Secretarial Exemptions

Date of Information: 11/13/2026

Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.

Legal Authority: What a Secretarial Exemption Can Do

A secretarial exemption is a discretionary decision that a covered terrorism-related inadmissibility provision will not apply to a particular person or, in an authorized group determination, that an organization will not be treated as a Tier III terrorist organization. Whether an exemption is legally available and whether an individual deserves it are separate questions. The practical analysis must address both.

The statute. INA § 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), authorizes either the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State to act after consultation with the other Secretary and the Attorney General. It excludes individuals engaged in, or likely after entry to engage in, terrorist activity; members or representatives of Tier I or II organizations; and specified voluntary, knowing terrorist activity, endorsement, persuasion, or military-type training involving those organizations. Group exemptions cannot cover organizations attacking the United States or another democratic country or purposefully practicing terrorism against civilians. Those restrictions on group determinations should not be confused with a categorical prohibition on every individual exemption involving such a group. State cannot exercise this authority while the person is in pending INA § 240 removal proceedings. The statute preserves possible civil or criminal proceedings and creates no enforceable entitlement.

Exercises of authority. The Secretaries implement the statute through written determinations, commonly published in the Federal Register. Each determination identifies the conduct or organization covered, the statutory paragraphs affected, eligibility conditions, and who implements it. An applicant must fit an actual authorization. A sympathetic history alone does not establish an available exemption.

Agency implementation. USCIS publishes separate catalogs of situational exemptions and group-based exemptions. The implementing memorandum for the selected category matters as much as its name. Some determinations authorize USCIS, in consultation with ICE, to act; others also provide for consular implementation. For visa cases, consult 9 FAM 302.6 and the post's case-specific instructions.

Regulations. There is no single regulation that supplies a universal exemption eligibility test or an ordinary application procedure for every TRIG exemption. Related procedural regulations still matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) governs USCIS evidence, translations, and requests for evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) addresses burdens for relief in removal proceedings. Neither provision transfers the Secretary's exemption power to an immigration judge.

For orientation, see our TRIG overview, Material Support guide, and Tier I, II, and III Organizations guide.

Case Law: Eligibility for Consideration and the Limits of Judicial Relief

Matter of M-H-Z-, 26 I&N Dec. 757, 762 n.5 (BIA 2016)

A Colombian business owner supplied goods to FARC after threats. The Board held that the material-support bar contains no implied duress exception. It distinguished DHS's discretionary exemption authority from the immigration court's role. Immigration judges and the BIA cannot grant the exemption. Footnote 5 explains that judges should ordinarily determine whether the applicant otherwise qualifies for the requested benefit before reaching material support. This makes the underlying merits finding essential to preparing an exemption case. The appeal was dismissed; the decision did not award an exemption. Read the BIA decision.

Sufiyan v. Blanche, No. 22-6392 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2026), amended May 26, 2026

The case originally appeared as Sufiyan v. Bondi. The applicant said LTTE members forced him to translate during an interrogation. The majority required the BIA to determine whether he would qualify for asylum or statutory withholding without the material-support bar, allowing meaningful exemption consideration under existing agency procedures. It did not direct DHS to grant an exemption or require the immigration judge to adjudicate duress for DHS. Judge Sullivan dissented from the required merits determination. The holding is binding within the Second Circuit; it should not be presented as a uniform nationwide rule. Read the amended court opinion.

The Seventh Circuit difference

The amended Sufiyan opinion discusses FH-T v. Holder, 723 F.3d 833, 843–46 (7th Cir. 2013), which rejected a categorical requirement that the Board decide the remaining asylum merits to facilitate an exemption. This difference makes the governing circuit significant. A request for an explicit alternative merits finding should address the applicable circuit and the later BIA guidance in M-H-Z-.

Matter of A-C-M-, 27 I&N Dec. 303, 306–09 & nn.5–6 (BIA 2018)

The Board held that forced cooking, cleaning, and laundry could constitute material support and rejected a quantitative minimum. It identified exemptions for insignificant and certain limited support as a separate potential remedy. It also described referral through ICE after an administratively final removal order where an authorized TRIG exemption is the remaining obstacle. Its material-support ruling is not an individual exemption grant. Read the BIA decision.

What these cases establish: coercion and a small amount of support can be central to exemption analysis without automatically defeating the underlying bar. Courts and the BIA can address legal and procedural questions within their jurisdiction; they do not replace the authorized decision maker's discretionary assessment. The particular exemption determination supplies the operative eligibility criteria.

Who May Qualify, and What Standards Apply?

Start with four distinct inquiries: Does the alleged TRIG ground actually apply? Does the statute permit an exemption for this person? Does an existing exercise of authority cover every disqualifying activity? Does the individual satisfy its conditions and warrant approval? Do not collapse these inquiries into a general hardship argument.

