This private bill makes Maria Merida de Macario eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status regardless of certain numerical or admissibility limits in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It directs DHS and the State Department to rescind removal or inadmissibility findings reflected in their records at enactment, conditions eligibility on filing within two years and payment of fees, and prevents certain relatives from receiving preference-based immigration benefits.
The measure matters because it creates a narrow, statutory exception to multiple INA provisions: it overrides numerical restrictions, waives grounds of inadmissibility or deportability recorded at enactment, and requires the State Department to subtract one immigrant visa from the applicant’s country cap. The bill triggers concrete administrative steps at USCIS, DHS, and DOS and raises allocation and fairness questions for immigration practitioners and agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes one named individual eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status despite several INA limits, directs DHS to rescind any removal or inadmissibility findings in agency records at enactment, and requires the Secretary of State to reduce the affected country’s immigrant visa total by one after granting status.
Who It Affects
The immediate effect falls on Maria Merida de Macario and the adjudicating agencies (USCIS, DHS, and the State Department). It also affects the immigrant visa allocation for natives of the applicant’s country of birth and the natural parents, brothers, and sisters of the applicant (who are explicitly barred from preference).
Why It Matters
Private relief bills are rare but consequential: they force agency action, consume visa numbers, and create case-specific precedent. Compliance officers and immigration counsel need to know the filing deadline, which records are waived, and how DOS will implement the one-visa reduction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill authorizes one named individual to obtain an immigrant visa or to adjust status to lawful permanent residence regardless of particular INA numerical or category limitations referenced in section 201. It does not create a new immigrant classification; instead, it makes Maria eligible to pursue an immigrant visa under the petition procedures in section 204 or to apply for adjustment under section 245.
Practically, that means she (or her representative) must submit the usual application or petition forms and fees, but the statute removes certain statutory barriers that would otherwise block adjudication.
A central operational consequence is the statutory waiver of grounds of inadmissibility and deportability that appear in DHS or Visa Office records as of the date of enactment. The bill instructs DHS to rescind any outstanding order of removal, deportation, or findings of inadmissibility or deportability that exist in its records at that time.
For adjustment of status specifically, the bill treats her as having entered and remained lawfully if she is physically present in the United States before the filing deadline — effectively creating a retroactive lawful-entry construct for the purpose of section 245 adjudication.The measure conditions all of the above on an application being filed with appropriate fees within two years of enactment, so the relief is time-limited; failure to file within that window nullifies the special eligibility. After an immigrant visa or permanent residence is granted, the Secretary of State must instruct the appropriate officer to reduce by one the immigrant visa total available to natives of the applicant’s birth country during the current or next fiscal year under the applicable statutory provisions.
Finally, the bill expressly denies preferential immigration treatment to the applicant’s natural parents, brothers, and sisters, preventing family-preference petitions that would otherwise flow from the grant of status to the beneficiary.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes Maria Merida de Macario eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of INA section 201, allowing adjudication outside usual numerical limits.
If she enters the U.S. before the filing deadline, the bill treats her as having entered and remained lawfully for purposes of section 245 adjustment.
The bill bars removal, denial of admission, or ineligibility to obtain LPR status based on any ground for removal or inadmissibility that is recorded in DHS or the State Department’s Visa Office records at enactment, and it directs DHS to rescind any outstanding orders tied to those records.
The beneficiary must file the immigrant visa petition or adjustment application and pay required fees within two years of enactment; the statutory relief expires if she does not meet that deadline.
On granting the visa or LPR status, the Secretary of State must reduce the immigrant visa allotment for the beneficiary’s birth country by one, and the beneficiary’s natural parents and siblings cannot claim immigration preference through her.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Eligibility for immigrant visa or adjustment despite numerical limits
This subsection overrides specified subsections of INA section 201 to make the named individual eligible for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status under the standard petition (section 204) or adjustment procedures (section 245). Practically, USCIS or the consular officer may adjudicate the underlying petition or adjustment without being constrained by the particular numerical or category limits cited, although ordinary documentary and procedural requirements still apply unless otherwise waived elsewhere in the bill.
