CSPA | The Insightful Immigration Blog

Tag Archive for: CSPA

USCIS’ Change in CSPA Policy Can Help Aged Out Children Who Missed Out During the October 2020 Visa Bulletin EB-3 Advance for India

October 11, 2024/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box

On September 25, 2024, USCIS announced that it had updated guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) age for noncitizens who demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. The new guidance:

“Clarifies that the CSPA age calculation of an applicant who established extraordinary circumstances and is excused from the ‘sought to acquire’ requirement uses the date that the immigrant visa first became available when the immigrant visa is continuously available for a 1-year period without any intervening visa unavailability; and

Clarifies that under circumstances where the immigrant visa became available and then unavailable, the CSPA age calculation may use the date an immigrant visa first became available if the applicant demonstrates extraordinary circumstances for not applying for adjustment of status before the immigrant visa became unavailable.”

USCIS’ latest guidance builds on policy guidance it previously issued on February 14, 2023, clarifying that it “considers a visa available to calculate CSPA age at the same time USCIS considers a visa immediately available for accepting and processing the adjustment of status application”. In August 2023, USCIS issued further policy guidance which:

“Explains that USCIS considers the February 14 policy change to be an extraordinary circumstance that may excuse an applicant’s failure to meet the ‘sought to acquire’ requirement;

Clarifies that the agency may excuse an applicant’s failure to meet the requirement if they did not apply to adjust status because they could not calculate their CSPA age under the prior policy or their CSPA age would have been calculated as over 21, but they are now eligible for CSPA age-out protection under the new policy; and

Clarifies that the agency considers applicants to have met the requirement if their application to adjust their status was pending on February 14 and they applied to adjust status within one year of a visa becoming available based on the Final Action Dates chart under the policy guidance that was in effect when they applied.”

In a previous blog, we discussed USCIS’ 2023 guidance at length. Due to USCIS’ pre- February 14, 2023 guidance, some noncitizen children may not have applied to adjust status because a visa was not available to calculate their CSPA age under the prior policy or their CSPA age would have been calculated to be over 21 years old. If these noncitizens applied to adjust their status under the February 14, 2023 guidance, they could claim an exception to the one-year “sought to acquire” requirement if the delay in filing was the result extraordinary circumstances.

USCIS’ 2023 guidance left unclear what it would consider to be the date an immigrant visa first became available in the case of retrogression. In the October 2020 visa bulletin, for example, priority dates (which were the Dates for Filing) for many India-born beneficiaries with approved EB-3 I-140 petitions became current, only to retrogress a few months later. In its latest guidance, USCIS addresses this scenario, clarifying that October 1 would be considered the date the visa first became available for CSPA age calculation purposes. The USCIS Policy Manual provides the following hypothetical:

A visa first becomes available to the prospective applicant for accepting and processing their application on October 1, 2020, and the visa remains available to the prospective applicant until December 31, 2020. The visa was only available for 3 months and was therefore not available for a continuous 1-year period. As of January 1, 2021, the prospective applicant cannot apply for adjustment of status because a visa is no longer available.

A visa becomes available again to the prospective applicant on July 1, 2021. The prospective applicant applies for adjustment of status within 1 year, on June 15, 2022. Although USCIS provides the applicant with another 1-year period to seek to acquire because the visa was first available for less than a year, the applicant includes an explanation and evidence demonstrating extraordinary circumstances for not applying for adjustment of status during the first visa availability period between October 1 and December 31, 2020. USCIS determines, as a matter of discretion, that the applicant established extraordinary circumstances and calculates the applicant’s CSPA age using the date the visa first became available, which was October 1, 2020.

On October 1, 2020 when the India EB-3 Dates for Filing advanced to January 1, 2015, thousands of India born beneficiaries in the EB-2 and EB-3 filed I-485 applications along with their derivative family members (those in EB-2 downgraded to EB-3 first). By January 1, 2020 the beneficiaries under the India EB-2 and EB-3 could no longer take advantage of India EB-3 Dates for Filing. Then, on July 1, 2021 the India EB-3 Final Action Dates advanced again, but only until January 1, 2013. In October 2020, applicants for adjustment of status would have had no idea that the Dates for Filing would be used to calculate a child’s CSPA age. Thus, some noncitizen children may have missed out on applying for adjustment of status along with their family members in October 2020 because a visa was not available to calculate their CSPA age under USCIS’ prior policy or their CSPA age would have been calculated to be over 21 years old. The advance of the Final Action Dates on July 1, 2021 may not have helped the children if the earlier, more advantageous Dates for Filing on October 1, 2020 were not recognized for protecting the age of the child until the USCIS policy change on February 14, 2023. Even when the USCIS allowed the filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications on February 1, 2023 under Dates for Filing, the Dates for Filing from February 1, 2023 till September 1, 2024 were not as advanced as the Dates for Filing established under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin.

But on October 2024, the EB-3 India Dates for Filing has advanced to June 8, 2013, affording some noncitizens who have not been eligible to submit their adjustment of status applications since October 2020 another opportunity to do so. Noncitizen children who missed out on applying in October 2020 can do so now, asserting that the change in USCIS’ policy is an extraordinary circumstance excusing their failure to file when a visa first became available.

The latest update will thus help many previously ineligible individuals qualify under the previous 2023 CSPA update. As the EB-3 India Date for Filing continues to advance until it reaches January 1, 2015, which is what it was under the October and November 2020 Visa Bulletins, all children who missed out under those visa bulletins in 2020 may be able to benefit from this salutary policy change today and beyond.

(This blog is purely for informational purposes and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice)

Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D Mehta & Partners PLLC

CSPA Disharmony: USCIS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Date for Fling while DOS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Final Action Date

January 22, 2024/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta

On February 14, 2023, the USCIS recognized that the age of the child gets protected under the Child Status Protection Act when the Date for Filing (DFF) in the Department of State (“DOS” or “State Department”) Visa Bulletin becomes current.

Since October 2015, the State Department Visa Bulletin two different charts to determine visa availability – the Final Action Dates (FAD) chart and the Dates for Filing (DFF) chart. The DFF in the Visa Bulletin potentially allows for the early filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications if eligible applicants are in the United States. The FAD is the date when permanent residency can be granted. The Filing Date, if the USCIS so determines, allows for the early submission of an I-485 application prior to the date when the green card actually become available.