Situational and group-based categories

USCIS's published situational catalog identifies material support under duress; solicitation of funds or members under duress; military-type training under duress; voluntary medical care; certain applicants with existing immigration benefits; qualifying participation in the Iraqi uprisings; certain limited material support; insignificant material support; Afghan allies; and Afghan civil servants. These are screening categories, not promises of eligibility. Dates, organizational tiers, covered statutory clauses, exclusions, and the particular person's actions still control. Consult the linked determination and implementation memorandum for the category being asserted. USCIS situational catalog and underlying authorities.

Group-based determinations require the same care. Identify the exact organization, faction, relevant dates, and covered relationships or activities. An exemption associated with one faction cannot simply be extended to similarly named groups. Read the conditions attached to the particular determination rather than treating an organization's appearance in a list as an automatic personal clearance. USCIS group-based catalog.

Common threshold conditions

The 2007 designated-organization duress determination requires otherwise-established eligibility for the underlying benefit, completed relevant security checks, full disclosure of the support, and no danger to U.S. safety or security. It authorizes a discretionary assessment of the circumstances. Different determinations can impose additional or differently worded requirements; satisfying these common conditions does not dispense with the selected category's conditions. 72 Fed. Reg. 26138–39 (May 8, 2007).

Duress: the facts the agency evaluates

The same determination directs consideration of reasonable opportunities to avoid providing support, efforts to avoid it, the kind and severity of threatened or actual harm, who was threatened, and the perceived imminence and likelihood of threatened harm. Its broader discretionary factors include the amount, form, and frequency of support; the organization's activities; the applicant's awareness; elapsed time; and subsequent conduct. USCIS's situational guidance describes the minimum duress concept as a reasonably perceived threat of serious harm. 2007 duress determination; USCIS explanation.

Insignificant support and limited support are different categories

The 2014 insignificant-support determination, 79 Fed. Reg. 6913–14, covers specified support involving undesignated organizations or individuals and imposes multiple restrictions, including limits involving intent, direct use for violence, weapons, military-type training, and other uncovered terrorist activity. There is no universal dollar amount that guarantees approval.

The 2014 limited-support determination, 79 Fed. Reg. 6914–15, separately addresses certain routine commercial or social transactions, humanitarian assistance, and substantial pressure below duress. Its restrictions include intent or desire to assist terrorism, direct violent use, certain recipients, targeting civilians or U.S. interests, weapons-related assistance, military-type training, and other unexempted activity. Calling a payment a tax, business expense, or cultural obligation does not establish the exception without the supporting circumstances.

The 2022 determination, 87 Fed. Reg. 37523–24, addresses qualifying insignificant or limited support to designated organizations. It adds explicit restrictions on voluntary and knowing terrorist activity on behalf of such organizations and requires otherwise-established eligibility, vetting, disclosure, no disqualifying intent or specified violent or weapons-related support, no other uncovered TRIG ground, and a favorable discretionary assessment. It is not a blanket exemption for voluntary support.

Current-availability check. USCIS's situational page was labeled January 24, 2025, when reviewed for this guide. Its catalog is a starting point. Before relying on an exemption, verify the underlying determination, subsequent modifications or revocations, and the agency's current implementation instructions. This is especially important for nationality-specific categories and cases involving changed organizational designations.

Step by Step: Preparing and Presenting an Exemption Request

The following is a practical preparation framework. The filing route depends on whether the matter is with USCIS, a U.S. consulate, or the immigration courts. It is not a new government form or a promise that any particular office will accept a freestanding request.

1. Identify the underlying immigration case and who controls it

Record the benefit sought, receipt or visa case number, A-number, office, interview status, deadlines, and all immigration-court orders. Determine whether proceedings are pending, administratively final, or on judicial review. For represented matters, confirm the appropriate appearance is on file: a USCIS Form G-28 and any necessary EOIR-28 or EOIR-27 serve different agencies. Map the benefit case and exemption issue together from the start.

2. Obtain and reconcile the record

Review prior visa and benefit applications, asylum declarations, interview records, military records, court filings, and government notices. Obtain available agency records when needed, while preserving current filing and appeal deadlines. Create a dated chronology of each payment, service, organizational relationship, recruitment act, or training event. Identify what the person knew at each time and explain discrepancies or missing records candidly.

3. Analyze whether the government has identified the correct TRIG ground

Prepare an event-by-event chart showing the alleged conduct, recipient, organization and tier, dates, knowledge, and statutory clause asserted. Preserve supported arguments that the bar does not apply. Request exemption consideration in the alternative where appropriate, without making unnecessary factual or legal concessions. Distinguish evidence that the applicant was coerced from evidence that an element of the alleged ground is missing.

