The permanent bar can apply when a person entered or attempted to enter the United States without admission after accumulating more than one year of unlawful presence in the aggregate, or after being ordered removed. Unlike the ordinary three-year, ten-year, and prior-removal bars, this ground does not automatically disappear when a fixed period ends. The entry history, removal record, unlawful-presence calculation, attempted-entry evidence, last departure, exceptions, and available statutory relief must be examined before any visa or adjustment filing.
Nationwide and international immigration representation through Messersmith Law Firm, P.A.
INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) addresses a person who accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence in the aggregate, departed, and later entered or attempted to enter the United States without being admitted.
INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) separately addresses a person who was ordered removed under expedited removal, regular removal proceedings, or another provision of law and later entered or attempted to enter without being admitted. The second trigger does not require one year of unlawful presence.
A person may satisfy one clause, both clauses, or neither.
The person accumulated more than one year of qualifying unlawful presence, whether during one stay or multiple stays, then departed and later entered or attempted entry without admission.
The person was ordered removed and later entered or attempted entry without admission. No minimum unlawful-presence period is required for this clause.
INA §212(a)(9)(C) was enacted through IIRIRA and became effective on April 1, 1997. A later unlawful entry or attempted entry occurring before that effective date generally does not trigger the provision. The dates of prior unlawful presence, removal, departure, and reentry must be separated.
For clause (I), unlawful presence used in the aggregate calculation generally concerns periods recognized under the post-IIRIRA unlawful-presence framework. Time before April 1, 1997, should not be casually included without a precise statutory and precedential analysis.
Unlike INA §212(a)(9)(B), which generally evaluates the three-year or ten-year threshold within one stay, §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) expressly uses aggregate unlawful presence. Separate periods can therefore be combined to determine whether the total exceeds one full year before the later unlawful entry or attempt.
The calculation must still exclude noncountable time, including periods before age eighteen and recognized periods of authorized stay. Each period should be documented separately before the totals are added.
A permanent-bar calculation should start with the same careful date analysis used for unlawful-presence cases, while recognizing that §212(a)(9)(C) is a separate ground.
Time before the eighteenth birthday generally is excluded from the unlawful- presence total.
Valid parole, pending adjustment, deferred action, TPS, and qualifying pending filings may prevent accrual during the protected period.
D/S cases require analysis of formal status findings, agency decisions, SEVIS events, and the policy governing the relevant dates.
Bona fide asylum and other statutory protections can affect whether particular days qualify as unlawful presence, subject to their own limitations.
Timely, nonfrivolous filings and unauthorized-employment rules may alter the period that counts.
Time and conduct before April 1, 1997, require effective-date analysis and should not be automatically included.
Both clauses require a later entry or attempted entry without admission. Entry without inspection commonly satisfies the entry element. An attempted border crossing, use of concealed transportation, or presentation at a port under circumstances that do not result in admission may support the attempted-entry element.
The government must still prove the identity of the person, the chronology, the prior unlawful presence or removal, and the later entry or attempt. A vague border notation, mistaken identity, uncorroborated agent summary, voluntary return, or abandoned plan may require closer factual and legal analysis.
The inspection record and legal character of the return may decide the case.
A person inspected and authorized to enter may have been admitted even if the admission was legally defective or procured through fraud. Separate §212(a)(6)(C)(i) and removability issues may arise.
Parole is not an admission. Whether a return on parole triggers §212(a)(9)(C) requires careful statutory and precedential analysis of the phrase “without being admitted,” the particular parole, and the person’s history.
Crossing without inspection and authorization ordinarily constitutes entry without admission and can satisfy the later-entry element.
A return involving false identity, fraudulent documents, or a false claim to citizenship may create separate grounds even when the procedural-admission issue requires additional analysis.
Clause (II) includes removal under expedited-removal procedures, regular removal proceedings, or another provision of law. The person need not have accumulated one year of unlawful presence. The order must precede the later entry or attempted entry without admission.
The order may be an expedited removal issued by CBP, an immigration judge’s final removal order, an executed deportation or exclusion order treated under current law, or another qualifying order. Reinstatement can create additional enforcement and procedural consequences.
Matter of Torres-Garcia holds that a person who reentered the United States without admission after removal was inadmissible under §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) even though the person had received permission to reapply before the unlawful reentry.
Permission to seek admission is not permission to enter without inspection. The person must still apply for and obtain lawful admission through the proper process.
The ordinary consent provision becomes available only after more than ten years have elapsed since the person’s last departure from the United States. The person must complete the period outside the country before filing the standard request for permission to reapply.
