Failure to Attend Removal Proceedings and the Five Year Bar

INA 212(a)(6)(B) can make a person inadmissible when, without reasonable cause, the person fails or refuses to attend or remain at a proceeding to determine inadmissibility or deportability and seeks admission within five years after a subsequent departure or removal.

No. An in absentia removal order is issued through separate removal law. INA 212(a)(6)(B) is a distinct inadmissibility ground and requires its own factual and legal analysis, including reasonable cause and the five year period.

Reasonable cause generally concerns circumstances outside a person’s reasonable control. The analysis depends on reliable evidence, the actual reason for the absence, notice, timing, and the applicable legal standard.

Reliable contemporaneous medical documentation, custody records, travel or emergency records, relevant court documents, notice evidence, and other corroboration may matter depending on why attendance was impossible.

The five year period is measured from the person’s departure or removal after the missed proceeding, not from the hearing date. Each subsequent departure and the statutory wording must be evaluated against the complete history.

Yes in appropriate cases, by demonstrating reasonable cause or that a required element is missing, or by waiting until the statutory period has elapsed. There is no ordinary immigrant waiver, but qualifying nonimmigrants may be considered for a discretionary INA 212(d)(3)(A) waiver.

No. A qualifying proceeding, failure to attend without reasonable cause, a later departure or removal, and a request for admission within the statutory five year period must be assessed. A missed hearing does not eliminate the possibility of reasonable cause.

The statute ties the five year period to subsequent departure or removal. It does not begin merely when the person receives a notice to appear, misses the hearing, or receives an in absentia order.

The specific five year period following a subsequent departure or removal has not begun merely because the hearing was missed. Other consequences of proceedings, removal orders, status, and adjustment eligibility must be separately considered.

The regulation addresses INA 240 removal hearings commenced on or after April 1, 1997, to determine inadmissibility or deportability. The identity and procedural history of the proceeding matter.

22 CFR 40.62 identifies removal hearings initiated on or after April 1, 1997. An older proceeding requires individualized review, including any different legal rules or subsequent proceedings.

Yes. The legal standards and consequences differ. A final removal order does not itself replace the separate reasonable cause inquiry required by INA 212(a)(6)(B).

No. Reasonable cause for this inadmissibility ground is distinct from the generally more demanding exceptional circumstances standard relevant to rescission of certain in absentia orders.

Serious illness may support reasonable cause when credible evidence establishes that attendance was outside the person’s reasonable control. Routine inconvenience or an unsupported assertion ordinarily will not be sufficient.

Involuntary custody that prevented appearance through no fault of the individual may support reasonable cause, depending on the facts, court history, available accommodations, and corroborating evidence.

Notice problems deserve review, but not every claim of nonreceipt establishes reasonable cause. Service history, addresses, required notices, and whether the government complied with its obligations can change the analysis.

In some cases serious attorney error may support a claim, but a bare assertion is not automatically reasonable cause. The credibility, supporting record, and relevant standards require close attorney review.

Not automatically. The legality of notice and reasonable cause depend on the governing rules and specific evidence. Language difficulties alone should not be assumed to eliminate the ground.

There is no categorical minimum age under the State Department guidance. A young child’s limited control over attendance may be important in assessing reasonable cause.

Yes. Incorrect identity, mistaken hearing chronology, flawed service information, or misidentification of the relevant proceedings can undermine a finding when supported by the record.

No. Failing to maintain an accurate address or simply moving is generally not enough. An actual defect in government notice, however, may require separate legal evaluation.

It may. Prior removal, unlawful presence, and other provisions can impose independent consequences. Eliminating an INA 212(a)(6)(B) finding does not necessarily eliminate those grounds.

No. The INA provides no ordinary immigrant visa waiver for INA 212(a)(6)(B). Establishing that the provision does not apply or that the five year period has ended differs from obtaining a waiver.

No. INA 212(k) is limited to specified documentary and labor certification inadmissibility grounds and does not cover INA 212(a)(6)(B).

No. Permission to reapply under INA 212(a)(9)(A) concerns a distinct prior removal ground. It does not itself cure INA 212(a)(6)(B), even when both grounds are present.

Potentially. An otherwise eligible nonimmigrant may be considered for a discretionary INA 212(d)(3)(A) waiver. There is no automatic approval, and a waiver does not erase an in absentia removal order.

A person may have grounds to contest a legal or factual error, including reasonable cause, dates, notice, or identification. Available agency review depends on the particular decision and record.

In an immigration benefit adjudication, the responsible agency may need to assess the applicability of the inadmissibility ground. Whether and how that arises depends on the benefit and the existing proceedings.

The INA 212(a)(6)(B) five year period may have expired, but separate grounds arising from removal, unlawful presence, fraud, or unlawful reentry can still affect eligibility.

Our attorneys evaluate court history, proof of notice and attendance, reasonable cause, the timing of departures, overlapping inadmissibility grounds, and the legal merits of correcting an unsupported finding or seeking an available waiver.