Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, P.C.
Child Status Protection Act-Retention of Priority Date?
- Thread starter bubblejc
- Start date
susan ward
Banned
Hi
I sent my case details to attorney and will put his reply below
Dear Susan
I emailed some colleagues for advise on your senario and what I received below is encouraging.
This case difinitley benefits from our DOS liason discussion of question #11 on the agenda of the DOS meeting in Oct 2004 and the child appears to be eligible for the benefits of the CSPA under DHS and DOS exisiting Memos.
As I see this case, the child aged out prior to the CSPA becoming effictive (Aug 6th 2002) Never the less the child qualifies for the benefits of CCSPA under a limited exception. To qualify under the exception, the fathers petition (I140) must have been filed before Aug 6th 2002. It was filed on Sept 2000. In addition, since the petition was approved prior to Aug 2002, the childs application for visa (form I485 or DS 230) must also have been filed and still pending on 6th Aug 2002.
For purposes of CSPA the filing of form I 824 is the equivalent of filing DS 230. Pursuant to the Jan 2003 DOS revised cable on CSPA (posted AILA info net at Doc 3020550) in cases where principal adjusted in the US, the deriative will be considered to have sought LPR status on the date the principal filed form I 824, to initiate the childs follow to join application. Also persuant to the Feb 14th memo from Johnny Williams, at INS (AILA info net doc 03031040, even if the son aged out rpior to the 6th Aug 2002. The benefits of the CSPA are available if an adjustment application (or in this case I 824) was filed and no final determination on the visa petition was made prior to 6th Aug 2002
Although the child aged out prior to CSPA effective date, since the I 140 was approved prior to Aug 2002 and since father properly attempted to file the I 824 in Jan 2002, while the child was still under 21 and that I 824 was pending at 6th Aug 2002 the benefits of CSPA apply.
As a result the childs age was locked in when the I 824 was filed, while he was 20. In this case the child qualifies for the benefits of CSPA under the exception since the principal filed the I 824 in Jan 2002 and the CIS improperly rejected it.
I suspect that there is no decision on this matter because it is pending an advisory opinion, due to the complexity of the facts and law in the case
Hope I typed it word for word
Regards Sue
I sent my case details to attorney and will put his reply below
Dear Susan
I emailed some colleagues for advise on your senario and what I received below is encouraging.
This case difinitley benefits from our DOS liason discussion of question #11 on the agenda of the DOS meeting in Oct 2004 and the child appears to be eligible for the benefits of the CSPA under DHS and DOS exisiting Memos.
As I see this case, the child aged out prior to the CSPA becoming effictive (Aug 6th 2002) Never the less the child qualifies for the benefits of CCSPA under a limited exception. To qualify under the exception, the fathers petition (I140) must have been filed before Aug 6th 2002. It was filed on Sept 2000. In addition, since the petition was approved prior to Aug 2002, the childs application for visa (form I485 or DS 230) must also have been filed and still pending on 6th Aug 2002.
For purposes of CSPA the filing of form I 824 is the equivalent of filing DS 230. Pursuant to the Jan 2003 DOS revised cable on CSPA (posted AILA info net at Doc 3020550) in cases where principal adjusted in the US, the deriative will be considered to have sought LPR status on the date the principal filed form I 824, to initiate the childs follow to join application. Also persuant to the Feb 14th memo from Johnny Williams, at INS (AILA info net doc 03031040, even if the son aged out rpior to the 6th Aug 2002. The benefits of the CSPA are available if an adjustment application (or in this case I 824) was filed and no final determination on the visa petition was made prior to 6th Aug 2002
Although the child aged out prior to CSPA effective date, since the I 140 was approved prior to Aug 2002 and since father properly attempted to file the I 824 in Jan 2002, while the child was still under 21 and that I 824 was pending at 6th Aug 2002 the benefits of CSPA apply.
As a result the childs age was locked in when the I 824 was filed, while he was 20. In this case the child qualifies for the benefits of CSPA under the exception since the principal filed the I 824 in Jan 2002 and the CIS improperly rejected it.
I suspect that there is no decision on this matter because it is pending an advisory opinion, due to the complexity of the facts and law in the case
Hope I typed it word for word
Regards Sue
Last edited by a moderator:
susan ward
Banned
diggy said:
Hi
The last update I have is on 29th April 2005, e-mail from consulate saying they will seek opinion to see if son is proptected under CSPA
Got fed up yesterday so e-mail congressman a copy of attornies letter and asking him to chase consulate and advisory opinion people
My guess is, the advisory opinion people do not have the answers so sitting on cases until next DOS liason meeting or further cable produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will let you know of any movements
Good Luck to all you guys
Sue
Last edited by a moderator:
susan ward
Banned
Hi
What I cannot understand is the CSPA was enacted in order to protect dependants from aging out !!!!!!!!!! It is obvious your families immigration began years ago.