4. Select the exact exercise of authority

Read the determination and implementation memorandum, then create a checklist of every condition. Match each condition to evidence and identify every potentially disqualifying fact. If the applicant both gave material support and received military-type training, analyze each independently. An authorization covering the support alone may leave another ground unresolved. If no current category fits, identify that gap expressly; a request that the Secretary create a new exercise of authority is not the same as an adjudicator applying an existing exemption.

5. Establish eligibility for the underlying benefit

Develop the full merits case alongside the TRIG evidence. For asylum, for example, an exemption cannot replace proof of the substantive claim or resolve an independent bar. In removal litigation, seek an express determination of whether relief would be granted without the TRIG obstacle. Address M-H-Z-, the amended Sufiyan opinion, and the governing circuit's law. Preserve a request for appropriate findings and any legal objection in the record.

6. Prepare the applicant's declaration and corroboration

Use the applicant's own account, with careful interpretation where necessary. Describe who demanded or received assistance; what was supplied; amounts, dates, and frequency; threats; available alternatives; escape or refusal efforts; and why the applicant believed the threatened harm would occur. Explain any continuing relationships, later contacts, and the end of the association. Separate direct knowledge from information supplied by others.

Possible corroboration includes contemporaneous threats, messages, receipts, employment or service records, medical or psychological evidence, witness declarations, and reliable country-condition material identifying the organization and its methods. Explain why reasonably expected documents cannot be obtained. Supply complete English translations with the translator's certification as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) for USCIS filings. A general report about conflict conditions should be connected to the applicant's specific experience.

7. Write a focused legal submission

Identify the benefit and procedural posture; state the exemption authority; address each required condition; provide pinpoint exhibit references; discuss adverse evidence; and explain the requested discretionary conclusion. A useful packet contains a cover letter, legal memorandum, declaration, indexed exhibits, a chronology, and a criteria-to-evidence chart. Include a short, accurate explanation of current conduct and relevant favorable circumstances. Label this as a request for consideration under the specified authorization, rather than representing that the applicant already has an exemption.

8. Use the route that matches the case

USCIS benefit cases: present the facts and request for exemption consideration to the office adjudicating the underlying benefit, using that office's permitted submission method and any evidence-request instructions. USCIS guidance provides for agency consideration of the authorized categories. Do not assume a separate I-601 or I-602 filing is the mechanism for an INA § 212(d)(3)(B)(i) exemption. The internal exemption worksheet is an adjudication tool, not an applicant's universal filing form. Confirm routing with the responsible office when the case has moved or special instructions apply.

Visa cases: present the legal and factual submission through the consulate's authorized case channel and request consideration under the applicable determination. Confirm that the authorization permits consular implementation. Supply requested evidence and track any refusal or further-processing notice. Do not assume that a visa post can use State's exemption authority while INA § 240 removal proceedings remain pending. The separate nonimmigrant-waiver route, if relevant, requires its own analysis.

Removal cases: the immigration judge decides the underlying claims and TRIG issues within EOIR's jurisdiction; the judge does not award the secretarial exemption. Preserve the exemption issue with ICE counsel, request the necessary merits findings, and document the referral question. The published DHS process for covered final-order cases uses ICE referral to USCIS after administrative finality. Do not waive an appeal merely to accelerate that stage. Matter of A-C-M-, 27 I&N Dec. at 309 n.6.

9. For final-order cases, confirm referral and any stay requirement

DHS's October 23, 2008 fact sheet describes notices of referral and different detained and non-detained procedures. It instructs covered detained individuals to submit Form I-246 within seven days of service of the referral letter to obtain exemption consideration. Treat that historical instruction as an urgent issue to verify against the actual notice and current ICE procedures, rather than a universal deadline for every exemption case. Confirm the referral, where supplemental evidence goes, and who is responsible for any stay request. Keep addresses and representation records current.

10. Complete vetting and respond to questions

Attend required interviews and biometrics appointments. Respond to evidence requests by the stated deadline, using the designated channel. Correct material inaccuracies promptly and explain omissions. Keep a complete submission copy and proof of delivery. Maintain a log of requests and responses. Neither an evidentiary packet nor a lawyer's assessment substitutes for government security screening or an authorized exemption decision.

11. Obtain and read the actual determination

Identify the activities and provisions covered, any conditions, and the effect on the underlying case. Preserve the written notice. Avoid treating an interview comment, referral, or pending security review as approval. Where relief was previously denied in removal proceedings, approval may need to be followed by reopening before the benefit can be granted.