Constructive lawful entry for adjustment applicants
If the beneficiary physically enters the United States before the filing deadline in subsection (d), this subsection treats that entry as lawful and continuous for purposes of adjustment under section 245. That constructive-lawful-entry mechanism removes the statutory barrier tied to unlawful presence or certain entry defects when adjudicating an adjustment application, but it only applies if the application is timely filed.
Waiver of grounds and rescission of removal or inadmissibility
Subsection (c)(1) bars DHS and consular officers from removing the beneficiary, denying admission, or considering her ineligible for LPR status on the basis of any removal or inadmissibility grounds that are reflected in agency records at enactment. Subsection (c)(2) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to rescind any outstanding removal or deportation orders or findings of inadmissibility or deportability that have been entered against her on those recorded grounds. Administratively, DHS will need to locate and vacate specific records and orders that the statute targets.
Two-year filing and fee requirement
The special eligibility and lawful-entry treatment only apply if the beneficiary files the immigrant visa petition or adjustment application, and pays the appropriate fees, within two years after enactment. This creates a strict statute-of-limitation-like window for the beneficiary and her counsel; missing the window defeats the relief granted by subsections (a) and (b).
Visa-number reduction and denial of preference for certain relatives
Subdivision (e) directs the Secretary of State to reduce by one the immigrant visas available to natives of the beneficiary’s birth country—taken from either the current or following fiscal year’s allotment under the applicable INA provisions—once an immigrant visa is granted or permanent residence is conferred. Subsection (f) explicitly prevents the beneficiary’s natural parents, brothers, and sisters from claiming any right, privilege, or status under the INA by virtue of their relationship to her, blocking derivative or family-preference petitions that might otherwise follow.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Maria Merida de Macario — Gains a statutory path to an immigrant visa or adjustment to lawful permanent residence, a rescission of recorded removal orders, and retroactive constructive lawful-entry treatment if she meets the two-year filing requirement.
- The beneficiary’s current U.S. employer or professional network — They gain workforce stability and legal certainty if the beneficiary remains employed in the U.S.; an employee’s resolution to permanent status reduces compliance risks tied to work authorization.
- Immigration counsel and advocates who pursued the private bill — They obtain a concrete case study and precedent for how narrowly tailored private relief can operate, assisting future advisory work on similar petitions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Natives of the beneficiary’s birth country with pending visa demand — The Secretary of State reduces that country’s immigrant-visa total by one, marginally increasing wait times or reducing available visas for others in high-demand categories.
- Department of Homeland Security and USCIS — Agencies must identify and rescind recorded removal findings and orders, adjudicate a time-limited adjustment or petition under changed legal status, and manage any legal or administrative appeals, all without an appropriations mechanism in the bill.
- Natural parents, brothers, and sisters of the beneficiary — The bill expressly denies them preferential immigration rights deriving from their relationship, eliminating a potential family-based immigration route that could have been pursued.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances individualized humanitarian or corrective relief for a single person against the immigration system’s need for consistent, rule-based allocation of visas and enforcement of inadmissibility and removal grounds. Granting a statutory exception solves a specific hardship but does so by overriding general rules, reducing a country’s visa allotment, and creating implementation burdens and fairness questions for agencies and other applicants.
The bill creates several operational ambiguities that agencies will have to resolve. 'Reflected in the records of the Department of Homeland Security or the Visa Office' is broad language; agencies will need to determine which entries, notations, or memoranda trigger the waiver and which pre-enactment findings remain effective despite imperfect or incomplete records. Rescinding an outstanding order of removal can require locating case files, recalculating any time limits, and potentially correcting automated databases—actions that do not happen instantly and may generate litigation over whether an order was properly vacated.
The retroactive characterization of lawful entry for section 245 raises legal friction with immigration enforcement practice. Treating an individual as having 'entered and remained lawfully' as of the enactment date could affect prior administrative actions (for example, previously assessed inadmissibility or detention decisions) and might invite collateral claims by others who seek similar retroactive treatment.
The one-visa reduction is mechanically simple but substantively meaningful where country caps are tightly allocated: that single slot could matter in backlogged categories and raises equity questions when Congress prioritizes one case at the expense of others. Finally, the bill imposes agency workloads without providing appropriations or guidance on timing, and it forecloses family-preference relief for enumerated relatives, producing a deliberate but blunt separation of family lines that can have humanitarian consequences.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.