Do you know how to calculate your age for CSPA? if so please share
Have you officially been told by BCIS that you have aged out? or case denied?
Have you written to the Advisory opinion people in CA?, setting out your case
Have you booked an appointment with Senator or Congressman? They cannot change the law as it stands but could approach DOS on your case to discuss problems, maybe try to bring an ammendment to CSPA problem cases
I am sure (although not published) the BCIS must have some sort of discretionary powers? Does anyone know?
My lawyer is Chief liason with DOS and meets to discuss the current issues with CSPA. He may be able to advise you.
May be worth a second opinion, just a thought?
Still waiting for news from Consulate on my son if nothing is sorted by end Sept I think I will file a letter of mamadas (Sorry about spelling)
Please keep us updated and I will do the same
Regards Sue
What I cannot understand is the CSPA was enacted in order to protect dependants from aging out !!!!!!!!!! It is obvious your families immigration began years ago.
Do you know how to calculate your age for CSPA? if so please share
Have you officially been told by BCIS that you have aged out? or case denied?
Have you written to the Advisory opinion people in CA?, setting out your case
Have you booked an appointment with Senator or Congressman? They cannot change the law as it stands but could approach DOS on your case to discuss problems, maybe try to bring an ammendment to CSPA problem cases
I am sure (although not published) the BCIS must have some sort of discretionary powers? Does anyone know?
My lawyer is Chief liason with DOS and meets to discuss the current issues with CSPA. He may be able to advise you.
May be worth a second opinion, just a thought?
Still waiting for news from Consulate on my son if nothing is sorted by end Sept I think I will file a letter of mamadas (Sorry about spelling)
Please keep us updated and I will do the same
Regards Sue
Last edited by a moderator:
CSPA - Retention of Priority Date - AGE OUT - NO SUCCESS IN OBTAINING NAMES OF CASES
PREVIOUSLY, I posted the following link to an article entitled "POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR AGED OUT CHILDREN UNDER CSPA" but I have been unsuccessful in getting information confirming the content of the article posted at:
http://www.rreeves.com/news_article.asp?aid=420
I would like to know if anyone else has had any success in finding cases where a derivative beneficiary who aged out prior to passage of the CSPA and who did not have a petition, appeal etc "pending" when the CSPA was passed, but still was able to retain the original priority date of the parents whose prority date did not become current until after passage of the CSPA. P
Please read on:
It mentions in this article that a number of east coast practicioners had been successful in obtaining Green Cards in cases the same as the hypothetical derivative beneficiary mentioned in the article, "Lilabeth" even when they gave here an age of 23 years. The way this is described, Lilabeth would not have had any sort of application pending when the CSPA was passed in Aug 6, 2002. This differs from the case of the 32 year old Maria who did receive a green card; Maria did have an appeal pending on Aug6, 2006 and that is why she was successful in her claim to retain her origianl priority date - see
http://immigration.about.com/od/uscasestatusprocessing/a/BIAkidsagedout.htm
In the Reeves article, the mother (Tessie) of Lilabeth did not receive her own Green Card until April 2006. Therefore, I do think that 23 year old Lilabeth would have had anything pending prior to or on the date of passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2002).
I contacted the firm that wrote this article, and I requested that they inform me as to the names of the cases (or the names of attorneys who were successful with these cases that they mention in their article) where a person who aged out prior to Aug 6, 2006 and who did not have anything pending on the date of passage of the CSPA, but was still able to retain the priority date of the parent's original petition. I was looking for a case where "no final determination on the case" had the expansive interpretation of meaning that because the parent's had not been to their interview and their priority date was sometime after the passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2006.
BUT, UNFORTUNATLEY, THE LAWYER THAT I SPOKE WITH AT LENGTH FROM THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY CASES THAT FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 23 YEAR OLD LILABETH IN THE ARTICLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN HER PARENT'S ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY CASES WHERE A DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARY WHO AGED OUT PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE CSPA, (BUT THEIR PARENT'S PRORITY DATE BECAME CURRENT AFTER PASSAGE OF THE CSPA) HAS BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE OF THEIR PARENTS? I am looking for a case where the derivative beneficiary did not have anything whatsoever "pending" on or before Aug 6, 2002. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH A CASE OR CASES, PLEASE EITHER POST THE INFORMATION OR CONTACT ME PRIVATELY BY EMAIL.
