HB 7339 is a single‑person private bill that makes Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status despite statutory bars in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to rescind any removal or inadmissibility findings reflected in agency records and waives the INA grounds that would otherwise prevent Dr. Yang’s admission or adjustment, subject to filing and fee requirements within two years of enactment.
This measure matters because it bypasses ordinary INA procedures and creates an individualized exception that requires action by both DHS and the State Department and a one‑visa quota adjustment. Compliance officers and immigration counsel should note the specific waiver language, the retroactive treatment of entry for adjustment if Dr. Yang reenters before the filing deadline, and the statutory reduction of immigrant visa numbers by one for the country of birth of Dr. Yang.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill waives statutory inadmissibility and removability grounds recorded by DHS or the State Department for Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang, requires rescission of any outstanding removal or deportation orders, and makes him eligible to apply for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. It also conditions the relief on filing with applicable fees within two years and directs the State Department to deduct one immigrant visa from the country‑of‑birth quota.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang, relevant DHS components (USCIS, ICE) that must rescind orders and process an adjustment, and the Department of State’s Visa Office that must update records and reduce immigrant visa numbers for his country of birth. Indirectly affected are applicants from that country because one visa is deducted from the quota.
Why It Matters
The bill exemplifies how Congress can use private relief to override INA bars and reverse administrative immigration findings for a named individual, creating both immediate immigration status effects and a modest impact on the annual country quota allocation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 7339 is narrowly focused: it names Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang and establishes that, regardless of the usual statutory limits in sections 201, 212, 237, and related INA provisions, he may apply for an immigrant visa or seek adjustment to lawful permanent residence. The bill does not itself grant the green card; it creates eligibility where statutory bars would normally prevent an application or adjustment.
That eligibility is conditioned on filing the appropriate application and paying required fees within two years of enactment.
The bill also instructs DHS to treat a qualifying entry by Dr. Yang as lawful for the purposes of adjustment of status if he reenters the United States before the two‑year filing deadline; in that situation the bill treats his presence as both an entry and lawful continuous presence as of the enactment date, provided he otherwise meets INA section 245 requirements. Separately, HB 7339 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to rescind any outstanding removal or deportation orders, and to eliminate findings of inadmissibility or deportability that appear in DHS or State Department records as of enactment.Finally, the measure requires the State Department to reduce by one the number of immigrant visas available to natives of Dr. Yang’s country of birth in either the current or the next fiscal year, invoking the standard mechanism used for private bills that grant immigrant visas.
That reduction ties the bill’s individualized relief to the statutory global quota system and makes the relief numerically neutral across the immigrant visa ceiling (aside from timing and distributional effects).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill waives any ground of inadmissibility or removability reflected in DHS or State Department records on enactment that would otherwise block Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang from admission or adjustment.
If Dr. Yang enters the United States before the two‑year filing deadline, the bill treats that entry as lawful and continuous for adjustment under INA section 245 as of the enactment date, if he is otherwise eligible.
The Secretary of Homeland Security must rescind any outstanding order of removal, deportation, or any finding of inadmissibility or deportability entered against Dr. Yang that is based on waived grounds.
The relief applies only if Dr. Yang files the immigrant visa or adjustment application and pays required fees within two years after enactment.
Upon granting permanent residence or an immigrant visa to Dr. Yang, the State Department must reduce the immigrant visa numbers for his country of birth by one in the current or next fiscal year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates visa/adjustment eligibility for a named individual
This subsection overrides specified provisions of INA section 201 to make Dr. Yang eligible to apply for an immigrant visa under section 204 or to apply for adjustment of status. Practically, it removes statutory visa‑category barriers that would otherwise prevent filing or adjudication, but it does not itself change classification categories or guarantee approval — it only authorizes the filing and adjudicatory pathway.
