For more than five years, the Department of Justice has defended a Board of Immigration Appeals policy that restricts which lawful permanent residents (LPRs) can apply for 212(h) waivers—the relief that allows crime-convicted permanent residents to avoid deportation if they prove extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful resident family member. Federal courts across the country are not buying it. To date, six federal courts have rejected the DOJ’s position, and practitioners need to know how this split between the BIA and the courts affects your current removal-defense cases.
What changed
The Department of Justice has defended a policy, announced through a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, that deprives long-term lawful permanent residents of the opportunity to apply for 212(h) waivers. The waiver permits permanent residents convicted of certain crimes to avoid deportation if they can show extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen or lawful resident family member. The BIA policy significantly narrows the group of LPRs eligible for this waiver.
The technical legal issue focuses on a provision in the waiver that excludes individuals admitted to the United States as LPRs who subsequently committed an aggravated felony. The BIA has interpreted this bar to include all LPRs who have committed aggravated felonies, regardless of whether they were LPRs when they entered the United States.
Many LPRs excluded from applying for the waiver have gone to court, and to date, the count is LPRs – 6, DOJ – 0, with the most recent decision coming last month.
Why it matters
This protracted fight over who is eligible for a 212(h) waiver can have real-life consequences for long-term permanent residents. If you represent an LPR facing deportation for a crime, the eligibility question is now outcome-determinative. While immigration judges have been stripped of much of their discretion by mid-1990s statutes, even nonviolent crimes can lead to automatic deportation. Given the limited avenues immigration judges have to ensure the punishment fits the crime, the DOJ’s defense of a rule that limits judicial discretion and, according to six courts, is unlawful, creates uncertainty in practice.
The geographic split is critical: in jurisdictions where federal courts have ruled, the BIA’s restrictive policy is no longer binding, opening the waiver to LPRs the BIA would exclude. In other circuits, practitioners are likely still bound by the narrower BIA rule unless and until a court in that circuit rules otherwise.
Way forward
-
Audit your removal cases. If you have an LPR client in removal proceedings based on a crime conviction and the BIA’s restrictive 212(h) rule would bar them, research whether a federal court in your circuit has already rejected the DOJ’s interpretation. If so, you have a strong basis to argue eligibility before the immigration judge.
-
Preserve federal review. If an immigration judge denies a 212(h) waiver under the BIA’s narrow reading, file a Notice of Appeal to the BIA and—if unsuccessful—petition for review in the federal circuit court. The pattern of six consecutive court victories suggests appellate courts are skeptical of the DOJ’s position.
-
Document hardship thoroughly. The 212(h) waiver requires proof of “extreme hardship” to a qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident family member. Start building that record immediately: medical, financial, educational, and family stability evidence.
-
Monitor circuit splits. This issue will likely reach the Supreme Court or resolve through an updated BIA precedent. Stay informed of developments in your circuit and nationally via AILA updates and case law digests.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-dependent; consult a licensed immigration attorney to evaluate your specific situation and rights. Policy and precedent can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and current case law in your jurisdiction before relying on it in client advice or filing strategy.