INA §204(g): Marriage-Based Petition Restrictions During Removal Proceedings

INA §204(g) operates at the visa-petition stage when a marriage is entered during the specified period of removal, exclusion, or related proceedings. That is why an I-130 can face the restriction even before the respondent asks an Immigration Judge to adjust status. Counsel should identify the date proceedings began under the applicable rule, the marriage date, and the date the proceeding became final or ended. The petition filing should expressly address the statutory restriction rather than waiting for USCIS to raise it in an RFE or NOID.

Section 204(g) generally prevents approval of immediate-relative or preference status based on a marriage entered during the proceedings period unless the statutory exception applies or the beneficiary satisfies the two-year residence-abroad alternative. The petition restriction is distinct from a marriage-fraud finding under INA §204(c).

Determine the exact date proceedings began, the marriage date, whether proceedings were still pending, and whether the petition requests the written bona fide marriage exemption. The filing should build the heightened evidentiary record at the I-130 stage rather than waiting for adjustment.

Use contemporaneous courtship communications, travel, wedding evidence, joint residence, finances, insurance, taxes, children, family declarations, photographs, and explanations for periods of separation. Also include the NTA and EOIR docket history to establish the relevant statutory period.

Failure to meet the §204(g) exception does not automatically prove marriage fraud. Section 204(c) has a different legal basis and evidentiary consequence. Likewise, merely waiting two years in the United States does not satisfy the separate statutory residence-abroad route.

USCIS adjudicates the I-130 and the §204(g) petition restriction. If adjustment is later before an Immigration Judge, the court still applies the separate INA §245(e) adjustment restriction and may examine the bona fides of the marriage under applicable precedent.

The government may focus on timing, inconsistent relationship histories, prior petitions, separate residences, or evidence suggesting the marriage arose from the removal case. The petitioner should address negative facts directly and show the relationship’s development with records created before and after the wedding.

Submit a written request for the bona fide marriage exemption with the petition when required and organize the exhibits around relationship chronology. A coherent record is more persuasive than a large stack of unexplained joint documents.

The adjudication should identify whether §204(g) applies, whether the marriage falls within the proceedings period, and whether the clear-and-convincing exception or residence-abroad alternative is satisfied. Any separate §204(c) finding should be analyzed under its own standard.

On petition appeal, distinguish disagreement over the facts of the relationship from a legal dispute about the proceedings period or statutory exception. Preserve the complete exemption request and all evidence that was before USCIS.

Section 204(g) imposes a timing-based restriction subject to the bona fide marriage exception and the two-year residence-abroad alternative. Section 204(c), by contrast, bars approval where there is substantial and probative evidence of a prior marriage entered, attempted, or conspired into to evade immigration law. Failure to satisfy §204(g)’s heightened proof does not automatically establish marriage fraud under §204(c). The petition and any removal-court filing should keep these provisions analytically separate because their predicates and consequences are different.

A marriage certificate alone proves legal marriage, not that the relationship was entered in good faith. The §204(g) exception should be supported with evidence from the relationship’s development: communications, travel, shared residence, finances, insurance, family integration, children where applicable, photographs, and credible explanations for periods of separation or unusual finances. The clear-and-convincing standard is higher than ordinary preponderance. A well-organized chronology can help USCIS understand the relationship rather than simply count documents.

The statutory window does not turn solely on the date an NTA was served. Regulations and procedural history can affect when the relevant proceedings are considered to have begun and ended for these marriage restrictions. Counsel should obtain the NTA, filing information, hearing history, termination or dismissal order, and any appeal decision before concluding that §204(g) applies. An incorrect proceedings date can lead to the wrong evidentiary standard and unnecessary litigation over an exception that may not be required.

Even if USCIS approves the I-130 under the bona fide marriage exception, EOIR must still decide any adjustment application within its jurisdiction and may consider admissibility, statutory bars, and discretion. Approval is important evidence, but it is not a removal order substitute. The litigation plan should therefore connect the petition decision to the next court step: adjustment filing, continuance, reopening, or another form of relief. This keeps the §204(g) issue in its proper role within the larger removal-defense strategy.

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.