Human Rights and Immigration Lawyer Contact Me
I’m sure this is devastating to a lot of readers. I don’t know how anyone can justify separating families based on an arbitrary age but maybe that is what they call family values in this country.
The Ninth Circuit in De Osorio v. Mayorkas, Sept. 2, 2011:
Because we agree that the BIA’s interpretation of § 1153(h) warrants deference, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of CIS. We hold that Appellants’ children are not among the aged-out aliens entitled to relief under § 1153(h).”
This is atrocious. Effectively, the Ninth Circuit is saying that the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), passed by Congress in 2001 to address the aging-out of derivative beneficiaries, only applies to children in the F-2 category, even though Congress placed no such restriction while passing the law. In fact, aged-out derivative beneficiaries of employer based petitions have successfully used CSPA to retain the original priority date and adjust their status in court. We’ve succeeded in creating two different sets of rules for derivative beneficiaries of employment-based petitions versus family-based petitions even though the legislation does not discriminate in this manner.
The plaintiffs are appealing en banc while also hoping for a favorable decision in the Fifth Circuit, but the prospects of victory are bleak.
What’s the implication for thousands of adult children separated from their parents? They may have to spend close to a decade without seeing their parents because it is hard to even get a tourist visa if you display any immigrant intent. In this case, immigrant intent could merely be petitions filed on your behalf. In order to be united with their parents, they have to remain unmarried for 7-10 years. If they do get married, the wait is longer, but eventually they would immigrate to the United States with foreign-born spouses and children, so it doesn’t even make sense from a restrictionist immigration viewpoint to disallow a simple “follow-to-join” parent rule to keep families together.
What’s the implication for thousands of adult children currently living in the United States as undocumented or trying hard to keep legal status? Most of these young people are present, past and future beneficiaries of the federal DREAM Act. The straight ones are likely to get married. The queer ones are out of luck for a while unless they are somehow highly educated and can get work sponsorship. But all of them stand to gain from pushing ahead with a I-485 (adjustment of status to green card) filed in conjunction with a I-765 (work authorization), and requesting the original priority date in a short memo, with a note for exercising discretion per the Morton memo. What will USCIS do? Will they really go against the Obama Administration and place thousands more immigrant youth in proceedings, who are likely to also benefit from non-LPR cancellation, defensive asylum claims and clog the courts for many more years to come?
Bring it on.
Nothing on this site creates an attorney-client relationship or replaces advice from a competent attorney. Success in one case does not guarantee success in all cases.