Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Blanks in visa applications no longer grounds for rejecting humanitarian benefits

Immigration scholars and attorneys have noted that the assault on legal immigrants occured in small and yet significant ways during the Trump administration. These obscure changes in policies and practices cumulatively erected an “invisible wall” or “second wall” beyond the steel and concrete barriers at the border.  One of the most technocratic policies was the rejection of application forms for visas and other immigration benefits because a USCIS “No Blank Space Rejection” rule required that forms with blank spaces be rejected. The underlying policy was enacted without following notice and comment procedures.

While the was policy rescinded on December 22, 2020, the rescission left in place the denials of 60,000 applications (a conservative estimate that does not include derivatives) that occurred during the 14 months the policy was still intact.  Under pressure from a proposed class action lawsuit (reported in Law360), the USCIS has now reached a settlement deal that, if approved in federal court, will return to the practice of permitting applicants to write “N/A.” Under the terms of the agreement:

USCIS will permit an applicant who is covered by Section II.B. of this settlement agreement and whose Form I-589, I-918, and/or I-918A was rejected due to the No Blank Space Rejection Policy, to resubmit that same benefit request within 365 calendar days, beginning on the effective date of this settlement agreement.

The deal commits the agency to issuing notices to all asylum-seekers and U visa applicants denied under the policy. 

Applicants were represented by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Van Der Hout LLP.  The U.S. Department of Justice, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, declined to comment.

The case is Vangala et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., case number 3:20-cv-08143, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

MHC

Posted in: