The USCIS has implemented a new, rigorous policy regarding the adjustment of status linked to green card applications, placing significant emphasis on tax compliance
A coalition of immigration advocacy organisations, unions and individual applicants filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS in a district court in Massachusetts on Oct 5. Because it’s under extension, or you are making partial payments under a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the state, that can now result in denial of a green card application, one of these is where the applicant or sponsoring US citizen owes back taxes: if you haven’t filed a return yet.
It is best if you can do so before filing the application, but definitely before the interview,” she said. “Timely payment of taxes is also a ‘good moral character’ factor when applying for naturalisation,” she said. A policy memorandum issued by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). in May has reframed adjustment of status (AOS), which is the process through which eligible foreign nationals already in the US apply for permanent residence – it is now treated as a ‘discretionary benefit’. The policy calls for USCIS officers to weigh positive and negative factors in deciding whether an applicant merits approval. Unpaid taxes, unfiled returns and even partial payments under an agreed tax repayment plan could complicate an immigrant’s application for a green card, immigration lawyers are warning. The implications could extend to both family-based and employment-based green-card applicants, as well as US citizens sponsoring relatives. “As the policy memo reframes AOS as a rare discretionary benefit, USCIS officers have been routinely denying cases in situations that used to be acceptable. Get your house in order, file the tax return and pay the balance owed. Wolman also underlines the connection between tax compliance and naturalisation. The tougher approach to adjustment of status is currently facing a legal challenge. The lawsuit states that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due-process protections. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to block their implementation while the case is heard. As of date, the case remains pending, with no court order blocking the policies.