A return to the United States during the period can establish a new last departure date and can also create additional permanent-bar, reinstatement, criminal, fraud, or prior-removal issues. The calculation must use the actual last departure after all relevant unlawful entries and stays.
After satisfying the statutory prerequisite, the applicant must still obtain a favorable discretionary decision.
Submit passports, travel records, residence documents, employment, taxes, education, leases, government records, and other evidence covering the entire period.
Explain the unlawful presence, removals, entries, attempts, departures, identity records, prior applications, and any inconsistent statements.
Document rehabilitation, family unity, humanitarian needs, employment, lawful conduct, community contribution, hardship, and the absence of recurrence.
Approval has little practical value if fraud, false claim, criminal, smuggling, medical, or another unwaived ground still prevents admission.
The conditional procedure used in some §212(a)(9)(A) cases does not eliminate the §212(a)(9)(C)(ii) requirement that more than ten years pass after the last departure. The ordinary permanent-bar applicant generally cannot obtain effective advance consent while remaining in the United States.
Matter of Briones holds that a person inadmissible under §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) cannot use grandfathering under INA §245(i) to adjust status despite the permanent bar. Matter of Diaz and Lopez reaffirmed that §245(i) does not cure inadmissibility under either clause of §212(a)(9)(C)(i).
A pending or approved family or employment petition, old labor certification, priority date, marriage to a U.S. citizen, or payment of the §245(i) penalty does not itself waive the permanent bar. The applicant must identify a separate statutory exception or waiver authority.
INA §212(a)(9)(C)(iii) provides special relief for a qualifying VAWA self-petitioner who establishes a connection between battery or extreme cruelty and the person’s removal, departure, reentry or attempted reentry, or other conduct creating inadmissibility under §212(a)(9)(C).
The filing should not rely only on VAWA approval. It should identify the precise permanent-bar trigger and explain how coercion, threats, isolation, document confiscation, financial control, family separation, or immigration-related abuse caused or materially contributed to the relevant conduct.
The ordinary ten-years-outside rule should not be assumed to govern every humanitarian or special adjustment category.
INA §212(d)(13) and the T classification’s adjustment provisions may authorize broad waivers connected to trafficking, subject to statutory exclusions, connection requirements, and discretion.
INA §212(d)(14) and U adjustment provisions provide broad discretionary waiver authority for qualifying crime victims, subject to the statutory framework.
INA §209(c) permits waiver of many inadmissibility grounds for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or public interest, subject to the grounds Congress excluded.
SIJ adjustment contains specialized inadmissibility and waiver provisions that may differ from ordinary family-based adjustment.
INA §212(d)(3)(A) may permit temporary nonimmigrant travel despite the permanent bar after discretionary review.
NACARA, registry, military, TPS, legalization, and other classifications may present specialized issues but should not be assumed to waive §212(a)(9)(C) without specific statutory authority.
A person subject to §212(a)(9)(C) may be considered for a discretionary nonimmigrant waiver for temporary travel. The waiver does not erase the permanent ground or create eligibility for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
The adjudication may consider the seriousness and recency of the immigration violations, the risk of future noncompliance, criminal and security issues, the legitimate purpose and duration of travel, ties outside the United States, prior waivers, and the effect on U.S. public interests.
These examples are simplified. Every case requires complete record review.
The person accumulated exactly one year, departed, and entered without inspection. Clause (I) requires more than one year; the exact day count can be decisive.
Separate countable stays total thirteen months. After departure, the person enters without inspection. Clause (I) may apply.
CBP issues an expedited-removal order. The person later attempts an unlawful border crossing but is intercepted. Clause (II) may apply even without successful entry.
After the prior history, the person is inspected and authorized to enter. Whether §212(a)(9)(C) applies requires analysis of the admission; fraud or removability may arise separately.
The person completes more than ten years outside after the last departure and may request discretionary consent through Form I-212. The bar has not automatically vanished.
An old qualifying petition may provide §245(i) grandfathering, but Briones and Diaz and Lopez prevent §245(i) from overcoming §212(a)(9)(C).
A permanent-bar finding should not be conceded without proving every statutory element.
Correct age, authorized-stay, D/S, asylum, filing, parole, TPS, adjustment, and deferred-action periods may reduce the total below the threshold.
Clause (I) requires departure after the qualifying accrual and then a later entry or attempt. Accrual after the alleged reentry does not retroactively satisfy the trigger.
Withdrawal, voluntary return, mistaken identity, a vacated order, or a legally defective record may prevent clause (II).
The person may have abandoned the plan, been misidentified, been admitted, or lacked the acts and intent necessary to establish an attempted reentry.
