New 245(i) Extension Bill Introduced
Posted May 17, 2002

A new, more expansive 245(i) extension was introduced in the Senate on May 9, 2002. The bill, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), is known as the "Uniting Families Act of 2002." This legislation would extend the filing deadline for 245(i) eligibility to April 30, 2003, rather than the current date under the LIFE Act of April 30, 2001. The new bill would maintain the LIFE Act requirement that the applicant must have been physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000.

The filing deadline means that a labor certification application or an employment- or family-based petition must be filed by that date to preserve 245(i) eligibility for the beneficiary and any derivative family members.

Unfortunately, section 245(i) has been the subject of many inaccurate and misleading reports. Therefore, whenever we mention this subject, we take the opportunity to explain what section 245(i) is all about.

As we explained last week (May 10, 2002) in our article President Voices Support for INA Section 245(i), 245(i) provides a procedure for individuals to be allowed to obtain permanent residence even if they had been out of status or made an improper entry to the U.S. It does not provide an amnesty or a new way to obtain permanent residence. These individuals must be eligible for permanent residence in all respects, usually based on family or employment relationships. All 245(i) does is enable a person to complete the process from within the U.S. rather than having to travel to a consulate overseas. This provision is important because certain persons who have remained in the U.S. without legal status would be subject to a 3-year or 10-year bar on returning to this country if they travel abroad. Section 245(i) also does not expedite the green card process in any way.

The Daschle bill is more liberal than previous 245(i) reinstatement / extension provisions. A House of Representatives version mentioned in other articles available on MurthyDotCom would require that a person already have filed the labor certification by August, 2001, i.e. a date in the past. In contrast, this new bill extends the filing date to one year in the future, providing a real opportunity. Also, the bill does not have set dates by which the family or employment relationship had to be established.

Opponents to this bill are using fear in an attempt to mischaracterize 245(i) and the nature of the benefit it provides. Many proponents of 245(i) are supporting a more narrow extension. The outcome remains to be seen.

For those who may ultimately benefit by a 245(i) extension, it may be wise to start preparing now. This means getting documentation in order and approaching those family members or employers who could act as petitioners. It would also be prudent to earmark funds to pay for the process. If the extension is short, there may not be much time to get documents and funds together. If one is in a committed relationship, perhaps marriage is to be considered now. If it is necessary to obtain a divorce from an estranged spouse prior to marrying again, this process should not be delayed. Many people missed the last 245(i) deadline for these and other reasons. A further extension or, better yet, a reinstatement would provide a second chance that should not be missed.