INA §245(e): Adjustment Restrictions for Marriages Entered During Proceedings

INA §245(e) restricts adjustment based on a marriage entered during the specified proceedings period unless the applicant satisfies the statutory exception. The analysis therefore belongs in the I-485 record even when USCIS has already approved the I-130. Counsel should identify the same critical dates used for §204(g), but then focus on adjustment eligibility, jurisdiction, and whether the evidence establishes the bona fide marriage exception by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 245(e)(1) creates the adjustment restriction, paragraph (2) defines the proceedings period, and paragraph (3) provides the bona fide marriage exception. The exception also removes the corresponding §204(g) petition restriction when its requirements are established.

Identify whether the adjustment application is actually based on the proceedings marriage, whether the marriage date falls within the statutory period, and whether the I-130 was approved under the heightened exception. An approved petition is important evidence, but the adjustment adjudicator retains responsibility for the statutory adjustment determination.

Submit the approved I-130, exemption evidence, relationship chronology, joint records, testimony, and any USCIS decision discussing bona fides. Also document adjustment eligibility apart from the marriage issue, including admission or parole, visa availability, admissibility, and discretion.

Overcoming §245(e) does not waive other adjustment bars or inadmissibility grounds. Conversely, a marriage entered during proceedings is not presumed fraudulent for every purpose; the statute imposes a heightened burden because of timing.

The forum depends on procedural posture. For many non-arriving respondents in removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge has adjustment jurisdiction; USCIS may retain jurisdiction in specified arriving-alien settings. The correct forum must be determined before filing.

DHS may challenge the relationship’s bona fides even where USCIS approved the I-130. Matter of Kagumbas confirms that an Immigration Judge considering adjustment can inquire into whether the marriage is genuine.

Treat §245(e) as a separate element in the adjustment presentation. Identify the statute expressly, state the clear-and-convincing standard, and connect each major exhibit to the relationship at its inception and during the marriage.

The decision should state whether §245(e) applies, whether the marriage was entered in good faith and lawfully, whether prohibited consideration was involved, and whether the heightened burden was met. Other adjustment eligibility and discretion findings should remain separate.

On appeal, identify whether the dispute concerns the legal scope of the proceedings period, the burden of proof, evidentiary weight, or a separate adjustment ground. An approved I-130 does not eliminate the need to preserve the adjustment record.

Where USCIS approved the petition under the corresponding bona fide marriage exception, the approval can be powerful evidence for §245(e). It does not eliminate the Immigration Judge’s responsibility to decide adjustment eligibility and discretion, and it does not prevent inquiry into the relationship when relevant. The adjustment filing should include the petition decision and supporting relationship evidence, particularly if new facts arose after USCIS adjudication or if DHS identifies information that was not considered in the petition proceeding. The court record should also identify the standard USCIS applied so the parties do not assume the petition was adjudicated under a heightened rule that was never actually presented. If the approval predates the removal hearing by a substantial period, update the relationship evidence through the hearing date and explain any major changes in residence, finances, or family circumstances.

Satisfying §245(e) resolves only the proceedings-marriage restriction. The applicant must separately establish inspection and admission or parole where required, visa availability, admissibility, eligibility under the correct adjustment provision, and any needed waiver. Unauthorized employment, status violations, criminal history, fraud issues, or prior removal orders can remain independently dispositive. Keeping these issues separate avoids the common mistake of treating proof of a genuine marriage as proof of adjustment eligibility as a whole.

A clear filing should expressly invoke the bona fide marriage exception, state the governing standard, list the critical dates, and identify the exhibits that satisfy it. Burying the argument inside a large adjustment packet makes it harder for the adjudicator to see that the statutory restriction has been addressed. If the petition record already contains extensive bona fide evidence, cross-reference it and add material covering the period after petition approval so the court has a current picture of the relationship.

A finding that the marriage is bona fide answers a statutory eligibility question; it does not require a favorable exercise of adjustment discretion. Conversely, adverse discretionary factors do not convert a genuine marriage into a fraudulent one. The decision should identify which conclusion rests on §245(e), which rests on another eligibility provision, and which rests on discretion. Clear findings matter because different parts of an adverse adjustment decision can require different arguments on appeal.

Dates matter unusually strongly: service and filing of the charging document, commencement of proceedings under the applicable regulation, marriage date, petition date, termination date, and any period of residence abroad can change the governing analysis.