THANKS,
Diggy
______________________________________________________________
There is an article written 4/4/2006 called
Possible Relief for Aged Out Children Under CSPA
By Attorneys Robert L. Reeves & Joseph I. Elias
In it they state that several east coast practicioners have been successful in obtaining green cards for age-out children. See paragraph below and article at http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=170&a=12281
The Immigration Service stated that it would provide its officers additional guidance on this provision of CSPA.But, none has been issued to date, even though CSPA was passed several years ago.A few East Coast practitioners have been able to successfully obtain green cards for age-out children under this provision.Because guidance has not yet been issued, many children who are eligible to get their green cards have not even applied although the law entitles them to a green card.There are many practitioners who are unaware of this provision.
There is another article written by Eugene Palacios at
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=160&a=6411&sid=efc2852f29e9609e4ca9c62
and this article was written in sept 2005.
IF ANYONE HAS HAD ANY SUCCESS WITH THE SITUATION AS DESCRIBED BELOW (CSPA - RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE), PLEASE CONTACT ME OR POST:
Section 203(h)(3) consists of two parts. The first part of Section 203(h)(3) allows the retention of old priority date in case the child is determined to be 21 years old or older under the CSPA when the visa number becomes available and his petition is converted from F2A category to F2B category (unmarried sons or daughters over the age of 21 of lawful permanent residents).
The second part of Section 203(h)(3) is more controversial because of its wide implications. It appears that a derivative child that is determined to be 21 years old or older under the CSPA when the visa number of the parent becomes available is allowed to retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original family-based or employment-based petition. Retaining the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original family-based or employment-based petition will allow the child to immigrate faster to the U.S.
PREVIOUSLY, I posted the following link to an article entitled "POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR AGED OUT CHILDREN UNDER CSPA" but I have been unsuccessful in getting information confirming the content of the article posted at:
http://www.rreeves.com/news_article.asp?aid=420
I would like to know if anyone else has had any success in finding cases where a derivative beneficiary who aged out prior to passage of the CSPA and who did not have a petition, appeal etc "pending" when the CSPA was passed, but still was able to retain the original priority date of the parents whose prority date did not become current until after passage of the CSPA. P
Please read on:
It mentions in this article that a number of east coast practicioners had been successful in obtaining Green Cards in cases the same as the hypothetical derivative beneficiary mentioned in the article, "Lilabeth" even when they gave here an age of 23 years. The way this is described, Lilabeth would not have had any sort of application pending when the CSPA was passed in Aug 6, 2002. This differs from the case of the 32 year old Maria who did receive a green card; Maria did have an appeal pending on Aug6, 2006 and that is why she was successful in her claim to retain her origianl priority date - see
http://immigration.about.com/od/uscasestatusprocessing/a/BIAkidsagedout.htm
In the Reeves article, the mother (Tessie) of Lilabeth did not receive her own Green Card until April 2006. Therefore, I do think that 23 year old Lilabeth would have had anything pending prior to or on the date of passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2002).
I contacted the firm that wrote this article, and I requested that they inform me as to the names of the cases (or the names of attorneys who were successful with these cases that they mention in their article) where a person who aged out prior to Aug 6, 2006 and who did not have anything pending on the date of passage of the CSPA, but was still able to retain the priority date of the parent's original petition. I was looking for a case where "no final determination on the case" had the expansive interpretation of meaning that because the parent's had not been to their interview and their priority date was sometime after the passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2006.
BUT, UNFORTUNATLEY, THE LAWYER THAT I SPOKE WITH AT LENGTH FROM THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY CASES THAT FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 23 YEAR OLD LILABETH IN THE ARTICLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN HER PARENT'S ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY CASES WHERE A DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARY WHO AGED OUT PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE CSPA, (BUT THEIR PARENT'S PRORITY DATE BECAME CURRENT AFTER PASSAGE OF THE CSPA) HAS BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE OF THEIR PARENTS? I am looking for a case where the derivative beneficiary did not have anything whatsoever "pending" on or before Aug 6, 2002. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH A CASE OR CASES, PLEASE EITHER POST THE INFORMATION OR CONTACT ME PRIVATELY BY EMAIL.
THANKS,
Diggy
______________________________________________________________
There is an article written 4/4/2006 called
Possible Relief for Aged Out Children Under CSPA
By Attorneys Robert L. Reeves & Joseph I. Elias
In it they state that several east coast practicioners have been successful in obtaining green cards for age-out children. See paragraph below and article at http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=170&a=12281
The Immigration Service stated that it would provide its officers additional guidance on this provision of CSPA.But, none has been issued to date, even though CSPA was passed several years ago.A few East Coast practitioners have been able to successfully obtain green cards for age-out children under this provision.Because guidance has not yet been issued, many children who are eligible to get their green cards have not even applied although the law entitles them to a green card.There are many practitioners who are unaware of this provision.
