The 237(a)(1)(H) waiver
INA 237(a)(1)(H) lets an immigration judge waive deportability for fraud or willful misrepresentation at the time of admission, for a person who is the spouse, parent, son or daughter of a United States citizen or permanent resident and who was otherwise admissible when admitted. It requires no showing of hardship. It is the remedy for a permanent resident whose green card the government says was obtained by a lie, and it is decided on discretion.
Current as of September 2026. We re-check this page every quarter and after any rule change.
The typical case is a green card holder charged years later with having obtained the admission through a misrepresentation: a marriage the government now calls a sham, an undisclosed prior marriage, a false answer on the visa application, a document that was not genuine. The charge is deportability for having been inadmissible at the time of admission. This waiver forgives it. It is one of the waivers used in removal proceedings and one item on the full list of relief.
What it waives
INA 237(a)(1)(H) waives deportability for fraud or misrepresentation at the time of admission. It is a waiver of a deportability ground under INA 237, not of an inadmissibility ground under INA 212, and that is the whole reason it exists: a person who was admitted, and is being charged with having been inadmissible when admitted because of a lie, needs a waiver of the charge, not a new application for a green card.
Who qualifies
| Element | What the statute says |
|---|---|
| Qualifying relative | You are the spouse, parent, son or daughter of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident |
| Otherwise admissible | You were otherwise admissible at the time of admission, disregarding the grounds in INA 212(a)(5)(A) and (7)(A) that resulted directly from the fraud |
| Or VAWA | You are a VAWA self-petitioner, with no qualifying-relative requirement |
| Hardship | None required |
| Discretion | The judge decides whether to grant |
Authority: INA 237(a)(1)(H). A son or daughter of any age counts, as under 212(h) and unlike 212(i).
No hardship showing
Most waivers on this site turn on extreme hardship to a relative. This one does not. The qualifying relationship has to exist, and the judge weighs discretion, but there is no requirement to prove that anyone would suffer if you were removed. That makes it reachable for people whose relatives are healthy and settled, who would have no 212(i) case at all.
"Otherwise admissible" and the carve-out
The waiver is for a person who would have been admissible but for the fraud. The statute says so directly, and then carves out two grounds from the analysis, INA 212(a)(5)(A) and 212(a)(7)(A), to the extent they were a direct result of the fraud. The logic is that a visa obtained by fraud is not a valid visa, so every fraud case would also fail the valid-visa ground in 212(a)(7)(A); Congress set that consequence aside so the waiver could work.
What the carve-out does not do is set aside grounds that stand on their own. A person who was also inadmissible at the time of admission for a criminal conviction, or on a health or security ground, was not "otherwise admissible" and the waiver does not reach them.
"At the time of admission" now has a narrow meaning. In Matter of Forjoe, 29 I&N Dec. 463 (BIA 2026), the Board held that the phrase means a lawful entry after inspection, so fraud committed in an adjustment of status inside the United States cannot be waived under 237(a)(1)(H); Matter of Agour, 26 I&N Dec. 566 (BIA 2015), which had allowed it, is overruled. A resident whose alleged fraud was in the adjustment application rather than at a port of entry needs a different defense, usually a challenge to the charge itself or re-adjustment with a 212(i) waiver.
Matter of Fu: the visa charge
DHS often charges a fraud case two ways: deportability for having been inadmissible for fraud under 212(a)(6)(C)(i), and deportability for having been inadmissible for lacking a valid visa under 212(a)(7)(A). In Matter of Fu, 23 I&N Dec. 985 (BIA 2006), the Board held that the 237(a)(1)(H) waiver reaches the second charge too, where the lack of a valid visa resulted directly from the fraud. A grant of the waiver disposes of both charges, and the government cannot keep the case alive on the visa charge alone.
Matter of Tima: the crime-based charge
The limit runs the other way in Matter of Tima, 26 I&N Dec. 839 (BIA 2016), affirmed in Tima v. Attorney General, No. 16-4199 (3d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018), 903 F.3d 272. There the person had a criminal conviction arising out of the same fraud and was charged on a crime-based ground in addition to the fraud charge. The Board held that 237(a)(1)(H) waives the fraud ground, not the separate crime-based ground, even though both grew from the same facts. A criminal conviction connected to the fraud has to be addressed on its own terms, under the categorical approach and whatever relief the criminal ground allows.
