Green Card Burden of Proof Lowered by Fourth Circuit
What if an immigration judge held you to a higher standard of proof than the law actually requires — and denied your green card because of it? That is exactly what happened to Sintia Dines Nivar Santana, a Dominican national whose adjustment-of-status case reached the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2026, the court ruled that green card applicants in removal proceedings must prove admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence — a lower, fairer bar — not the stricter "clearly and beyond doubt" standard immigration judges had been applying.
What the court decided — and why it matters for your green card
Sintia Dines Nivar Santana entered the United States in 2000 on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa with her minor son. Both overstayed. Her son later naturalized through honorable service in the U.S. Army and filed Form I-130 (a family petition) on her behalf. USCIS denied her adjustment-of-status application — the process of applying for a green card from inside the U.S. — in March 2016, finding she had falsely claimed U.S. citizenship on an employment eligibility form at a Connecticut elder-care facility in 2013. She denied knowingly checking that box. A witness from the employer testified the box was likely checked by a supervisor, not Santana. Still, the immigration judge (IJ) denied her case — not because she failed to present evidence, but because he applied the wrong legal standard.
The IJ required Santana to prove her admissibility "clearly and beyond doubt." She argued the correct standard was a preponderance of the evidence — meaning it is more likely than not that she is admissible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sided with the IJ. The Fourth Circuit originally agreed, deferring to the BIA's interpretation under the old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to follow agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. The Supreme Court then vacated that ruling and sent the case back, citing its 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended Chevron deference and said courts — not agencies — must interpret the law themselves.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
On remand, the Fourth Circuit did exactly that. In its November 2, 2026 opinion written by Judge Thacker and joined by Judges King and Heytens, the court held that adjustment-of-status applicants bear the burden of proving admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The IJ and BIA had applied the wrong standard. The court granted Santana's petition and sent her case back for new proceedings under the correct, lower standard. This ruling applies to cases within the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
What this means if you are in removal proceedings and applying for a green card
- If an immigration judge in the Fourth Circuit denied your adjustment-of-status application using the "clearly and beyond doubt" standard, this ruling may give you grounds to reopen or appeal your case. Talk to an immigration lawyer about whether you qualify.
- Gather all evidence that supports your admissibility — affidavits, witness statements, employment records, and any documents that contradict the government's claims against you. Under the preponderance standard, you only need to show it is more likely than not that you are admissible.
- If your case is still pending before an IJ or the BIA in the Fourth Circuit, ask your attorney to cite this decision — Nivar Santana v. Blanche, No. 22-2114 (4th Cir. Nov. 2, 2026) — and argue for the preponderance standard.
- If you were denied a green card partly because of a false citizenship claim you say you did not make, document your side of the story now: witness testimony and written statements from employers or coworkers can be critical.
Related: our step-by-step guide — “Appealing to the BIA”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
This decision is a significant win for adjustment-of-status applicants in the Fourth Circuit. Under the preponderance standard, you do not need to eliminate all doubt — you just need to tip the scales in your favor. If your case was decided under the "clearly and beyond doubt" standard and you are still within the time limits to appeal or reopen, you may have a strong argument for a new hearing. Consult an immigration attorney to evaluate your specific record before those deadlines pass.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in a green card case?
It means you must show it is more likely than not — more than a 50% chance — that you meet the legal requirements for a green card. You do not have to prove it beyond all doubt, just that your version of the facts is more believable than the government's.
Does this Fourth Circuit ruling apply to my case if I live outside those five states?
Not directly. The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. If you live in another state, your case falls under a different circuit court. However, your attorney may still cite this ruling to persuade an immigration judge or the BIA to adopt the same standard.
I was denied a green card because of a false citizenship claim I say I did not make. Can I reopen my case?
Possibly. The Nivar Santana ruling means the IJ must apply the preponderance standard when weighing evidence about your admissibility. If your case was decided under the stricter 'clearly and beyond doubt' standard in the Fourth Circuit, you may be able to file a motion to reopen. Time limits apply, so speak with an immigration lawyer as soon as possible.
What is adjustment of status, and how is it different from applying for a green card at a consulate?
Adjustment of status is the process of applying for a green card while you are already inside the United States, using Form I-485. Consular processing is when you apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad and then enter the U.S. as a permanent resident. The Fourth Circuit's ruling specifically addresses the burden of proof in adjustment-of-status cases during removal proceedings.