Inadmissibility Waivers: I-601A, I-601 and the I-212

What inadmissibility is, and which grounds can be waived

To receive an immigrant visa at a consulate or to adjust status to permanent residence in the United States, a person must be admissible. The grounds that make someone inadmissible are listed in INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a): health, criminal history, security, public charge, immigration violations such as entry without inspection or misrepresentation, prior removals and unlawful presence, among others. Our article on the grounds of inadmissibility walks through the full list, and the public charge hub covers that ground on its own.

Some grounds can be waived and some cannot. The waivers covered here are:

• Unlawful presence (the 3- and 10-year bars) — INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v), filed on Form I-601 or, before leaving the country, as a provisional waiver on Form I-601A.
• Crimes — INA § 212(h), for crimes involving moral turpitude, multiple convictions, prostitution and a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana, on Form I-601.
• Fraud or willful misrepresentation — INA § 212(i), on Form I-601.
• A prior removal — permission to reapply for admission under INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), on Form I-212.

Other grounds have no waiver at all, or only a very narrow one. A false claim to U.S. citizenship (INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)) is not covered by the § 212(i) waiver, which the statute limits to clause (i); the only relief written into the law is an exception for a person whose parents were citizens, who lived in the United States before age 16 and who reasonably believed they were a citizen. Drug crimes other than one simple-possession offense of 30 grams or less of marijuana cannot be waived under § 212(h). And the permanent bar of § 212(a)(9)(C), explained below, has no waiver except for VAWA self-petitioners.

A waiver also does not solve the separate question of how the person can become a resident. Adjustment of status inside the United States under INA § 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) generally requires that the person was "inspected and admitted or paroled." Someone who entered without inspection usually cannot adjust unless they are protected by INA § 245(i) — a petition or labor certification filed on or before April 30, 2001, with physical presence on December 21, 2000 for filings after January 14, 1998, and a $1,000 payment — and even then they must be admissible. That is why many families use the consular route with a provisional waiver instead. The adjustment of status hub covers the green-card process itself.

The 3- and 10-year bars for unlawful presence

Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i), a person (other than a permanent resident) who was unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one year and then leaves voluntarily before removal proceedings begin is barred from returning for 3 years. A person unlawfully present for one year or more who then leaves or is removed is barred for 10 years. "Unlawful presence" is presence after the authorized stay has expired, or presence without having been admitted or paroled (§ 212(a)(9)(B)(ii)).

Two points are often misunderstood:

• The bar is triggered by leaving. Unlawful presence alone does not create the 3- or 10-year bar; the departure does. That is why a person who must travel to a U.S. consulate for an immigrant visa interview needs a waiver before the trip, and why the provisional waiver exists.
• Some time does not count. Under § 212(a)(9)(B)(iii), no unlawful presence accrues while a person is under 18, while a good-faith asylum application is pending (unless they worked without authorization), while protected under Family Unity, and in certain cases of battered spouses and children and trafficking victims. Under § 212(a)(9)(B)(iv), a timely, non-frivolous request to extend or change status tolls the clock for up to 120 days, for the 3-year bar only.

Advance parole travel after August 13, 2026. For fourteen years, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), held that a trip abroad on advance parole was not a "departure" that triggered the bar. In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), decided August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals overruled Arrabally: "A departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is a 'departure'" under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The Board applied the new rule prospectively, and the USCIS Policy Manual (Vol. 8, Part O) now says that as of August 13, 2026, leaving on an advance parole document is a departure for § 212(a)(9)(B)(i) as a whole. Anyone who has accrued unlawful presence should get advice before travelling on advance parole; the advance parole hub follows this change.

The waiver of the bars is INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v): it is available to the spouse, son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident who shows that the refusal would cause extreme hardship to the citizen or resident spouse or parent. Hardship to the applicant's own children does not count for this waiver. It is discretionary, and the statute says no court has jurisdiction to review the decision. More on the bars themselves: the 3- and 10-year bars explained and the unlawful presence hub.

The permanent bar: § 212(a)(9)(C)

The so-called permanent bar applies to a person who (I) was unlawfully present for an aggregate of more than one year, or (II) was ordered removed, and who then enters or tries to enter without being admitted (INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)). It is the combination — unlawful time or a removal order, then an unlawful return — that triggers it.

