Our office’s request to vacate an order of expedited removal was recently granted. The expedited removal order was issued to a foreign national by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officials at a port of entry at the time of his application for admission as a visitor. Our request was granted by the CBP Port Director with jurisdiction over the port of entry that issued the order. The CBP records relating to our client have since been updated to reflect that the expedited removal order has been vacated and that he is no longer inadmissible to the United States as a result of the expedited removal order.
Our client has a long and complex U.S. immigration history. He had been issued several nonimmigrant visas to the U.S. in the past, including B1/B2 and L-1 visas. He had also previously applied for permanent residence in the U.S., however, that application was later abandoned. Additionally, on a few occasions, our client attempted entry into the U.S. together with another individual who was refused admission into the U.S. Although our client was not directly refused admission, his CBP records were notated negatively each time he was traveling with someone else that was denied entry.
These negative notations in the CBP computers caused significant concern at the time of our client’s most recent application for admission to the U.S., as did the existence of a previously filed and abandoned application for permanent residence. At the time of his most recent application for admission, our client explained to CBP officers that he was seeking admission for a period of four (4) weeks in order to visit relatives in the U.S. Despite his honesty in stating his purpose of travel, our client was issued a Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. The sole ground stated for the expedited removal was INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), which renders inadmissible anyone who is seeking to enter the U.S. to remain here permanently but who does not have the permission to do so. Accordingly, the CBP officials believed that our client intended to remain in the U.S. permanently following his last application for admission.
Our client contacted our office following the expedited removal incident to discuss his options. Our analysis determined that the expedited removal order in this case was improperly issued and that the underlying charge of inadmissibility was unfounded. Although there is no appeal process for an expedited removal order, we prepared and submitted a formal request to vacate the expedited removal order. Our request, which included a comprehensive legal brief and extensive supporting documentation, was submitted directly to the Port Director having jurisdiction over the port of entry where the expedited removal order was issued. Our request challenged the validity of the expedited removal order on the basis that both the underlying charge and the expedited removal order itself were improvidently issued against our client. Our legal argument was supported by the Congressional intent behind the expedited removal statute as well as agency guidance as to the application of the statute in practice.
Our request remained under review with CBP officials for approximately three (3) months before the decision was made to vacate the expedited removal order. This time was needed to completely review our client’s U.S. immigration file, which is rather lengthy. The CBP Port Director then issued our client a letter advising that after further consideration, the Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, has been vacated. As of the date of the letter, the port of entry had updated its computer system to reflect that the order had been vacated.
Accordingly, our client is now able to travel to the U.S. without the need for a waiver or permission to reapply for admission after removal