Read the charges, then count them
The waiver disposes of the fraud charge and, under Fu, the visa charge that flows from it. It does not dispose of a crime charge, under Tima, or of any other ground that stood on its own at the time of admission. If the Notice to Appear has three charges, the waiver may answer two. The third needs its own answer before the hearing, not after.
Discretion
The waiver is discretionary. The judge weighs the fraud, its seriousness and how long ago it occurred against the equities of your life since: the length of residence, family here and their status, work and tax history, community ties, and the absence of other problems. Under 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d) the burden of showing that the waiver should be granted in discretion is yours. A declaration that explains what happened and takes responsibility for it, without minimizing it, is usually the center of the discretionary case. The judge is deciding whether the person in front of them is the person who committed the fraud, or someone who has since built a life that should be preserved.
Is the fraud actually established?
A waiver concedes the charge. Before it is filed, the charge is tested. For a person who was admitted, DHS must prove deportability by clear and convincing evidence under INA 240(c)(3)(A). The government has to prove every element of the charge, including that a misrepresentation was made and that it was willful. Those are contested at the pleadings and at the hearing, and the waiver is filed in the alternative. See contesting removability.
How it is filed
The waiver is requested from the immigration judge in the removal case. It goes in with the evidence of the qualifying relationship and the relative's status, the evidence of your admission, the discretionary record, and your declaration, by the filing deadline the judge sets under the court's deadlines. If it is granted, the fraud charge falls and you keep the status you were admitted in. If the same facts also support a 212(i) waiver with a new adjustment application, or cancellation of removal for permanent residents, those are filed in the alternative.
Conditional residents
A person admitted as a conditional resident on the basis of a marriage, whose conditional status USCIS later terminated, has a separate set of rules under INA 216, including a burden on DHS to prove the facts supporting termination by a preponderance. That is covered on removal of conditions in removal proceedings. Where the government also charges fraud at admission, the two remedies are considered together.
Read next: the 212(i) waiver, all the waivers, removal of conditions in court, or contesting removability.
Common questions
How is this different from the 212(i) waiver?
Both deal with fraud. INA 212(i) waives inadmissibility, so it is used by a person applying for admission or a green card, it requires extreme hardship to a citizen or resident spouse or parent, and a child does not count. INA 237(a)(1)(H) waives deportability, so it is used by a person who was already admitted and is being removed for fraud at that admission, it requires no hardship showing, and a son or daughter counts as a qualifying relative. A person charged with deportability for fraud looks first at 237(a)(1)(H).
Do I need to file an adjustment application with it?
No. Unlike 212(h) and 212(i), which are waivers of inadmissibility and travel with an adjustment application in court, 237(a)(1)(H) waives the deportability charge itself. If it is granted, the charge falls and you keep the status you were admitted in. It is requested from the immigration judge in the removal case.
What does otherwise admissible mean?
The statute requires that you were otherwise admissible at the time of admission, disregarding the grounds in INA 212(a)(5)(A) and (7)(A) to the extent they resulted directly from the fraud. So the fraud and the documentation problems that flowed from it are set aside. A separate ground that existed at the time, such as a criminal conviction, is not, and under Matter of Tima the waiver does not cure a crime-based ground even when it arose from the same fraud.
Does the waiver cover VAWA self-petitioners?
Yes. The statute extends the waiver to a VAWA self-petitioner, without the qualifying-relative requirement. The self-petition itself is filed with USCIS. A person in proceedings who was abused by the citizen or resident through whom they were admitted may have both this waiver and VAWA cancellation of removal, and they are filed in the alternative.
Tell us where your case is. We will tell you what is still possible.
You get a free case review with an attorney, in your language. We speak English, Russian, Spanish and Uzbek in-house, and we bring in a live interpreter for anything else. We will tell you what stage you are at, which forms of relief are open to you, what your deadlines are, and whether we can help. If we cannot, we will say so.