Do You Have a Permanent Bar? How to Find Out Before USCIS or a Judge Decides

This is the "crossed twice" bar people search for most.

INA § 212(a)(9)(C) makes someone inadmissible if they were unlawfully present in the United States for more than a year in total, or were ordered removed, and then entered or tried to enter again without being admitted.

A formal removal order counts, and so does an expedited removal, at the border or elsewhere, because the statute names it. A voluntary return or a withdrawn application for admission is usually not a removal order. Even so, border paperwork often records something different from what the person remembers, and time already spent here without status still counts toward the one-year prong. A lawyer settles this by reading the CBP and USCIS records.

The main path is an exception, not a waiver: after 10 years outside the United States since the last departure, a person may ask for consent to reapply for admission (Form I-212), and that consent has to come before they return. A separate waiver exists for VAWA self-petitioners when the abuse is connected to the removal, the departure, or the reentry.

Our guide to the I-601 waiver and our overview of visa overstays versus illegal entry go deeper on this bar than this page does.

INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) makes fraud or a willful, material misrepresentation a permanent ground of inadmissibility. A § 212(i) waiver can reach it for someone with a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. Our page on correcting a false statement before a USCIS interview covers the full test, including what counts as material.

INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) makes a false claim to U.S. citizenship a permanent ground of inadmissibility, and the immigration ground does not require that the person meant to lie.

A narrow exception applies only when each parent (including an adoptive parent) is or was a citizen, the person permanently lived in the United States before turning 16, and the person reasonably believed they were a citizen; all three have to be true.

Outside that exception, most applicants have no waiver. The few paths that exist depend on the type of case: certain refugee, asylee, trafficking-victim (T), and U-visa cases, some nonimmigrant visa cases, and special immigrant juveniles and registry applicants, to whom the ground does not apply. VAWA does not waive it.

The claim usually shows up on a government form, such as an I-9 or a voter registration card, or in a statement at the border, and whether a specific form counts depends on its exact wording, including which edition of the form it was, and on the purpose the claim was made for. Voting itself, where the person was not eligible to vote, is a separate ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(10)(D), with the same narrow exception.

A false claim to citizenship can also carry federal criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 911, which requires that the person acted willfully, and, for a claim made to register or to vote, under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), which requires that the person acted knowingly. Both are a different and higher bar than the immigration ground.

That distinction is one a lawyer works through against the actual form and its context.

INA § 208(d)(6) makes a frivolous asylum finding a permanent bar to immigration benefits under the Act.

Only an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals can make that finding, and only after the required warnings and a real chance to explain (Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007)). A frivolous finding is different from a USCIS fraud finding and harsher than most fraud findings, and it doesn't prevent someone from seeking withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (8 C.F.R. § 1208.20).

INA § 204(c) blocks USCIS from approving any later immigrant petition filed for a person once the agency finds, based on substantial and probative evidence in the file, that an earlier marriage was entered into to evade the immigration laws, or that the person attempted or conspired to enter into such a marriage (Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1990)).

The statute carries no waiver.

It reaches VAWA self-petitions as well as marriage-based ones, so a prior finding can follow someone into a VAWA case years later.

People pursuing a U or T visa may ask USCIS for a broader waiver of inadmissibility, under § 212(d)(14) for U applicants or § 212(d)(13) for T applicants, that can reach grounds other paths cannot. The U waiver turns on whether USCIS finds a waiver is in the public or national interest. The T waiver generally requires that the underlying conduct was caused by, or incident to, the trafficking. Both are discretionary, and USCIS decides them, even for someone already in removal proceedings.

VAWA self-petitioners have access to waivers and exceptions that other applicants don't, including a specific waiver for the § 212(a)(9)(C) reentry bar when there's a connection between the abuse and the removal, departure, or reentry. That waiver doesn't reach every permanent bar on this page. The § 204(c) marriage-fraud bar applies to VAWA self-petitions as much as it does to marriage-based ones.

The permanent bars on this page do not block withholding of removal (protection from being sent to a country where a person's life or freedom would be threatened) or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Both require showing that harm is more likely than not, a higher standard than asylum, and neither leads to a green card.

For someone whose earlier removal order is reinstated after a reentry, they are often the main protections still available. A past false statement can still damage credibility even where it doesn't bar the claim.

Someone with a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent may pair a § 212(i) waiver with adjustment of status before USCIS or, in removal proceedings, an immigration judge, depending on extreme hardship to that relative and on meeting adjustment's own entry requirements.

The waiver is discretionary, and whether it applies depends on the relationship, the person's history, and the hardship evidence.

For the § 212(a)(9)(C) reentry bar specifically, someone who has spent 10 years outside the United States since their last departure may file Form I-212 asking for consent to reapply for admission, and the consent has to come before returning. The 10-year clock and the filing itself both depend on facts a lawyer verifies case by case.

Not automatically. The reentry bar applies when someone either spent more than a year in total here without status or was ordered removed, then left, and then entered or tried to enter again without being admitted. Some people who crossed more than once don't fit that pattern. A lawyer who reviews your border history and your records can tell you whether it applies to you.

No. That's the defining feature of a permanent bar: time alone doesn't cure it. For the reentry bar specifically, 10 years outside the United States can open the door to a Form I-212 request for consent to reapply, which is different from the bar simply expiring. The other permanent bars on this page generally don't have a time-based cure at all.

Yes. A marriage to a U.S. citizen doesn't erase a permanent bar on its own. Either a § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) misrepresentation finding or a § 204(c) marriage-fraud finding can still block approval even with a qualifying marriage in place, though a waiver can sometimes reach the first one. We check both findings against a client's full record before we say which one might apply.

A denial on its own doesn't start a case in immigration court. A case starts when the Department of Homeland Security (USCIS, ICE, or CBP) issues a Notice to Appear and files it with the court, and USCIS's practice on issuing these after a denial has changed more than once in recent years. If you've received one, a hearing follows where several of the options described above, including withholding of removal, CAT protection, or a waiver, may still be on the table depending on your facts. Bring any notice you've received to a consultation so a lawyer can map your specific options.

Not automatically. USCIS's alert of June 26, 2026 reports that the firm's office closed on June 10, 2026. Pending cases stay open and stay subject to their own deadlines, whether they were filed through Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law or the firm that took over its caseload. A permanent bar in your history doesn't decide your case by itself; the records and the specific ground involved factor in more than a general rule can. Catching the issue before your interview or hearing gives a lawyer the most room to respond.