Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The Child Status Protection Act and the Grandfather ClausePart I. CSPAA. Age Out Prevention/Protection:For immigration pur...
(2) AGE ON PARENTS NATURALIZATION DATE- In the case of a petition under section204 initially filed for an alien childs cla...
E. INA § 203 (h) “CSPA-Child Status Protection Act” Provision:3/ (h) RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHIL...
(3) an application pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on       or after such date.FN 4 Se...
Part II. Grandfathering under INA § 245(i)A. INA § 245: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OFPERSON ADMITTED FOR...
sum specified herein shall be in addition to the fee normally required for the                processing of an application...
FN 3 Amended by § 376(a) of IIRIRA, effective for all applications "made on or after the endof the 90-day period beginning...
(4) “We find nothing in the applicable statutes or regulations that prevents an IJ in           removal proceedings from c...
The government [argued] that only the evidence on record at the time of the initial filing       may be considered, and th...
Appellate Authority, while exercising its plenary authority in a de novo review, from consideringother evidence that a pet...
because the IJ noted “various inaccuracies” in the application. J.A. at 261. As the Government admits, however, theBIA did...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Cspa and 245i grandfather clause

2,245

Published on

Be prepared for the teleconference on Tues July 26th

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,245
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Cspa and 245i grandfather clause"

  1. 1. The Child Status Protection Act and the Grandfather ClausePart I. CSPAA. Age Out Prevention/Protection:For immigration purposes, a “child” is defined in INA § 101(b), as it pertains to this discussion,as an individual who is unmarried and under the age of 21. Before CSPA took effect on August6, 2002, a beneficiary who turned 21 at any time prior to receiving permanent residence couldnot be considered a child for immigration purposes. This situation is described as “aging out.”Congress recognized that many beneficiaries were aging out because of large backlogs and longprocessing times for visa petitions. CSPA is designed to protect a beneficiary‟s immigrationclassification as a child when he or she ages out due to excessive processing times. CSPA canprotect “child” status for family-based immigrants, employment-based immigrants, and somehumanitarian program immigrants (refugees, asylees, VAWA).B. For Immediate Relative Petitions:  If the petition (Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative) was filed by a U.S. citizen parent for his or her child, the beneficiary‟s age “freezes” on the date of filing.  If the petition (Form I-130) was filed by a permanent resident parent and the parent naturalizes before the beneficiary turns 21, the beneficiary‟s age “freezes” on the date the petitioner naturalized.C. For Preference Classification for Permanent Residence or Derivative:  CSPA allows the time a visa petition was pending to be subtracted from the beneficiary‟s biological age at the time of visa availability so that the applicant is not penalized for the time in which USCIS did not adjudicate the petition.D. INA § 201 (f) “CSPA-Child Status Protection Act” Provision:4/ (f) RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE IMMEDIATERELATIVES-(1) AGE ON PETITION FILING DATE- Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), forpurposes of subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the agerequirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made usingthe age of the alien on the date on which the petition is filed with the Attorney General undersection 204 to classify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i). Page 1 of 11
  2. 2. (2) AGE ON PARENTS NATURALIZATION DATE- In the case of a petition under section204 initially filed for an alien childs classification as a family-sponsored immigrant undersection 203(a)(2)(A) , based on the childs parent being lawfully admitted for permanentresidence, if the petition is later converted, due to the naturalization of the parent, to a petition toclassify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), the determinationdescribed in paragraph (1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date of the parentsnaturalization.(3) AGE ON MARRIAGE TERMINATION DATE- In the case of a petition under section 204initially filed for an aliens classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section203(a)(3) , based on the aliens being a married son or daughter of a citizen, if the petition is laterconverted, due to the legal termination of the aliens marriage, to a petition to classify the alien asan immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) or as an unmarried son or daughter of acitizen under section 203(a)(1) , the determination described in paragraph (1) shall be madeusing the age of the alien on the date of the termination of the marriage.5/ (4) APPLICATION TO SELF-PETITIONS- Paragraphs (1) through (3) shall apply to self-petitioners and derivatives of self-petitioners.FN 4 Paragraph (f) added by section 2 of the Child Status Protection Act, Public Law 107-208, dated August 6, 2002. Effective Date: The amendments made by this Act shall take effecton the date of the enactment of this Act (August 6, 2002) and shall apply to any alien who is aderivative beneficiary or any other beneficiary of-- (1) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) approved before such date but only if a final determination has not been made on the beneficiarys application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence pursuant to such approved petition; (2) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) pending on or after such date; or (3) an application pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on or after suchFN 5 Section 805(b)(1) of Public Law 109-162 dated January 5, 2006, is amended by addingparagraph (4) to section 201(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Page 2 of 11
