Grounds of Inadmissibility Under U.S. Immigration Law
Date of Information: 01/30/2026
Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.
Overview and Statutory Framework
Under U.S. immigration law, grounds of inadmissibility define the circumstances under which a noncitizen is legally barred from being admitted to the United States or from obtaining certain immigration benefits. These grounds play a central role not only at ports of entry and consular processing, but also—often counterintuitively—in adjustment of status adjudications inside the United States.
This page provides a high-level overview of the inadmissibility framework, identifies the major statutory categories, and explains how inadmissibility differs from deportability.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The primary statutory authority governing inadmissibility is found in:
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)
This provision enumerates all statutory grounds of inadmissibility. Each ground is further interpreted through:
Federal regulations (primarily 8 C.F.R. Parts 212, 235, and 245)
Agency policy guidance (USCIS Policy Manual, CBP Inspector’s Field Manual, DOS Foreign Affairs Manual)
Federal court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent
Inadmissibility is a creature of statute. If a ground is not expressly listed in INA § 212(a), it does not exist.
Major Categories of Inadmissibility Grounds
INA § 212(a) organizes inadmissibility grounds into several broad categories. Each category has its own logic, evidentiary standards, and waiver regime. Charles International Law addresses each of these categories in detail on separate research pages.
Health-Related Grounds
INA § 212(a)(1)
Includes communicable diseases of public health significance, lack of required vaccinations, certain physical or mental disorders associated with harmful behavior, and drug abuse or addiction.
Criminal Grounds
INA § 212(a)(2)
Includes crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substance violations, multiple criminal convictions, drug trafficking, prostitution-related offenses, and certain assertions of immunity from prosecution.
Security-Related Grounds
INA § 212(a)(3)
Includes espionage, terrorism-related activity, membership in totalitarian parties, participation in genocide or extrajudicial killings, and other national security concerns.
Public Charge
INA § 212(a)(4)
Applies where a noncitizen is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, assessed under a statutory “totality of the circumstances” framework and, for many family-based cases, the affidavit of support requirements under INA § 213A.
Labor Certification and Employment-Based Grounds
INA § 212(a)(5)
Applies primarily to employment-based immigrants lacking required labor certifications or otherwise failing to meet employment authorization prerequisites.
Fraud and Misrepresentation
INA § 212(a)(6)(C)
Includes fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact to procure an immigration benefit, as well as false claims to U.S. citizenship, which are among the most severe and often unwaivable grounds of inadmissibility.
Documentation and Immigration Violations
INA § 212(a)(6)(A)–(G)
Includes entry without inspection, stowaways, document fraud, unlawful presence, prior removal orders, and related violations.
Ineligibility for Citizenship
INA § 212(a)(8)
Applies to individuals who departed the United States to avoid military service or otherwise rendered themselves ineligible for naturalization.
Prior Removal and Unlawful Presence Bars
INA § 212(a)(9)
Includes the three-year, ten-year, and permanent unlawful presence bars, as well as inadmissibility following prior removal, expedited removal, or voluntary departure under specified conditions.
Inadmissibility vs. Deportability: A Critical Distinction
U.S. immigration law draws a sharp distinction between inadmissibility and deportability, governed by separate statutory provisions.
Grounds of Inadmissibility
INA § 212(a)
Inadmissibility applies to noncitizens who are:
Seeking admission at a port of entry
Applying for a visa at a U.S. consulate
Present in the United States but not admitted (for example, entry without inspection or parole)
Applying for adjustment of status
Grounds of Deportability
INA § 237(a)
Deportability applies only to noncitizens who have been lawfully admitted to the United States and are later alleged to have violated immigration or criminal laws after admission.
Relative Stringency and Underlying Policy Rationale
As a general matter, grounds of inadmissibility are more stringent and expansive than grounds of deportability. This reflects a deliberate policy judgment embedded throughout the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The legal threshold for entering the United States is intentionally higher than the threshold for remaining in the United States after entry. Congress has long operated on the premise that the government has broader authority to exclude noncitizens at the border than to expel individuals who have already entered the country.
Once a person has entered the United States—lawfully or otherwise—additional constitutional, statutory, and equitable considerations come into play, including due process protections, reliance interests, family unity, and humanitarian concerns. As a result, deportability grounds are generally narrower, more conduct-specific, and often require post-admission behavior to trigger removal.
This framework explains why inadmissibility grounds govern adjustment of status. Adjustment is treated as a request for admission, not as a defense against removal. An applicant seeking to adjust status must therefore clear the higher bar associated with entry, even if they have lived in the United States for many years.
Understanding this hierarchy—exclusion first, expulsion second—is essential to analyzing inadmissibility, deportability, waiver eligibility, and burden of proof across the immigration system.
Where Inadmissibility Rules Apply
Inadmissibility analysis is required in:
Consular processing cases
Applications for adjustment of status
Refugee and asylee adjustment
Certain humanitarian and discretionary benefit applications
Removal proceedings involving individuals deemed to be “seeking admission”
Deportability analysis applies only when DHS alleges that a previously admitted noncitizen has become removable due to post-admission conduct.
