Unauthorized Alien Students:
Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation
Andorra Bruno
Specialist in Immigration Policy
March 21, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33863
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Summary
The 109th and 110th Congresses considered, but did not enact, comprehensive immigration reform
legislation that included large-scale legalization programs for unauthorized aliens. In the
aftermath of these unsuccessful efforts, some interested parties have urged the President and
Congress to pursue more limited legislation to address the status of unauthorized alien students.
Such legislation is commonly referred to as the “DREAM Act.”
Unauthorized aliens in the United States are able to receive free public education through high
school. They may experience difficulty obtaining higher education, however, for several reasons.
Among these reasons is a provision enacted in 1996 that prohibits states from granting
unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence,
unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly
understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes.
Unauthorized alien students also are not eligible for federal student financial aid. More broadly,
as unauthorized aliens, they are not legally allowed to work and are subject to being removed
from the country.
Multiple DREAM Act bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to address the
unauthorized student population. Most have proposed a two-prong approach of repealing the
1996 provision and enabling some unauthorized alien students to become U.S. legal permanent
residents (LPRs) through an immigration procedure known as cancellation of removal. While
there are other options for dealing with this population, this report deals exclusively with the
DREAM Act approach in light of the considerable congressional interest in it.
In the 111th Congress, the House approved DREAM Act language as part of an unrelated bill, the
Removal Clarification Act of 2010. However, the Senate failed, on a 55-41 vote, to invoke cloture
on a motion to agree to the House-passed DREAM Act amendment and the bill died at the end of
the Congress. The House-approved language differed in key respects from earlier versions of the
DREAM Act.
Bills to legalize the status of unauthorized alien students (S. 952, H.R. 1842, H.R. 3823) have
again been introduced in the 112th Congress. It is unclear, however, whether any of these
measures will be considered. This report will be updated as legislative developments occur.

Congressional Research Service

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Estimates of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries .......................................................................... 2
Higher Education Benefits and Immigration Status ........................................................................ 3
1996 Provision................................................................................................................................. 3
Action in the 112th Congress............................................................................................................ 4
S. 952......................................................................................................................................... 4
H.R. 1842................................................................................................................................... 6
H.R. 3823................................................................................................................................... 8
Pro/Con Arguments........................................................................................................................ 10

Appendixes
Appendix. Action in the 109th, 110th, and 111th Congresses........................................................... 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Introduction
While prospects for comprehensive immigration reform—which encompasses highly
controversial proposals for legalization of unauthorized (illegal) aliens—may have dimmed in
recent years, narrower proposals to enable unauthorized alien students to legalize their status have
received attention. While still controversial, such proposals for legalization of aliens who were
brought, as children, to live in the United States by their parents or other adults have enjoyed a
broad base of support in recent Congresses.
While living in the United States, unauthorized alien children are able to receive free public
education through high school.1 Many unauthorized immigrants who graduate from high school
and want to attend college, however, face various obstacles. Among them, a provision enacted in
1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)2
discourages states and localities from granting unauthorized aliens certain “postsecondary
education benefits.” More broadly, as unauthorized aliens, they are unable to work legally and are
subject to removal from the United States.3
Multiple bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to provide relief to unauthorized alien
students. These bills have often been entitled the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. In this report, however, following common usage, the term
DREAM Act is used to refer to similar bills to provide relief to unauthorized alien students
whether or not they carry that name.
Prior to the 111th Congress, DREAM Act bills generally proposed to repeal the 1996 provision
and to enable certain unauthorized alien students to adjust to legal permanent resident (LPR)
status. In the 111th Congress, in December 2010, the House approved a different type of DREAM
Act measure as part of an unrelated bill, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (H.R. 5281).
Unlike earlier DREAM Act bills, the DREAM Act language in H.R. 5281 (which was the same as
in stand-alone H.R. 6497) did not include a repeal of the 1996 provision and proposed to grant
eligible individuals an interim legal status prior to enabling them to adjust to LPR status. The
Senate failed, on a 55-41 vote, to invoke cloture on a motion to agree to the House-passed
DREAM Act amendment, and H.R. 5281 died at the end of the Congress.
Bills to legalize the status of unauthorized alien students (S. 952, H.R. 1842, H.R. 3823) have
again been introduced in the 112th Congress. S. 952 and H.R. 1842 take a step back from some of
the revisions incorporated in the DREAM Act measure approved by the House in the 111th
Congress and include some more traditional DREAM Act provisions. By contrast, H.R. 3823
includes many of the same provisions as the House-approved measure, but it is more restrictive in
some respects. The outlook for the consideration or enactment of these or any other DREAM Act
bills, however, is unclear.

1 For a discussion of the legal basis for the provision of free public education, see CRS Report RS22500, Unauthorized
Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis, by Jody Feder.
2 IIRIRA is Division C of P.L. 104-208, September 30, 1996.
3 Unauthorized alien students are distinct from a group commonly referred to as foreign students. Like unauthorized
alien students, foreign students are foreign nationals. Unlike unauthorized alien students, however, foreign students
enter the United States legally on nonimmigrant (temporary) visas in order to study at U.S. institutions.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Estimates of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries
As discussed below, DREAM Act bills introduced in recent Congresses would enable certain
unauthorized alien students to obtain LPR status in the United States, in the case of most bills
through a two-stage process. Requirements to obtain conditional status (stage 1) typically include
residence of at least five years in the United States and a high school diploma (or the equivalent)
or admission to an institution of higher education in the United States. Requirements to become a
full-fledged LPR (stage 2) typically include acquisition of a degree from an institution of higher
education in the United States, completion of at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree
program, or service in the uniformed services for at least two years.
In 2010, using data from the March 2006, March 2007, and March 2008 CPS and other sources,
the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) published estimates of the population potentially eligible for
legal status under S. 729, a Senate DREAM Act bill introduced in the 111th Congress.4 This bill
would have established a two-stage process for unauthorized alien students to obtain LPR status.
As detailed below,5 aliens who met specified age, physical presence, educational, and other
requirements could have first applied for conditional LPR status. After meeting additional
requirements, including two years of either college or service in the uniformed services, they
could have applied to have the condition on their status removed and become full-fledged LPRs.
According to the MPI analysis, if this DREAM Act bill had been enacted, about 2.150 million
individuals could have attempted to become LPRs under its provisions. This total included
estimates of individuals who, on the date of enactment, would already have met the substantive
requirements under the bill for conditional status (or for both conditional status and the removal
of the condition), as well as estimates of individuals who, on the date of enactment, would have
met some, but not all, of the requirements for conditional status. About 43% (934,000) of the
estimated 2.150 million potential beneficiaries were children under age 18 in elementary or
secondary school. The MPI report also included an estimate of the number of individuals who
would likely have obtained LPR status under S. 729, if it had been enacted:
If future behavior mirrors past trends, we project that approximately 38 percent [of the 2.1
million]—or 825,000—of the potential beneficiaries would actually achieve lawful
permanent status under the legislation.6
As part of a 2010 analysis of the costs and likely impact of DREAM Act legislation before the
111th Congress, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) similarly estimated the number of
potential DREAM Act beneficiaries using 2009 and 2010 CPS data.7 Although CIS did not
identify the bills at issue in its analysis, the bill requirements mentioned matched those in S. 729,
as described above, and S. 3827, a similar bill introduced in the 111th Congress.8 CIS estimated
that there were some 1.998 million unauthorized aliens who would have met the residency and
age requirements under the DREAM Act legislation, including 859,000 children under age 18. Of

4 Jeanne Batalova and Margie McHugh, DREAM vs. Reality: An Analysis of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries,
Migration Policy Institute, July 2010, http://www.migrationpolicy.org (hereinafter cited as MPI, DREAM vs. Reality).
5 See description of S. 729 in “Legislation in the 111th Congress” in Appendix.
6 MPI, DREAM vs. Reality, p. 17.
7 Steven A. Camarota, Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act , Center for Immigration Studies, December 2010,
http://www.cis.org.
8 See description of S. 729 and S. 3827 in “Legislation in the 111th Congress” in Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

the 1.998 million potential beneficiaries, CIS estimated that 1.426 million individuals would have
met the high school graduation, or equivalent, requirement for conditional LPR status (either on
the date of enactment or at a later date). CIS, however, did not provide an estimate of the number
of individuals who likely would have obtained LPR status under the DREAM Act.
Higher Education Benefits and Immigration Status
Under federal law, unauthorized aliens are neither entitled to nor prohibited from admission to
postsecondary educational institutions in the United States. State laws vary and may prohibit
enrollment in public postsecondary institutions. To gain entrance to available institutions,
unauthorized aliens must meet the same requirements as any other student, which vary depending
on the institution and may include possessing a high school diploma, passing entrance exams, and
surpassing a high school grade point average (GPA) threshold. Although admissions applications
for most colleges and universities request that students provide their Social Security numbers, this
information typically is not required for admission.
Even if they are able to gain admission, however, unauthorized alien students often find it
difficult, if not impossible, to pay for higher education. Under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of
1965, as amended, they are ineligible for federal financial aid.9 In most instances, unauthorized
alien students are likewise ineligible for state financial aid. Furthermore, as explained in the next
section, they also may be ineligible for in-state tuition.
1996 Provision
Section 505 of IIRIRA places restrictions on state provision of educational benefits to
unauthorized aliens. It directs that an unauthorized alien
shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for
any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is
eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to
whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
There is disagreement about the meaning of this provision, and no authoritative guidance is
available in either congressional report language or federal regulations.10 The conference report
on the bill containing IIRIRA did not explain §505. (A conference report on a predecessor IIRIRA
bill, which contained a section identical to §505, described the section as “provid[ing] that illegal
aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.”11) Some

9 The HEA is P.L. 89-329, November 8, 1965, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. Section 484(a)(5) sets forth immigration-related
eligibility requirements for federal student financial aid, and §484(g) requires the U.S. Department of Education to
verify the immigration status of applicants for federal financial aid. Also see U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Federal Student Aid, Federal Student Aid Handbook 2011-2012, Volume 1 (Student Eligibility), Chapter 2
(Citizenship), http://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/1112FSAHbkVol1Ch2.pdf.
10 No implementing regulations on §505 have been issued.
11 U.S. Congress, House Conference Committee, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, conference report to accompany H.R. 2202, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-828, p. 240.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

observers have argued that Congress exceeded its authority in §505 by legislating on how states
can dispense state benefits.12
Although §505 does not refer explicitly to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition
purposes and some question whether it even covers in-state tuition, the debate surrounding §505
has focused on the provision of in-state tuition rates to unauthorized aliens. A key issue in this
debate is whether it is possible to grant in-state tuition to resident unauthorized students (and not
to all citizens) without violating §505. Various states have attempted to do this. For example, a
California law passed in 2001 makes unauthorized aliens eligible for in-state tuition at state
community colleges and California State University campuses.13 The measure, however, bases
eligibility on criteria that do not explicitly include state residency. The requirements to qualify for
in-state tuition under the California law include attendance at a California high school for at least
three years and either graduation from a California high school “or attainment of the equivalent
thereof.” In addition, the law requires an unauthorized alien student to file an affidavit stating that
he or she either has filed an application to legalize his or her status or will file such an application
as soon as he or she is eligible. California officials have argued that by using eligibility criteria
other than state residency, the law does not violate the §505 prohibition on conferring educational
benefits on the basis of state residency. In November 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld
the California law. At least one federal court also has considered whether state laws that authorize
in-state tuition for unauthorized students violate §505.14
Action in the 112th Congress
Similar, but not identical, Senate and House DREAM Act bills (S. 952, H.R. 1842) have been
introduced in the 112th Congress. Although there are differences between the bills, both are
entitled the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2011. Both
likewise take a step back from some of the revisions incorporated in the DREAM Act measure
approved by the House in the 111th Congress15 and, as discussed below, include some more
traditional DREAM Act provisions. By contrast, another House bill that would legalize the status
of unauthorized alien students (H.R. 3823) more closely resembles the version of the DREAM
Act approved by the House in 2010.
S. 952
S. 952, the DREAM Act of 2011, was introduced by Senator Durbin with 32 original cosponsors.
It would repeal IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminate the restriction on state provision of
postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. It also would enable eligible
unauthorized students (including those in temporary protected status under the INA16) to adjust to

12 See, for example, Dawn Konet, “Unauthorized Youths and Higher Education: The Ongoing Debate,” Migration
Information Source, Migration Policy Institute, September 2007, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/
display.cfm?ID=642.
13 Cal. Educ. Code §68130.5. The law does not apply to the University of California system.
14 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22500, Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State
Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis.
15 See description of House-approved DREAM Act Language and H.R. 6497 in “Legislation in the 111th Congress” in
Appendix.
16 As set forth in INA §244, TPS is blanket relief that may be granted under the following conditions: there is ongoing
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

LPR status in the United States through an immigration procedure known as cancellation of
removal. Cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief that an alien can apply for
while in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. If cancellation of removal is granted,
the alien’s status is adjusted to that of an LPR. S. 952 would enable aliens to affirmatively apply
for cancellation of removal without first being placed in removal proceedings, and it would place
no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of
status under its provisions.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 952, an alien would have
to demonstrate that he or she had been continuously physically present in the United States for
five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of the act; was age 15 or younger at the
time of initial entry; had been a person of good moral character since the time of initial entry; and
was age 35 or younger on the date of enactment. The alien also would have to demonstrate that he
or she had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States or had earned a
high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States.
Aliens applying for relief under S. 952 would be subject to special requirements concerning
inadmissibility. The INA enumerates classes of inadmissible aliens. Under the INA, except as
otherwise provided, aliens who are inadmissible under specified grounds, such as health-related
grounds or criminal grounds, are ineligible to receive visas from the Department of State or to be
admitted to the United States by the Department of Homeland Security.17 S. 952 specifies the
grounds of inadmissibility that would apply to aliens seeking relief.18 An alien applying for
cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 952 would have to show that he or she was
not inadmissible on INA criminal, security, smuggling, student visa abuse, citizenship
ineligibility, polygamy, international child abduction, or unlawful voting grounds.19 Applicants
also would need to satisfy requirements concerning convictions for offenses under federal or state
law. In addition, they would have to submit biometric and biographic data, which would be used
to conduct background checks, and would need to register under the Military Selective Service
Act, if applicable.
S. 952 would require that applications for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status be filed
not later than one year after the date the alien earned a high school diploma or the equivalent, or
the effective date of final regulations, whichever is later. Under the bill, the Secretary of
Homeland Security or the Attorney General could not remove an alien with a pending application
who establishes prima facie eligibility for relief. In addition, the Attorney General would stay the