  3. 3. E. INA § 203 (h) “CSPA-Child Status Protection Act” Provision:3/ (h) RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-(1) IN GENERAL.-- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whetheran alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section101(b)(1) shall be made using-- (A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the aliens parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by (B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is-- (A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or (B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the aliens parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph(1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), the alienspetition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain theoriginal priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.(4) 5/ APPLICATION TO SELF-PETITIONS- Paragraphs (1) through (3) shall apply to self-petitioners and derivatives of self-petitioners.FN 3 Paragraph (h) added by section 3 of the Child Status Protection Act, Public Law107-208, dated August 6, 2002. Effective Date: The amendments made by this Act shall takeeffect on the date of the enactment of this Act (August 6, 2002) and shall apply to any alien whois a derivative beneficiary or any other beneficiary of-- (1) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) approved before such date but only if a final determination has not been made on the beneficiarys application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence pursuant to such approved petition; (2) a petition for classification under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) pending on or after such date; or Page 3 of 11
  4. 4. (3) an application pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on or after such date.FN 4 Section 203(b)(5)(A) and (B)(i) were amended by section 11036(a)(1) and (2) of the21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273,dated November 2, 2002.(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by section 11036 shall take effect on the date of theenactment of this Act (Public Law 107-273 dated November 2, 2002) and shall apply to alienshaving any of the following petitions pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act: (1) A petition under section 204(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(H)) (or any predecessor provision), with respect to status under section 203(b)(5) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)). (2) A petition under section 216A(c)(1)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)(1)(A)) to remove the conditional basis of an aliens permanent resident status.Subparagraph (D) added by section 11035 of the 21st Century Department of JusticeAppropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, dated November 2, 2002.FN 5 Section 805(b)(2) of Public Law 109-162, dated January 5, 2006, amended section 203(h)of the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding paragraph (4).F. Matter of Rodolfo Avila-Perez, 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007), held: (1) Section 201(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(1) (Supp. II 2002), which allows the beneficiary of an immediate relative visa petition to retain his status as a “child” after he turns 21, applies to an individual whose visa petition was approved before the August 6, 2002, effective date of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002), but who filed an application for adjustment of status after that date. (2) The respondent, whose visa petition was approved before August 6, 2002, and who filed his adjustment of status application after that date, retained his status as a child, and therefore an immediate relative, because he was under the age of 21 when the visa petition was filed on his behalf.G. Matter of WANG, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009), held: “The automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002), do not apply to an alien who ages out of eligibility for an immigrant visa as the derivative beneficiary of a fourth- preference visa petition, and on whose behalf a second-preference petition is later filed by a different petitioner.” Page 4 of 11
  5. 5. Part II. Grandfathering under INA § 245(i)A. INA § 245: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OFPERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE:(i) (1) 2a/ Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, an alienphysically present in the United States-- (A) who-- (i) entered the United States without inspection; or (ii) is within one of the classes enumerated in subsection (c) of this section; 2a/ (B) who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) ) of-- (i) a petition for classification under section 204 that was filed with the Attorney General on or before 2a/ April 30, 2001; or (ii) an application for a labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) that was filed pursuant to the regulations of the Secretary of Labor on or before such date; and 2a/ (C) 2a/ who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 14, 1998, is physically present in the United States on the date of the enactment of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000; may apply to the Attorney General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Attorney General may accept such application only if the alien remits with such application a sum equaling $1,000 3/ as of the date of receipt of the application, but such sum shall not be required from a child under the age of seventeen, or an alien who is the spouse or unmarried child of an individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 at any date, who- (i) as of May 5, 1988, was the unmarried child or spouse of the individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; (ii) entered the United States before May 5, 1988, resided in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is not a lawful permanent resident; and (iii) applied for benefits under section 301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990. The Page 5 of 11
