If you or a loved one is in immigration removal proceedings \u2014 or could be subject to removal based on fraud or misrepresentation in a past immigration application \u2014 a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has significantly changed the landscape. Matter of Forjoe, 29 I&N Dec. 463 (BIA 2026), decided February 26, 2026, narrows a key legal waiver that many immigrants have historically relied upon to remain in the United States.<\/p>\n
Under Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), certain immigrants who were found inadmissible due to fraud or misrepresentation could apply for a waiver to avoid removal. In plain terms: if you made a false statement or withheld information on an immigration application, this waiver could potentially forgive that and allow you to stay.<\/p>\n
For over a decade, the BIA\u2019s precedent in Matter of Agour (2015) held that this waiver was available to people who committed fraud when they adjusted their status to lawful permanent resident (i.e., obtained a green card in the United States). Matter of Forjoe overrules that precedent entirely.<\/p>\n
The BIA now holds that \u201cadmission\u201d means only a lawful physical entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer at a port of entry. Fraud committed during a later adjustment of status application \u2014 even if that is how you became a green card holder \u2014 is no longer covered by this waiver.<\/p>\n
This decision primarily affects immigrants who:<\/p>\n
Under the old rule, these individuals could potentially seek a Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver. Under Forjoe, that path is closed. The waiver is now only available to those who committed fraud at the moment they physically crossed the border and were admitted by an immigration officer.<\/p>\n
There is important good news: the BIA explicitly stated that this new rule applies only prospectively. This means if your case was already decided under the old Agour standard, or if you are currently in proceedings and had been relying on Agour, the BIA recognized that retroactive application would be unfair. However, for any new cases going forward, the narrower definition applies.<\/p>\n
If you have a pending appeal or motion that relied on Agour, speak with an immigration attorney immediately. The specific timing of your case may affect whether you are protected by the prospective-only limitation.<\/strong><\/p>\n Losing access to the Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver does not mean there is no path forward. Depending on your situation, you may still be eligible for:<\/p>\n It is worth noting that even where the Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver was available under old law, it was still a discretionary decision \u2014 as Mr. Forjoe\u2019s case illustrates. The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge\u2019s denial on discretionary grounds, finding that his lengthy pattern of misrepresentation outweighed his equities, including over 30 years of U.S. residence and U.S. citizen children.<\/p>\n Matter of Forjoe is a significant narrowing of a longtime safety valve for immigrants facing removal based on fraud or misrepresentation. If you are in removal proceedings, or if you are concerned that past statements in immigration filings could expose you to removal, this decision makes it more important than ever to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to understand your options and build the strongest possible case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you or a loved one is in immigration removal proceedings \u2014 or could be subject to removal based on fraud or misrepresentation in a past immigration application \u2014 a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has significantly changed the landscape. Matter of Forjoe, 29 I&N Dec. 463 (BIA 2026), decided February […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs","category-immigration"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=880"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/880\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":881,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/880\/revisions\/881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.paschal-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What Options Remain?<\/h2>\n
\n
The Bottom Line<\/h2>\n