must address both the relative staying behind and the relative leaving, because the judge considers each possibility.
Reopening for Ineffective Assistance and the Notice It Requires
A motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance is expected to include a detailed affidavit setting out what was agreed with the former representative and what was represented, evidence that the former representative was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond, and a statement whether a disciplinary complaint has been filed and if not why not. Prejudice must also be shown, and the ordinary ninety-day limit still applies.