(...continued)
armed conflict posing serious threat to personal safety; a foreign state requests TPS because it temporarily cannot
handle the return of nationals due to environmental disaster; or there are extraordinary and temporary conditions in a
foreign state that prevent aliens from returning, provided that granting TPS is consistent with U.S. national interests.
See CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem
and Karma Ester.
17 The INA grounds of inadmissibility are in INA §212(a). See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and
Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
18 Unlike DREAM Act bills in prior Congresses, S. 952 does not specify grounds of deportability that would apply to
aliens seeking relief. The INA grounds of deportability are in INA §237(a).
19 The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive specified grounds for humanitarian, family
unity, or public interest purposes.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

removal proceedings of an alien who is at least age five,20 meets all the eligibility requirements
except high school graduation, and is enrolled in primary or secondary school.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under S. 952 would be adjusted initially to conditional
permanent resident status. Such conditional status would be valid for six years and would be
subject to termination. To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, an alien
would have to submit an application during a specified period and meet additional requirements.
Among these requirements, the alien would need to have demonstrated good moral character
during the period of conditional permanent residence; could not have abandoned his or her U.S.
residence; and would need either to have earned a degree from an institution of higher education
(or to have completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United
States or to have served in the uniformed services21 for at least two years. Other requirements for
removal of the condition include satisfaction of the English language and civics requirements for
naturalization, submission of biometric and biographic data, and completion of background
checks.
The time an alien spent as a conditional LPR would count for naturalization purposes under S.
952. Typically, an alien must be in LPR status for five years before he or she can naturalize.
Under S. 952, however, the condition on the LPR status would have to be removed before an
alien could apply for naturalization.
S. 952 would place restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who have conditional LPR status under
the bill for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended. Aliens with conditional LPR status would be eligible only for student loans, federal
work-study programs, and services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject
to the applicable requirements. They would be ineligible for federal Pell Grants or federal
supplemental educational opportunity grants.
H.R. 1842
H.R. 1842, the DREAM Act of 2011, was introduced by Representative Berman with bipartisan
cosponsorship. It is similar in many respects to S. 952, but different in some areas. Like the
Senate bill, it would repeal IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminate the restriction on state provision
of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. It also would enable eligible
unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the United States through cancellation of
removal. Unlike S. 952, it would not provide for adjustment to LPR status for aliens in temporary
protected status. Like S. 952, it would enable aliens to affirmatively apply for cancellation of
removal without first being placed in removal proceedings, and it would place no limit on the
number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status.
H.R. 1842 includes many of the same requirements as S. 952 for cancellation of removal/
adjustment of status. Under the House bill, as under the Senate bill, an alien would have to
demonstrate that he or she had been physically present continuously in the United States for not

20 This age five cutoff is a departure from past DREAM Act bills, which typically limited protections from removal to
potential beneficiaries who were at least age 12.
21 As defined in Section 101(a) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the term uniformed services means the Armed Forces
(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard); the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of the act; was age 15 or
younger at the time of initial entry; had been a person of good moral character since the time of
initial entry; and had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States or
had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States. Under H.R. 1842, the
alien would need to demonstrate that he or she was age 32 or younger on the date of enactment,
compared to age 35 or younger under the Senate bill.
With respect to the INA grounds of inadmissibility, an alien applying for relief under H.R. 1842,
as under S. 952, would have to show that he or she was not inadmissible on INA criminal,
security, smuggling, student visa abuse, citizenship ineligibility, polygamy, international child
abduction, or unlawful voting grounds.22 An additional ground of inadmissibility—the public
charge ground—would apply under the House bill. As under S. 952, applicants for relief under
H.R. 1842 would have to submit biometric and biographic data, which would be used to conduct
background checks, and would need to register under the Military Selective Service Act, if
applicable. They would not be subject to requirements like those in S. 952 concerning convictions
for offenses under federal or state law.
The provisions in H.R. 1842 concerning the application process and protection from removal for
potential beneficiaries are very similar to those in S. 952. Like S. 952, the House bill would
require that applications be filed not later than one year after the date the alien earned a high
school diploma or the equivalent, or the effective date of final regulations, whichever is later.
Under the House bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General could not
remove an alien with a pending application who establishes prima facie eligibility for relief. In
addition, the Attorney General would stay the removal proceedings of an alien who is at least age
12 (compared to the age five cutoff in S. 952), meets all the eligibility requirements except high
school graduation, and is enrolled in primary or secondary school.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under H.R. 1842, as under S. 952, would be adjusted
initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would be valid for six
years and would be subject to termination. To have the condition removed and become a full-
fledged LPR, an alien would have to submit an application during a specified period and meet
additional requirements. Among these requirements, the alien would need to have demonstrated
good moral character during the period of conditional permanent residence; could not have
abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and would need either to have earned a degree from an
institution of higher education (or to have completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher
degree program) in the United States or to have served in the uniformed services for at least two
years. Other requirements for removal of the condition include satisfaction of the English
language and civics requirements for naturalization, submission of biometric and biographic data,
and completion of background checks. The time an alien spent as a conditional LPR would count
for naturalization purposes under H.R. 1842, but the condition on the LPR status would have to
be removed before an alien could apply for naturalization.
H.R. 1842 would place temporary restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjust to LPR status
under its provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended. Aliens adjusting status under the bill who are in conditional permanent
resident status would be eligible for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services, but

22 The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive the criminal grounds for humanitarian,
family unity, or public interest purposes.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

they would not be eligible for federal Pell Grants and federal supplemental educational
opportunity grants.
H.R. 3823
H.R. 3823, the Adjusted Residency for Military Service (ARMS) Act, was introduced by
Representative Rivera. As mentioned above, it is similar in many respects to the DREAM Act
language approved by the House as part of H.R. 5281 in the 111th Congress,23 and it is
significantly different than S. 952 and H.R. 1842.
H.R. 3823 has less of an educational component than S. 952 and H.R. 1842, or even the House-
passed measure in the 111th Congress. Unlike S. 952 and H.R. 1842, H.R. 3823 would not repeal
IIRIRA §505 and thus would not eliminate the statutory restriction on state provision of
postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. Unlike S. 952, H.R. 1842, and the
House-approved measure in the 111th Congress, as detailed below, H.R. 3823 would require
unauthorized alien students to perform military service in order to obtain LPR status. They could
not pursue higher education instead.
Under H.R. 3823, as under the House-approved DREAM Act language in the 111th Congress, an
eligible alien could go though the cancellation of removal procedure and be granted conditional
nonimmigrant status. Unlike under S. 952, H.R. 1842, and most other DREAM Act bills
introduced in past Congresses, the alien’s status would not be adjusted to that of a
conditional LPR.
Like most other DREAM Act bills, H.R. 3823 would enable an alien to affirmatively apply for
cancellation of removal without first being placed in removal proceedings, would establish a
deadline for submitting initial cancellation of removal applications, and would prohibit the
Secretary of Homeland Security from removing an alien with a pending application who
establishes prima facie eligibility for relief. Unlike other DREAM Act bills, H.R. 3823 does not
include provisions about staying the removal proceedings of alien children who are enrolled in
primary or secondary school and who meet all the eligibility requirements for initial conditional
status except high school graduation.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status under H.R. 3823, an
alien would need to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United States
for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of
the legislation, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, had been a person of good
moral character since the date of initial entry, and was younger than age 30 on the date of
enactment. These requirements are the same as in S. 952 and H.R. 1842 except for the maximum
age limitation on the date of enactment.24 Under H.R. 3823, the alien would also have to
demonstrate that he or she had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States, as under both
S. 952 and H.R. 1842, and that he or she had never been under a final administrative or judicial
order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.

23 See description of House-approved DREAM Act Language and H.R. 6497 in “Legislation in the 111th Congress” in
Appendix.
24 Under H.R. 1842, an alien would have to be age 32 or younger; under S. 952, an alien would have to be age 35 or
younger.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