• No ordinary waiver. The only exception is for a person seeking admission more than 10 years after the last departure, if DHS consents to the reapplication before the person re-embarks abroad (§ 212(a)(9)(C)(ii)). In Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006), the Board held that this consent is available only after the 10 years outside the United States have passed.
• VAWA self-petitioners may receive a waiver if there is a connection between the abuse and the removal, departure or re-entry (§ 212(a)(9)(C)(iii)); see the VAWA hub.
• Section 245(i) does not help. In Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), the Board held that adjustment under § 245(i) is not available to a person inadmissible under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).

Because the provisional waiver only covers the 3- and 10-year bars, a person subject to the permanent bar cannot use Form I-601A to fix it. The exact dates of every entry and departure decide which bar applies, so they need to be reconstructed from records before anything is filed.

The provisional waiver: Form I-601A

The provisional unlawful presence waiver lets a person apply for the § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver from inside the United States, before leaving for the immigrant visa interview, so the time apart from the family is shorter and the outcome is known in advance. The rules are in 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e), and USCIS alone decides these applications (§ 212.7(e)(1)).

Who can file

• A person who is present in the United States, is at least 17 years old, and has an immigrant visa case pending with the Department of State based on an approved petition (or a diversity visa selection), with the State Department immigrant visa processing fee already paid (§ 212.7(e)(3)–(4)).
• Who, on departure, would be inadmissible only under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i) — that is, only because of the 3- or 10-year bar. Any other ground (a crime, fraud, a prior removal, the permanent bar) needs its own solution.
• Who shows extreme hardship to a U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident spouse or parent. The qualifying relative can be a permanent resident; the provisional waiver is not limited to relatives of citizens.

Who cannot

Under § 212.7(e)(4), a person cannot file if they are in removal proceedings with no final order, unless the proceedings are administratively closed and not recalendared at the time of filing; if they have a final order of removal, unless USCIS has already granted a Form I-212 (see below); if a prior order has been reinstated; or if they have an application for permanent residence pending with USCIS.

Filing, fee and what happens next

The Form I-601A page (edition 01/20/25) directs filers to the USCIS Chicago lockbox and lists the evidence, including the State Department fee receipt and, if applicable, the EOIR administrative closure order. The fee in the USCIS fee schedule (Form G-1055) is $795, paper filing only, with no separate biometrics fee; VAWA self-petitioners and SIJ applicants pay $0. Biometrics are still taken (§ 212.7(e)(6)). The applicant must prove eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and USCIS may deny without first sending a request for evidence (§ 212.7(e)(7)–(8)). There is no administrative appeal and no motion to reopen or reconsider (§ 212.7(e)(11)). USCIS does not publish a fixed wait; in March 2026 the Board noted that the average processing time was approximately 28 months.

An approved I-601A does not take effect until the person leaves the United States, attends the consular interview and is found otherwise admissible (§ 212.7(e)(12)). If the consular officer finds another ground, the provisional waiver is revoked, and the person must file a Form I-601 from abroad (USCIS's provisional waiver page). A provisional waiver is also revoked automatically if the person enters or tries to enter without inspection while it is pending or before it takes effect (§ 212.7(e)(14)). The waiver does not give a work permit or advance parole (§ 212.7(e)(2)). On September 14, 2026, USCIS published a routine notice on the I-601A collection (FR Doc. 2026-18693), with comments due November 13, 2026; a correction four days later (FR Doc. 2026-19138) says it is an extension of the form without change, not a revision.

To have a former U.S. Immigration Judge prepare an I-601A, I-601 or I-212 case, see our immigration waiver lawyer page. For a family-based green card that needs one of these waivers, see our green card lawyer page.

Form I-601 and the extreme hardship standard

Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (edition 01/20/25, fee $1,050 in G-1055, with $0 for several humanitarian categories), is the general waiver form. It is used from abroad after a consular officer finds a person inadmissible, and inside the United States with an adjustment application — including before an immigration judge (8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(a)(1)(ii)). USCIS's page says a person going through consular processing cannot file the I-601 until after the immigrant visa interview.

