At a marriage-based adjustment of status interview with a U.S. citizen spouse, the USCIS officer recommended approving the I-130 petition but administratively closed the I-485 application because the applicant turned out to have an old deportation order. What saved the applicant was her DACA status: it was the only thing that prevented her detention right at the interview. Now the attorney is trying, through a records request and possibly a motion to reopen, to restore the path to adjustment of status.

What Happened at the Interview

The interview was for adjustment of status based on marriage. The couple made a good impression on the officer, and there was plenty of evidence of a bona fide marriage. At the end of the interview, the officer said he would recommend approving the I-130 petition but had to administratively close the I-485 application because the applicant had a deportation order.

The applicant held DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) status, which is exactly what kept her from being detained that same day. According to the attorney, she herself did not know the order existed. She had been brought to the U.S. as a child, did not know the details of her immigration history, and had been continuously in DACA status since she became old enough to apply for it.

How the Old Case Number Was Found

The attorney discovered that the applicant had a second A-number. It was traced through the A-numbers of other family members: by adding or subtracting one from their numbers, her record in the immigration court system was eventually located. According to the attorney, this happened by chance.

The attorney noted that at the initial consultation he had specifically asked about old deportation orders, and his notes confirm the question was asked. In his assessment, finding out about the order in advance was practically impossible in this case. A Freedom of Information Act request would not have helped either: getting a result by 2026 would have required an A-number.

Two Scenarios for Reopening the Case

The next step is a records request. Two scenarios depend on its outcome.

If the records show that neither the applicant nor her parent or guardian received notice of the time and place of the hearings, there is a chance to reopen the case right now.

If, however, the family appeared at the hearing, received a decision of denial and deportation, or was otherwise properly notified of the time and place of the proceeding, the chance of reopening now is close to zero. In that case, they will have to wait for a more favorable policy in order to ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to join a motion to reopen. Such a motion is called a joint motion to reopen.

As of now, DHS is not joining any motions to reopen, no matter how favorable or sympathetic the case. Under previous administrations, including Trump’s first term, cases with such compelling circumstances as this one were usually reopened: the applicant was brought to the U.S. through no fault of her own, has never violated immigration law, has no criminal record, is married to a U.S. citizen, works, and has strong ties to the country.

Why DACA Status Matters Here

In this case, DACA status turned out to be not just protection from detention but a necessary condition for the next steps. Without an approved I-130 petition, reopening the old case would be pointless, and without DACA the applicant would most likely have been detained right at the interview. Sometimes USCIS officers do not rule on an I-130 petition if the applicant is detained right after the interview, leaving no protection from deportation at all.

At the same time, according to the attorney, DACA status remains fragile: the Trump administration has tried several times to terminate the program while occasionally making statements about helping people in this situation.

An immigration court building with a line of people at the entrance of a government facility in an American city

Another Path for People With DACA

The discussion also mentioned a theoretical possibility that, according to the attorney, is unlikely to apply to this particular person. If DACA status was obtained before age 18, before unlawful presence would have started accruing, and the status was maintained without interruption, then with an approved I-130 petition it could be transferred to a consulate outside the U.S. and the person could depart without triggering a bar due to unlawful presence.

In the described case, this path does not work: there is an old deportation order, and the applicant entered the U.S. legally on a visa, so there is no reason to go through consular processing. Had she entered without a visa, adjustment of status would not have been possible, but the I-130 petition could have been transferred to a consulate and the process completed abroad.