H.R. 3823 specifies the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability that would apply to aliens
seeking relief. An alien applying for cancellation of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status
under the bill would have to show that he or she was not inadmissible on INA health-related,
criminal, security, public charge, smuggling, student visa abuse, citizenship ineligibility,
polygamy, international child abduction, or unlawful voting grounds, and was not deportable on
INA criminal, security, smuggling, marriage fraud, public charge, or unlawful voting grounds.25
Applicants would also need to satisfy requirements concerning convictions for offenses under
federal or state law. In addition, they would have to submit biometric and biographic data, which
would be used to conduct background checks, and would need to register under the Military
Selective Service Act, if applicable.
As noted above, an alien whose removal is cancelled under H.R. 3823 would be granted
conditional nonimmigrant status, as opposed to conditional LPR status under S. 952 and H.R.
1842. Such conditional nonimmigrant status would be valid for an initial period of five years and
would be subject to termination. Among the grounds for termination would be failure to
successfully enlist in the Armed Forces26 within nine months after being granted conditional
status.
Under H.R. 3823, an alien’s conditional nonimmigrant status would be extended for a second
five-year period (for a total conditional period of 10 years) if the alien meets the following
requirements: demonstration of good moral character as a conditional nonimmigrant; compliance
with the bill’s inadmissibility and deportability provisions discussed above; no abandonment of
U.S. residence; and service in the Armed Forces on active duty for at least two years or service in
a reserve component of the Armed Forces in active status for at least four years.
By comparison, under the House-approved measure in the 111th Congress there would also be two
five-year conditional nonimmigrant status periods and beneficiaries would have to meet a set of
requirements to have their status extended for the second five-year period. With respect to the
requirements for extension, however, the House-approved measure included different military
service requirements than H.R. 3823 and, unlike that bill, would give beneficiaries the option of
completing two years of higher education instead of serving in the Armed Forces.
Another similarity to the DREAM Act language approved in the 111th Congress, and a difference
from S. 952, H.R. 1842, and other DREAM Act bills, is that H.R. 3823 would establish
surcharges on applications for relief. There would be a surcharge of $525 on each application for
cancellation of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status, and a surcharge of $2,000 on each
application for an extension of conditional nonimmigrant status.
At the end of the second period of conditional nonimmigrant status, as specified, the alien could
apply for adjustment to LPR status. Among the requirements for adjustment of status, the alien
would need to have demonstrated good moral character during the period of conditional
nonimmigrant status, be in compliance with the bill’s inadmissibility and deportability provisions,
and could not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence. In addition, applicants for adjustment of
status under H.R. 3823, as under the House-approved version of the DREAM Act in the 111th

25 The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive some of these grounds of inadmissibility and
deportability for humanitarian, family unity, or public interest purposes.
26 The term Armed Forces, as defined in Section 101(a) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, means the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Congress, would need to satisfy the English language and civic requirements for naturalization,
satisfy any applicable federal tax liability, submit biometric and biographic data, and complete
background checks. There would be no limitation on the number of individuals eligible for
adjustment of status.
Under H.R. 3823, aliens who adjust status and meet other requirements would be eligible for
naturalization after three years in LPR status. Unlike under S. 952 and H.R. 1842, the time spent
in conditional status under H.R. 3823 (during which the aliens would be conditional
nonimmigrants) would not count for naturalization purposes.
H.R. 3823 also contains provisions on the treatment for other purposes of aliens who are granted
conditional nonimmigrant status or LPR status under the bill. Like the version of the DREAM Act
approved by the 111th Congress, H.R. 3823 provides that conditional nonimmigrants are to be
considered lawfully present for all purposes except for provisions in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as enacted by the 111th Congress,27 concerning premium tax
credits and cost sharing subsidies.28 It also provides that aliens who adjust to LPR status under the
bill would be deemed to have completed the five-year period required for LPR eligibility for
certain types of federal public assistance, as established by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PWORA) of 1996.29 Unlike DREAM Act bills that provide a
higher education route to LPR status, H.R. 3823 contains no provisions on eligibility of aliens
who adjust status under its provisions for federal student financial aid.
Pro/Con Arguments
Those who favor DREAM Act proposals to repeal §505 and grant LPR status to unauthorized
alien students offer a variety of arguments. They maintain that it is both fair and in the U.S.
national interest to enable unauthorized alien students who graduate from high school to continue
their education. And they emphasize that large numbers will be unable to do so unless they are
eligible for in-state tuition rates at colleges in their states of residence.
Advocates for unauthorized alien students argue that many of them were brought into the United
States at a very young age and should not be held responsible for the decision to enter the country
illegally. According to these advocates, many of the students have spent most of their lives in the
United States and have few, if any, ties to their countries of origin. They argue that these special
circumstances demand that the students be granted humanitarian relief in the form of LPR status.
Those who oppose making unauthorized alien students eligible for in-state tuition or legal status
emphasize that the students and their families are in the United States illegally and should be
removed from the country. They object to using U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize the education
of individuals (through the granting of in-state tuition rates) who are in the United States in
violation of the law. They maintain that funding the education of these students should be the
responsibility of their parents or their home countries. They further argue that it is unfair to

27 P.L. 111-148, March 23, 2010.
28 For information on the PPACA provisions, see CRS Report R41714, Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, by Alison Siskin.
29 For information on current eligibility policy, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

charge unauthorized alien students in-state tuition while charging some U.S. citizens higher out-
of-state rates.
More broadly, these opponents argue that granting benefits to unauthorized alien students rewards
lawbreakers and thereby undermines the U.S. immigration system. In their view, the availability
of benefits, especially LPR status, will encourage more illegal immigration into the country.30

30 For pro and con arguments, see, for example, Jerry Gonzalez and Phil Kent, “Should Congress Pass DREAM Act for
Immigrant Children?,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 23, 2010; Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, “Why DREAM
Act Passed House, But May Fall in Senate,” Christian Science Monitor, December 9, 2010; and Brad Knickerbocker,
“DREAM Act Poised for Senate Vote Saturday,” Christian Science Monitor, December 17, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Appendix. Action in the 109th, 110th, and
111th Congresses
Many DREAM Act bills seeking to provide relief to unauthorized alien students by repealing the
1996 provision and enabling certain unauthorized alien students to obtain LPR status have been
introduced in recent Congresses. In both the 107th and 108th Congresses, the Senate Judiciary
Committee reported DREAM Act legislation.31
Legislation in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, Senator Durbin introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for
Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2005 (S. 2075), and Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart
introduced the American Dream Act (H.R. 5131). Both bills had bipartisan cosponsorship.
Both S. 2075 and H.R. 5131 would have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminated the
restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. Both
bills also would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the United
States through the cancellation of removal procedure. S. 2075 and H.R. 5131 would have allowed
aliens to affirmatively apply for cancellation of removal without being placed in removal
proceedings. There would have been no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted
cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under the bills.
Among the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status in both S.
2075 and H.R. 5131, the alien would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically
present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately
preceding the date of enactment, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, and had
been a person of good moral character since the time of application. The alien also would have
been required to demonstrate that he or she had been admitted to an institution of higher
education in the United States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the
United States.
The eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status in S. 2075 and H.R.
5131 differed with respect to the applicable INA grounds of inadmissibility and deportability.32 S.
2075 and H.R. 5131 each specified which of the inadmissibility and deportability grounds would
have applied to aliens seeking to adjust status under its provisions. A greater number of these
grounds would have applied under S. 2075 than H.R. 5131. In addition, to be eligible under S.
2075, an alien could never have been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion,
deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
An alien granted cancellation of removal under S. 2075 and H.R. 5131 would have been adjusted
initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid
for six years and would have been subject to termination. To have the condition removed and
become a full-fledged LPR, the alien would have had to submit an application during a specified

31 For further information and analysis, see archived CRS Report RL31365, Unauthorized Alien Students: Legislation
in the 107th and 108th Congresses, by Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
32 The INA grounds of inadmissibility are in INA §212(a), and the INA grounds of deportability are in INA §237(a).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

