According to 8 C.F.R 1.1, the term arriving alien means “an applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien seeking transit through the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien interdicted in international or United States waters and brought into the United States by any means, whether or not to a designated port-of-entry. An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.” Under the current regulations, the USCIS can adjudicate an adjustment of status application of a parolee with a final order. Under the amended jurisdictional provisions of the interim regulations, USCIS has been given jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of all arriving aliens regardless of whether they are in removal proceedings, with a limited exception for certain advance parolees not relevant to this practice advisory. Specifically, the amended regulations grant USCIS “jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). The regulations strip an immigration judge of jurisdiction over the adjustment application of an “arriving alien” in proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Consequently, since the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction over such applications, USCIS does, in accord with this regulation. See also 92 Fed. Reg. at 27587 (explaining that one purpose of the amendments to the regulations is to make clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in proceedings).
The main issue in Freire case is whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Freire’s Motion for Remand or Continuance while he sought adjustment of status before the USCIS. The Second Circuit held that although IJs and the BIA do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate most arriving aliens’ applications for adjustment of status, it does not prevent IJs or the BIA from adjudicating motions for continuance in removal proceedings over which they already have jurisdiction. Though the Second Circuit finds no reason why the request was not granted, it remanded the case to the BIA to at least provide adequate reasons for their refusal. The Second Circuit vacated the decision, and the case is remanded to the BIA.
If you have any questions, please fill out the free consultation form below, and we will respond as soon as possible privately.