Retroactive lawful entry for adjustment if reentering before filing deadline
If Dr. Yang reenters the United States before the two‑year filing cutoff, the bill treats his entry and presence as lawful for the purposes of INA section 245, allowing adjustment as of the enactment date if he satisfies other eligibility requirements. That mechanism is significant because many statutory bars to adjustment hinge on lawful entry and continuous presence; this subsection supplies a legislative cure for those specific defects.
Waives recorded grounds and rescinds removal findings
This subsection explicitly waives the grounds in INA sections 212(a) and 237(a) as they appear in DHS and Visa Office records as of enactment, and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to rescind related removal or deportation orders. The waiver is limited to what is reflected in agency records at enactment, so implementation will require DHS and the State Department to review and identify the specific entries to be vacated or disregarded.
Two‑year filing window and fee condition
This provision conditions the statutory eligibility on Dr. Yang filing the immigrant visa or adjustment applications and paying applicable fees within two years of the act’s effective date. The timeline creates a firm window for action and preserves the usual fee‑funding model instead of authorizing fee waivers or special appropriations.
Reduces immigrant visa numbers by one for the country of birth
Upon issuance of an immigrant visa or adjustment for Dr. Yang, the State Department must reduce the total number of immigrant visas available to natives of his country of birth by one in the current or next fiscal year under the existing quota mechanics. This ties the individualized relief into the numerical immigrant visa system and may shift wait times or availability by a single visa for applicants from that country.
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
- Dr. Yue‑Cheng Yang — Gains statutory eligibility to apply for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status, cancellation of recorded inadmissibility or removal findings, and a path to lawful permanent residence if he files within two years.
- Academic or employer sponsors (if any) — Stand to retain or secure a named skilled individual whose immigration barriers this bill removes, reducing immediate recruitment or retention disruptions tied to removal or inadmissibility findings.
- Immigration counsel representing Dr. Yang — Receives a clear, time‑limited filing window and a defined statutory basis to proceed with visa or adjustment applications and to request administrative rescission of orders.
Who Bears the Cost
- Natives of Dr. Yang’s country of birth — Experience a net reduction of one immigrant visa in the affected fiscal year, which slightly tightens the country’s quota availability and could matter near the margin for high‑demand categories.
- Department of Homeland Security components (USCIS, ICE) — Must locate, review, and rescind recorded orders and inadmissibility findings and process any reopened files, imposing a modest administrative and casework burden.
- Department of State Visa Office and consular posts — Must adjust records, implement the visa‑number deduction, and coordinate with DHS on rescission and waiver records, creating administrative sequencing work and potential consular adjudication complexity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between individualized legislative relief and the principles of a uniform, administratively managed immigration system: Congress can cure a specific person’s statutory defects and reverse agency findings, but doing so bypasses ordinary adjudicative standards and reallocates a scarce visa slot — a trade‑off between remedying an individual hardship and maintaining transparent, rule‑based immigration administration.
The bill’s waiver language applies only to grounds “reflected in the records of the Department of Homeland Security or the Visa Office” as of enactment. That raises implementation questions: agencies must determine what entries in electronic and paper records qualify, whether collateral records held in other systems are covered, and how to handle ambiguous or incomplete documentation.
Rescinding an outstanding removal order can require reopening case files, reissuing notices, and reconciling records with courts or immigration judges — a nontrivial operational task.
The retroactive treatment of entry for adjustment (if Dr. Yang reenters before the filing deadline) creates uncertainty about related statutory bars that depend on timing, such as accrual of unlawful presence, certain criminal bars, or other admissibility grounds not expressly waived. The bill waives INA sections 212(a) and 237(a) as reflected in records, but it does not waive every possible statutory eligibility requirement (for example, public‑charge considerations, national security vetting, or other statutory prerequisites), which could leave gaps between the legislative cure and adjudicative practice.
Finally, the single‑visa quota reduction imports a distributional tradeoff: it preserves the aggregate visa ceiling but shifts one potential slot away from other applicants from the same country, which in tight categories could have downstream effects on scheduling and priority dates.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.