period and meet additional requirements. These requirements would have included that the alien
had demonstrated good moral character during the period of conditional permanent residence; had
not abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and had either acquired a college degree (or completed
at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United States, or had served in
the uniformed services for at least two years.
Both S. 2075 and H.R. 5131 would have placed restrictions on aliens who adjusted to LPR status
under their provisions, with respect to eligibility for federal student financial aid under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. S. 2075 would have made aliens who adjusted to
LPR status under the bill eligible only for student loans, federal work-study programs, and
services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable
requirements. Thus, they would not have been eligible for federal Pell Grants or federal
supplemental educational opportunity grants. H.R. 5131 would have imposed similar restrictions
on eligibility for federal student financial aid, but they would have been temporary. This bill
would have made aliens adjusting status under its terms ineligible for federal Pell Grants and
federal supplemental educational opportunity grants while they were in conditional permanent
resident status. Once the conditional basis of their LPR status was removed, these restrictions
would no longer have applied.
The 109th Congress took no action on S. 2075 or H.R. 5131. S. 2075, however, was incorporated
into the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) as Title VI, Subtitle C. S.
2611 passed the Senate on May 25, 2006, but saw no further action. The major immigration bill
passed by the House in the 109th Congress, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437), did not contain any provisions on unauthorized alien
students.
Legislation in the 110th Congress
DREAM Act legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress, both in stand-alone bills and as
part of larger comprehensive immigration reform measures. A selected number of these bills are
described here. Neither the House or Senate passed any of these bills. As discussed below, the
Senate failed to invoke cloture on two measures: S. 1639, a bipartisan comprehensive
immigration reform proposal that included a DREAM Act title, and S. 2205, a stand-alone
DREAM Act bill.
S. 774 and H.R. 1275
The DREAM Act of 2007 (S. 774), introduced by Senator Durbin, and the American Dream Act
(H.R. 1275), introduced by Representative Berman, were similar, but not identical, measures.
Both had bipartisan cosponsors. Both also were highly similar, respectively, to S. 2075 and H.R.
5131 in the 109th Congress.
S. 774 and H.R. 1275 would have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminated the restriction on
state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. Both bills also
would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the United States
through cancellation of removal. Under S. 774 and H.R. 1275, aliens could have affirmatively
applied for cancellation of removal without being placed in removal proceedings. There would
have been no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/
adjustment of status under the bills.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 774 or H.R. 1275, an
alien would have had to satisfy a set of requirements. Under both bills, the alien would have had
to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United States for a continuous
period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment, had not yet
reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, and had been a person of good moral character since
the time of application. Both bills also would have required the alien to demonstrate that he or she
had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States, or had earned a high
school diploma or the equivalent in the United States.
Other requirements for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 774 and H.R. 1275
concerned the INA grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. The eligibility requirements with
respect to deportability from the United States were the same in both bills, while the requirements
with respect to inadmissibility to the country differed somewhat. To be eligible for cancellation of
removal/adjustment of status under either S. 774 or H.R. 1275, an alien would have had to
demonstrate that he or she was not inadmissible or deportable on INA criminal, security, or
smuggling grounds. S. 774 would have further required that the alien not be inadmissible on
international child abduction grounds. In addition, to be eligible for cancellation of
removal/adjustment of status under S. 774, an alien could never have been under a final
administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under S. 774 or H.R. 1275 would have been adjusted
initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid
for six years and would have been subject to termination. To have the condition removed and
become a full-fledged LPR, an alien would have had to submit an application during a specified
period and meet additional requirements. Among these requirements, the alien would have needed
to demonstrate good moral character during the period of conditional permanent residence; could
not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and would have needed either a college degree (or
to have completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United
States, or to have served in the uniformed services for at least two years.
Both S. 774 and H.R. 1275 would have placed restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who
adjusted to LPR status under their provisions, for federal student financial aid under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. S. 774 would have made aliens who adjusted to
LPR status under the bill eligible only for student loans, federal work-study programs, and
services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable
requirements. Thus, they would not have been eligible for federal Pell Grants or federal
supplemental educational opportunity grants. H.R. 1275 would have imposed similar restrictions
on eligibility for federal student financial aid, but they would have been temporary. Aliens
adjusting status under the House bill would have been ineligible for federal Pell Grants and
federal supplemental educational opportunity grants while in conditional permanent resident
status. Once the conditional basis was removed and they became full-fledged LPRs, these
restrictions would no longer have applied.
H.R. 1645
The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007, or the
STRIVE Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645), introduced by Representative Gutierrez for himself and a
bipartisan group of cosponsors, contained DREAM Act provisions in Title VI, Subtitle B. These
provisions were nearly identical to S. 774, as discussed above.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

H.R. 1221
The Education Access for Rightful Noncitizens (EARN) Act (H.R. 1221), introduced by
Representative Gillmor, was a version of the DREAM Act. It was similar in some ways to the
bills described above and significantly different in other respects. Like S. 774, H.R. 1275, and
H.R. 1645, it would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the
United States through cancellation of removal. Under H.R. 1221, as under these other bills, aliens
could have affirmatively applied for cancellation of removal without being placed in removal
proceedings, and there would have been no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted
cancellation of removal/adjustment of status as specified.
Many of the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status—including
the physical presence, age at entry, good moral character, and educational requirements—were
the same under H.R. 1221, S. 774, H.R. 1275, and H.R. 1645. There were differences, however,
with respect to the INA grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Under H.R. 1221, as under
these other bills, aliens would have been ineligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of
status if they were inadmissible or deportable on criminal, security, or smuggling grounds. They
also would have been ineligible under H.R. 1221 if they were inadmissible on other grounds,
including failure to attend a removal proceeding, or deportable on other grounds, including
marriage fraud. In addition, aliens would have been ineligible for cancellation of
removal/adjustment of status under H.R. 1221, as under S. 774 and H.R. 1645, if they had ever
been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with
some exceptions.
As under S. 774, H.R. 1275, and H.R. 1645, aliens granted cancellation of removal under H.R.
1221 would have been adjusted initially to a conditional permanent resident status, which would
have been valid for six years. To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, an
alien would have had to submit an application during a specified period and meet additional
requirements regarding good moral character, no abandonment of U.S. residence, and higher
education or service in the uniformed services, among others, as described above in the “S. 774
and H.R. 1275” section.
At the same time, H.R. 1221 did not contain certain key provisions included in S. 774, H.R. 1275,
and H.R. 1645. Unlike these other bills, it would not have placed restrictions on the eligibility of
aliens who adjusted to LPR status under its terms, for federal student financial aid. Also unlike S.
774, H.R. 1275, and H.R. 1645, it would not have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thus would not have
eliminated the restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized
aliens.
S. 1639
A version of the DREAM Act was included in a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform
bill (S. 1639) introduced by Senator Kennedy for himself and Senator Specter. The DREAM Act
provisions comprised Title VI, Subtitle B, of S. 1639. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the
measure in June 2007, and the bill was pulled from the Senate floor.
The S. 1639 version of the DREAM Act was substantially different than the other DREAM Act
bills in the 110th Congress. The DREAM Act provisions in S. 1639 were tied to other provisions
in Title VI of the bill that would have enabled certain unauthorized aliens in the United States to
obtain legal status under a new “Z” nonimmigrant visa category. Among the eligibility
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

requirements for Z status, an alien would have had to be continuously physically present in the
United States since January 1, 2007, and could not have been lawfully present on that date under
any nonimmigrant classification or any other immigration status made available under a treaty or
other multinational agreement ratified by the Senate.33
S. 1639’s DREAM Act title would have established a special adjustment of status mechanism for
aliens who were determined to be eligible for, or who had been issued, probationary Z34 or Z
visas, and who met other requirements, including being under age 30 on the date of enactment,
being under age 16 at the time of initial entry into the United States, and having either acquired a
college degree (or completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the
United States or served in the uniformed services for at least two years. The Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security could have begun adjusting the status of eligible individuals to
LPR status three years after the date of enactment.35 Unlike under the other DREAM Act bills
discussed above, DREAM Act beneficiaries under S. 1639 would not have adjusted status
through the cancellation of removal procedure and would not have been adjusted initially to
conditional permanent resident status.
In other respects, the DREAM Act adjustment of status provisions in S. 1639 were similar to
those in the other DREAM Act bills before the 110th Congress. As under the other bills, there
would have been no limit on the number of aliens who could have adjusted to LPR status under S.
1639. With respect to federal student financial aid, beneficiaries of the S. 1639 provisions, like
beneficiaries under S. 774 and H.R. 1645, would have been eligible for student loans, federal
work-study programs, and services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject
to the applicable requirements, but would not have been eligible for grants.36
S. 1639, like most other DREAM Act bills before the 110th Congress, coupled adjustment of
status provisions for unauthorized students with provisions addressing IIRIRA §505, which, as
explained above, places restrictions on state provision of educational benefits to unauthorized
aliens. Unlike S. 774, H.R. 1275, and H.R. 1645, however, S. 1639 would not have completely
repealed IIRIRA §505. Instead, §616(a) of S. 1639 proposed to make §505 inapplicable with
respect to aliens with probationary Z or Z status.
S. 2205
Another version of the DREAM Act (S. 2205) was introduced in October 2007 by Senator
Durbin. It contained legalization provisions similar to those in S. 774, H.R. 1275, H.R. 1645, and

