What are the main grounds for removal under INA for non-criminal noncitizens?
Executive summary
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes removal of noncitizens on multiple non-criminal grounds, principally inadmissibility at entry or adjustment, immigration status violations (including unlawful presence and visa overstays), fraud or misrepresentation, national security/terrorism and public‑charge or public‑benefit concerns, with separate statutory lists for those “inadmissible” and those already “admitted” and therefore deportable under different sections of the INA (Sections 212 and 237) [1] [2] [3].
1. Inadmissibility at entry or adjustment: foundational ground that trips many cases
One broad category is being inadmissible at the time of admission or adjustment—if a disqualifying condition existed when a visa was issued or status granted, a person can later be removed once that condition is discovered; INA §212 enumerates classes such as health, security, fraud, and previous immigration violations [1] [3].
2. Immigration-status violations: unlawful presence, entry without inspection, and overstays
Remaining in the United States without lawful status, entering or attempting to enter without inspection, or overstaying a visa are core non‑criminal removal triggers: unlawful presence creates reentry bars and can lead to inadmissibility, and visa expiration or unauthorized stays can render someone removable under present‑in‑violation provisions of INA §237 [1] [4] [5].
3. Fraud, misrepresentation, and false claims of U.S. citizenship
Use of fraudulent documents, lying on immigration forms, or falsely claiming U.S. citizenship are explicit grounds for inadmissibility and removal; the INA includes waiver pathways in narrow family circumstances but fraud remains a frequent basis for proceedings [1] [4] [6].
4. Security, terrorism, and public‑policy grounds
National security and foreign‑policy concerns—suspicions of espionage, terrorism, or activities adverse to U.S. interests—are separate statutory grounds that can render a person inadmissible or removable regardless of criminal conviction [1] [3].
5. Public charge and health‑related grounds
Health conditions deemed a public health risk (e.g., certain communicable diseases or lack of required vaccinations) and determinations that an applicant is likely to become a public charge also appear among INA inadmissibility grounds and can precipitate denial of admission or removal steps [3].
6. Non‑criminal grounds tied to prior immigration actions and orders
Prior orders of removal, previous unlawful reentry, or use of fraudulent means to obtain admission create specific inadmissibility and criminal reentry consequences; longstanding statutory schemes impose bars to readmission and make some reentries subject to criminal prosecution [1] [7] [8].
7. Interaction with criminal grounds and enforcement practice (why “non‑criminal” grounds matter in practice)
Although criminal grounds often dominate headlines, non‑criminal grounds—overstays, unlawful entry, fraud, public‑charge findings, and national‑security exclusions—are central to the INA’s architecture and drive a large share of removals and expedited procedures; enforcement patterns (e.g., expedited removals, reinstatements) mean many non‑criminal removals occur without full immigration‑court adjudication [9] [1].
8. Relief, waivers, and statutory discretion that mitigate removal
The INA and agency practice include limited reliefs—waivers for certain misrepresentation cases tied to close family relationships, cancellation of removal in constrained circumstances, and other discretionary remedies—but eligibility is narrow and many statutory grounds (e.g., aggravated felonies) foreclose relief or impose severe consequences [1] [8] [4].
9. Competing narratives, statutory construction, and hidden agendas
Debates about which grounds should apply, how broadly to read generic criminal and non‑criminal categories, and whether enforcement should prioritize dangerous individuals versus immigration‑status violations reflect a policy tug‑of‑war among Congress, DHS, immigration judges, and advocacy groups; practitioners regularly litigate statutory definitions and seek narrow constructions to limit removals [10] [9]. Sources such as the American Immigration Council frame enforcement tradeoffs and note that how offenses are labeled—“aggravated felony” versus lesser categories—has outsized immigration consequences [9] [8].
10. Limits of this reporting
This summary is drawn from statutory overviews and practice manuals; it identifies the principal non‑criminal grounds in INA Sections 212 and 237 and describes enforcement dynamics and relief frameworks, but it does not catalog every subcategory or recent administrative rule changes that may post‑date these sources [1] [2] [9].