failure to notify INS about change of address

[wurzbach]

To avoid some unnecessary word game with some "gurus" on this forum, I started this new thread and hope that anyone who concerns about this issue can find some help.

1) there is no case where a person who simply forgot filing notification to INS (before or after GC) for change of address (AR-11) without causing any adverse consequences was accused or convicted under INA 265.

2) most of the time, the consequence of failing to file AR-11 is: you have cases pending in INS, such as immigration petition, I-485, asylum, deportation, removal...., and if you fail to file AR-11 (and phone INS to change the address for those specific cases) and later your cases were denied, you cannot claim a defense that you did not actually receive notice from INS because you changed your address.

Following is the annotation about the code INA 265 or 8 USC 1305 by westlaw:

United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 8. Aliens and Nationality (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 12. Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter II. Immigration
Part VII. Registration of Aliens
§ 1305. Notices of change of address


(a) Notification of change

Each alien required to be registered under this subchapter who is within the United States shall notify the Attorney General in writing of each change of address and new address within ten days from the date of such change and furnish with such notice such additional information as the Attorney General may require by regulation.


(b) Current address of natives of any one or more foreign states

The Attorney General may in his discretion, upon ten days notice, require the natives of any one or more foreign states, or any class or group thereof, who are within the United States and who are required to be registered under this subchapter, to notify the Attorney General of their current addresses and furnish such additional information as the Attorney General may require.


(c) Notice to parent or legal guardian

In the case of an alien for whom a parent or legal guardian is required to apply for registration, the notice required by this section shall be given to such parent or legal guardian.


CREDIT(S)

(June 27, 1952, c. 477, Title II, ch. 7, § 265, 66 Stat. 225; Dec. 29, 1981, Pub.L. 97-116, § 11, 95 Stat. 1617; Oct. 24, 1988, Pub.L. 100-525, § 9(o), 102 Stat. 2620.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1952 Acts. House Report No. 1365 and Conference Report No. 2096, see 1952 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1653.

1981 Acts. House Report No. 97-264, see 1981 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2577.

Amendments

1988 Amendments. Pub.L. 100-525, § 9(o), substituted "Notices of change of address" for "Address" as the section catchline.

1981 Amendments. Pub.L. 97-116 eliminated the annual registration requirement for permanent resident aliens and the registration requirement for those aliens in a lawful temporary residence who were to notify the Attorney General in writing of an address every three months while residing in the United States and inserted provision authorizing the Attorney General, in his discretion and upon ten days notice, to require the natives of any one or more foreign states who are in the United States and required to be registered under this subchapter, to notify the Attorney General of their current addresses and furnish such additional information as required.

Effective and Applicability Provisions

1981 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 97-116 effective on Dec. 29, 1981, see section 21(a) of Pub.L. 97-116, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1551.


CROSS REFERENCES
.......

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

.........

LIBRARY REFERENCES

......

Corpus Juris Secundum

.........

RESEARCH REFERENCES

..........

Treatises and Practice Aids

........

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Elements of offense 1
Persons required to register 2
Review 3

1. Elements of offense

Intent is not an element of offense of violating this section dealing with notice by alien to Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization concerning change of address. U. S. v. Ginn, E.D.Pa.1954, 124 F.Supp. 658, reversed on other grounds 222 F.2d 289. Aliens 72

Alien's failure to receive notification of deportation hearing did not constitute reasonable cause for alien's failure to appear, where notice of alien's deportation hearing was mailed to alien's last known address but was returned as undeliverable because alien moved without providing a forwarding address to Attorney General. Sierra-Cardona v. Ashcroft, C.A.5 2004, 92 Fed.Appx. 981, 2004 WL 556947, Unreported. Aliens 54(3.1)

2. Persons required to register

An alien is excused from failing to notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of a change of address, and as a consequence, failing to appear for an initial removal proceeding, if the INS never actually provided the alien with written notice of the address notification requirement. Singh v. Gonzales, C.A.92005, 412 F.3d 1117. Aliens 54(2)