33 For further information about the proposed Z classifications, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy
Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.
34 Under S. 1639 §601, certain applicants for Z status would have been eligible to receive probationary benefits in the
form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of their applications.
35 Unlike Z aliens applying to adjust to LPR status under S. 1639 §602, beneficiaries of the DREAM Act provisions
would not have been subject to a “back of the line” provision requiring them to wait to adjust status until immigrant
visas became available to others whose petitions had been filed by a specified date. Under S. 1639 §602(a)(5), a Z alien
could not adjust status to that of an LPR under §602 until 30 days after an immigrant visa became available for
approved family-based or employment-based petitions filed before May 1, 2005. For further information about the
permanent immigration system, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
36 Aliens in probationary Z or Z nonimmigrant status who met certain requirements similarly would have been eligible
for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services, but not grants.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

H.R. 1221. Under S. 2205, eligible unauthorized students could have adjusted to LPR status
through cancellation of removal. Aliens could have applied affirmatively for cancellation of
removal without being placed in removal proceedings, and there would have been no limit on the
number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status, as specified.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 2205, an alien would have
had to demonstrate, among other requirements, that he or she had been physically present in the
United States for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date
of enactment, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, had been a person of good
moral character since the date of enactment, and had been admitted to an institution of higher
education in the United States or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United
States. In addition, in a requirement not in S. 774, H.R. 1275, H.R. 1221, or H.R. 1645 but
included in S. 1639, the alien would also have had to show that he or she was under age 30 on the
date of enactment. The eligibility requirements in S. 2205 with respect to the INA grounds of
inadmissibility and deportability were similar to those in H.R. 1221, as discussed above. Also like
H.R. 1221 and most of the other DREAM Act bills before the 110th Congress, S. 2205 would have
made ineligible, aliens who had ever been under a final administrative or judicial order of
exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
An alien granted cancellation of removal under S. 2205 would have been adjusted initially to
conditional permanent resident status. To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged
LPR, the alien would have had to meet additional requirements, including acquisition of a college
degree (or completion of at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) or service in
the uniformed services for at least two years.
A key difference between S. 2205 on the one hand and S. 774, H.R. 1275, and H.R. 1645 on the
other was that S. 2205, like H.R. 1221, would not have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thus would not
have eliminated the restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to
unauthorized aliens. On October 24, 2007, the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on S.
2205. The motion failed on a vote of 52 to 44.
Legislation in the 111th Congress
Senator Durbin and Representative Berman introduced DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress.
Senator Durbin introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM)
Act of 2009 (S. 729) and four versions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors (DREAM) Act of 2010 (S. 3827, S. 3962, S. 3963, S. 3992). Representative Berman
introduced the American Dream Act (H.R. 1751) and the Development, Relief, and Education for
Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2010 (H.R. 6497). Representative Djou introduced a related bill,
the Citizenship and Service Act of 2010 (H.R. 6327).
On December 8, 2010, the House approved DREAM Act language as part of an unrelated bill, the
Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (H.R. 5281). On December 18, 2010, the Senate failed to
invoke cloture on a motion to agree to the House-passed DREAM Act amendment. The vote on
the cloture motion was 55 to 41.37

37 In addition, on December 9, 2010, following House action on H.R. 5281, there was another DREAM Act-related
vote in the Senate. That day, the Senate voted, 59-40, to table a motion to proceed to a Senate DREAM Act bill, S.
3992. DREAM Act supporters voted for the tabling motion in an effort to clear the way for the Senate to consider the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

House-Approved DREAM Act Language and H.R. 6497
The DREAM Act language approved by the House as part of H.R. 5281 was the same as the text
of the DREAM Act of 2010 (H.R. 6497), as introduced by Representative Berman, and was
similar to the DREAM Act of 2010 (S. 3992), as introduced by Senator Durbin. Like other
DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress, the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R.
5281 would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the United
States, although it would have established a different pathway than most of the other bills. Unlike
some other DREAM Act bills introduced in the 111th Congress, the House-approved DREAM Act
language would not have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thus would not have eliminated the statutory
restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens.
Under the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, an eligible alien could have
gone though the cancellation of removal procedure and been granted conditional nonimmigrant
status. Unlike under most other DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress, as discussed below, the
alien’s status would not have been adjusted to that of a conditional LPR. The House-approved
version of the DREAM Act would have enabled an alien to affirmatively apply for cancellation of
removal without first being placed in removal proceedings and also would have established a
deadline for submitting initial cancellation of removal applications.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status under the House-
approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, an alien would have needed to demonstrate that
he or she had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than
five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of the legislation, had not yet reached age
16 at the time of initial entry, had been a person of good moral character since the date of initial
entry, and was younger than age 30 on the date of enactment. The alien also would have had to
demonstrate that he or she had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States, and that he or
she had never been under a final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or
removal, with some exceptions.
The House-approved version of the DREAM Act specified the grounds of inadmissibility and
deportability that would have applied to aliens seeking relief. An alien applying for cancellation
of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status under the House-passed measure would have had to
show that he or she was not inadmissible on INA health-related, criminal, security, public charge,
smuggling, student visa abuse, citizenship ineligibility, polygamy, international child abduction,
or unlawful voting grounds, and was not deportable on INA criminal, security, smuggling,
marriage fraud, public charge, or unlawful voting grounds.38 Applicants also would have needed
to satisfy requirements concerning convictions for offenses under federal or state law. In addition,
they would have had to submit biometric and biographic data, which would have been used to
conduct background checks, and would have needed to register under the Military Selective
Service Act, if applicable.

(...continued)
House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281.
38 The Secretary of Homeland Security would have had the authority to waive some of these grounds of inadmissibility
and deportability for humanitarian, family unity, or public interest purposes.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Aliens whose removal was cancelled under the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R.
5281 would have been granted conditional nonimmigrant status. Such conditional status would
have been valid for an initial period of five years and would have been subject to termination. An
alien’s conditional nonimmigrant status would have been extended for a second five-year period
if the alien met the following requirements: demonstration of good moral character as a
conditional nonimmigrant; compliance with the bill’s inadmissibility and deportability provisions
discussed above; no abandonment of U.S. residence; and either acquisition of a degree from an
institution of higher education (or completion of at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher
degree program) in the United States, or service in the Armed Forces for at least two years.
Unlike other DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress, the House-approved DREAM Act
amendment to H.R. 5281 would have established surcharges on applications for relief. There
would have been a surcharge of $525 on each application for cancellation of removal/conditional
nonimmigrant status, and a surcharge of $2,000 on each application for an extension of
conditional nonimmigrant status.
At the end of the second period of conditional nonimmigrant status, as specified, the alien could
have applied for adjustment to LPR status. Among the requirements for adjustment of status, the
alien would have needed to have demonstrated good moral character during the period of
conditional nonimmigrant status; would have had to be in compliance with the bill’s
inadmissibility and deportability provisions; and could not have abandoned his or her U.S.
residence. In addition, applicants for adjustment of status under the House-approved version of
the DREAM Act would have needed to satisfy the English language and civic requirements for
naturalization, satisfy any applicable federal tax liability, submit biometric and biographic data,
and complete background checks. There would have been no limitation on the number of
individuals eligible for adjustment of status.
Aliens who adjusted status and met other requirements would have been eligible for
naturalization after three years in LPR status. Unlike under DREAM Act bills in the 111th
Congress that would have granted conditional LPR status, the time spent in conditional status
under the House-approved DREAM Act language (during which the aliens would have been
conditional nonimmigrants) would not have counted for naturalization purposes.
Like other DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress, the House-approved DREAM Act amendment
to H.R. 5281 would have placed restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjusted status under
its provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended. Aliens granted conditional nonimmigrant status or LPR status would have been
eligible for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services (such as counseling, tutorial
services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable requirements. Unlike other LPRs, they would
not have been eligible for federal Pell Grants or federal supplemental educational opportunity
grants.
The House-approved version of the DREAM Act also contained provisions on the treatment for
other purposes of aliens who were granted conditional nonimmigrant status or LPR status under
the bill. It provided that conditional nonimmigrants would have been considered lawfully present
for all purposes except for provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
as enacted by the 111th Congress,39 concerning premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies.40 It

