Immigrants to the United States have a number of options for receiving authorization to live in the country permanently. Most of the time, when a person receives a Green Card, it will be valid for 10 years, and it will be renewable. However, there are some situations where a conditional Green Card will be issued that will only be valid for two years. If you have received a conditional Green Card, it is important to be aware of the special requirements that apply to you in order to maintain your legal status in the United States.

When Are Conditional Green Cards Issued?

10-year Green Cards may be issued to those who are approved for certain types of family-based and employment-based visas. Conditional Green Cards may be appropriate in the following situations:

• Green Cards based on marriage - If a couple applies for a K visa that will allow a foreign fiancé(e) to come to the U.S. for the purpose of getting married, a spouse will receive a conditional Green Card. If a couple had been married for less than two years when applying for an Immediate Relative visa, a conditional Green Card will be issued to the foreign-born spouse. The child of a foreign fiancé(e) may be included in a K visa application, and they will also receive a conditional Green Card.

  ...

There are a variety of situations where immigrants to the United States may face deportation. A person may be accused of entering the U.S. illegally, remaining in the country after the expiration of a visa, or otherwise violating immigration laws. There are a number of potential defenses against deportation, and in many cases, immigrants may apply for asylum based on the fear that they will face prosecution if they are forced to return to their home country. However, those who do not qualify for asylum may be able to apply for another form of humanitarian relief known as withholding of removal.

Asylum Vs. Withholding of Removal

A person may qualify for asylum if they are currently in the United States and meet the requirements to be considered a refugee. Refugees are people who have been forced to flee their home countries, and they must have experienced persecution, or they must have a credible fear that if they are returned to their home countries, they will be persecuted because of their religion, race, political opinions, or membership in certain groups. A person who is granted asylum will be protected against deportation, they will receive authorization to work in the United States, they will be eligible for government aid, they may ask for permission to travel outside the U.S., and they may be able to file petitions on behalf of family members who are seeking to immigrate to the United States.

There are some cases where immigrants may not qualify for asylum, but they may still be able to apply for withholding of removal. This option may be available if a person was barred from receiving asylum because they were present in the United States for more than one year or because they had previously been deported and returned to the U.S. However, if a person has been denied asylum because they had engaged in persecution of others or because they have been convicted of a serious crime, they will not qualify for withholding of removal.

Those who have been detained by U.S. immigration officials will often be unsure about their options for avoiding deportation. People in this situation face many difficulties, especially if they have entered the United States seeking safety and fear that they and their families will be placed at risk of harm if they are forced to return to their home countries. While immigrants may have options for defending against deportation, some recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court may make it more difficult for them to properly address these issues and be released from detention.

Immigration Bonds and the Post-Removal-Order Statute

In two recent cases, the Supreme Court looked at whether immigration officials can hold people indefinitely and whether those who are being detained have the right to request bond hearings. One of the laws addressed in these cases, Section 1231 of the U.S. Immigration Code, is known as the “post-removal-order statute.” Under this law, once a deportation/removal order is issued, a person must be held in detention for at least 90 days. However, if the person is not removed from the United States after 90 days, they may be released and placed under supervision.

In the case of Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, immigration officials had continued to detain an immigrant past the 90-day removal period, but the process of removal had been halted because the immigrant feared that he would face persecution or torture if he was returned to his country of origin. Based on a previous case, the immigrant argued that after he had been detained for six months, he had the right to a bond hearing to determine whether he could be released and placed under supervision while he was pursuing a request for withholding of removal.

For undocumented immigrants living in the United States, the threat of deportation is ever-present. This threat increased significantly during the presidency of Donald Trump, who put policies in place in which nearly all immigrants without legal status could be subject to arrest and placed in removal proceedings. During the presidency of Joe Biden, more measured policies have been put in place, decreasing the number of deportations. However, a recent ruling by a federal judge may have limited the administration’s ability to carry out these policies, potentially putting more immigrants at risk of deportation.

Deportation Prioritization Policy Ruled Illegal

In September of 2021, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo detailing how deportation cases would be prioritized by immigration officials. The policy outlined in this memo allowed for prosecutorial discretion in these cases, and it stated that officials would focus on cases in which immigrants could present threats to national security, threats to public safety, or threats to border security. Officials were also instructed to take other factors into account in deportation cases, such as how long a person had lived in the United States, whether they had any children who were U.S. citizens, and whether they were of advanced age.

In June of 2022, a federal judge in Texas ruled that this policy was illegal, and this ruling went into effect on June 24. The states of Texas and Louisiana had filed a lawsuit challenging the policy, and they claimed that restrictions on deportations would increase the risk of crime and place a burden on the states due to the need to provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants. The judge ruled in favor of the states, stating that the policy was “arbitrary and capricious,” and it was put in place without following the proper procedures, including allowing for public comments. The ruling stated that by changing the standards for when immigrants can be detained and when immigration officials can pursue deportations, this was a violation of immigration laws.

Since March of 2020, immigration officials have used a rule known as Title 42 to expel many immigrants who have entered the United States illegally without going through the standard deportation procedures. Title 42 was implemented by the administration of President Donald Trump, and it was put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the stated intent of preventing the spread of infections by people entering the United States from other countries. While the administration of President Joe Biden has announced that it intends to lift this policy, a recent ruling by a federal judge in Louisiana has put a halt to these plans.

Judge Orders Title 42 to Remain in Place Throughout the United States

When the Biden administration announced in April of 2022 that it planned to lift Title 42, several states filed a lawsuit against the administration seeking to keep the order in place. They claimed that lifting the order would force the states to use taxpayer money to address issues related to illegal immigrants, including for law enforcement, healthcare, and education, and this would constitute “irreparable harm.” Judge Robert Summerhays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, who was appointed by Donald Trump, agreed, and he issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from lifting Title 42.

The primary reason for the judge’s order involved arguments by the states that the administration had failed to follow the proper procedures regarding federal rules. Specifically, the administration did not post a public notice of the planned rule change that would allow for public comments. The judge also stated that keeping Title 42 in place would best serve the interests of the public.