Most waivers turn on extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. The relatives are set by statute and differ by waiver:

• Unlawful presence, § 212(a)(9)(B)(v), and fraud, § 212(i): the U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident spouse or parent. Not children.
• Crimes, § 212(h)(1)(B): the U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident spouse, parent, son or daughter.

Hardship to the applicant counts only through its effect on the qualifying relative. The USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 9, Part B is the agency's guidance. Chapter 5 groups the factors under family ties, social and cultural impact, economic impact, health conditions and care, and country conditions, and considers both the relative's hardship if they stay apart and if they relocate. It also warns that "common consequences" — family separation, economic loss, readjustment, lower-quality schooling or medical care — do not by themselves amount to extreme hardship; what counts is their combined weight in the individual case. Chapter 5 lists "particularly significant factors" such as a qualifying relative's disability, military service, a State Department travel warning for the country of relocation, or a prior grant of asylum or refugee status, while stating that none creates a presumption. The standard "is not as high as" the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" required for cancellation of removal.

The Board's leading decision is Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999), which lists relevant factors (family ties in the United States and abroad, conditions in the country of relocation, financial impact, and significant health conditions, particularly when suitable care is unavailable). Proving hardship is not the end: in Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996), the Board held that extreme hardship, once shown, is one favorable factor weighed in discretion against the negative ones. Useful evidence includes medical and psychological records, proof of income and debts, school records, country-conditions reports and detailed declarations — each tied to the qualifying relative. Our article on waivers of inadmissibility gives more examples.

The criminal waiver: § 212(h)

INA § 212(h) can waive inadmissibility for a crime involving moral turpitude (§ 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); see our article on crimes involving moral turpitude), multiple convictions with aggregate sentences of five years or more, prostitution, certain offenses where immunity was asserted, and a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. There are three paths:

• § 212(h)(1)(A): the activities occurred more than 15 years before the application (or the ground is prostitution), admission would not be contrary to national welfare, safety or security, and the person has been rehabilitated. No relative is needed.
• § 212(h)(1)(B): extreme hardship to a U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident spouse, parent, son or daughter.
• § 212(h)(1)(C): VAWA self-petitioners.

Limits written into the statute and regulations:

• No waiver for a person convicted of, or who admits acts constituting, murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit them.
• Permanent residents: a person previously admitted as a permanent resident cannot receive the waiver if, since that admission, they were convicted of an aggravated felony or did not lawfully reside continuously for 7 years before removal proceedings began. In Matter of J-H-J-, 26 I&N Dec. 563 (BIA 2015), the Board held that this bar applies only to people who entered as permanent residents, not to those who adjusted status inside the United States.
• Violent or dangerous crimes: under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d), discretion will not be exercised favorably except in extraordinary circumstances, such as national security or foreign policy considerations, or where denial would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship — and even then it may not be enough given the gravity of the offense.
• No court review of the decision to grant or deny the waiver (§ 212(h)).

The Board decided several § 212(h) cases in 2026. In Matter of Best, 29 I&N Dec. 723 (BIA 2026) (May 7, 2026), it held that the emotional and financial difficulties the family would face did not amount to extreme hardship and reversed an immigration judge's grant because a serious criminal history outweighed the equities. In Matter of Mendez Maldonado, 30 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2026) (September 22, 2026), it held that a person's own admission to possessing and using cocaine makes them inadmissible even without a conviction — a drug ground § 212(h) cannot waive. And in Matter of A-V-O-, 30 I&N Dec. 44 (BIA 2026) (September 17, 2026), it held that a person convicted of an aggravated felony is inadmissible under § 212(a)(8)(A) as ineligible to citizenship, a ground outside § 212(h); the Board applied that rule only to guilty or no-contest pleas and verdicts entered after September 17, 2026. Before any plea, the immigration consequences should be checked.

To have a former immigration judge handle the immigration side of a criminal record or a pending criminal case, alongside your criminal defense lawyer, see our criminal immigration lawyer page.

