I.    ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

 A.      The Meaning of "Admission"

 B.      Admission vs. Entry

 C.      Re-Entry of Permanent Residents

II.   GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY

 A.      Health-Related Grounds

 B.      Criminal and Related Grounds

(a)     Crimes of Moral Turpitude

   (i)      Exceptions And Waivers of the Criminal Grounds

 C.      Security and Related Grounds

 D.      Inadmissibility for Violations of Immigration Law or Procedure

(a)     Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators

(b)     Previous Removal and Unlawful Presence

 E.      The Public Charge Ground

 F.      Other Grounds of Inadmissibility

(a)     Labor Certification

(b)     Documentation Requirements

(c)     Persons Ineligible for Citizenship

(d)     Miscellaneous

 G.      False claim to U.S. Citizenship

III.  REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

  A.      General Considerations

IV. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL (DEPORTABILITY)

A.      Inadmissibility at Entry and Status Violations

B.      Criminal Grounds

(a)     Crimes of Moral Turpitude

(b)     Aggravated Felonies

(c)     Other Criminal Grounds

   (i)      Avoiding the Immigration Consequences of Crimes

C.      Registration Requirements

D.      National Security Grounds

E.      Other Removal Grounds

(page 1 of 8)

I.  ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

As discussed in the preceding chapters, non-citizens who wish to come to the United States must satisfy the specific eligibility criteria for one of the immigrant preference categories or nonimmigrant classifications. Having satisfied these criteria, however, non-citizens may still be denied admission to the United States if any of a number of general grounds for "inadmissibility" apply to them. Further, non-citizens who have been lawfully admitted to the U.S. may be forced to leave based on one of the many grounds for "removal" (commonly called "deportation"). This chapter describes the grounds for inadmissibility and removal.

Non-citizens within the United States who are charged with either inadmissibility or removability have their right to remain in the U.S. determined in a "removal hearing." Non-citizens who are deemed inadmissible when attempting to enter the U.S. are subject to "expedited removal" and can be removed without a hearing unless they have a credible claim to asylum. These proceedings, and forms of relief from removal, are described in chapter nine.

Grounds for inadmissibility and removal apply only to non-citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be barred from entering the United States or forced to leave the country against their will. Removal proceedings may only be commenced against a naturalized citizen after the successful completion of denaturalization proceedings to remove the individual's U.S. citizenship. See § 12-3, infra.

A.  The Meaning of "Admission"

Grounds of inadmissibility apply only to non-citizens seeking admission to the United States. The phrase "seeking admission" encompasses more than attempting to obtain a visa or cross a border. Admission means lawful entry into the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. INA § 101(a)(13). Non-citizens are deemed applicants for admission when they arrive at a port of entry to the United States and also when they are present in the U.S. but have not been lawfully admitted. INA § 235(a). Consequently, non-citizens who have lived in the U.S. for many years can be considered "inadmissible" if they evaded inspection when they entered the country. INA § 212(a)(6). The same individuals could also be considered removable for being present in the U.S. in violation of the law. INA § 237(a)(1).

Nonimmigrants applying to adjust to permanent resident status are also considered to be seeking admission and are therefore subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. INA § 245. Consequently, persons lawfully admitted to the U.S. as nonimmigrants could become inadmissible for permanent residence based on acts committed while in the U.S. and could be subject to removal if they apply to adjust status. INA § 237(a)(1). Because the grounds for inadmissibility and removal are different, the same individuals might not be removable if they remain nonimmigrants.

Admissibility is also an issue for individuals seeking naturalization as U.S. citizens, because one of the requirements for naturalization is that the applicant was lawfully admitted to permanent residence. INA § 316. If the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services determines that an applicant for naturalization was inadmissible at the time he or she became a permanent resident, it will not only deny citizenship but will also initiate removal proceedings. Frequently, a person's inadmissibility only comes to the attention of immigration authorities when he or she applies for one of these immigration benefits.

Non-citizen crew members and persons who are paroled into the U.S. for humanitarian reasons, although lawfully present in the country, are not considered admitted. INA § 101(a)(13)(B). In removal proceedings, they are accorded the same status as inadmissible persons.

