Golden Gate University Law Review


Julie Mercer


Part I of this Comment reviews the history of adjustment of status, the expired 245(i) remedy, the three or ten year bar, and the extreme hardship waiver. Part II illustrates how current immigration law runs counter to United States pro-marriage policy, promotes separation of spouses in mixed-status marriages, and has a negative economic impact. Part III recommends reinstating a narrow version of the 245(i) remedy only for U.S. citizens' unauthorized spouses and creating a marriage fraud enforcement division. Finally, Part IV concludes that creating a remedy for U.S. citizens would avoid the harmful impacts of the current law while generating about $200 million of dollars in revenue.