The USCIS on February 14, 2023 at long last agreed to use the DFF to protect the age of the child, and acknowledged this:

“After the publication of the May 2018 guidance, the same applicant for adjustment of status could have a visa “immediately available” for purposes of filing the application but not have a visa “become available” for purposes of CSPA calculation. Applicants who filed based on the Dates for Filing chart would have to pay the fee and file the application for adjustment of status without knowing whether the CSPA would benefit them. To address this issue, USCIS has updated its policies, and now considers a visa available to calculate CSPA age at the same time USCIS considers a visa immediately available for accepting and processing the adjustment of status application. This update resolves any apparent contradiction between different dates in the visa bulletin and the statutory text regarding when a visa is “available.”

Even if the child’s age is protected when the DFF becomes current, the applicant must have sought to acquire permanent resident status within one year INA 203(h)(1)(A). According to the USCIS Policy Manual this could include filing a Form I-485, Form DS 260, paying IV fee, I-864 fee, I-824 or requesting transfer of underlying basis of an I-485.

Unfortunately, USCIS’s policy of using the DFF to protect a child’s age seems only to pertain to individuals who apply for adjustment of status within the United States. The Department of State (DOS) has yet to issue any corresponding guidance or update the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) in accordance with USCIS’s new policy. The FAM still states that an applicant’s “CSPA age’ is determined on the date that the visa, or in the case of derivative beneficiaries, the principal applicant’s visa became available (i.e., the date on which the priority date became current in the Application Final Action Dates and the petition was approved, whichever came later) (emphasis added)”. Thus, an applicant outside the U.S. who pays an immigrant visa (IV) fee may satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement, but only based on the FAD becoming current. This uneven policy makes little sense, and the DOS should promulgate its own guidance in accordance with USCIS’s policy to ensure that the DFF can also be used to protect the age of a child who processes for a visa overseas.

This results in an odd anomaly. A child who is seeking to immigrate through consular processing in the foreign country may not be able to take advantage of the CSPA under the DFF while a child who is seeking to adjust status while in the US can have the age protected under the DFF. Take the example of an Indian born beneficiary of a Family-Based Third Preference Petition, which applies to married sons and daughters of US citizens. The I-130 petition was filed by the US citizen parent on behalf of the married daughter, Nikki, on March 2, 2009. The FAD on this I-130 petition became current under the State Department Visa Bulletin on January 1, 2024 and Nikki has been scheduled for an immigrant visa interview date on February 1, 2024 at the US Consulate in Mumbai. But the daughter’s son, Vivek, who was born on June 1, 1998 has already aged out and cannot get protected under the FAD since he is already 26.

On the other hand, the DFF on this petition became current on June 1, 2020. The NVC notified Nikki and her derivative Vivek to pay the fee and complete the rest of the processing such as filing the DS 260 application. On June 1, 2020, Vivek was already 22 years. However, the I-130 petition that was filed on March 2, 2009 took one year and 1 day to to get approved on March 3, 2010. Under INA 203(h)(1)(A) the CSPA age is calculated based on the age of the child when the visa becomes available reduced by the number of days during which the I-130 petition was pending. So even though Vivek’s biological age on June 1, 2020 was 22, his CSPA age was under 21. By seeking to acquire permanent residency within one year of June 1, 2020, Vivek’s CSPA age got permanently locked in under the DFF.

Nikki paid the NVC fee on December 1, 2020 but took her time with the completion of the DS 160 applications, which were submitted sometime in the month of July 2021. Vivek’s age is protected under the DFF on June 1, 2020, which became current well before the FAD became current. He also sought to acquire lawful permanent resident status by paying the NVC fee within one year of June 1, 2020 along with his mother, Nikki, even though they filed their DS 260 applications after a year from the DFF becoming current. If Vivek is seeking to process the case through consular processing at the US Consulate in Mumbai, he cannot do so as the State Department only recognizes the FAD to protect the child under the CSPA. But if Vivek is in the US in a nonimmigrant status such as F-1 he will luck out. Once Nikki is issued the immigrant visa in Mumbai, she can get admitted in the US as a permanent resident. Vivek can subsequently file an I-485 application in the US while in F-1 status as a follow to join derivative. Vivek can also argue that he sought to acquire permanent resident status by paying the NVC fee within 1 year of the DFF becoming current.

If for any reason Vivek’s I-485 application is denied because the USCIS did not accept that the payment of the NVC fee amounted to Vivek seeking to acquire, he would still arguably as explained in our prior blog be able to maintain F-1 status under Matter of Hosseinpour, which recognized inherent dual intent in nonimmigrant visas. Matter of Hosseinpour involved an Iranian citizen who entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student and later applied for adjustment of status. After his adjustment of status application was denied, he was placed in deportation proceedings and found deportable by an immigration judge on the ground that he violated his nonimmigrant status by filing an adjustment of status application. The BIA disagreed with this interpretation of the nonimmigrant intent requirement for foreign students, noting the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act had expressly removed a provision stating that an individual’s nonimmigrant status would automatically terminate if he filed an adjustment of status application. Thus, the BIA held that “filing of an application for adjustment of status is not necessarily inconsistent with the maintenance of lawful nonimmigrant status”. The BIA also referred to legal precedent which states that “a desire to remain in this country permanently in accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status.” (See Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Bong Youn Choy v. Barker, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). See also Matter of H-R-, 7 I & N Dec. 651 (R.C. 1958)).

Notwithstanding the disharmony between the USCIS and State Department CSPA policy, Vivek is able to take advantage of the more favorable DFF because he happened to be in the US in F-1 status and the USCIS belatedly recognized that the DFF could be relied on to protect the age of the child on February 14, 2023. Not all derivative beneficiaries might be so fortunate. Take the example of Vivek’s twin sister Kamala who is not in the US in F-1 status like her brother. Her only option to take advantage of the more favorable DFF is to obtain a B-2 visa and then file an I-485 in the US after Nikki is admitted as a lawful permanent resident. It might be impossible for Kamala to obtain a B-2 visa as the nonimmigrant visa applicant needs to demonstrate a foreign residence abroach which she has not abandoned. A consular officer may well refuse her application for the B-2 visa under INA 214(b) as she has not been able to establish that she is not an intending immigrant. Even if Kamala already obtained a B-2 visa stamp previously, she would need to enter the US in B-2 status and subsequently file the I-485 with the USCIS. The USCIS may deny the I-485 if Kamala entered the US with an intent to file for permanent residency in the US under the fraud or willful misrepresentation ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Of course, if Kamala is able to get admitted into the US on a dual intent H-1B or L-1 visa, she can file the I-485 application without any issues.