The relevant reentry or attempt may have occurred before April 1, 1997, or the government may be relying improperly on pre-IIRIRA events.
VAWA or another classification-specific statute may authorize relief that is unavailable in an ordinary family or employment case.
When clause (II) depends on an expedited or immigration-court removal order, the applicant should determine whether the order remains legally valid. Defective notice, mistaken identity, citizenship or status claims, agency error, invalid waiver, ineffective assistance, or other recognized grounds may support reopening, rescission, reconsideration, or correction.
Reopening the predicate order does not necessarily eliminate clause (I) if aggregate unlawful presence and a later unlawful entry independently establish the permanent bar. A pending motion also does not itself vacate the order or guarantee a stay.
A reliable conclusion requires objective proof of every stay, removal, departure, return, and attempted return.
Review the five-, ten-, twenty-year, and aggravated-felony bars under §212(a)(9)(A).
Review prior removal →Review reinstatement, criminal reentry, adjustment, asylum, and permission-to-reapply issues.
Review reentry consequences →Review whether a CBP order creates the prior-removal predicate and other grounds.
Review expedited removal →Calculate each period and determine whether the aggregate exceeds one year.
Calculate unlawful presence →Understand why the ordinary ten-year bar is different from §212(a)(9)(C).
Review the ten-year bar →Obtain an individualized trigger, defense, waiting-period, I-212, or special-waiver strategy.
Schedule a consultation →Messersmith Law Firm, P.A. represents clients facing consular refusals, USCIS inadmissibility findings, permanent-bar allegations, unlawful-reentry histories, prior removals, adjustment denials, humanitarian waivers, Form I-212 questions, and nonimmigrant waiver requests.
These cases often require reconstruction of decades of entries and departures, separate calculations of aggregate unlawful presence, review of attempted-entry and removal records, effective-date research, analysis of whether a return was an admission, and coordination of VAWA or classification-specific waiver authority.
Before departure, adjustment, or consular processing, the record should be screened for both permanent-bar clauses and every overlapping prior-removal, unlawful-presence, fraud, false-claim, smuggling, criminal, and reinstatement consequence.
These answers provide general information. The correct result depends on exact unlawful-presence periods, removal orders, departures, admissions, entries, attempted entries, effective dates, waiver category, and controlling law.
The bar may apply when a person accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the aggregate, departed, and then entered or attempted to enter the United States without being admitted; or when a person was ordered removed and later entered or attempted to enter without being admitted.
No. INA Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) requires more than one year of unlawful presence in the aggregate. The legal calculation must exceed one full year after application of age exclusions, authorized-stay periods, and other rules.
Yes, for the permanent-bar analysis. Unlike the single-stay calculation used for the three-year and ten-year bars, Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) expressly permits aggregation of qualifying unlawful presence from multiple periods.
Potentially yes. The statute covers both entry and attempted entry without admission after the qualifying unlawful presence or removal. The government must still establish the attempt, the person's identity, the relevant chronology, and the absence of admission.
No. In the ordinary case, more than ten years must first elapse after the person's last departure from the United States before the person may request discretionary consent to reapply for admission. The ten-year period is a prerequisite to seek relief, not automatic expiration of the ground.
Ordinarily not for the standard Section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii) consent route. The person generally must depart, remain outside for more than ten years after the last departure, and then request consent to reapply. Special statutory categories and VAWA cases require separate analysis.
No. Matter of Torres-Garcia holds that a person who reentered without admission after removal is inadmissible under Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) even if permission to reapply had been granted before that unlawful reentry.
Generally no. Matter of Briones and Matter of Diaz and Lopez hold that a person inadmissible under Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i) is not eligible to overcome that ground through Section 245(i) adjustment.
Yes. INA Section 212(a)(9)(C)(iii) authorizes relief for a qualifying VAWA self-petitioner who establishes the required connection between battery or extreme cruelty and the removal, departure, reentry or attempted reentry, or other conduct creating the ground. The causal connection and statutory eligibility must be documented.
Potentially. A discretionary nonimmigrant waiver under INA Section 212(d)(3)(A) may permit temporary travel despite Section 212(a)(9)(C). Approval does not eliminate the permanent ground for future immigrant processing.
Calculate aggregate unlawful presence, classify every removal, determine whether a later entry or attempted entry occurred without admission, apply the effective-date rules, identify VAWA or special waiver authority, and determine whether more than ten years outside and Form I-212 are truly required.
This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship or constitute legal advice. Immigration consequences depend on the specific dates, entries, attempts, removals, records, statutory category, agency, jurisdiction, and law involved.