There is another article written by Eugene Palacios at
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=160&a=6411&sid=efc2852f29e9609e4ca9c62
and this article was written in sept 2005.
IF ANYONE HAS HAD ANY SUCCESS WITH THE SITUATION AS DESCRIBED BELOW (CSPA - RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE), PLEASE CONTACT ME OR POST:
Section 203(h)(3) consists of two parts. The first part of Section 203(h)(3) allows the retention of old priority date in case the child is determined to be 21 years old or older under the CSPA when the visa number becomes available and his petition is converted from F2A category to F2B category (unmarried sons or daughters over the age of 21 of lawful permanent residents).
The second part of Section 203(h)(3) is more controversial because of its wide implications. It appears that a derivative child that is determined to be 21 years old or older under the CSPA when the visa number of the parent becomes available is allowed to retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original family-based or employment-based petition. Retaining the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original family-based or employment-based petition will allow the child to immigrate faster to the U.S.
Last edited by a moderator:
susan ward
Banned
Hi Diggory
Up date on sons case
In Oct 2005, we had e-mail from congressman that he received from embassy saying son HAS AGED OUT
In Oct 2002 we received a letter from TSC, which DID NOT SAY SON AGED OUT, just to submit ANOTHER I 824 for son. Which we did, and got approved Aug 2004- Case then seemed to dissapear until Congressmand got back to us in OCT 2005
What I cannot understand is WHY the TSC said in Oct 2002 to send another form, IF son aged out they should have known (and told us ) In OCT 2002 and not make us re-file and wait another 3 years!!!!!!!!!! to find out
Loads of attorneys say son is protected
We were getting ready to go to court in March 2006
In May 2006 husband died suddenly following a short illness. Husband was petitioner for son, so think case now dead with husband
For the past 4/5 years my son has visited the US on visa waiver and only visits ONCE per year (under 90 days)
His normal trip is from Early Nov through end Jan
As his dad was ill he came again Mar 06 for approx 8 weeks. He was told by congressman
DO NOT OVERSTAY, so son went back to home country to get B visa so he could come back to help with probate and final resting place.
The appointment was 6th June 06 and was DENIED, as son cannot prove strong family ties to home country
He never will be ble to prove this as mother and brothers are all LPR, so will NEVER have B visa approved
The office at American embassy, never even said that he was sorry for my sons loss!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is now an even BIGGER mess than before
Sue www.expatsvoice.org
Up date on sons case
In Oct 2005, we had e-mail from congressman that he received from embassy saying son HAS AGED OUT
In Oct 2002 we received a letter from TSC, which DID NOT SAY SON AGED OUT, just to submit ANOTHER I 824 for son. Which we did, and got approved Aug 2004- Case then seemed to dissapear until Congressmand got back to us in OCT 2005
What I cannot understand is WHY the TSC said in Oct 2002 to send another form, IF son aged out they should have known (and told us ) In OCT 2002 and not make us re-file and wait another 3 years!!!!!!!!!! to find out
Loads of attorneys say son is protected
We were getting ready to go to court in March 2006
In May 2006 husband died suddenly following a short illness. Husband was petitioner for son, so think case now dead with husband
For the past 4/5 years my son has visited the US on visa waiver and only visits ONCE per year (under 90 days)
His normal trip is from Early Nov through end Jan
As his dad was ill he came again Mar 06 for approx 8 weeks. He was told by congressman
DO NOT OVERSTAY, so son went back to home country to get B visa so he could come back to help with probate and final resting place.
The appointment was 6th June 06 and was DENIED, as son cannot prove strong family ties to home country
He never will be ble to prove this as mother and brothers are all LPR, so will NEVER have B visa approved
The office at American embassy, never even said that he was sorry for my sons loss!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is now an even BIGGER mess than before
Sue www.expatsvoice.org
Last edited by a moderator:
pakiboy819
New Member
Retention of Priority Date
goto website www.laseraseclinic.com/cspa
It has some interesting news regarding retention of priority date provision being accepted and interpreted by immigration judge for a person who was in immigration proceedings. there is a case file attached in that website as well which says conversion of category and retentionof priority date on page 2 of that file.
thanks
goto website www.laseraseclinic.com/cspa
It has some interesting news regarding retention of priority date provision being accepted and interpreted by immigration judge for a person who was in immigration proceedings. there is a case file attached in that website as well which says conversion of category and retentionof priority date on page 2 of that file.