Under treaty of peace with Japan, Japan retained de jure sovereignty over Okinawa, and person born in Okinawa of Okinawan parents did not become a national of United States by virtue of such treaty, and was required under this section as alien to notify Attorney General in writing of his current address and furnish such additional information as was by regulations required within thirty days following January 1, 1954. U.S. v. Ushi Shiroma, D.C.Hawai'i 1954, 123 F.Supp. 145. Aliens 55.1; International Law 6; International Law 10.3; Treaties 8

Alien could not show that she would have timely appealed deportation decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) "but for" her attorney's failure to notify her of decision, and thus could not succeed on habeas claim that she was denied effective assistance of counsel, where she had not notified Immigration Court of her changes of address, as required by law; alien would have been timely notified of BIA's decision if she had informed immigration officials of her current address. la Parra-Gonzalez v. Demore, N.D.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22080768, Unreported, affirmed 116 Fed.Appx. 156, 2004 WL 2914134. Habeas Corpus 521

3. Review

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) complied with alien's due process rights in sending notice of removal hearing to address that alien had given to INS in formal submission, rather than to address that appeared on handwritten note in her INS file along with notation "staying with cousin," inasmuch as note did not satisfy statutory requirement that alien's notice of change of address be in writing, note did not suggest that alien was residing with cousin, and there was no proof as to when note was made part of file. Dominguez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., C.A.11 2002, 284 F.3d 1258. Aliens 54(2); Constitutional Law 274.3

Issue of whether Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) failure to inform alien of requirement that she inform INS of change of address was reasonable cause for alien's failure to appear at deportation hearing was raised at the hearing and could be considered on appeal, where alien introduced into evidence her declaration stating she had no knowledge of change-of-address requirement. Urbina-Osejo v. I.N.S., C.A.9 1997, 124 F.3d 1314. Aliens 54.3(1)

 

[wurzbach]

side note:

some gurus always attack me on some frivolous issues. I only want to clarify one of them: I did not provide a link because it is useless to you if you do not have an account on Westlaw or Lexisnexis. peorid.

 

[pralay]

1) there is no case where a person who simply forgot filing notification to INS (before or after GC) for change of address (AR-11) without causing any adverse consequences was accused or convicted under INA 265.

Actually there were people who deported in special registration period. In most of the cases, USCIS "suspected" something about some people, but could not find anything concrete to charge them. So, USCIS took up AR-11 issue to deport them. In fact for a few people who complied with INA 265, USCIS found some other reasons to deport - like credit card fraud, working illegaly (EAD expired but never renewed), false tax filing etc.

2) most of the time, the consequence of failing to file AR-11 is: you have cases pending in INS, such as immigration petition, I-485, asylum, deportation, removal...., and if you fail to file AR-11 (and phone INS to change the address for those specific cases) and later your cases were denied, you cannot claim a defense that you did not actually receive notice from INS because you changed your address.

AR-11 and change of address for pending applications are two separate and independent things. AR-11 does not change adress for pending applications at USCIS. To change address, you need to notify service center (or district office) separately for each pending applications.

 

[wurzbach]

Actually there were people who deported in special registration period. In most of the cases, USCIS "suspected" something about some people, but could not find anything concrete to charge them. So, USCIS took up AR-11 issue to deport them. In fact for a few people who complied with INA 265,

show me the cases.

USCIS found some other reasons to deport - like credit card fraud, working illegaly (EAD expired but never renewed), false tax filing etc.

I did not say that compliance with INA 265 will give you a safe harbor. If you committed deportable offense, you are definitely in danger no matter of INA 265

AR-11 and change of address for pending applications are two separate and independent things. AR-11 does not change adress for pending applications at USCIS. To change address, you need to notify service center (or district office) separately for each pending applications.