  6. 6. sum specified herein shall be in addition to the fee normally required for the processing of an application under this section and(2) Upon receipt of such an application and the sum hereby required, the Attorney General mayadjust the status of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if- (A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and (B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed.(3) 4/ (A) The portion of each application fee (not to exceed $200) that the Attorney General determines is required to process an application under this section and is remitted to the Attorney General pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be disposed of by the Attorney General as provided in subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 286. (B) Any remaining portion of such fees remitted under such paragraphs shall be deposited by the Attorney General into the 4a/ Breached Bond/Detention established under section 286(r) , 4a/ except that in the case of fees attributable to applications for a beneficiary with respect to whom a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in paragraph (1)(B) was filed after January 14, 1998, one-half of such remaining portion shall be deposited by the Attorney General into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account established under section 286(m) .FN 2a Section 245(i)(1) amended by section 111(a) of Public Law 105-119, dated November 26,1997. Section 111(b) of Public Law 105-119 further provides:(b) REPEAL OF SUNSET FOR SECTION 245(i).--Section 506(c) of the Departments ofCommerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995(Public Law 103-317; 108 Stat. 1766) is amended to read as follows: "(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 1994, and shall cease to have effect on October 1, 1997. The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 1994.".Section 1502(a)(1)(B) of Public Law 106-554, dated December 21, 2000, amended section245(i)(1)(B)(i) by striking "January 14, 1998" and inserting in its place "April 30, 2001". Section1502(a)(1)(D) added subparagraph (C).FN2aa Section 1103(c)(3)(A) of Public Law 106-553, dated December 21, 2000, amendedsubsection (d) by striking "(relating to an alien fiancee or fiance or the minor child of suchalien)". Section 1103(c)(3)(B) of Public Law 106-553, dated December 21, 2000, amendedsubsection (e)(3) by striking "214(d)" and inserting in its place "subsection (d) or (p) of section214" Page 6 of 11
  7. 7. FN 3 Amended by § 376(a) of IIRIRA, effective for all applications "made on or after the endof the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.FN 4 Amended by § 376(b) of IIRIRA, effective for all applications "made on or after the endof the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.FN 4a Section 110 of Public Law 105-119, dated November 26, 1997, replaced "ImmigrationDetention Account established under section 286(s)" with "Breached Bond/Detention establishedunder section 286(r)". Language was added to section 245(i)(3)(B) by section 1502(a)(2) of Public Law 106-554,dated December 21, 2000.B. Matter of Legaspi, 25 I&N Dec. 328 (BIA 2010), held: “An alien is not independently “grandfathered” for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) (2006), simply by virtue of marriage to another alien who is “grandfathered” under section 245(i) as the result of having been a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition.”C. Matter of Riero and Espinol, 24 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2007), held: “Alien seeking to establish 245(i) eligibility based on grandfathered marriage petition must prove that the marriage was bona fide at its inception in order to show it was „meritorious in fact.‟ ”D. Ogundipe v. Mukasey1, 541 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2008), holdings and findings by majority (1-3)and dissent (4): (1) “We therefore hold that a visa petition is meritorious in fact for purposes of grandfathering under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10 if, based on the circumstances that existed at the time the petition was filed, the beneficiary of the petition qualified for the requested classification. ....” (2) “..... An alien seeking to adjust his status may prove that a previously denied visa application was meritorious in fact by making an appropriate factual showing in removal proceedings, subject to any applicable evidentiary and procedural rules.” (3) “We agree with Ogundipe that the determination of whether a visa petition is approvable when filed is not limited to the question of whether the petition was actually approved. ...”1 http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020080902056.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR Page 7 of 11