If the DOS aligned its CSPA policy with the USCIS, there would be no need for such convoluted albeit legal workarounds. Both Vivek in the US and Kamala in India would be able to seek the protection of the CSPA based on the DFF becoming current on June 1, 2020.

USCIS Updates Policy Guidance on CSPA ‘Sought to Acquire’ Requirement After Using Filing Date to Protect the Age of the Child

August 28, 2023/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

As detailed in a prior blog, USCIS issued updated guidance on February 14, 2023 on when an immigrant visa number “becomes available” for the purpose of calculating a noncitizen’s age under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). Prior to February 2023, USCIS had taken the position that only the Final Action Date (FAD) protects a child’s age, not the Date for Filing (DFF). This position resulted in children aging out before the FAD became current, and their I-485 applications getting denied, although they had been permitted to apply for adjustment of status using the DFF. In numerous previous blogs (see here, here, and here), Cyrus Mehta advocated for a change in USCIS policy to allow the DFF to protect children’s ages under CSPA rather than the FAD. In its February 2023 guidance, USCIS finally adopted this recommendation, acknowledging that “the same applicant for adjustment of status could have a visa ‘immediately available’ for purposes of filing the application but not have a visa “become available” for purposes of CSPA calculation”, and stating that “USCIS has updated its policies, and now considers a visa available to calculate CSPA age at the same time USCIS considers a visa immediately available for accepting and processing the adjustment of status application”.

Regardless of whether the FAD or DFF is used for CSPA purposes, however, INA § 203(h)(1)(A) makes clear that a child’s age is locked “only if the [child] has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residency within one year of such availability”. In updated guidance issued on August 24, 2023, USCIS clarified that it considers “applicants to have met the sought to acquire requirement if their application to adjust their status was pending on Feb. 14 and they applied to adjust their status within 1 year of a visa becoming available based on the Final Action Dates chart under the policy guidance that was in effect when they applied”. The updated guidance:

Explains that USCIS considers the February 14 policy change to be an extraordinary circumstance that may excuse an applicant’s failure to meet the “sought to acquire” requirement;
Clarifies that the agency may excuse an applicant’s failure to meet the requirement if they did not apply to adjust status because they could not calculate their CSPA age under the prior policy or their CSPA age would have been calculated as over 21, but they are now eligible for CSPA age-out protection under the new policy; and
Clarifies that the agency considers applicants to have met the requirement if their application to adjust their status was pending on February 14 and they applied to adjust status within one year of a visa becoming available based on the Final Action Dates chart under the policy guidance that was in effect when they applied.

USCIS further explains that under the policy guidance in effect before February 14, 2023, some noncitizens may not have applied to adjust status because a visa was not available to calculate their CSPA age under the prior policy or their CSPA age would have been calculated to be over 21 years old. If these noncitizens apply to adjust their status under the new policy issued on February 14, USCIS said, they may not be able to meet the one-year “sought to acquire” requirement. “However, noncitizens who do not meet this requirement may still benefit from the CSPA if they can establish that their failure to meet the requirement was the result of extraordinary circumstances,” USCIS noted.

Although it is clear that individuals who were unable to apply for adjustment of status within one year of the DFF becoming current can now claim an exception if the delay in filing was the result extraordinary circumstances, this updated guidance still leaves some questions unanswered.

USCIS’s policy of using the DFF to protect a child’s age seems only to pertain to individuals who apply for adjustment of status within the United States. The Department of State (DOS) has yet to issue any corresponding guidance or update the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) in accordance with USCIS’s new policy. The FAM still states that an applicant’s “’CSPA age’ is determined on the date that the visa, or in the case of derivative beneficiaries, the principal applicant’s visa became available (i.e., the date on which the priority date became current in the Application Final Action Dates and the petition was approved, whichever came later) (emphasis added)”. Thus, an applicant outside the U.S. who pays an immigrant visa (IV) fee may satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement, but only based on the FAD becoming current. This uneven policy makes little sense, and the DOS should promulgate its own guidance in accordance with USCIS’s policy to ensure that the DFF can also be used to protect the age of a child who processes for a visa overseas.

Additionally, some derivative children may not have applied for adjustment of status with their parent while the previous policy was in effect because only the DFF was current and it would not have protected their age. Are these children now able to assert that the policy change constitutes extraordinary circumstances and apply for adjustment of status although more than a year has passed since the visa became available (and the DFF has retrogressed, and the USCIS’s stated policy guidance on retrogression is at odds with this update)? Based on the new policy, one can argue that the child was eligible to apply for adjustment of status when the DFF became current, and is now eligible to file a late, sought-to-acquire I-485 under the extraordinary circumstances exception. The same logic should also apply to children whose I-485s were denied based on the prior policy because they aged out before the parent’s priority date became current under the FAD and they can file a late motion to reopen.

Finally, the DFF only protects the age under the CSPA if the USCIS has indicated that the DFF can be used to file I-485 applications. For instance, the USCIS for the September 2023 Visa Bulletin has only permitted filing of employment-based I-485 applications under the FAD and not the DFF. Thus, the DFF will not be able to protect the age of the child under the CSPA even if an I-140 is approved and the DFF is current for that I-140 under the relevant employment-based preference.

While it is salutary that the DFF can be used to protect the age of the child under the CSPA, USCIS needs to provide more clarification and harmonize the application of the DFF with the FAD to protect the child’s age under the CSPA.