thanks
thank you so much for that case data
I was looking all over the web for that Kim case. My CSPA case is very similar to hers where i'm applying for CSPA benefits after the 1 year requirement. I tried to get the information and submit the application within the year but was given misinformation and gave up for a while. Six months later I found that I could have adjusted had the CIS given me the correct information when I called. I printed all that case data from your site so thank you very much, I completely forgot about lexisnexis
I was looking all over the web for that Kim case. My CSPA case is very similar to hers where i'm applying for CSPA benefits after the 1 year requirement. I tried to get the information and submit the application within the year but was given misinformation and gave up for a while. Six months later I found that I could have adjusted had the CIS given me the correct information when I called. I printed all that case data from your site so thank you very much, I completely forgot about lexisnexis
emonadhikary
Registered Users (C)
whts my status?
My date of birth is Sep 1983.
My uncle petitioned my parents along with me on 1993(F-4). We got a priority date of May 1993. We waited for 10.11 yrs{nov2003} for DS-230 form. My name was there and we filled those forms and sent those to NVC. But after waiting another 1 year(Feb 2005) the interview letter came frm the local embassy and my name was not there(cause i was +21).
Now my parents is in USA, they got their Legal permanent resident card.
Now my mom applied for me through a I-130 form on June 2,2006 along with my DS-230 paper and they sent her a receipt on June 8,2006.
Please read this topic below and pls help me with my questions:
In all cases, where applicable, aged-out children would convert to the F-2B category for unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents with a retention of the parent's priority date. This would mean that in many cases involving extended waiting times for parents, the aged out children should be able to save years in immigrating to this country. For example, in the case of parents immigrating in 2018 on the basis of a fourth preference sibling petition with a 2002 priority date where the child was 15 years of age at the time for that petition was filed, the aged out child should be able to use the 2002 priority date for an automatically converted petition to the F-2B category in 2018. As the priority date under the F-2B category would most likely be current for visa issuance, the speed of immigration would depend upon the mechanism used by BCIS/DOS to effect the automatic conversion. In a regular conversion case today where a parent previously petitioned for his or her spouse and the child was a derivative beneficiary who aged out in the process, the law requires the petitioner to file a new I-130 petition to retain the old priority date16. In this case, a mechanism would have to be devised without the necessity of a further petition because of the automatic conversion provision.
A.Is my priority date will be May 1993?
B.Will i have to wait for another 10+ years cause the present(oct 2006) priority date is Jan 1997?
C.What are the other information/papers my mom have 2 send to the service centre to use the previous priority date?
D. If not, how long it will take to get a interview date
My date of birth is Sep 1983.
My uncle petitioned my parents along with me on 1993(F-4). We got a priority date of May 1993. We waited for 10.11 yrs{nov2003} for DS-230 form. My name was there and we filled those forms and sent those to NVC. But after waiting another 1 year(Feb 2005) the interview letter came frm the local embassy and my name was not there(cause i was +21).
Now my parents is in USA, they got their Legal permanent resident card.
Now my mom applied for me through a I-130 form on June 2,2006 along with my DS-230 paper and they sent her a receipt on June 8,2006.
Please read this topic below and pls help me with my questions:
In all cases, where applicable, aged-out children would convert to the F-2B category for unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents with a retention of the parent's priority date. This would mean that in many cases involving extended waiting times for parents, the aged out children should be able to save years in immigrating to this country. For example, in the case of parents immigrating in 2018 on the basis of a fourth preference sibling petition with a 2002 priority date where the child was 15 years of age at the time for that petition was filed, the aged out child should be able to use the 2002 priority date for an automatically converted petition to the F-2B category in 2018. As the priority date under the F-2B category would most likely be current for visa issuance, the speed of immigration would depend upon the mechanism used by BCIS/DOS to effect the automatic conversion. In a regular conversion case today where a parent previously petitioned for his or her spouse and the child was a derivative beneficiary who aged out in the process, the law requires the petitioner to file a new I-130 petition to retain the old priority date16. In this case, a mechanism would have to be devised without the necessity of a further petition because of the automatic conversion provision.
A.Is my priority date will be May 1993?
B.Will i have to wait for another 10+ years cause the present(oct 2006) priority date is Jan 1997?
C.What are the other information/papers my mom have 2 send to the service centre to use the previous priority date?
D. If not, how long it will take to get a interview date
susan ward
Banned
Hi
As you may know my son is a CSPA case and were informed in Oct 2005 he aged out
Sadly my husband (petitoner for son) passed away in May 2006 after a short illness. I have been told petitoner dead so case is dead
This contradicts what my attorney says, in fact he is going to challenge my sons case in court. Due to my financial situation he is knibdly doing this pro bono !!