  8. 8. (4) “We find nothing in the applicable statutes or regulations that prevents an IJ in removal proceedings from considering other evidence that a petition was approvable when filed, even if that evidence was never submitted in conjunction with the original petition.” [As noted by dissent on review of the majority opinion, but this would be qualified by the last phrase of (2) above.]E. Synopsis of Ogundipe:In Ogundipe, the Fourth Circuit performed a review of a BIA Decision that upheld an IJDecision that denied the beneficiary the right to file for adjustment as a “grandfathered alien”under INA § 245(i). The adjustment application was based on an earlier petition to support thefiling of a new petition because the earlier petition was filed prior to April 30, 2001, but the firstpetition was found to be not “approvable when filed”.The original immigration case involved an I-360 petition filed by He Cares Fellowship (HCF)for classification of appellant (beneficiary) as a religious worker, in which: “...INS requested… [specific evidence to address seven (7) specific points of eligibility pertaining to both the petitioner and the beneficiary]… HCF failed to respond fully to the INSs requests, and the INS denied the petition. HCF appealed but failed to submit a brief; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.” “Ark of Salvation International Church of Christ (“AS”)….. submitted a second I-360 petition (the “AS Petition”) on Ogundipes behalf. [after the § 245(i) sunset date] Like the HCF Petition, the AS Petition sought a visa for Ogundipe on the basis that he qualified as a special immigrant religious worker, specifically, the Senior Pastor of AS. The AS Petition was granted in 2002.” “In 2004, the INS initiated removal proceedings against Ogundipe for remaining in the United States longer than permitted. Ogundipe then filed an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, based on § 245(i)…” “The IJ [found] that the HCF Petition was not “meritorious in fact” because there had never been a prima facie showing that Ogundipe was eligible for classification as a special immigrant….. Accordingly, the IJ denied Ogundipes application for adjustment of status, but granted his alternative request for voluntary departure.” “Ogundipe appealed to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal…Ogundipe then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the BIA denied.” “Because the parties agree that the HCF Petition was properly filed and non-frivolous, the only issue presented in this appeal is whether it was meritorious in fact. ……. Page 8 of 11
  9. 9. The government [argued] that only the evidence on record at the time of the initial filing may be considered, and thus the actual denial of the HCF petition by the INS forecloses any finding that it was meritorious in fact and therefore approvable when filed.” “…We find nothing in the applicable statutes or regulations that prevents an IJ in removal proceedings from considering other evidence that a petition was approvable when filed, even if that evidence was never submitted in conjunction with the original petition. This conclusion flows from the text of § 1245.10(a)(3). “Meritorious” means “meriting a legal victory” or “having legal worth,” Blacks Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004), but does not require actual legal success. Moreover, § 1245.10(a)(3) requires that the determination of whether a petition is meritorious in fact “be made based on the circumstances that existed at the time the qualifying petition or application was filed.” This provision contemplates that evidence other than that actually submitted in support of the petition might be considered for purposes of determining whether an alien is grandfathered.” [Emphasis added.]It must be remembered that this case ultimately pertained to an I-360 employment-based fourthpreference visa petition and determining if both the petitioner and beneficiary were “eligible atthe time of filing”.In dicta, the Fourth Circuit noted further in Ogundipe with regard to his meritless Motion toReconsider: “Ogundipes motion for reconsideration repeated his original appellate contention that the BIA and IJ failed to consider the totality of the circumstances that existed at the time the HCF Petition was filed. As the BIA explained in its first decision and in its order denying reconsideration, however, the IJ and the BIA did not treat the ultimate denial of the HCF Petition as dispositive. Rather, the IJ determined that “based on the circumstances that existed at the time the qualifying petition or application was filed, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the original petition was „approvable when filed‟ within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(3)” (quotation omitted). J.A. 24; see also J.A. 2. Accordingly, Ogundipe did not demonstrate legal or factual error warranting reconsideration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (motions to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority”).” [Emphases added.] --[End Synopsis]--F. Discussion:In a preference visa petition, both the petitioner and the beneficiary must establish eligibility attime of filing but nothing is found in the applicable statutes or regulations that prevents an Page 9 of 11
  10. 10. Appellate Authority, while exercising its plenary authority in a de novo review, from consideringother evidence that a petition was approvable when filed, even if that evidence was neversubmitted in conjunction with the original petition. When it is dispositive that a particularpetition is subject to showing eligibility at time of filing this is a very importantconsideration and should be dispositive of the ultimate decision on appeal. The additionalevidence offered on appeal or motion is subject to any applicable evidentiary and proceduralrules.The BIA and AAO as well as various courts are not in sync when it comes to what evidence willbe reviewed, and when. Often it boils down to matters of: When does the law require somethingto be established? When does that fact have to be proven? Is something a prerequisite or doesfulfillment of an evidentiary showing result in attainment of the benefit sought under the INA?Ultimately, in order to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatoryrequirements for approval as of the date it was filed. See Ogundipe at 261 (4th Cir. 2008).G. Lee v. Holder2, No. 09-2096 (4th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) [unpublished], stated, in part: “Under the facts of this case, we agree with the Lees that the BIA erred in ruling that theIJ was not permitted to review Mr. Lee‟s labor certificate to determine if it was “approvablewhen filed.” Indeed, we have already held that the IJ is permitted to review the “totality of thecircumstances” surrounding a labor certificate in making that determination. Ogundipe, 541 F.3dat 260-61. See also Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191, 194 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that IJs“necessarily” have jurisdiction to make fact-finding “incidental to the adjustment of status”determination). In addition, the BIA itself recently explained: It is clear that Immigration Judges do not have authority to decide whether a visa petition should be granted or revoked. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(e) (2010)[]. However, despite these limitations, Immigration Judges do have jurisdiction over related issues. For example, Immigration Judges may examine the underlying basis for a visa petition when such a determination bears on the alien‟s admissibility.Matter of Neto , 25 I. & N. Dec. 169 , 174 (BIA 2010). Thus, although an IJ cannot grant orrevoke a labor certificate in the first instance, an IJ can look at the underlying validity of a laborcertificate to the extent it bears on the removal proceeding or an alien‟s adjustment of status andthe BIA was incorrect in concluding otherwise in this case. Accordingly, the BIA erred in concluding that the Lees were statutorily ineligible under §1255(i) because the IJ was not permitted to review Mr. Lee‟s labor certificate, and we must grantthe petitions for review and remand the case for further proceedings.[FN2] ....” At p. 8-9_______________________“[FN2] At oral argument, the Government suggested two alternate bases for denying the petitions for review. First,the Government argued that the IJ implicitly found that Mr. Lee‟s labor certificate was not approvable when filed2 http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/092096.U.pdf Page 10 of 11
  11. 11. because the IJ noted “various inaccuracies” in the application. J.A. at 261. As the Government admits, however, theBIA did not adopt the IJ‟s opinion, and we are reviewing only the BIA‟s decision. Second, the Governmentsuggested that, because USCIS has already found that Hyeng‟s certificate was fraudulent, the Lees would beprecluded from relitigating that fact before the IJ. In Ogundipe, 541 F.3d at 261, we noted that an alien waspermitted to show his application was “approvable when filed” “subject to any applicable evidentiary and proceduralrules.” Again, however, the BIA did not address this argument and we decline to do so in the first instance in thiscase. “ At p. 9-10H. Lee v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services3, 592 F.3d 612 (2010), held: “The District Director for the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services("USCIS" or "the Service") denied Lees application, concluding that he did not qualify as a"grandfathered" alien under 8 C.F.R. § 245.10(j) and thus was precluded from filing for anadjustment of status. Lee did not appeal the District Directors denial to the Board ofImmigration Appeals ("BIA") because, despite Lees unlawful immigration status, the Servicehas yet to place him in removal proceedings. Instead, after the Director denied his application toadjust status, Lee filed this action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") challengingthe validity of 8 C.F.R. § 245.10(j). The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction anddismissed Lees action. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.”I. Matter of Neto, 25 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 2010), held:“Immigration Judges have authority to determine whether the validity of an alien‟s approvedemployment-based visa petition is preserved under section 204(j) of the Immigration andNationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2006), after the alien‟s change in jobs or employers.” Matterof Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005), overruled.Part III. Math, Timelines, and Evidence: What were the facts, when did they come intobeing, and what documents will one need in order to show in order to prove their case?At first glance it would seem relatively straightforward that people need help doing the mathwhen it comes to determining eligibility under CSPA. While that is true, it is often difficult todetermine which CSPA formula one needs to apply to their case. Folks need additional guidanceon what factors they need to take into account. Simple guidance on preparing a proper timelineof relevant events would aid in the quest. Once an applicant/petitioner/beneficiary figures outwhat they need to prove, they can then determine if it is within the realm of possibility. Lastly,once one has figured out that there is eligibility, they can then be in a better position to determinewhat evidence would suffice to prove their case.It is an old adage that “hindsight is always 20/20”. However, proper advance planning can beused to project one into their desired future position in order to take a glance back and see betterwhat evidence will prove which fact. If one goes about compiling their benefit petition orapplication from that perspective, the case will be easier to make. Far too often, uncertainapplicants (and their representatives) just indiscriminately throw as much paper at USCIS as theycan without much thought, if any. This buries the adjudicator in useless junk and obscures thetruth needlessly, and to the applicant‟s own detriment. Public engagement to educate thecustomers will only make the whole process work better for all.3 http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020100125104.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR Page 11 of 11

×