|
Reeves & Associates, a professional law corporation, filed a
class action lawsuit in the US District Court, Central District
Court of Appeals, Case Number SACV08-688 JVX (SHx) on behalf of tens
of thousands of immigrant families whose adult children have been
wrongfully denied visas.
Reeves & Associates has been actively
pursuing Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) relief for families with
aged-out children.
In some cases, the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service (USCIS) agreed with Reeves & Associates’
interpretation of the statute and has granted visa petitions giving
the original priority date of the parent to the child who had
aged-out. However, USCIS failed to fully embrace important sections
of CSPA as a matter of policy. On some occasions, they have granted
relief to one family member while denying it to other siblings.
Consequently, many families were wrongly denied
relief under CSPA. Many more requests were simply ignored. As such,
Reeves & Associates filed a class action lawsuit on June 20, in
the US District Court, challenging the USCIS’ failure to comply
with the provisions of CSPA on behalf of immigrant families.
Specifically, Reeves & Associates is seeking
to compel USCIS to properly adjudicate all cases filed under Section
3 of CSPA and comply with the requirements of retaining the
parent’s original priority date in subsequent petitions filed by
the parent. Congress passed CSPA on August 6, 2002, to protect the
children of immigrants who turn 21 years old (aged-out) while they
wait for immigrant visas.
Under Section 203(h)(1) of CSPA, the child may
use a formula that allows for the amount of time an immigrant visa
was processing to be subtracted from the child’s age on the date
the green card application was filed. Congress enacted this section
as a remedy against protracted delays in adjudicating visa
petitions. However, many children would still age-out despite this
formula.
Under Section 3 of CSPA, codified at Section
203(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), children who
age-out, even after applying the formula—can convert to the
appropriate immigrant category and retain the priority date under
which the parent immigrated.
Specifically, Section 203(h)(3) states that
“the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the
appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original
priority date upon receipt of the original petition.”
Under this provision of the law, a child who
aged-out retains the original priority date and in most cases can
reunite with their family. Moreover, if the child who aged-out is in
the United States, he or she should be able to apply for a green
card, if otherwise eligible. In short, an aged-out child, who is a
derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent, will be
able to reunite with their family faster by utilizing their
parent’s earlier priority date.
Unfortunately, USCIS has failed to comply with
INA § 203(h)(3). Moreover, USCIS has also failed to promulgate
federal regulations or even issue policy memorandum regarding this
provision of law, leaving adjudicators with little guidance. This
failure resulted in decisions that were arbitrary and inconsistent.
Because of these problems, Reeves & Associates filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of immigrant families to force USCIS to
comply with CSPA.
The class action lawsuit presents two different
classes of individuals. Members of the first class consist of those
who filed petitions with requests for retention of the parent’s
original priority date and whose petitions were denied. Members of
the second class consist of those who have received no response at
all to their requests for retention of the original priority date.
In both cases, parents remain separated from their children.
Parents whose children have aged-out or the
children themselves should seek the advice of competent legal
counsel to determine if this section of CSPA applies to them and
whether they will be affected by this lawsuit.
Author’s Note: The analysis and
suggestions offered in this column do not create a lawyer-client
relationship and are not a substitute for the individual legal
research and personalized representation that is essential to every
case.
|