I am concerned that there may be a final ruling on CSPA soon to stop court cases.
So we ALL need to stick together and have a class action suit. If anyone is interested please support me at www.expatsvoice.org this was set up before my husband died in an effort to help ANY child from aging out. It was also set up to help legal immigrants with other serious issues with other types of visa
If we stick together hopefully we can get something done !
One person cannot do everything, but everyone could help to do something
kind regards Sue
As you may know my son is a CSPA case and were informed in Oct 2005 he aged out
Sadly my husband (petitoner for son) passed away in May 2006 after a short illness. I have been told petitoner dead so case is dead
This contradicts what my attorney says, in fact he is going to challenge my sons case in court. Due to my financial situation he is knibdly doing this pro bono !!
I am concerned that there may be a final ruling on CSPA soon to stop court cases.
So we ALL need to stick together and have a class action suit. If anyone is interested please support me at www.expatsvoice.org this was set up before my husband died in an effort to help ANY child from aging out. It was also set up to help legal immigrants with other serious issues with other types of visa
If we stick together hopefully we can get something done !
One person cannot do everything, but everyone could help to do something
kind regards Sue
Last edited by a moderator:
pakiboy819
New Member
203(h)(3) or automatic conversion and retention of priority date is accepted by BIA.
Finally, BIA has issued a decision on case which involved 203(h)(3) involving automatic conversion and priority date retention provision.
Here are some cool links stating that.
www.ailf.org/lac/admin_interpretation_90606.pdf
http://www.cyrusmehta.com/news_cyrus.asp?news_id=1379
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-gc.html#2C
http://www.shusterman.com/siu.html
thanks
Finally, BIA has issued a decision on case which involved 203(h)(3) involving automatic conversion and priority date retention provision.
Here are some cool links stating that.
www.ailf.org/lac/admin_interpretation_90606.pdf
http://www.cyrusmehta.com/news_cyrus.asp?news_id=1379
http://www.shusterman.com/toc-gc.html#2C
http://www.shusterman.com/siu.html
thanks
ulta_pulta
Registered Users (C)
CSPA Age Calculation-complicated case
My labor applied thru Company "B" in Nov 2002 has been certified last week. I am preparing to apply for I-140/I-485 concurrently using my old priority date from company "A".I now work for compnay B.
Company "A" applied for LC in Oct 2000 and it was approved in June 2000, I-140 was applied in July 2001 and was approved in Feb 2002 (8 months).
My child's date of birth is 07/15/1985.
1. I could not aply for child's adjustment fo status within one year after visa number was available to me because I changed companies before I could file for I-485. Now he is over 21 years and now I am applying for a new I-140 and 485. Is he protected under CSPA.
2. How will the CSPA age calculated in this case?
- Child's age when new I-140 is approved MINUS time take for new I-140 approval?
OR
- Child's age when new I-140 is approved MINUS time taken for new I-140 MINUS time taken for old I-140 ?
Does any one have any idea how this is interpreted?
My labor applied thru Company "B" in Nov 2002 has been certified last week. I am preparing to apply for I-140/I-485 concurrently using my old priority date from company "A".I now work for compnay B.
Company "A" applied for LC in Oct 2000 and it was approved in June 2000, I-140 was applied in July 2001 and was approved in Feb 2002 (8 months).
My child's date of birth is 07/15/1985.
1. I could not aply for child's adjustment fo status within one year after visa number was available to me because I changed companies before I could file for I-485. Now he is over 21 years and now I am applying for a new I-140 and 485. Is he protected under CSPA.
2. How will the CSPA age calculated in this case?
- Child's age when new I-140 is approved MINUS time take for new I-140 approval?
OR
- Child's age when new I-140 is approved MINUS time taken for new I-140 MINUS time taken for old I-140 ?
Does any one have any idea how this is interpreted?
retention of priority date
No one is clear. I recently read of a case that was cleared - -judgement in favour of the derivatory beneficory. Please go to this link to read - BIA Rules In Favor of Children Who Aged-Out Despite CSPA
We link to the full text of the BIA's decision in this case from our "Green Card" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-gc.html#2C
No one is clear. I recently read of a case that was cleared - -judgement in favour of the derivatory beneficory. Please go to this link to read - BIA Rules In Favor of Children Who Aged-Out Despite CSPA
We link to the full text of the BIA's decision in this case from our "Green Card" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-gc.html#2C
RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE - CSPA Age Out - No Success in Obtaining Case Information
PREVIOUSLY, I posted the following link to an article entitled "POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR AGED OUT CHILDREN UNDER CSPA" but I have been unsuccessful in getting information confirming the content of the article posted at:
http://www.rreeves.com/news_article.asp?aid=420
I edited my previous posting today, but I do not think that anyone will read it because it is with included with a posting that I did last spring. So, I am posting this once again so that it will show up as a current posting.