AR-11 is a mandatory requirement for all aliens. Phoning INS for change of address for specific cases is not. If you file AR-11, you have built up a presumption that the governent received and updated your new address for all purposes (including the cases pending in INS, I cannot find any statutory requirements for changing address for pending cases, if you---Pralay----can find it, I do appreciate it; in my opinion, the requirement for changing address for pending cases is only an administrative rule for INS' convenience)

 

[pralay]

show me the cases.

I you followed all the news around 2001 and 2002, you would have known those cases already. Those cases were published in many newspapers, especially many ethnic community magazines and newspapers. Probably you still can find all those news if you google them. Only after those incidents, lawyers started giving cautionary notices to immigrants. In that time Cyrus Mehta wrote this article:
http://www.cyrusmehta.com/news_cyrus.asp?news_id=727&intPage=27

Where it says:
"However, the provision has been used against many individuals since the attacks of 9/11."

AR-11 is a mandatory requirement for all aliens. Phoning INS for change of address for specific cases is not. If you file AR-11, you have built up a presumption that the governent received and updated your new address for all purposes (including the cases pending in INS, I cannot find any statutory requirements for changing address for pending cases, if you---Pralay----can find it, I do appreciate it; in my opinion, the requirement for changing address for pending cases is only an administrative rule for INS' convenience)

Yes, all the change of notification for pending cases are for only administrative purpose. I did not say that there is any statutory requirement. But in many cases people wrongly assumes that filing AR-11 is going to change address for pending cases. But it does not. AR-11 is a DHS requirement (not USCIS). Yes, it can help if cases is denied (for notice going to old address).

 

[Apollo_13]

Oh boy, I never thought it would become so serious if we failed to file AR-11.

JoeF and Pralay, Thanks for the links...

Luckily I have been filing AR-11 promptly after changing address since the new law (or requirement) was implemented.

Also, one more thing, Always file AR-11 with delivery confirmation and send it by certified post. This will be an additional proof that you indeed sent the AR-11 and got a confirmation from DHS.

 

[wurzbach]

Back to 1960, there was a unlucky guy from Greece who was convicted solely on violation of INA 265. But that was based on the old INA (1952 version). That case was cited only twice, one by a distrct curt(1961), one by BIA(1969). Since the new INA (1990) was enacted, there is no case where a person was convicted solely based on INA 265 violation.

It is very interesting that in 1988, a group of nonimmigrants want to take advantage of INA 265. According to a program by the government, some illegal immigrants can legalize their status (from illegal to LPR) by proving that they were in USA unlawfully and continously. A group of nonimmigrants want to prove their unlawful status by stating that they did not comply INA 265. The government did not buy it. The group won their cases in district and circuit courts, but the case was remanded by US supreme court. So far as I know, this case is still in battle field. The newest court opinion was issued in 2002 which involved a legal issue unrelated to INA 265.

 

[Apollo_13]

Back to 1960, there was a unlucky guy from Greece who was convicted solely on violation of INA 265. But that was based on the old INA (1952 version). That case was cited only twice, one by a distrct curt(1961), one by BIA(1969). Since the new INA (1990) was enacted, there is no case where a person was convicted solely based on INA 265 violation.

It is very interesting that in 1988, a group of nonimmigrants want to take advantage of INA 265. According to a program by the government, some illegal immigrants can legalize their status (from illegal to LPR) by proving that they were in USA unlawfully and continously. A group of nonimmigrants want to prove their unlawful status by stating that they did not comply INA 265. The government did not buy it. The group won their cases in district and circuit courts, but the case was remanded by US supreme court. So far as I know, this case is still in battle field. The newest court opinion was issued in 2002 which involved a legal issue unrelated to INA 265.

come on buddy, what kind of examples are these? (don't say 'one of a kind' like Shrek).

We are all here legally, got the GC legally. Why taking examples that talks about illegals? That too which happened in stone age.....

Here in US, immigration laws/procedures/rules change very often...

