1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. embassies and consulates

NATIONAL OFFICE
8757 Georgia Avenue ● Suite 850 ● Silver Spring, MD 20910 ● Tel: 301.565.4800 ● Fax: 301.565.4824 ● Website: www.cliniclegal.org
May 11, 2015
Laura Dawkins,
Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division
USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy
20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20529-2140
Submitted via email to: [email protected]
RE: Revisions to Form I-485, OMB Control # 1615-0023, Docket ID USCIS-2009-0020
Dear Ms. Dawkins,
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. (CLINIC) respectfully submits the following
comments related to proposed revisions to Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status.
CLINIC supports a national network of community-based legal immigration services programs.
This network includes over 260 programs operating out of 397 offices in 46 states, as well as
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. CLINIC’s network employs roughly 1,400 staff,
including attorneys and accredited representatives who, in turn, serve over 300,000 low income
immigrants each year.
As an organization that works closely with both legal service providers and the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), CLINIC appreciates the changes USCIS is
considering for the I-485 form. However, CLINIC urges USCIS to reconsider some of the
proposed changes. Our recommendations are explained below.
Part 1. Information About You
Part 1 #24C. The question asks for the date of final decision on an immigrant visa application.
In almost all cases, the consulate will either approve or “refuse” the application, and give the
applicant the opportunity to submit a waiver or other documentation. If the immigrant visa
application is approved, the applicant will not subsequently seek adjustment of status. In those
cases where the application is refused, the consular decision is still considered pending, or is not
“final.” In other situations, the consulate may question the USCIS’s approval of the underlying
petition, and return the petition to the agency for a subsequent adjudication. Only if the applicant
is denied for a ground of inadmissibility that is unwaivable would the consulate’s decision be
considered final. Therefore, assuming the USCIS wants to know the outcome of the immigrant
visa application, we suggest that it delete the word “final.”
Part 4. Information About Your Marital History
Part 4 #4G. It is unclear why the agecy needs to know where the applicant’s spouse is employed.
This information is not relevant to the applicant’s eligibility to adjust status. We suggest that this
question be deleted.
Part 4 #7. This should start with the words “If yes,” since it assumes the current spouse is a U.S.
citizen.
Part 7. General Eligibility and Inadmissibility Grounds
Part 7 #11. After 11A, consider adding: “If you answered yes, please answer the following:”
Part 7 #12. Health-related grounds of inadmissibility are determined by the designated civil
surgeon, who is empowered to issue a Class A or Class B certification. These decisions are
based on questions asked during the medical exam, and include questions regarding past illegal
drug use. We recommend that you delete this question, given that all health-related questions are
covered in the medical exam. This question is no more appropriate on the I-485 than other
health-related questions concerning infectious diseases, mental disabilities with associated
harmful behavior, or vaccinations.
Part 7 #13. There is no end parenthesis after the word “Forces.”
Part 7 #53. Only current or past receipt of public cash assistance programs can be considered by
the agency in determining whether the applicant is likely to be considered a public charge. See
“Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 Fed. Reg. 28676-88 (May 26,
1999). We suggest that you add the word “cash” between “public” and “assistance.”
Part 7 #57. Only willful and material misrepresentations would trigger potential inadmissibility.
We recommend that you add those two words to the question so that it would read as follows:
Have you EVER willfully lied about, concealed, or misrepresented any material information on
an application or petition to obtain a visa, other documentation required for entry into the United
States, admission to the United States, or any other kind of immigration benefit?
Part 7 #58. Only false claims of citizenship made to gain a benefit under state or federal law
would trigger potential inadmissibility. We recommend that you add that limiting phrase to the
question so it would read as follows: Have you EVER falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen (in
writing or any other way) to gain a benefit under state or federal law?
Part 7 #63 and #65. These two questions ask for the same information. Only one should be
included on the form.
Part 7 #64. This question asks if the applicant has ever entered the United States without being
admitted or paroled. Part 1 #20 asks “In what immigration status did you last enter the United
States? (visitor; student; exchange visitor; temporary worker; parole, without inspection, etc).
The term “admitted or paroled” is a legal term that is unlikely to be understood by the applicant.
Since you have used the word “inspection” earlier to describe a way of entering the United
States, we suggest that you continue to use this term. The question would then read as follows:
Have you ever entered the United States without being inspected?
Part 7 #66. The word “respectively” does not add anything to the meaning of the question and
we suggest you delete it. We suggest that you substitute the word “inspected” in place of
“admitted or paroled” as explained above.
Part 7 #67. We suggest that you substitute the word “inspected” in place of “admitted or
paroled” as explained above.
Finally, we urge you to reconsider the length of the Instruction Booklet. At 117 pages, the
document is overly long and intimidating to potential applicants.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
301-565-4829 or [email protected], with any questions or concerns about our
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Jeanne M. Atkinson
Executive Director