I would like to know if anyone else has had any success in finding cases where a derivative beneficiary who aged out prior to passage of the CSPA and who did not have a petition, appeal etc "pending" when the CSPA was passed, but still was able to retain the original priority date of the parents whose prority date did not become current until after passage of the CSPA. P
Please read on:
It mentions in this article that a number of east coast practicioners had been successful in obtaining Green Cards in cases the same as the hypothetical derivative beneficiary mentioned in the article, "Lilabeth" even when they gave here an age of 23 years. The way this is described, Lilabeth would not have had any sort of application pending when the CSPA was passed in Aug 6, 2002. This differs from the case of the 32 year old Maria who did receive a green card; Maria did have an appeal pending on Aug6, 2006 and that is why she was successful in her claim to retain her origianl priority date - see
http://immigration.about.com/od/uscasestatusprocessing/a/BIAkidsagedout.htm
In the Reeves article, the mother (Tessie) of Lilabeth did not receive her own Green Card until April 2006. Therefore, I do think that 23 year old Lilabeth would have had anything pending prior to or on the date of passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2002).
I contacted the firm that wrote this article, and I requested that they inform me as to the names of the cases (or the names of attorneys who were successful with these cases that they mention in their article) where a person who aged out prior to Aug 6, 2006 and who did not have anything pending on the date of passage of the CSPA, but was still able to retain the priority date of the parent's original petition. I was looking for a case where "no final determination on the case" had the expansive interpretation of meaning that because the parent's had not been to their interview and their priority date was sometime after the passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2006.
BUT, UNFORTUNATLEY, THE LAWYER THAT I SPOKE WITH AT LENGTH FROM THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY CASES THAT FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 23 YEAR OLD LILABETH IN THE ARTICLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN HER PARENT'S ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY CASES WHERE A DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARY WHO AGED OUT PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE CSPA, (BUT THEIR PARENT'S PRORITY DATE BECAME CURRENT AFTER PASSAGE OF THE CSPA) HAS BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE OF THEIR PARENTS? I am looking for a case where the derivative beneficiary did not have anything whatsoever "pending" on or before Aug 6, 2002. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH A CASE OR CASES, PLEASE EITHER POST THE INFORMATION OR CONTACT ME PRIVATELY BY EMAIL.
THANKS,
Diggy
PREVIOUSLY, I posted the following link to an article entitled "POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR AGED OUT CHILDREN UNDER CSPA" but I have been unsuccessful in getting information confirming the content of the article posted at:
http://www.rreeves.com/news_article.asp?aid=420
I edited my previous posting today, but I do not think that anyone will read it because it is with included with a posting that I did last spring. So, I am posting this once again so that it will show up as a current posting.
I would like to know if anyone else has had any success in finding cases where a derivative beneficiary who aged out prior to passage of the CSPA and who did not have a petition, appeal etc "pending" when the CSPA was passed, but still was able to retain the original priority date of the parents whose prority date did not become current until after passage of the CSPA. P
Please read on:
It mentions in this article that a number of east coast practicioners had been successful in obtaining Green Cards in cases the same as the hypothetical derivative beneficiary mentioned in the article, "Lilabeth" even when they gave here an age of 23 years. The way this is described, Lilabeth would not have had any sort of application pending when the CSPA was passed in Aug 6, 2002. This differs from the case of the 32 year old Maria who did receive a green card; Maria did have an appeal pending on Aug6, 2006 and that is why she was successful in her claim to retain her origianl priority date - see
http://immigration.about.com/od/uscasestatusprocessing/a/BIAkidsagedout.htm
In the Reeves article, the mother (Tessie) of Lilabeth did not receive her own Green Card until April 2006. Therefore, I do think that 23 year old Lilabeth would have had anything pending prior to or on the date of passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2002).
I contacted the firm that wrote this article, and I requested that they inform me as to the names of the cases (or the names of attorneys who were successful with these cases that they mention in their article) where a person who aged out prior to Aug 6, 2006 and who did not have anything pending on the date of passage of the CSPA, but was still able to retain the priority date of the parent's original petition. I was looking for a case where "no final determination on the case" had the expansive interpretation of meaning that because the parent's had not been to their interview and their priority date was sometime after the passage of the CSPA (Aug 6, 2006.