39 P.L. 111-148, March 23, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

also provided that aliens who adjusted to LPR status under the bill would have been deemed to
have completed the five-year period required for LPR eligibility for certain types of federal public
assistance, as established by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PWORA) of 1996.41
H.R. 1751
The American Dream Act (H.R. 1751), as introduced by Representative Berman, would have
repealed IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminated the restriction on state provision of postsecondary
educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. It likewise would have enabled eligible unauthorized
students to adjust to LPR status in the United States through the cancellation of removal
procedure. Under H.R. 1751, aliens could have applied for cancellation of removal without first
being placed in removal proceedings, and there would have been no limit on the number of aliens
who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under H.R. 1751, an alien would
have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment; had
not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry; had been a person of good moral character
since the time of application; and was not inadmissible or deportable on INA criminal, security, or
smuggling grounds. The bill also would have required the alien to demonstrate that he or she had
been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States, or had earned a high
school diploma or the equivalent in the United States. Unlike under most other DREAM Act bills
in the 111th Congress, however, H.R. 1751 would not have required the alien to show that he or
she was under a particular age on the date of enactment. H.R. 1751 also provided for expedited
processing of applications without an additional fee.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under H.R. 1751 would have been adjusted initially to
conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid for six years
and would have been subject to termination. The time an alien spent as a conditional LPR would
have counted for naturalization purposes. (Typically, an alien must be in LPR status for five years
before he or she can naturalize.) Under H.R. 1751, however, the condition on the LPR status
would have needed to be removed before the alien could apply for naturalization.
To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, an alien would have had to apply
during a specified period and meet additional requirements. Among these requirements, the alien
would have had to demonstrate good moral character during the period of conditional permanent
residence; could not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and would have needed either to
have earned a degree from an institution of higher education (or to have completed at least two
years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United States, or to have served in the
uniformed services for at least two years.

(...continued)
40 For information on the PPACA provisions, see CRS Report R41714, Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
41 For information on current eligibility policy, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

H.R. 1751 would have placed temporary restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjusted to
LPR status under its provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended. Aliens adjusting status under the bill would have been
eligible for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services, but they would not have
been eligible for federal Pell Grants and federal supplemental educational opportunity grants
while in conditional permanent resident status. Once the conditional basis was removed and they
became full-fledged LPRs, these restrictions would no longer have applied and they would have
been eligible for grants. By contrast, under the House-approved version of the DREAM Act and
the various Senate bills, aliens who obtained full-fledged LPR status would have remained
ineligible for grants.
H.R. 6327
The Citizenship and Service Act of 2010 (H.R. 6327), introduced by Representative Djou, was
similar to H.R. 1751 in many respects but noticeably different than that bill in others. Like some
other DREAM Act bills but unlike H.R. 1751, H.R. 6327 would not have repealed IIRIRA §505.
In addition, unlike all the other DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress discussed here, H.R. 6327
would have required eligible aliens to serve in the uniformed services for at least two years in
order to become full-fledged LPRs. Higher education would not have been an alternative to this
service requirement under H.R. 6327.
Like H.R. 1751, H.R. 6327 would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR
status in the United States through the cancellation of removal procedure. Aliens could have
applied for cancellation of removal without first being placed in removal proceedings, and there
would have been no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of
removal/adjustment of status.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under H.R. 6327, an alien would
have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment, had
not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, and had been a person of good moral character
since the time of application. The alien also would have had to demonstrate that he or she had
been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States, or had earned a high
school diploma or the equivalent in the United States.
As under H.R. 1751, an alien applying for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under
H.R. 6327 would have had to demonstrate that he or she was not inadmissible or deportable on
INA criminal, security, or smuggling grounds. Also like H.R. 1751, H.R. 6327 provided for
expedited processing of applications without an additional fee.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under H.R. 6327, as under H.R. 1751, would have been
adjusted initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have
been valid for six years and would have been subject to termination. The time an alien spent as a
conditional LPR would have counted for naturalization purposes, but the conditional basis would
have had to be removed before the alien could apply to naturalize.
To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, an alien would have had to apply
during a specified period and meet additional requirements. Among these requirements, the alien
would have had to have demonstrated good moral character during the period of conditional
permanent residence; could not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and would need to
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

have served in the uniformed services for at least two years. Unlike the other DREAM Act bills in
the 111th Congress, H.R. 6327 would not have offered conditional residents the option of
completing at least two years of higher education as an alternative to serving in the uniformed
services.
H.R. 6327, like H.R. 1751, would have placed temporary restrictions on the eligibility of aliens
who adjusted to LPR status under its provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Aliens adjusting status under the bill would have
been ineligible for federal Pell Grants and federal supplemental educational opportunity grants
while in conditional permanent resident status. Once the conditional basis was removed and they
became full-fledged LPRs, these restrictions would no longer have applied.
S. 729 and S. 3827
S. 729, the DREAM Act of 2009, and S. 3827, the DREAM Act of 2010, were highly similar bills
introduced by Senator Durbin. Differences between S. 729 and S. 3827, as discussed below,
concerned the applicable grounds of inadmissibility and the application process under the bills.
Both S. 729 and S. 3827 would have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thereby eliminated the restriction
on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. They also would
have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in the United States through
cancellation of removal. S. 729 and S. 3827 would have enabled aliens to affirmatively apply for
cancellation of removal without first being placed in removal proceedings, and they would have
placed no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment
of status.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 729 and S. 3827, an alien
would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United States for
a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of enactment of the
act; had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry; had been a person of good moral
character since the time of application; and had not yet reached age 35 on the date of enactment.
The alien also would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been admitted to an institution of
higher education in the United States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in
the United States.
Under both bills, the alien could not have been inadmissible on INA criminal, security,
smuggling, or international child abduction grounds and could not have been deportable on INA
criminal, security, or smuggling grounds; S. 3827 also would have made applicable the INA
ground of inadmissibility barring practicing polygamists. In addition, under both bills, the alien
would have had to show that he or she had never been under a final administrative or judicial
order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
S. 729 and S. 3827 included some different language concerning the application process. S. 729
included a provision, not included in S. 3827, to consider applications on an expedited basis
without charging an additional fee. S. 3827 included a provision, not included in S. 729,
establishing a deadline for submitting initial cancellation of removal/adjustment of status
applications.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under S. 729 or S. 3827 would have been adjusted initially
to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid for six
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