The fraud waiver: § 212(i)

A person who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, sought or obtained a visa, admission or another immigration benefit is inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i). INA § 212(i) allows a waiver for the spouse, son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident if refusal would cause extreme hardship to the citizen or resident spouse or parent. As with the unlawful-presence waiver, hardship to the applicant's children does not count, except for VAWA self-petitioners, whose own hardship or that of a citizen, resident or qualified parent or child counts. It is discretionary and not reviewable in court (§ 212(i)(2)). In Cervantes-Gonzalez, the Board allowed the underlying fraud to be weighed as a negative factor in discretion.

The § 212(i) waiver does not cover a false claim to U.S. citizenship under § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) — for example, checking the "citizen" box on an employment form. That ground has no waiver, only the narrow statutory exception for a person with citizen parents who lived here before 16 and reasonably believed they were a citizen. Whether a past statement was a misrepresentation, material, willful, or a claim to citizenship is a legal question that often decides the whole case.

Form I-212: permission to reapply after a removal

A person who was removed, or who left while a removal order was outstanding, is inadmissible for a period under INA § 212(a)(9)(A): 5 years after removal at arrival or through expedited removal, 10 years after an order from an immigration judge or departure under an outstanding order, 20 years after a second or later removal, and at any time for a person convicted of an aggravated felony. The exception is DHS's consent to reapply for admission before the person re-embarks (§ 212(a)(9)(A)(iii)), requested on Form I-212 (edition 01/20/25, fee $1,175 in G-1055). The rules are in 8 C.F.R. § 212.2.

• With an adjustment application, the I-212 is filed together with it; if the adjustment is before an immigration judge, USCIS refers the I-212 to the judge (§ 212.2(e)).
• Before leaving the United States with a final order, a person whose departure will execute the order can receive a conditional approval that depends on the departure (§ 212.2(j)). This matters for the provisional waiver: a person with a final order cannot file an I-601A unless USCIS has already granted the I-212 (8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iv)).
• The I-212 does not cure the permanent bar. If the person also re-entered unlawfully after the removal, § 212(a)(9)(C) applies, and consent is only possible after 10 years outside the country (Torres-Garcia).

USCIS's I-212 page says filers in removal proceedings should follow the special filing instructions from the immigration court, and that some filers with U.S. Customs and Border Protection can file electronically.

Waivers in immigration court

When a person is in removal proceedings (other than as an arriving alien), the immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over adjustment of status (8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(i)), and a person who is inadmissible may ask the judge for the waiver (8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)). A § 212(h) or § 212(i) waiver sought with adjustment is filed on Form I-601 with the immigration judge (8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(a)(1)(ii)), and the judge hears testimony and weighs the evidence of hardship and discretion. If the judge denies, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals — but the statute bars federal-court review of the waiver decision itself. Waivers are one part of removal defense, alongside relief such as asylum and cancellation of removal.

The provisional waiver is different. USCIS alone decides the I-601A, and a person in proceedings can file it only if the case is administratively closed (§ 212.7(e)(4)(iii)). In 2026 that route narrowed:

• On June 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 7:26-cv-00070, entered a consent judgment vacating EOIR's 2024 administrative closure rule (89 FR 46742) and enjoining its enforcement. The text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(c) still appears in the eCFR. Proposed intervenors have appealed, and whether judges may still close cases on another basis is not settled in official sources as of September 27, 2026.
• In Matter of Medina Madrid, 29 I&N Dec. 514 (BIA 2026) (March 13, 2026), the Board held that where a case had been administratively closed for over 13 years, continued closure was not warranted based on the person's intention to apply for a provisional waiver, and ordered the case recalendared. The Board noted that a person with a final order can file an I-601A once USCIS approves an I-212.

So a person in court who hopes to use the I-601A may face a choice among the paths described above — adjustment with a waiver before the judge where eligible, other relief, or a plan that involves a final order, an approved I-212 and then the provisional waiver — and each has risks that depend on the entry history and the court's calendar. If the case ends in an order and the person later has new eligibility, a motion to reopen may be the way back into court. For detained cases, see the immigration detention guide; the immigration courts directory lists every court.

Carlos Maury, a former U.S. Immigration Judge, leads Carlos Maury Law; to talk about a waiver or an inadmissibility problem, call (213) 769-0050. We speak Spanish.