Adjustment of Status Case Law Library

Why adjustment case law matters

Matter of Arai — adjustment discretion

Matter of Arai, 13 I&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970), remains a foundational adjustment discretion decision.

The case explains that:

• Adjustment is discretionary;
• Adverse factors may require offsetting favorable equities;
• Family ties, hardship and length of residence can be favorable considerations; and
• Where adverse factors are absent, adjustment ordinarily should be granted in the exercise of discretion if statutory eligibility is otherwise established.

Matter of Areguillin — wave-through admission

Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), addressed an applicant who physically presented herself for inspection and was permitted to enter without being asked questions.

The BIA treated that procedurally regular entry as an admission for adjustment purposes.

The decision became the foundation for later wave-through cases.

See Inspected and Admitted.

Matter of Quilantan — procedural regularity

Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010), reaffirmed and clarified the admission concept used in adjustment cases.

The Board held that for purposes of INA §245(a), an applicant seeking to establish admission need only prove procedural regularity in the entry.

The applicant did not have to prove:

• Admission in a particular nonimmigrant status;
• Detailed questioning by immigration officers; or
• Substantive admissibility at the time of the entry.

See Evidence of Admission or Parole.

Matter of Briones — INA §245(i) does not cure every inadmissibility ground

Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), is a leading §245(i) decision.

The Board held that INA §245(i) does not waive inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).

The case illustrates the distinction between:

• An adjustment bar that §245(i) can overcome; and
• A separate ground of inadmissibility requiring its own statutory solution.

See INA §245(i).

Matter of Sesay — K-1 adjustment after marriage ends

Matter of Sesay, 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011), is an important K-1 adjustment decision.

The Board held that a K-1 entrant who:

• Was admitted as a fiancé(e);
• Married the petitioning U.S. citizen within the statutory period; and
• Otherwise satisfies the statutory adjustment requirements

can remain eligible to adjust under the K-1 framework even if the marriage terminates before USCIS or the immigration judge finally adjudicates adjustment.

See K-1 Fiancé(e) Adjustment of Status.

Matter of Arthur and marriage during proceedings

Matter of Arthur, 20 I&N Dec. 475 (BIA 1992), became an important precedent concerning motions based on marriages entered during immigration proceedings.

Later statutory amendments, regulations and BIA precedent modified the procedural landscape.

The modern analysis should therefore also examine:

• INA §245(e);
• INA §204(g);
• The clear-and-convincing bona fide marriage exception;
• Matter of Velarde; and
• Current motion-to-reopen standards.

See Marriage During Removal Proceedings.

Matter of Velarde — motion to reopen based on marriage

Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), modified the prior Arthur framework for certain timely motions to reopen based on a marriage entered after commencement of proceedings.

The case is commonly analyzed with:

• Timeliness of the motion;
• Numerical motion restrictions;
• Absence of other procedural bars;
• Clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood the marriage is bona fide; and
• DHS opposition under later precedent.

Matter of Yauri — arriving-alien jurisdiction

Matter of Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009), is a leading arriving-alien adjustment jurisdiction decision.

It recognizes that outside the narrow regulatory immigration-judge exception:

• USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction over an arriving alien's adjustment application;
• That jurisdiction can exist despite an unexecuted final removal order; and
• The BIA generally will not reopen proceedings merely so the applicant can pursue relief over which EOIR lacks jurisdiction.

See Arriving Alien Adjustment of Status Jurisdiction.

Matter of Silitonga — narrow arriving-alien exception

Matter of Silitonga, 25 I&N Dec. 89 (BIA 2009), confirms that immigration judges generally lack jurisdiction over arriving-alien adjustment applications unless the applicant satisfies the narrow exception in 8 C.F.R. §1245.2(a)(1)(ii).

The case should be read together with:

• Matter of Yauri;
• 8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(1); and
• 8 C.F.R. §1245.2(a)(1)(ii).

Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly — historical advance-parole rule

Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), held that travel under advance parole was not a “departure” for purposes of INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).

For many years, that holding permitted adjustment applicants with prior unlawful presence to travel on advance parole without triggering the three- or ten-year unlawful-presence bar solely by reason of that trip.

See Travel Without Advance Parole and Abandonment.

Matter of DELCARMEN-LARA — current advance-parole rule

Matter of DELCARMEN-LARA, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA Aug. 13, 2026), is now the controlling BIA precedent on the issue formerly governed by Arrabally.

The Board held:

• Travel under advance parole is a “departure” from the United States;
• Such travel can trigger INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) when the statutory unlawful-presence requirements are otherwise met; and
• Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly is overruled on that point.

Patel v. Garland — judicial review of adjustment findings

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), is the leading Supreme Court case interpreting INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i)'s judicial-review bar for adjustment.

The Court held that:

• The phrase “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” is broad;
• It is not limited to the ultimate discretionary balancing decision; and
• Covered factual findings relating to adjustment eligibility are generally insulated from judicial review, subject to the legal and constitutional review preserved by statute.

See Federal Court Review of Adjustment of Status Decisions.

Wilkinson v. Garland — questions of law and mixed questions

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024), involved cancellation of removal but is important for understanding INA §242(a)(2)(D).

The Supreme Court held that the statutory phrase “questions of law” can include certain mixed questions involving application of a legal standard to established facts.

Kanapuram — I-485 delay litigation in the Eleventh Circuit

Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302 (11th Cir. 2025), is particularly important for adjustment applicants in Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

The Eleventh Circuit held that:

• USCIS's adjustment discretion extends to its adjudicative process;
• The process includes the pace of adjudication; and
• 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars ordinary federal-court challenges seeking to compel faster I-485 adjudication.

See Mandamus for Delayed Adjustment of Status.

Case-law map by issue

BIA precedent versus unpublished decisions

Not every immigration decision has the same precedential force.

Check the federal circuit

Federal circuit law can materially change the outcome of an adjustment issue.

Examples include:

• Federal jurisdiction over delayed I-485 adjudication;
• Review of USCIS adjustment denials;
• Criminal inadmissibility analysis;
• Effect of INA §246's five-year period;
• Interpretation of admission and parole rules;
• Waiver eligibility; and
• Reviewability of discretionary decisions.

How to update an old case citation

Before relying on a precedent decision:

1. Locate the original published decision.
2. Identify its exact holding.
3. Check whether Congress amended the statute afterward.
4. Check whether regulations changed.
5. Check later BIA precedent.
6. Check Attorney General decisions.
7. Check Supreme Court precedent.
8. Check controlling circuit law.
9. Check whether USCIS policy recognizes a later limitation.
10. Distinguish the holding from dicta.

Example: using Arrabally after August 13, 2026

Example: using Quilantan correctly

Case-law research checklist

• Identify the exact adjustment issue.
• Begin with current statute.
• Read the current regulation.
• Search BIA precedent by case name and subject.
• Check Attorney General precedent.
• Check Supreme Court authority.
• Check the controlling federal circuit.
• Shepardize or KeyCite where available.
• Check whether statute changed after the case.
• Check whether regulation changed after the case.
• Check current USCIS Policy Manual.
• Distinguish binding from persuasive authority.
• Verify that quotations remain accurate.
• Check for express overruling or limitation.

Common case-law mistakes

Primary research sources

Related INA245.com guides

Frequently asked questions