years and would have been subject to termination. To have the condition removed and become a
full-fledged LPR, an alien would have had to submit an application during a specified period and
meet additional requirements. Among these requirements, the alien would have needed to have
demonstrated good moral character during the period of conditional permanent residence; could
not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence; and would have needed either to have earned a
degree from an institution of higher education (or to have completed at least two years in a
bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United States, or to have served in the uniformed
services for at least two years.
The time an alien spent as a conditional LPR would have counted for naturalization purposes
under S. 729 and S. 3827. Typically, an alien must be in LPR status for five years before he or she
can naturalize. Under both bills, however, the condition on the LPR status would have to have
been removed before an alien could apply for naturalization.
S. 729 and S. 3827 would have placed restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjusted to LPR
status under their provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended. Aliens adjusting status under S. 729 or S. 3827 would have
been eligible only for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services (such as
counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable requirements. Unlike other
LPRs, they would have been ineligible for federal Pell Grants or federal supplemental educational
opportunity grants.
S. 3962 and S. 3963
S. 3962 and S. 3963 were two highly similar versions of the DREAM Act of 2010, introduced by
Senator Durbin in the 111th Congress. They were also similar to S. 3827, another version of the
DREAM Act of 2010, which is discussed above. The main difference between S. 3962 and S.
3963 on the one hand and S. 3827 on the other was that the former bills would not have repealed
IIRIRA §505 and thus would not have eliminated the statutory restriction on state provision of
postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens. As discussed below, S. 3962 and S.
3963 differed from one another with respect to the cutoff age for eligibility for cancellation of
removal/adjustment of status.
S. 3962 and S. 3963 would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to adjust to LPR status in
the United States through cancellation of removal. Both bills would have enabled aliens to
affirmatively apply for cancellation of removal without first being placed in removal proceedings,
and they would have placed no limit on the number of aliens who could be granted cancellation
of removal/ adjustment of status. There would have been a deadline for submitting initial
cancellation of removal/ adjustment of status applications.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under S. 3962 and S. 3963, an
alien would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of
enactment of the act, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, and had been a person
of good moral character since the time of application. Both bills also included an eligibility
requirement concerning the age of the alien on the date of enactment of the legislation. Under S.
3962, the alien would have had to demonstrate that he or she had not yet reached age 35 on the
date of enactment. Under S. 3963, the alien would have had to demonstrate that he or she had not
yet reached age 30 on the date of enactment. Under both bills, the alien also would have had to
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

demonstrate that he or she had been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or had earned a high school diploma or the equivalent in the United States.
As under S. 3827, an alien applying for relief under S. 3962 and S. 3963 would have had to show
that he or she was not inadmissible on INA criminal, security, smuggling, polygamy, or
international child abduction grounds, and was not deportable on INA criminal, security, or
smuggling grounds. The alien also would have had to show that he or she had never been under a
final administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
Aliens granted cancellation of removal under S. 3962 or S. 3963 would have been adjusted
initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid
for six years and would have been subject to termination. The time an alien spent as a conditional
LPR would have counted for naturalization purposes, but the conditional basis would have had to
be removed before the alien could apply to naturalize.
To have the condition removed and become a full-fledged LPR, an alien would have had to
submit an application during a specified period and meet additional requirements. Among these
requirements, the alien would have needed to have demonstrated good moral character during the
period of conditional permanent residence; could not have abandoned his or her U.S. residence;
and would have needed either to have earned a degree from an institution of higher education (or
to have completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree program) in the United
States, or to have served in the uniformed services for at least two years.
S. 3962 and S. 3963 would have placed restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjusted to
LPR status under their provisions for federal student financial aid under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended. Under that act, LPRs and certain other eligible noncitizens
may receive federal student financial aid. Aliens adjusting status under S. 3962 or S. 3963,
however, would have been eligible only for student loans, federal work-study programs, and
services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable
requirements. Unlike other LPRs, they would not have been eligible for federal Pell Grants or
federal supplemental educational opportunity grants.
S. 3992
S. 3992, another version of the DREAM Act of 2010 introduced by Senator Durbin, would, like
the other DREAM Act bills in the 111th Congress, have enabled eligible unauthorized students to
adjust to LPR status in the United States. Its legalization provisions were similar to those in the
House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, although there were some differences
between the measures, as discussed below. Also like the House-approved amendment, S. 3992
would not have repealed IIRIRA §505 and thus would not have eliminated the statutory
restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational benefits to unauthorized aliens.
Under S. 3992, as under the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, an eligible
alien could have gone though the cancellation of removal procedure and been granted conditional
nonimmigrant status. An alien could have affirmatively applied for cancellation of removal
without first being placed in removal proceedings, and there would have been a deadline for
submitting initial cancellation of removal applications. There would have been no limit on the
number of aliens who could be granted cancellation of removal under S. 3992.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

To be eligible for cancellation of removal/conditional nonimmigrant status under S. 3992, an
alien would have had to meet requirements similar to those in the House-approved version of the
DREAM Act. The alien would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been physically present
in the United States for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the
date of enactment of the legislation, had not yet reached age 16 at the time of initial entry, had
been a person of good moral character since the date of initial entry, and was younger than age 30
on the date of enactment. The alien also would have had to demonstrate that he or she had been
admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States, or had earned a high school
diploma or the equivalent in the United States, and that he or she had never been under a final
administrative or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with some exceptions.
Unlike under the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, there would have been
no surcharges on applications under S. 3992.
The same grounds of inadmissibility and deportability would have applied under S. 3992 as under
the House-approved DREAM Act language. An alien applying for relief under this bill would
have had to show that he or she was not inadmissible on INA health-related, criminal, security,
public charge, smuggling, student visa abuse, citizenship ineligibility, polygamy, international
child abduction, or unlawful voting grounds, and was not deportable on INA criminal, security,
smuggling, marriage fraud, public charge, or unlawful voting grounds.42 Applicants would further
have needed to satisfy requirements concerning convictions for offenses under federal or state
law; submit biometric and biographic data, which would have been used to conduct background
checks; and register under the Military Selective Service Act, if applicable.
Aliens whose removal was cancelled under S. 3992 would have been granted conditional
nonimmigrant status. Such conditional status would have been valid for 10 years (compared to
H.R. 5281’s initial period of five years, which could have been extended for a second five-year
period) and would have been subject to termination.
For adjustment to LPR status, the conditional nonimmigrant would have had to submit an
application during a specified period and meet requirements similar to those in other DREAM Act
bills. Among these requirements, the alien would have needed to have demonstrated good moral
character during the period of conditional nonimmigrant status; could not have abandoned his or
her U.S. residence; and would have needed either to have earned a degree from an institution of
higher education (or to have completed at least two years in a bachelor’s or higher degree
program) in the United States, or to have served in the Armed Forces for at least two years. Other
requirements included satisfaction of the English language and civic requirements for
naturalization, payment of federal taxes, submission of biometric and biographic data, and
completion of background checks. There would have been no limitation on the number of
individuals eligible for adjustment of status under S. 3992.
Aliens who adjusted status under S. 3992 and met other requirements would have been eligible
for naturalization after three years in LPR status. The time spent in conditional status under S.
3992, as under the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281 (during which the
aliens would have been conditional nonimmigrants as opposed to conditional LPRs under the
other DREAM Act bills), would not have counted for naturalization purposes.

42 The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive some of these grounds for humanitarian,
family unity, or public interest purposes.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation

Like the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281, S. 3992 would have placed
restrictions on the eligibility of aliens who adjusted status under its provisions for federal student
financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Aliens granted
conditional nonimmigrant status or LPR status under S. 3992 would have been eligible for
student loans, federal work-study programs, and services (such as counseling, tutorial services,
and mentoring), subject to the applicable requirements. Unlike other LPRs, they would not have
been eligible for federal Pell Grants or federal supplemental educational opportunity grants.
S. 3992 also contained provisions like those in the House-approved DREAM Act amendment to
H.R. 5281 on the treatment for other purposes of aliens who were granted conditional
nonimmigrant status or LPR status under the bill. It provided that conditional nonimmigrants
would have been considered lawfully present for all purposes except for provisions in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as enacted by the 111th Congress,43 concerning
premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies.44 It also provided that aliens who adjusted to LPR
status under the bill would have been deemed to have completed the five-year period required for
LPR eligibility for certain types of federal public assistance, as established by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PWORA) of 1996.45


Author Contact Information

Andorra Bruno

Specialist in Immigration Policy
abruno@crs.loc.gov, 7-7865


43 P.L. 111-148, March 23, 2010.
44 For information on the PPACA provisions, see CRS Report R41714, Treatment of Noncitizens Under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
45 For information on current eligibility policy, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends.
Congressional Research Service
26

---