S.2106 inserts a new section 245B into the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status certain noncitizens tied to countries that have been designated under INA §244 or who have been in the United States under TPS or deferred enforced departure. Eligibility depends on nationality or TPS/DED history, at least three years of continuous presence (with limited short-absence exceptions), passing criminal and national-security checks, and other admissibility requirements; spouses, domestic partners, children and certain unmarried sons and daughters are eligible to derive status.
The bill also creates procedural protections and practical benefits: applicants generally may file from inside the U.S. (with a narrow exception allowing some removed individuals to apply from abroad), DHS must authorize work while applications are pending and may grant advance parole, approved applicants are exempt from statutory immigrant visa numerical limits, and information in applications is broadly shielded from immigration-enforcement use subject to limited exceptions. Finally, the measure stiffens DHS reporting requirements when TPS designations end and adds a civil penalty for improper disclosure of application information.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new administrative route—§245B—to adjust eligible nationals of countries designated under INA §244 (or former TPS/DED recipients) to LPR status, allows family-derivative adjustments, grants work authorization and advance parole during adjudication, and exempts these adjustments from immigrant visa numerical caps.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are nationals of countries designated for TPS or who received deferred enforced departure, plus their spouses, domestic partners, children, and certain unmarried children; DHS/USCIS will have new adjudication duties; employers, immigration attorneys, and certain foreign governments are materially affected.
Why It Matters
It converts what has been a temporary humanitarian protection framework into a potential permanent‑residence pathway without creating new immigrant visa slots, changes DHS data‑sharing and enforcement rules for these applicants, and forces more granular DHS reporting about a country’s readiness to receive nationals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new statutory subsection, titled §245B, that tells DHS to adjust status to lawful permanent resident for noncitizens who fall into defined categories linked to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or deferred enforced departure (DED). There are four alternative paths into §245B eligibility: being a national of a state ever designated under INA §244; currently holding TPS or having held TPS as a national of a designated state; qualifying for TPS on the date of the last designation or extension; or having been present under DED that was extended beyond or issued after September 28, 2016.
In addition to that nexus, the applicant must have been continuously present in the United States for at least three years (subject to aggregate short‑absence carveouts) and must pass criminal and national security background checks.
The statute addresses practical adjudicative questions. Applicants may generally apply while physically present in the U.S.; an exception allows certain people who were removed or departed under voluntary departure on or after September 28, 2016 to apply from abroad if they otherwise met the eligibility thresholds the day before removal or departure.
DHS may charge a processing fee (the bill caps it) and must provide administrative-review procedures equivalent to other adjustment applicants. Importantly, the bill instructs DHS to cancel prior removal or voluntary departure orders if it approves a §245B application, and it prevents removal of applicants while applications are pending or while they are prima facie eligible and indicate intent to apply, subject to a final administrative denial.To reduce disruption to families and employment, §245B lets qualifying spouses, domestic partners, children and certain unmarried sons and daughters derive status from an approved principal applicant; it requires one year’s physical presence for unmarried sons/daughters before their own adjustment.
While applications are pending DHS must authorize employment and may provide appropriate work documentation; applicants are also eligible to request advance parole, and the statute specifies that the usual statutory bar in section 101(g) does not apply to parole granted under this authority. The statute also says that successful adjustments under §245B do not count against the numerical immigrant-visa ceilings in INA sections 201 and 202, so approvals do not consume annual visa slots.Outside the mechanics of adjustment, the bill imposes operational constraints and reporting responsibilities: it bars DHS from using or disclosing application information for immigration‑enforcement purposes or referring successful applicants to ICE/CBP, while allowing limited sharing with federal law‑enforcement and security agencies for fraud prevention, national security, or prosecution of non‑immigration felonies.
DHS must notify Congress quickly if it terminates a country’s TPS designation and provide a metrics‑based report on the country’s repatriation capacity. The measure includes a monetary penalty for knowing improper disclosure of application information and preserves the Secretary’s existing immigration authorities and all statutory definitions unless the bill explicitly changes them.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires at least three years of continuous physical presence in the United States to qualify for §245B, but allows aggregate absences up to 180 days without breaking that continuity.
USCIS may charge an application fee up to $1,440 and must exempt applicants who are under 18, below 150% of the Federal poverty line, in foster care/no familial support, or incapacitated by a serious chronic disability.
While a §245B application is pending DHS must authorize employment and may issue an 'employment authorized' endorsement; applicants are also eligible to request advance parole and are not subject to INA §101(g) restrictions for parole under this program.
Information in §245B applications is generally barred from use for immigration enforcement and from referral to ICE/CBP, but DHS may share it with federal security/law‑enforcement agencies for adjudicative assistance, fraud prevention, national security, or felony investigations; willful improper disclosure carries a civil fine up to $10,000.
Adjustments made under §245B are exempted from the immigrant visa numerical limits in INA sections 201 and 202, so approved applicants do not consume annual visa allotments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines eligibility and creates the adjustment-to-LPR pathway
This is the operative provision. It sets four eligibility hooks (national of a §244‑designated state; current or former TPS tied to such a state; qualification on the date of the last designation; or presence under DED extended beyond or issued after 9/28/2016), adds a three‑year continuous‑presence rule with an aggregate 180‑day short‑absence allowance, requires criminal and national security vetting, and authorizes DHS to adjust status if the applicant is not inadmissible or deportable under enumerated INA provisions. It also provides a waiver route for the continuous‑presence requirement where removal or continued absence would cause extreme hardship, delegating that determination to the Attorney General or DHS as applicable.
Where to apply, treatment of prior orders, fees, and review rights
§245B permits filing while physically present in the U.S. and—critically—allows certain noncitizens who were removed or voluntarily departed on or after 9/28/2016 to apply from abroad if they met eligibility the day before removal/departure. The statute bars DHS from conditioning receipt or approval on motions to reopen or reconsider prior removal orders; approval cancels those orders, while a final denial restores their effectiveness. DHS must provide administrative-review processes comparable to existing adjustment procedures and may collect a fee (capped) with enumerated exemptions.
Work authorization, advance parole, and family members
The provision requires DHS to authorize employment while an application is pending and allows DHS to issue employment endorsements. Applicants may apply for advance parole during adjudication, and the bill expressly removes the usual §101(g) reentry bar for parole granted under this authority. The statute mandates derivative adjustments for spouses, domestic partners, children and unmarried sons/daughters of approved principals, but imposes a one‑year presence requirement for unmarried children before they can adjust in their own right.
Restricts DHS use and disclosure of applicant information
Section 3 prohibits DHS from disclosing or using §245B application information for immigration‑enforcement purposes and prevents referrals of approved applicants to ICE/CBP or their designees. It carves out narrow sharing exceptions for adjudicative assistance, fraud prevention, national security, and prosecution of non‑immigration felonies, and creates a civil penalty (up to $10,000) for knowing improper use or disclosure.
Tightens DHS reporting when TPS designations end
This section amends INA §244(b)(3) to shift certain responsibilities to DHS (from the Attorney General), require any Secretary of State recommendation be received at least 90 days before a designation ends, and mandate a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within 3 days after publication of a determination to terminate a TPS designation. The required report must explain the original designation trigger, progress made to remedy the conditions, whether the country requested (re)designation or extension, and provide metrics assessing repatriation capacity (GDP, per‑capita GDP, economic stability, and related impacts).
Definitions, savings clause, and cross‑eligibility
This section confirms that standard INA definitions apply unless the Act says otherwise, preserves the Secretary’s existing immigration authorities, and states that eligibility for §245B does not preclude seeking other immigration benefits for which the alien might qualify. It’s a conventional catch‑all that signals the amendments are intended to operate within the existing INA framework.
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
- TPS and DED recipients tied to §244-designated countries — They gain a direct administrative route to lawful permanent residence without relying on immigrant‑visa allocations.
- Spouses, domestic partners, children and certain unmarried children of eligible principals — They can derive or obtain LPR status through the principal applicant, improving family stability.
- U.S. employers that employ eligible workers — Employers can retain staff who receive work authorization while applications pend and who may become permanent employees, reducing turnover and immigration‑related hiring uncertainty.
- Legal services and immigrant‑rights organizations — They will see increased demand for representation and can rely on a structured administrative pathway to help clients regularize status.
- Foreign governments of designated states — They receive a clearer set of metrics DHS must consider before terminating TPS, which could influence bilateral repatriation negotiations.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS/USCIS — The agency must design and resource a substantial new adjudication program, implement background checks, manage fee‑exemptions, and process derivative filings, with associated operational and IT costs.
- Federal courts and administrative tribunals — Expect litigation and administrative appeals over denials, waiver decisions, confidentiality claims, and procedural issues, increasing caseloads.
- ICE/CBP and enforcement‑focused components — The bill restricts their access to §245B application information and limits certain removal actions while applications are pending, reducing enforcement discretion for covered individuals.
- Congressional staff and oversight committees — The 3‑day reporting requirement and the need to analyze DHS metrics will create new, time‑sensitive oversight workstreams for Judiciary Committees.
- Small immigration‑legal providers and community organizations — They face increased client intake and assistance burdens without guaranteed federal funding, stretching limited nonprofit capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill aims to provide stable, permanent protection and integration for individuals from repressive or crisis‑affected countries without creating new visa quotas or enabling routine enforcement against applicants, but doing so places heavy burdens on DHS for robust vetting, timely adjudication, and airtight confidentiality—trade‑offs that force a choice between speed and scale on one hand, and security and procedural rigor on the other.
The statute attempts to thread competing priorities—creating a durable pathway for vulnerable noncitizens while preserving national‑security vetting and fraud safeguards—but leaves several operational questions unresolved. Key implementation details are delegated to DHS rulemaking and adjudicative practice: how extensive background and security vetting will be administered on a potentially large caseload; how adjudicators will apply and document 'continuous presence' where records are thin; and how the extreme‑hardship waiver authority will be standardized between the Attorney General and DHS.
The bill also creates administrative friction by requiring rapid congressional reports (within three days) after TPS termination determinations; that timeline may produce cursory reports unless DHS reorganizes internal decision timelines and interagency consultation to meet it.
Confidentiality protections are a headline feature, but the carveouts are broad enough to invite dispute. DHS may share application data with federal security and law‑enforcement partners for national‑security or felony investigations and to prevent fraud; those exceptions will require tight interagency protocols and audit trails to avoid mission creep.
The civil penalty for knowing misuse is modest relative to program scale and may not deter incidental disclosures without accompanying personnel controls, training, and monitoring. Finally, exempting §245B adjustments from immigrant‑visa numerical limits avoids retrofit visa‑allocation politics, but it raises distributional questions about how the administration will balance this pathway with other immigration priorities and whether it will shift expectations among would‑be immigrants and sending states.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.