 

[pralay]

Back to 1960, there was a unlucky guy from Greece who was convicted solely on violation of INA 265. But that was based on the old INA (1952 version).

There is only one INA 265 and that is "old INA". As far I know there was no change in INA 265 in 1990.

 

[wurzbach]

There is only one INA 265 and that is "old INA". As far I know there was no change in INA 265 in 1990.

see the attached file.

 

[wurzbach]

This is an example to how wrong of some gurus here.

Someone claimed that "failure to report change of address is a deportable offense". It is patently wrong . Here is the solid answer from USCIS on this issue (by the way, it confirms my original view on this topic):

OI 265.1 Failure to comply with reporting requirements.

(a) Failure to report. Failure by an alien to comply with the reporting requirements of section 265 of the Act, regarding notification of address and change of address, shall not normally serve as the sole basis for initiating prosecution or deportation proceedings.

http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/in...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-oi2651

 

[wurzbach]

You have now really crossed a line.
Are you serious in saying that the law is wrong???
Let me quote it for you once again:
INA 266, at http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/in...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act266
"(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265, shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful."
The Section 265 referred in INA 266 is here:
http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/in...?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act265
First off, since when do operating instructions have the power of law?
Second, you have shown again that you don't understand legalese: There is this one small word, "normally"... Look up what that means.

Give it up, troll. You have no clue about the law.
Your posts are dangerous to people looking for advice here, and I for one am sick of having to correct your false, misleading and dangerous advice.

you are more competent to read the law than officers from USCIS?????

The more you response to my post, the more you expose your ignorance......Hahahaha.....

by the way, everyone knows what USCIS is saying, except you.

 

[TheEnquirer]

i will leave the fight to people who are interested in it.


for people who are looking for facts and ways of working:
here is my interpretation.

going 66 in a 65 speeding limit is against law - but the law enforcement officers "operate" by giving a ticket with personal limit say 75 or 80.

akin to

not filing AR11 is a deportable offence - but the operating procedure is normally that cannot be the only reason for deportation.


(for ex: last week i talked to a prosecutor (us govenment) and in front of me was a man involved in an one car accident(he hit a tree) going 69 in a 65 speed limit - the cops gave him a speeding ticket - since they cant give anything else - and usually u will be given aticket in case of accident)

so again if they have something else against you- they will go for the full enforcement

p.s: people in this forum are inteliigent enough to know the difference between a written law and operating instructions. plzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
dont fight. it sounds like a B rated movie in which characters talk the obvious

 

[wurzbach]

i will leave the fight to people who are interested in it.


for people who are looking for facts and ways of working:
here is my interpretation.

going 66 in a 65 speeding limit is against law - but the law enforcement officers "operate" by giving a ticket with personal limit say 75 or 80.

akin to

not filing AR11 is a deportable offence - but the operating procedure is normally that cannot be the only reason for deportation.


(for ex: if u last week i talked to a prosecutor (us govenment) and in fornt of me was a man involved in an one car accident(he hit a tree) going 69 in a 65 speed limit - the cops gave him a speeding ticket - since they cant give anything else - and usually u will be given aticket in case of accident)

so again if they have something else against you- they will go for the full enforcement

i am not interetsted in any fighting.

 

[pralay]

i am not interetsted in any fighting.

Then you should say that chances of getting deported for not complying with AR-11 (INA 265) very low. But the way you portrary is that not filing AR-11 is not going to pose any problem at all (because USCIS OI says so). You are trying to prove it repeatatively various ways (and desperately). For example, giving the example of Singh's asylum case - without understanding that AR-11 and address change with USCIS (i.e. "INS") are not same thing.

As TheEnquirer gave example of speed limit - not many people get ticket for driving 66 MPH in 65 MPH speed limit zone. But a few people do get. Now, if your friends cautions you not driving over 65 MPH and obey the law, does it create "scary atmosphere"?