Inadmisibility Grounds in Adjustment of Status
Although adjustment of status occurs inside the United States, it is legally treated as the functional equivalent of an application for admission. As a result:
Inadmissibility grounds apply to adjustment of status
Deportability grounds generally do not
An applicant adjusting status under INA § 245 must establish that they are not inadmissible under INA § 212(a), even if they have lived in the United States for an extended period.
In removal proceedings, this distinction affects:
Which party bears the burden of proof
Which waivers are available
Whether certain conduct is legally relevant at all
In many cases, misunderstanding whether inadmissibility or deportability governs the analysis leads directly to incorrect legal conclusions.
Need Help Applying These Rules to a Real Case?
Grounds of inadmissibility are highly technical, fact-specific, and often unforgiving. Small details—how an entry occurred, when conduct happened, how a statute is classified, or whether a waiver is legally available—can determine the outcome of a case.
If you are facing a potential inadmissibility issue, considering adjustment of status, or responding to a denial or Notice to Appear, do not rely on general information alone. Effective analysis requires careful review of the record, statutory history, and current agency interpretation.
Charles International Law represents individuals and families in complex immigration matters involving inadmissibility, removability, waivers, and discretionary relief.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances and legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions on Inadmissibility Grounds
1. What are grounds of inadmissibility under U.S. immigration law?
Grounds of inadmissibility are statutory reasons a noncitizen may be denied entry to the United States or denied certain immigration benefits. They are listed in INA § 212(a) and include health-related issues, criminal history, fraud or misrepresentation, unlawful presence, prior removals, public charge concerns, and national security issues.
2. Where are grounds of inadmissibility defined?
All grounds of inadmissibility are defined by statute in INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). Federal regulations, agency policy guidance, and court decisions interpret and apply these statutory provisions, but inadmissibility itself exists only where Congress has expressly provided for it.
3. What is the difference between inadmissibility and deportability?
Inadmissibility governs whether a person may enter the United States or be granted an immigration benefit treated as an admission. Deportability governs whether a person who has already been lawfully admitted may be removed based on post-admission conduct. The two concepts are legally distinct and controlled by different statutory sections.
4. Which is more serious: inadmissibility or deportability?
In general, grounds of inadmissibility are broader and more stringent than grounds of deportability. The legal system imposes a higher bar to entering the United States than to remaining after entry, reflecting the government’s greater authority to exclude than to expel.
5. Do grounds of inadmissibility apply to adjustment of status?
Yes. Adjustment of status is legally treated as a request for admission. As a result, applicants for adjustment must show that they are not inadmissible under INA § 212(a), even if they have lived in the United States for many years.
6. Do grounds of deportability apply to adjustment of status?
Generally, no. Deportability grounds apply only to individuals who have already been lawfully admitted. Adjustment of status cases are governed by inadmissibility grounds, not deportability grounds.
7. Can someone be inadmissible even if they have never left the United States?
Yes. A person may be inadmissible while physically present in the United States, particularly if they entered without inspection, were paroled, or are applying for adjustment of status. Physical presence alone does not eliminate inadmissibility.
8. Are all criminal convictions grounds of inadmissibility?
No. Only certain criminal offenses trigger inadmissibility, including crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substance violations, drug trafficking, prostitution-related offenses, and multiple convictions meeting specific statutory criteria. The analysis depends on the statute of conviction, sentence, and immigration classification of the offense.
9. Is fraud or misrepresentation always a permanent bar?
Fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact can result in permanent inadmissibility. However, some applicants may qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility, depending on the nature of the fraud and qualifying family relationships. False claims to U.S. citizenship are treated much more harshly and often have no waiver.
10. What is the public charge ground of inadmissibility?
The public charge ground applies when a noncitizen is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. It is assessed under a statutory totality-of-the-circumstances test and, in many family-based cases, requires a qualifying affidavit of support.
11. Are there waivers available for grounds of inadmissibility?
Some grounds of inadmissibility may be waived, while others cannot. Waiver eligibility depends on the specific ground, the applicant’s immigration category, qualifying relatives, and statutory hardship standards. No waiver exists unless Congress has expressly authorized one.
12. Who has the burden of proof in inadmissibility cases?
In most inadmissibility contexts, including adjustment of status, the applicant bears the burden of proof to establish admissibility or eligibility for a waiver. This burden allocation can be decisive in close cases.
13. Can someone be placed in removal proceedings based on inadmissibility?
Yes. Individuals who are deemed to be “seeking admission,” including certain returning permanent residents and individuals who entered without inspection, may be charged with inadmissibility in removal proceedings.
14. Why is inadmissibility analysis so fact-specific?
Small factual details—such as the timing of conduct, how an entry occurred, how a criminal statute is categorized, or whether conduct was willful—can change the legal analysis entirely. Inadmissibility determinations are rarely resolved by labels alone.
15. Should I consult an attorney if inadmissibility may be an issue?
Yes. Inadmissibility law is complex, unforgiving, and highly technical. Misidentifying the applicable ground or waiver can result in denial, removal proceedings, or long-term bars. Consultation with an experienced immigration attorney is strongly recommended.
Other Helpful Resources:
See Also:
CIL Guide to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule