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

DHS’s Family Reunification Parole Initiative Can Serve as Template for Other Bold Executive Actions to Reform the Immigration System Without Fear of Being Sued by a State

July 10, 2023/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On July 7, 2023, DHS announced a new family reunification parole initiative for beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, & Honduras. Nationals of these countries can be considered for parole on a case-by-case basis for a period of up to three years while they wait to apply to become lawful permanent residents. This is an example of the administration using its executive authority to shape immigration policy in the absence of meaningful Congressional action to reform the system. Indeed, this initiative can serve as a template to allow beneficiaries of approved I-130, I-140, and I-526 petitions to be paroled into the US while they wait for a visa number to become available, which under the backlogs in the employment and family preference categories, can take several years to decades.

Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, in his discretion, to parole noncitizens into the United States temporarily on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The parole authority has long been used to establish family reunification parole (FRP) processes administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, which was established in 2007, and the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, which was established in 2014.

The processes begin, according to the DHS announcement, with the Department of State issuing an invitation to the petitioning U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member whose Form I-130 on behalf of a Colombian, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, or Honduran beneficiary has been approved. Beneficiaries awaiting an immigrant visa could include certain children and siblings of U.S. citizens and certain spouses and children of permanent residents. The invited petitioner can then initiate the process by filing a request on behalf of the beneficiary and eligible family members to be considered for advance travel authorization and parole.

The new processes allow for parole only on a discretionary, case-by-case, and temporary basis upon a demonstration of urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, as well as a demonstration that the beneficiary warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. Individuals paroled into the United States under these processes will generally be considered for parole for up to three years and will be eligible to request employment authorization while they wait for their immigrant visa to become available. When their immigrant visa becomes available, they may apply to become a lawful permanent resident.

The Federal Register Notices for Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras provide more information on the FRP process and eligibility criteria.

According to the federal register notices, the justification for the new FRP initiative is part of a broader, multi-pronged, and regional strategy to address the challenges posed by irregular migration through the Southwest border. Consideration of noncitizens for parole on a case-by-case basis will meaningfully contribute to the broader strategy of the United States government (USG) to expand access to lawful pathways for individuals who may otherwise undertake an irregular migration journey to the United States. The case-by-case parole of noncitizens with approved family-based immigrant visa petitions under this process will, in general, provide a significant public benefit by furthering the USG’s holistic migration management strategy, specifically by: (1) promoting family unity; (2) furthering important foreign policy objectives; (3) providing a lawful and timely alternative to irregular migration; (4) reducing strain on limited U.S. resources; and (5) addressing root causes of migration through economic stability and development supported by increased remittances.

It remains to be seen whether states like Texas will attack this program in federal court. A similar humanitarian parole program has been the subject of a lawsuit by Texas and nineteen other states, and allows 30,000 qualifying nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to be admitted to the United States every month for up to two years. The new FRP initiative is more narrowly tailored as it applies only to spouse, children and sibling beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions. Also, in United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 majority opinion rendered a blow to Texas and Louisiana in holding that they had no standing to challenge the Biden administration on federal immigration policy on enforcement priorities. Although that case dealt with whether a state could challenge the federal government’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion, it can also potentially deter a state’s ability to demonstrate standing when it challenges other federal immigration policies.

In Texas’ challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Texas has argued that it is entitled to “special solicitude.” The doctrine first enunciated in Massachusetts v. EPA allows states to skirt some of the usual standing requirements, like whether the court can redress an alleged injury. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed the doctrine in a footnote in United States v. Texas stating that the states’ reliance on Massachusetts v. EPA to support their argument for standing was misplaced. Massachusetts v. EPA held that the state could challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases based on special solicitude, although that case dealt with a “statutorily authorized petition for rulemaking, not a challenge to an exercise of the executive’s enforcement discretion,” the footnote said. Another footnote in Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion said lower courts need to be mindful of constraints on lawsuits filed by states, saying that indirect effects on state spending from federal policies don’t confer standing. Still, Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion in United States v. Texas left open the possibility that “a challenge to an Executive Branch policy that involves both the Executive Branch’s arrest or prosecution priorities and the Executive Branch’s provision of legal benefits or legal status could lead to a different standing analysis”. Note that Justice Kavanaugh said that it “could” lead to a different standing analysis and not that it would.

Florida has already challenged the Biden administration’s “Parole Plus Alternatives to Detention” (Parole+ATD) and “Parole with Conditions in Limited Circumstances Prior to the Issuance of a Charging Document” (PWC) policies in Florida v. Mayorkas that is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a brief filed on July 5, 2023, the government argued that the “special solicitude” doctrine proffered by states in United States v. Texas. should not apply in the humanitarian parole context. Florida asserted that it was entitled to special solicitude for the same reasons articulated by Texas in United States v. Texas – “a challenge to its sovereignty and indirect fiscal costs flowing from the presence of more noncitizens in its state.” Because the Supreme Court rejected an almost identical argument for the application of special solicitude in United States v. Texas, the government argued that Florida is similarly not entitled to avail of the doctrine.

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas could have interesting implications for challenges to DACA, as well, and DACA recipients as intervenors have filed additional briefing to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in US v. Texas, Case No. 1:18-CV-68. In his concurrence in United States v. Texas, Justice Gorsuch argued that the harm Texas and the states that joined it were concerned with – primarily increased spending to provide healthcare and other services to higher numbers of undocumented immigrants present in the state – was not redressable. Although an injunction would prevent the implementation of the Biden administration’s enforcement guidelines, Justice Gorsuch argued that this remedy was unavailable to the states because of 8 U. S. C. § 1252(f )(1), which provides that “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of ” certain immigration laws, including the provisions that the states want to see enforced. The district court attempted to avoid offending this provision by “vacating” the Biden administrations guidelines instead of issuing an injunction, but Judge Gorsuch argued in part that a vacatur order nullifying the guidelines does nothing to redress the states’ supposed injuries because the “federal officials possess the same underlying prosecutorial discretion”, even in the absence of the guidelines. DACA recipients argued that this program also represents an exercise of inherent prosecutorial discretion, and states’ challenge of the program therefore suffers from the same redressability problem identified by Judge Gorsuch. Similarly, the states challenging the DACA program have alleged indistinct injuries similar to those articulated by Texas in United States v. Texas. Because the Supreme Court found that Texas lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration’s guidelines, DACA recipients have argued that states do not have stating to challenge the DACA program based on similar theories.

DOJ attorneys and intervenor defendants filed a joint motion on July 7, 2023, asking Judge Tipton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to delay a bench trial in the earlier lawsuit filed by Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. Although the motion argued that the outcome of United States v. Texas would determine whether Texas had standing in the federal suit, Judge Tipton predictably declined to push back the trial date. Texas had previously argued that the parole program is distinguishable from the Biden administration’s enforcement guidelines because “[w]hatever discretion [the administration] might have in choosing which aliens to arrest or otherwise take into custody, [it has] no discretion to parole into the country aliens who do not meet the statutory criteria for parole.” At this point, states like Texas are arguing that their legal challenges to Biden’s earlier humanitarian parole or DACA program can be distinguished from United States v. Texas, which involved enforcement priorities, while the Biden administration and intervenors such as DACA recipients are arguing that Texas should not have standing to challenge even other immigration programs.

Returning to the idea of how this initiative can be broadened, parole can potentially be expanded to all beneficiaries of approved I-130, I-140, and I-526 petitions who are waiting overseas in the green card backlogs. Even if parole is expanded, the administration can still remain faithful to INA § 212(d)(5) by approving parole on a discretionary and case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit. For instance, it may be possible to justify the parole of certain beneficiaries of I-526 petitions who have made a minimum investment of $500,000 in a US business prior to May 15, 2022 or $800,000 after this date, and created 10 jobs as that could be considered a significant public benefit. The same justification can be made for certain beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions in the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 preference categories whose presence in the US can benefit US employers who have sponsored them through the labor certification process or who have demonstrated that they are either persons of extraordinary ability or are well situated to advance the national interest of the United States. Beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions who are caught in backlogs can make a justification for parole for urgent humanitarian reasons to unite with family members in the US.

Out of the four proposals Cyrus Mehta made to the Biden administration in May 2021 for reforming the legal immigration system without waiting for Congress to act, we are happy to see that two have come to fruition- parole for beneficiaries of I-130 petitions and using the Dates for Filing (DFF) for protecting the age of the child under the Child Status Protection Act. Cyrus Mehta has also proposed that the administration has the authority to advance the DFF in the State Department Visa Bulletin to current to maximize the number of people who can file for adjustment of status in the US. Cyrus Mehta has also proposed that there is nothing in INA § 203(d) that requires the counting of derivatives in the family and employment green card preferences, although since the submission of this proposal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Wang v. Blinken ruled that INA § 203(d) requires the counting of derivative. Hence, any hope of administrative reform with regards to the unitary counting of family members has been shelved for the time being unless Congress is able to provide clarification on §203(d). Even if the administration issues a new interpretation to INA § 203(d) and abandons the position it took in Wang v. Blinken, the DC Circuit Court of Appeal’s interpretation will still prevail within the jurisdiction.

As Texas v. United States has made it harder for a state like Texas, which has reflexively sued on every immigration policy to get standing, the Biden administration should consider moving forward more boldly by reforming the immigration system through executive actions without fear of being sued by these states. It may be no coincidence that the latest family reunification parole initiative was unveiled within two weeks of the favorable ruling for the Biden administration in Texas v. United States!

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

The Dates for Filing Chart in the Visa Bulletin Not Only Protects Children from Aging Out But Can Be Dramatically Advanced To Allow Many More Backlogged Immigrants To File Adjustment of Status Applications

February 19, 2023/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta

On February 14, 2023, the USCIS issued updated guidance to indicate when an immigrant visa number “becomes available” for the purpose of calculating a noncitizen’s age in certain situations under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). The guidance became on effective 2/14/23 and comments are due by 3/14/23.

Since October 2015, the State Department Visa Bulletin two different charts to determine visa availability – the Final Action Dates (FAD) chart and the Dates for Filing (DFF) chart. The DFF in the Visa Bulletin potentially allows for the early filing of I-485 adjustment of status applications if eligible applicants are in the United States and the filing of visa applications if they are outside the country. The FAD is the date when permanent residency (the green card) can be granted. The Filing Date, if the USCIS so determines, allows for the early submission of an I-485 application prior to the date when the green card actually become available.

Prior to February 14, 2023, the USCIS maintained that the FAD protected the age of the child and not the DFF. Using the DFF to protect the age of the child who is nearing the age of 21 is clearly more advantageous – the date becomes available sooner than the FAD – but USCIS policy erroneously maintained since September 2018 that only the FAD could protect the age of the child. Thus, if an I-485 application was filed pursuant to a DFF and the child aged out before the FAD became available, the child was no longer protected despite being permitted to file an I-485 application. The I-485 application got denied, and if the child no longer had an underlying nonimmigrant status, was placed in great jeopardy through the commencement of removal proceedings, and even if removal proceedings were not commenced, the child could start accruing unlawful presence, which triggered the 3- and 10-year bars to reentry. If the child filed the I-485 as a derivative with the parent, the parent could get approved for permanent residence when the FAD becomes available while the child’s application got denied.

I had first advocated in my blog of September 22, 2018 entitled Recipe for Confusion: USCIS Says Only the Final Action Date Protects a Child’s Age under the Child Status Protection Act that the DFF should protect the age of the child under the CSPA rather than the FAD. On August 24, 2018 the USCIS under the Trump administration explicitly stated in the USCIS Policy Manual that only the FAD could be used to calculate the age of the child. Subsequent blogs of mine protesting against this change are here and here. Brent Renison filed a lawsuit in Nakka v. USCIS again arguing that the DFF should be considered the point of time to protect the child’s age and even AILA strongly advocated for this change, which can be found here and here. Several others also advocated on this issue.

The USCIS on February 14, 2023 at long last agreed to use the DFF to protect the age of the child. Those whose I-485 applications were denied under the old policy may file motions to reopen. I had argued that the term “an immigrant visa is immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3), which allows for the filing of an I-485 application, has not been defined. Allowing the filing of an I-485 under the DFF and ahead of the FAD suggests that the term “immigrant visa is immediately available” has been interpreted more broadly to encompass dates ahead of when a green card becomes available. Indeed, the Visa Bulletin describes the DFF as “dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process.” Under this permissible interpretation, I-485 applications can be filed pursuant to INA 245(a)(3) under the DFF. Applicants who file I-485s under both the Filing Date and the Final Action Date must satisfy INA 245(a)(3), which only permits the filing of an I-485 application when “an immigrant visa is immediately available.”

Under INA 203(h)(1)(A), which codified Section 3 of the CSPA, the age of the child under 21 is locked on the “date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available…but only if the [child] has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residency within one year of such availability.” If the child’s age is over 21 years, it can be subtracted by the amount of time the applicable petition was pending. See INA 203(h)(1)(B).

Under INA 245(a)(3), an I-485 application can only be filed when an “immigrant visa is immediately available.”

Therefore, there is no meaningful difference in the verbiage relating to visas availability – “immigrant visa becomes available” and “immigrant visa is immediately available” under INA 203(h)(1)(A) and INA 245(a)(3) respectively. If an adjustment application can be filed based on a DFF pursuant to 245(a)(3), then the interpretation regarding visa availability under 203(h)(1)(A) should be consistent, and so the USCIS in it updated policy guidance has stated that the DFF ought to freeze the age of the child, and the child may seek to acquire permanent residency within 1 year of visa availability, which can be either the Filing Date or the Final Action Date.

The new USCIS policy that recognized the DFF for freezing the age of the child acknowledged this:

“After the publication of the May 2018 guidance, the same applicant for adjustment of status could have a visa “immediately available” for purposes of filing the application but not have a visa “become available” for purposes of CSPA calculation. Applicants who filed based on the Dates for Filing chart would have to pay the fee and file the application for adjustment of status without knowing whether the CSPA would benefit them. To address this issue, USCIS has updated its policies, and now considers a visa available to calculate CSPA age at the same time USCIS considers a visa immediately available for accepting and processing the adjustment of status application. This update resolves any apparent contradiction between different dates in the visa bulletin and the statutory text regarding when a visa is “available.”

USCIS also instructs that those whose I-485 applications got denied because they were not permitted to use the DFF to determine their age may file motions to reopen. While the deadline to file a motion to reopen is 30 days, under 8 CFR 103.5(a)(1)(i) failing to file within 30 days after the denial may be excused if the noncitizen demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and was beyond their control. Hence, those whose applications were denied prior to the change in the policy can request the USCIS to excuse a late filing as the delay was certainly beyond the control of the applicant. What about those who decided not to file an I-485 for their child because of the risks involved if the child aged out before the FAD became current? One can now look back at when the applicable DFF became current which can be used to freeze the age of the child, although under INA 203(h)(1)(A) the applicant should have also sought to acquire permanent resident status to fulfill the condition of freezing the age. If one year has already passed since the DFF became current, it might be possible to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances under Matter of O. Vazquez for failing to seek to acquire permanent resident status. Although the update to the USCIS Policy Manual has not specifically indicated whether this circumstance qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance, those who did not file I-485 applications within one year of visa availability because they could not predict that the policy would change and also feared that a denial of the I-485 if the FAD was unable to freeze the child’s age should attempt to invoke the extraordinary circumstance exception.

State Department Must Also Update the FAM to be Consistent with the Updated USCIS Policy Guidance

Thus far, the State Department has not amended the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) to align with the new USCIS Policy. The FAM still states that the age of the child is determined when the FAD becomes current. A child who is processing for a visa at an overseas post should also be able to rely on the DFF rather than the FAD even if not filing an I-485 adjustment of status application in the US. If the visa became available under the DFF chart, then it should not matter whether the child is filing an I-485 application in the US or is processing for a visa overseas as the age of the child under the CSPA ought to be calculated based on when the visa became immediately available under INA 203(h)(1)(A).

Advancing the DFF Will Provide Relief to More Children and Backlogged Parents

As a result of the existence of the per country limits, those born in India and China have been drastically affected by backlogs in the employment-based green card categories. Each country is only entitled to 7 percent of the total allocation of visas under each preference. Thus, a country like Iceland with only about 330,000 people has the same allocation as India or China with populations of more than a billion people. For instance, in the employment-based second preference (EB-2), those born in India have to wait for decades, and one study estimates the wait time to be 150 years!

It would be ideal for Congress to eliminate the per country limits and even add more visas to each preference category. Until Congress is able to act, it would be easy for the Biden administration to provide even greater relief through executive action. One easy fix is to advance the dates in the State Department’s Visa Bulletin so that many more backlogged beneficiaries of approved petitions can apply for adjustment of status and get ameliorative relief.

There is a legal basis to advance the DFF even further, perhaps to as close as current. This would allow many backlogged immigrants to file I-485 adjustment of status applications and get the benefits of adjustment of status such as the ability to port to a new job under INA 204(j), obtain travel permission and interim work authorization. Many more of the children of these backlogged immigrants would also be able to protect their age under the USCIS’s updated guidance.

As noted, INA 245(a)(3) allows for the filing of an adjustment of status application when “an immigrant visa is immediately available” to the applicant. 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) links visa availability to the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin. Pursuant to this regulation, an I-485 application can only be submitted “if the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current).” The term “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3) has never been defined, except as in 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) by “a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in Bulletin” or if the date in the Bulletin is current for that category.

The State Department has historically never advanced priority dates based on certitude that a visa would actually become available. There have been many instances when applicants have filed an I-485 application in a particular month, only to later find that the dates have retrogressed. A good example is the April 2012 Visa Bulletin, when the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China were May 1, 2010. In the very next May 2012 Visa Bulletin a month later, the EB-2 cut-off dates for India and China retrogressed to August 15, 2007. If the State Department was absolutely certain that applicants born in India and China who filed in April 2012 would receive their green cards, it would not have needed to retrogress dates back to August 15, 2007. Indeed, those EB-2 applicants who filed their I-485 applications in April 2012 may still potentially be waiting and have yet to receive their green cards even as of today! Another example is when the State Department announced that the July 2007 Visa Bulletin for EB-2 and EB-3 would become current. Hundreds of thousands filed during that period (which actually was the extended period from July 17, 2007 to August 17, 2007). It was obvious that these applicants would not receive their green cards during that time frame. The State Department then retrogressed the EB dates substantially the following month, and those who filed under the India EB-3 in July-August 2007 waited for over a decade before they became eligible for green cards. More recently, the September 2022 Visa Bulletin has a cutoff date of December 1, 2014 for EB-2 India. In the next October 2022 Visa Bulletin the EB-2 India was abruptly retrogressed to April 1, 2012 and then further retrogressed to October 8, 2011. If a visa number was immediately available in September 2022, an applicant under EB-2 India with a priority date of December 1, 2014 or earlier should have been issued permanent residence.