12. Complete the underlying case and plan for later filings

The final-order fact sheet describes ICE coordinating a joint motion to reopen after a favorable exemption determination. Confirm which tribunal has jurisdiction and the required appearance, address, and supporting documents. The exemption does not itself reopen proceedings, issue a visa, grant asylum, or approve permanent residence. Keep the exemption notice with the complete record for later applications and disclose any additional conduct when required.

A Pending Exemption Is Not a Stay of Removal

Track removal protection separately from exemption consideration. Obtain and read the actual stay decision or protection order. Do not infer a stay from a referral, a request, or ongoing review. Even a motion to reopen generally does not stop removal automatically. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(v). If the evidence supports it, pursue Convention Against Torture deferral independently; that protection has its own requirements and does not confer lawful permanent status. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17.

Decisions, Delays, Later Applications, and Review

Approval has a defined scope. Compare the written decision with every alleged disqualifying activity. Read the selected authorization's language about later benefits. The 2007 designated-organization duress determination says its determination applies to later benefit or protection applications unless revoked. The 2014 and 2022 material-support determinations instead say a prior determination can inform, but does not control, a subsequent benefit decision. Do not promise permanent clearance across all future applications. 2007 determination; 2014 determination; 2022 determination.

No promised processing period. Plan for security checks, interagency consultation, and possible requests for further information. A benefit's ordinary processing estimate should not be described as a guaranteed exemption timetable. Follow the actual case, request appropriately directed updates, and separately preserve benefit, appeal, motion, and removal-related deadlines.

Distinguish the decisions. A finding that the TRIG bar does not apply, a denial of the underlying benefit, a refusal to grant an exemption, and a failure to refer a case are different issues. Identify which decision is being challenged before selecting a review route. EOIR does not function as an ordinary appellate body for USCIS's discretionary exemption determination.

Judicial review is narrow. The exemption statute restricts review to the prescribed final-removal-order route and the limited review preserved by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). A legal or constitutional challenge is different from asking a court to reweigh discretionary factors. Analyze jurisdiction, exhaustion, finality, and timeliness for the particular claim. Nothing in the cases discussed above guarantees a court order compelling exemption approval.

Sources and verification. This guide draws on the statutory text, the linked Federal Register determinations, USCIS's published catalogs and implementation materials, BIA precedent, and the amended 2026 Sufiyan opinion. Case citations identify the propositions supported; a nationwide rule should not be inferred from one circuit's decision. For an individual filing, verify subsequent case history and current agency instructions.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is there a separate application form for a secretarial exemption?

The published scheme centers on exemption consideration in the underlying benefit or visa case and, for covered final-order removal matters, ICE referral to USCIS. There is no single applicant form that substitutes for identifying the relevant authorization and proper route. Follow the actual office or referral instructions; do not treat an ordinary waiver form as a universal TRIG exemption application.

2. Can an immigration judge grant the exemption?

No. The judge can decide the underlying relief claim and the applicability of the bar within EOIR's jurisdiction. Exemption approval rests with the authorized executive-branch decision maker. A favorable finding that relief would otherwise be granted is useful but is not itself an exemption.

3. Does duress automatically remove the material-support bar?

No. Matter of M-H-Z- rejects an implied duress exception. Duress can support consideration under an authorized exemption, subject to its conditions and a favorable discretionary decision.

4. Does a very small payment guarantee an insignificant-support exemption?

No. The applicable determination's restrictions, context, effect, intent, recipient, and other activities matter. A small payment should be documented and analyzed; it should not be assumed legally irrelevant.

5. Does hardship to my U.S. citizen family establish eligibility?

Family circumstances may be presented where relevant to discretion, but they do not replace the selected exemption's legal requirements or overcome a statutory prohibition. Identify a valid exemption category before developing the discretionary presentation.

6. Can one exemption address everything in my history?

Only if its actual scope covers all relevant grounds and activities. Support, recruitment, training, membership, and other conduct can raise separate issues. Review them individually and identify any additional authorization needed.

7. Does requesting an exemption stop deportation?

Do not assume that it does. Review actual stay and protection orders and any current ICE instructions. Exemption consideration and protection against removal require separate attention.

8. Does approval guarantee asylum, a visa, or a green card?

No. The underlying application still requires the proper decision and all remaining eligibility requirements. A removal case may also require reopening before relief can be granted.

9. Is the 2026 Sufiyan decision a guarantee of approval?

No. The amended Second Circuit opinion concerns the merits findings needed for exemption consideration under the existing system. It does not award an exemption, and its procedural holding should be applied with attention to circuit law.

10. What should I bring to a consultation?

Bring complete immigration filings and decisions, court notices, service and employment records, a chronology of relevant contacts and assistance, available threat evidence, and any previous exemption or referral notice. Identify upcoming deadlines and explain inconsistencies openly.