IN THE MATTER OF LOK

1 Analyses of this admin-law by attorneys

  1. 2nd Circuit: Time in USA while asylum and adjustment applications pending does not count toward continuously lawful residence required for § 212(h) waiver

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawAugust 21, 2009

    See id. at 574–76. The BIA acknowledged that two of the cases uponwhich it relied – In re Lok, 18 I. & N. Dec. 101 (B.I.A. 1981), and this Court’s decision in Tim Lok v. INS, 681 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1982) – analyzed the “lawful domicile” requirement of formerINA §212(c). It explained, however, that although §212(h) contains no domicile requirement,based on the long-standing construction of the term “lawful” in the Lok decisions,we think that there is a distinction to be drawn between permitting an alien’spresence in this country for a limited purpose and legalizing his or her stay. It isthis distinction that provides the primary basis for our refusal to count [Rotimi’s]time spent as an applicant for benefits as periods during which he “lawfullyresided” here for purposes of a section 212(h) waiver.In re Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 575–76.