These three examples, among many, go to show that “immediately available” in INA 245(a)(3), according to the State Department, have never meant that visas were actually available to be issued to applicants as soon as they filed. Rather, it has always been based on a notion of visa availability at some point of time in the future.

Under the dual filing dates system first introduced by the State Department in October 2015, USCIS acknowledges that availability of visas is based on an estimate of available visas for the fiscal year rather than immediate availability:

When we determine there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants, you may use the Dates for Filing Applications chart to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS. Otherwise, you must use the Application Final Action Dates chart to determine when to file an adjustment of status application with USCIS.

Taking this to its logical extreme, visa availability for establishing the DFF may be based on just one visa being saved in the backlogged preference category in the year, such as the India EB-3, like the proverbial Thanksgiving turkey. Just like one turkey every Thanksgiving Day is pardoned by the President and not consumed, similarly one visa can also be left intact rather than used by the noncitizen beneficiary. So long as there is one visa kept available, it would provide the legal basis for an I-485 filing under a DFF, and this would be consistent with INA 245(a)(3) as well as 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1). DFF could potentially advance and become current, thus allowing hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries of I-140 petitions to file I-485 applications.

This same logic can be extended to beneficiaries of family-based I-130 petitions.

8 CFR 245.1(g)(1) could be amended (shown in bold) to expand the definition of visa availability:

An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 [if] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current) (“Final Action Date”). An immigrant visa is also considered available for submission of the I-485 application based on a provisional priority date (“‘Dates for Filing”) without reference to the Final Action Date. No provisional submission can be undertaken absent prior approval of the visa petition and only if all visas in the preference category have not been exhausted in the fiscal year. Final adjudication only occurs when there is a current Final Action Date. An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service office.

We appreciate that the Biden Administration has provided relief to hundreds of thousands of children by allowing them to use the more advantageous DFF so that they can get protection from aging out under the CSPA while their parent remains in the backlogs. The Administration can go one step further by advancing the DFF so that hundreds of thousands more who are backlogged can file I-485 applications and their children can get further protection from aging out. Until Congress acts and adds much needed visa numbers to the employment and family based preferences, implementing this additional step will provide relief to many more in the backlogs.

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

Some Highlights of the EB-5 Reauthorization: CSPA Protection and How 245(k) and Concurrent Filing Combine to Create a New Option for Some Applicants Who Have Recently Dropped Out of Status

March 22, 2022/0 Comments/in Blog/by David Isaacson

The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which was signed into law on March 15 after the House and Senate resolved their differences earlier in the month, reauthorized the EB-5 Regional Center program and made some other changes to the EB-5 program in the “EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022”, included as Division BB of the appropriations bill (at pages 1022 to 1061 of the PDF version of the bill). Others have already produced summaries of the bill, such as one drafted shortly before the President signed the bill by Robert Divine of Baker Donelson and posted by Invest in the USA, and I will not here attempt an exhaustive list of all of the changes contained in almost 40 pages of statutory text, but there are a few highlights that seemed particularly worth mentioning.

Section 203(h)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 102(b) of Division BB (at pages 1026-1027 of the PDF version of the bill), provides additional protection under the Child Status Protection Act for some children of investors who would otherwise age out of their derivative status. If a child becomes a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) on a conditional basis through a parent’s investment, and the parent’s conditional resident status is later terminated because of, for example, failure to create the requisite number of U.S. jobs, there will be a one-year window after the termination during which the parent can file a new EB-5 petition and the child (if still unmarried) will continue to qualify as a child under the new petition even if then over age 21.

Likely of relevance to more people are two provisions of Division BB which can have a particularly powerful effect in combination: the addition of EB-5 petitions to those covered by INA § 245(k), and the addition of a new section § 245(n) allowing concurrent filing of an application for adjustment of status where approval of an EB-5 petition would make a visa number immediately available. Both of these are contained in section 102(d) of Division BB (at page 1027 of the PDF version of the bill).

Under previous law, EB-5 petitions and applications for adjustment of status could not be filed concurrently, and INA § 245(k) did not apply to EB-5 petitions. The former meant that it was necessary to file an EB-5 petition and wait for it to be approved before filing an I-485 application for adjustment of status, and the wait could be very long: current posted USCIS processing times indicate that an I-526 Petition by Alien Investor under the EB-5 program can take anywhere from 35 months to 71.5 months to adjudicate. During those three to six years, the investor/petitioner would have to either maintain status in the United States, or (if already here) leave the country. And when the time finally came to apply for adjustment of status, the inapplicability of section 245(k) meant that absent some rare exceptions, the investor/petitioner would have to prove that they had maintained status continuously, without even small gaps, and had never worked without authorization. This is in contrast to most employment-based green card categories, where section 245(k) provides for limited forgiveness of up to 180 days of time out of status or employed without authorization since one’s last admission into the United States.

Under the former law, therefore, the EB-5 program was not a useful option for people who wanted to remain in the United States, but lacked access to a long-term nonimmigrant status or had briefly fallen out of status for whatever reason. With these amendments, on the other hand, it can be.

Imagine, for example, a well-off L-1A nonimmigrant manager or executive sent to open a new office in the United States who runs into trouble after a year because the sponsoring company’s business operation has not yet developed to the point that USCIS acknowledges it to be able to support his or her continued efforts as a manager or executive. If an L-1A extension is denied, and an EB-1C I-140 petition for a manager or executive is not a viable option because USCIS would deny it for the same reason, the previous law would not have allowed the nonimmigrant to remain in the United States while pursuing the EB-5 process after falling out of L-1 status. An I-526 petition would have had no direct impact on the nonimmigrant’s status until years later.