BUT, UNFORTUNATLEY, THE LAWYER THAT I SPOKE WITH AT LENGTH FROM THE FIRM WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY CASES THAT FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 23 YEAR OLD LILABETH IN THE ARTICLE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN HER PARENT'S ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE.
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY CASES WHERE A DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARY WHO AGED OUT PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE CSPA, (BUT THEIR PARENT'S PRORITY DATE BECAME CURRENT AFTER PASSAGE OF THE CSPA) HAS BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL PRIORITY DATE OF THEIR PARENTS? I am looking for a case where the derivative beneficiary did not have anything whatsoever "pending" on or before Aug 6, 2002. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH A CASE OR CASES, PLEASE EITHER POST THE INFORMATION OR CONTACT ME PRIVATELY BY EMAIL.
THANKS,
Diggy
ulta_pulta
Registered Users (C)
CSPA is not clear even for experts. So how much does it help?
CSPA is well intended and if we read some of the cases and the memos, it looks great but according to even expert attorneys who I actually consulted, it is opaque and ambiguous. Here is a summary of their opinions that applies to my situation:
1. Once the child crosses 21 he has "aged out" unless you have applied for I-140. Even if you applied for I-140 but changed companies before applying for I-485 and if priority date at the point when you changed the company was current then there is no way you can protect your child from aging out. This is because the child should apply for I-485 within 1 year of the visa date becoming current. The problem is that you have to start from scratch in the new company and if LC takes more than 3/4/5/infinite years then the child will just age out and the previous I-140 helps only you to transfer priority date but not the child from aging out. All other seemingly helpful language in the law will hardly help the child. The CSPA is more helpful for family based cases and not employment based cases especially when LC takes a long time. For example, if a child is 16 years when you applied for LC and if it takes 5 years to get it approved then child will just age out even before you apply for new I-140. CSPA age does not take into account the time spent at LC stage.
2. CSPA says that the application will be automatically converted to appropriate family based category and child can retain his original priority date it seems this does not apply to "Employment" based cases because a priority date is not transferable from "Employment" based to "Family" based until a clear interpretation from DOS/USCIS.
CSPA seems to have been written mostly to help family based immigration and employment based category has been just included without replacing the existing conflicts.
CSPA is well intended and if we read some of the cases and the memos, it looks great but according to even expert attorneys who I actually consulted, it is opaque and ambiguous. Here is a summary of their opinions that applies to my situation:
1. Once the child crosses 21 he has "aged out" unless you have applied for I-140. Even if you applied for I-140 but changed companies before applying for I-485 and if priority date at the point when you changed the company was current then there is no way you can protect your child from aging out. This is because the child should apply for I-485 within 1 year of the visa date becoming current. The problem is that you have to start from scratch in the new company and if LC takes more than 3/4/5/infinite years then the child will just age out and the previous I-140 helps only you to transfer priority date but not the child from aging out. All other seemingly helpful language in the law will hardly help the child. The CSPA is more helpful for family based cases and not employment based cases especially when LC takes a long time. For example, if a child is 16 years when you applied for LC and if it takes 5 years to get it approved then child will just age out even before you apply for new I-140. CSPA age does not take into account the time spent at LC stage.
2. CSPA says that the application will be automatically converted to appropriate family based category and child can retain his original priority date it seems this does not apply to "Employment" based cases because a priority date is not transferable from "Employment" based to "Family" based until a clear interpretation from DOS/USCIS.
CSPA seems to have been written mostly to help family based immigration and employment based category has been just included without replacing the existing conflicts.
susan ward
Banned
Hi
It is clear that what is needed is a leglaslative fix to solove all the CSPA problems
So why not lets all club together for a class action suit
Please either pm or join together on www.expatsvoice.org
I am going to court anyway and if sons case is sucessful it may well help all your cases
It is clear that what is needed is a leglaslative fix to solove all the CSPA problems
So why not lets all club together for a class action suit
Please either pm or join together on www.expatsvoice.org
I am going to court anyway and if sons case is sucessful it may well help all your cases
Hi all,
I just came across this thread after searching endlessly for CSPA cases under F4 category. It shows that this thread was started in 2005 so Im hoping that most of the cases mentioned in this thread have been resolved by now. Please for those who were preparing to file under the "retention of priority date" section of the CSPA law, what was the final outcome of your cases and how did the interviews go? Please kindly share your experiences with us.
Thanks!
I just came across this thread after searching endlessly for CSPA cases under F4 category. It shows that this thread was started in 2005 so Im hoping that most of the cases mentioned in this thread have been resolved by now. Please for those who were preparing to file under the "retention of priority date" section of the CSPA law, what was the final outcome of your cases and how did the interviews go? Please kindly share your experiences with us.
Thanks!