B.  Admission vs. Entry

Before enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, the event that determined a person's status with respect to removal was not admission, but "entry." Entry refers to physically crossing into United States territory, free from restraint. Entry may be achieved after being inspected and authorized by an immigration officer, or by evading inspection, but physical presence as a result of parole does not constitute entry. See, e.g., Matter of Pierre (BIA 1973). Under pre-IIRIRA law, individuals who had not yet entered the U.S. were subject to "exclusion" hearings. Those persons who had entered the country, with inspection or without, were subject to "deportation" hearings and were entitled to rights not available in exclusion hearings. Pre-IIRIRA law recognized that some persons may have remained in the U.S. after having entered and thus were entitled to the greater procedural rights offered in a deportation hearing. It was not always easy, however, to determine whether an individual had successfully evaded inspection and thus become free of restraint. Also, basing the distinction between deportation and exclusion on entry actually encouraged non-citizens to evade inspection, so that they would obtain the greater rights available in deportation proceedings. The IIRIRA removed this rather perverse incentive by changing the focus from entry to admission and consolidating the removal procedures, but it retained separate grounds for exclusion (inadmissibility) and deportation (removal).

Although the IIRIRA diminished the significance of entry, it is still an important concept in immigration law and many of the grounds for inadmissibility and removal still refer to it. See, e.g., INA §§ 212(a)(3) (entering to engage in terrorist activity), 212(a)(5)(A)(I) (entering to perform labor), INA § 237(a)(1)(A) (inadmissibility at entry), and § 237 (a)(1)(A) (smuggling aliens within five years of entry). The criminal provisions of the INA also continue to make entry an essential element of various offenses.

C.  Re-Entry of Permanent Residents

The question of whether permanent residents returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad should be subject to grounds of inadmissibility has been disputed for many years. In United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith (Sup.Ct.1933), the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of a non-citizen who, after 24 years of residence in the U.S. following a lawful entry, was held to be inadmissible on his return from a brief visit to Cuba. The Court's restrictive view concluded that "entry" included any coming of a non-citizen from a foreign country whether such coming was the person's first entry or not. The Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti (Sup.Ct.1963) departed from this rigid application, recognizing that a person does not make an "entry" upon his return to the United States where he had no intent to leave, or did not in fact leave the country voluntarily. Hence, permanent residents would not be subject to the conditions of an entry after making a brief, innocent, and casual trip outside the United States.

In its new definition of "admission," the IIRIRA incorporated and expanded upon the Fleuti doctrine. Now, permanent residents will not be regarded as seeking admission (and thus are not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility) unless they (1) have abandoned or relinquished their permanent resident status, (2) have been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days, (3) have engaged in illegal activity after their departure from the U.S., (4) have departed from the U.S. while in removal or extradition proceedings, (5) have committed a criminal or related offense identified in section 212(a)(2) (including "crimes of moral turpitude", drug trafficking, or prostitution), or (6) are attempting to enter at a place other than a designated port of entry or have not been admitted to the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. INA § 101(a)(13)(C).

Although this definition made it clear that permanent residents are automatically admitted to the U.S. if none of these circumstances apply, it left open the question of whether the converse is true: must permanent residents who fall within one of the listed categories be considered applicants for admission after any departure from the U.S.? In Matter of Collado-Munoz (BIA 1997), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that the new definition of admission had entirely replaced the Fleuti doctrine and that permanent residents who fall within these categories would be subject to the grounds of inadmissibility even if they made only a brief, casual, and innocent visit outside the U.S. At least one district court disagreed: in Richardson v. Reno (S.D. Fla. 1998), the court held that permanent residents who fall into one of these categories must still be admitted if their departure was brief, casual, and innocent. That decision was subsequently reversed on other grounds. Some relatively minor crimes that are grounds for either removal or inadmissibility might not come to the attention of immigration authorities until a permanent resident returns to the U.S. after traveling abroad, at which time he or she could be denied entry. Permanent residents who have criminal records should therefore exercise caution in making any trip abroad, seeking new immigration benefits, or applying for citizenship.

(page 1 of 8)

Print This Page