8 C.F.R. § 245.3

Adjustment of status under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Any application for benefits under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended, must be filed on Form I-485 with the director having jurisdiction over the applicant's place of residence. The benefits under section 13 are limited to aliens who were admitted into the United States under section 101, paragraphs (a)(15)(A)(i), (a)(15)(A)(ii), (a)(15)(G)(i), or (a)(15)(G)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act who performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties and to their immediate families, and who establish that there are compelling reasons why the applicant or the member of the applicant's immediate family is unable to return to the country represented by the government which accredited the applicant and that adjustment of the applicant's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence would be in the national interest. Aliens whose duties were of a custodial, clerical, or menial nature, and members of their immediate families, are not eligible for benefits under section 13. In view of the annual limitation of 50 on the number of aliens whose status may be adjusted under section 13, any alien who is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident under another provision of law shall be advised to apply for adjustment pursuant to such other provision of law. An applicant for the benefits of section 13 shall not be subject to the labor certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The applicant shall be notified of the decision and, if the application is denied, of the reasons for the denial and of the right to appeal under the provisions of part 103 of this chapter. Any applications pending with the Service before December 29, 1981 must be resubmitted to comply with the requirements of this section.

(Secs. 103, 245, of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; 71 Stat. 642, as amended, sec. 17, Pub. L. 97-116, 95 Stat. 1619 (8 U.S.C. 1103, 1255, 1255b)) [47 FR 44238, Oct. 7, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 33905, July 1, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Nassuma Jabateh v. Loretta Lynch, 845 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2017).
Nassuma Jabateh v. Loretta Lynch, 845 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “8 C.F.R. § 245.3 directs § 13 applicants to file their applica‐ tions with the “director having jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence.”
Maalouf v. Wiemann, 654 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2009). “On June 20, 2008, the AAO affirmed the District Director’s decision on other grounds, finding that Maalouf was not eligible for Section 13 readjustment under the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 245.3 . (Id.) Maalouf moved for reconsideration shortly thereafter, and on…”
Herman v. Ashcroft, 102 F. App'x 474 (6th Cir. 2004). “However, it warned her that pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 245.3 (a)(2), should her asylum application be denied, she would be subject to exclusion proceedings.”
Almabruk v. Robinson (M.D. Penn. 2024). “8 C.F.R. § 245.3 . To apply for a Section 13 adjustment, an applicant must file an I-485 application.”
Maalouf v. Section 13 Officer (D.D.C. 2009). “On June 20, 2008, the AAO affirmed the District Director's decision on other grounds, finding that Maalouf was not eligible for Section 13 readjustment under the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 245.3 . (Jd.) Maaloufmoved for reconsideration shortly thereafter, and on…”
Pierre Freund v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 5 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 1993). “" We hold that this statement satisfies any due process right that Freund had to notice of the type of hearing that he would receive upon denial of his adjustment application, despite the fact that the advance parole application miscited the legal source of the statement as "8…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 245.3(a)(2) — 1 case
Pierre Freund v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 5 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 1993). “" We hold that this statement satisfies any due process right that Freund had to notice of the type of hearing that he would receive upon denial of his adjustment application, despite the fact that the advance parole application miscited the legal source of the statement as "8…”
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.