8 C.F.R. § 244.3
Applicability of grounds of inadmissibility
(a) Grounds of inadmissibility not to be applied. Paragraphs (4), (5) (A) and (B), and (7)(A)(i) of section 212(a) of the Act shall not render an alien ineligible for Temporary Protected Status.
(b) Waiver of grounds of inadmissibility. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, USCIS may waive any other provision of section 212(a) of the Act in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when the granting of such a waiver is in the public interest. If an alien is inadmissible on grounds which may be waived as set forth in this paragraph, he or she shall be advised of the procedures for applying for a waiver.
(c) Grounds of inadmissibility that may not be waived. USCIS may not waive the following provisions of section 212(a) of the Act:
(1) Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (2)(B), and (2)(C) (relating to criminals and drug offenses);
(2) Paragraphs (3)(A), (3)(B), (3)(C), and (3)(D) (relating to national security); or
(3) Paragraph (3)(E) (relating to those who assisted in the Nazi persecution).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Pankajkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020).
Pankajkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020). “The Supreme Court has stated that, in exercising their discretion, immigration judges can consider the “flagrancy and nature of [aliens’] violations” of immigration laws, 9 The special inquiry officer and the BIA considered certain confidential information pursuant to then- 8…”
Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. 409 (2021). “See §1254a(c)(2)(A)(ii); 8 CFR §244.3 (2020). And relevant here, the TPS provision states: “[F]or purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255,” a person given TPS “shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”
Najjar v. Reno, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2000). “19 (1995) with 8 C.F.R. § 244.3 (1952) (providing that BIA may use confidential information in ruling on applications for suspension of deportation upon determination that “disclosure of such information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety or security”) *1346…”
United States Ex Rel. Frank Orlando, Relator-Appellant v. Dist. Dir. of Immigr. & Naturalization, 222 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1955). “" 8 C.F.R. 244.3. But the government does not suggest that the papers here in question come within any such category”
Bautista-perez v. Holder, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “§ 1254a(c)(2)(A); (c)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. §§ 244.3 (c), 244.4,1244.3(c), 1244.”
United States ex rel. Fong Foo v. Shaughnessy, 234 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1955). “…Frank, Courts on Trial (1949) 268-271. . Wright, The Law of “Invitation”, 66 L.Q.Rev. (1950) 454, 456. . See 8 C.F.R. Section 244.3.”
Chestnut (E.D. Cal. 2025). “18(d) indicates that 24 it only applies to those who have lost their TPS status after USCIS has withdrawn their status as a result of a determination that they are ineligible for TPS status 25 under 8 CFR § 244.3 (c) and 8 CFR § 244.4 . Accordingly, enjoining Respondents from…”
Pankajkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2020). “The Supreme Court has stated that, in exercising their discretion, immigration judges can consider the “flagrancy and nature of [aliens’] violations” of immigration laws, 9 The special inquiry officer and the BIA considered certain confidential information pursuant to then- 8…”
J.G.J. v. Jessica Sage, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Lewisburg, et al. (M.D. Penn. 2026). “ifically, he alleges “he is a Haitian national who has been physically present in the United States since March 20, 2023, prior to the effective date of the most recent TPS designation for Haiti; that he has resided here since then; that he is not subject to any bars to TPS…”
United States ex rel. Dongas v. Robinson, 142 F. Supp. 452 (N.D. Ill. 1956). “The use of such *454 information for this purpose is sanctioned by 8 CFR, 244.3” 1 At this point, it should be observed that the proceedings with which we are here concerned are not governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.”
United States Ex Rel. Cuevas Diaz v. Shaughnessy, Dist. Dir. of Immigr. & Naturalization at the Port of New York, 206 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1953). “” 8 CFR 244.3. This writ was designed to test the validity of such action by the Board, the relator here relying on the Alexiou case, and the respondent on the contrary authorities cited.”
United States v. Shaughnessy, 234 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1955). “(1950) 454, 456 6 See 8 C.F.R. Section 244.3”
— 8 C.F.R. § 244.3(c) — 1 case
Chestnut (E.D. Cal. 2025). “18(d) indicates that 24 it only applies to those who have lost their TPS status after USCIS has withdrawn their status as a result of a determination that they are ineligible for TPS status 25 under 8 CFR § 244.3 (c) and 8 CFR § 244.4 . Accordingly, enjoining Respondents from…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.