Under the newly amended version of the law, however, assuming no previous time out of status or unauthorized employment since the last time that our hypothetical L-1 nonimmigrant was admitted to the United States, there would be a window of 180 days after the L-1 extension denial when the nonimmigrant could utilize the EB-5 process to remain in the United States. If the requisite investment were made and an I-526 petition were concurrently filed with an I-485 application for adjustment of status within that time, then the I-485 application would be protected by amended INA § 245(k). (According to USCIS guidance, it would also be necessary for the applicant to refrain from unauthorized employment after filing and before receiving employment authorization; the legal correctness, or not, of that guidance is outside the scope of this blog post.) The applicant would then be protected from the accrual of unlawful presence by the pendency of the I-485 application for adjustment of status, and could be issued an employment authorization document (EAD) while the application was pending, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(c)(9). Thus, while the I-526 and I-485 were pending, the applicant would effectively remain able to live and work in the United States, ultimately transitioning to LPR status if the petition and application were approved.

The above scenario is only possible when, at the time of filing, a visa number is immediately available in the EB-5 category without the need for an earlier priority date. However, as things now stand, the State Department’s Visa Bulletin indicates that this will be true in almost all scenarios, with only one exception. In the April 2022 Visa Bulletin, the non-regional-center EB-5 Final Action cutoff dates are Current for all countries, meaning that visa numbers are available for any priority date and so concurrent filing is possible. Although the regional-center EB-5 Final Action Dates were Unavailable at the time of Visa Bulletin publication because the Bulletin was first authored on March 10 before the Consolidated Appropriations Act reauthorized the regional center program (though there has since been an update referencing the reauthorization), the regional-center Dates for Filing were Current for all countries but China, and the same will likely be true of the Final Action cutoff dates next month. For those born in mainland China and unable to exercise cross-chargeability based on birth of a spouse or (under certain rare circumstances) parents elsewhere, however, regional-center EB-5 numbers will not be available without a priority date much earlier than concurrent filing would produce: the Dates for Filing cutoff as of April 2022 is December 15, 2015. Thus, concurrent filing will not be possible for such investors born in China and pursuing a regional center investment. It will, however, still be possible for them in connection with a direct investment.

The Act raises the minimum required investment thresholds, so taking advantage of this new opportunity will require a larger investment than was necessary in the past. For investments in Targeted Employment Areas (that is, either rural areas or areas of high unemployment) or particular infrastructure projects defined by a new provision in the bill, a minimum amount of $800,000 is now required, a significant increase over the previous $500,000 threshold for Targeted Employment Areas. For investments elsewhere, the requirement is $1,050,000, a more modest increase over the previous $1 million threshold. The amounts will be further adjusted for inflation in 2027 and every five years thereafter. (See page 1024 of the PDF version of the bill.)

It is also important to note that only the Secretary of Homeland Security or “a designee of the Secretary who is an employee of the Department of Homeland Security” will be able to designate high unemployment areas for Targeted Employment Area purposes, while state or local officials will no longer be able to do so. (See page 1023 of the PDF version of the bill.) This is presumably an effort to counter what current Senate Appropriations Committee chair Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) previously described as “gerrymandering” of purported high-unemployment areas by states. Thus, to take advantage of the lower $800,000 threshold, the investment projects of Regional Centers and others may need to be located in different kinds of places than they previously were.

The new law also indicates, at section 203(b)(5)(E)(ii)(I) of the INA as added by section 103(b)(1) of Division BB (at page 1027 of the PDF version of the bill) that in the regional-center context, DHS “shall prioritize the processing and adjudication of petitions for rural areas”. Even true areas of high unemployment in an urban or suburban context, therefore, may be disfavored under the amended program relative to rural areas.

One other, more esoteric portion of the new law, which may be of interest primarily to attorneys (like this author) who practice federal litigation, is what one might call an anti-Darby provision. New section 203(b)(5)(P) of the INA, as added by section 103(b)(1) of Division BB (at pages 1049-1050 of the PDF version of the bill), provides for administrative appellate review of various USCIS decisions in the EB-5 context by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and then states:

Subject to subparagraph (N)(v) and section 242(a)(2), and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review a determination under this paragraph until the regional center, its associated entities, or the alien investor has exhausted all administrative appeals.

That is, one will be required to first appeal to the AAO before going to federal court. This is in contrast to the general rule set out by the Supreme Court’s decision in Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), which held that under 5 U.S.C. § 704, judicial review of an agency action ordinarily need not await an administrative appeal of that action unless the agency has both required an appeal and made the administrative action inoperative pending that appeal. However, Darby specifically recognized that an exception exists when an appeal is “expressly required by statute,” and Congress has chosen to create such an express requirement here in the new statute. In this context, therefore, unlike many other contexts, it will not be possible to bypass the AAO and seek review of a USCIS decision directly in federal court. (The referenced exceptions in subparagraph (N)(v) and INA section 242(a)(2) relate to removal proceedings, where there would generally still be an administrative appeal required at least to the Board of Immigration Appeals, if not the AAO, before judicial review could be sought.)

As flagged by IIUSA, USCIS has indicated that it intends to provide “additional guidance” regarding the changes to the EB-5 program made by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, so we can expect that further details regarding the USCIS interpretation of the provisions mentioned above, and others, may become available in the future. Even before such guidance comes out, however, it is already clear that things have changed in some interesting ways.

CSPA Triumphs in Cuthill v. Blinken: Child of Parent who Naturalizes Should not be Penalized

March 15, 2021/0 Comments/in Blog, uncategorized/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta

One of the unresolved conundrums in our immigration law is the inability of children of lawful permanent residents to be protected under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) when their parents naturalize to US citizenship. The CSPA was enacted to ensure that a child remained under the age of 21 in order to obtain permanent residency with the parent or to stay in a more advantageous family visa category. Sure enough, the CSPA protects the age of a minor child of a who has been sponsored for permanent residency by the parent who is a green card holder even when the child turns 21. Unfortunately, based on erroneous government policy, the goal of the CSPA gets thwarted when the parent of this child naturalizes especially after the child’s biological age is over 21 years.

The Second Circuit in Cuthill v. Blinken recently clarified by holding that a child of a permanent resident whose age is protected under the CSPA ought to be able to continue to claim age protection under the CSPA even when the parent naturalizes to US citizenship.

Section 2 of the CSPA, codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, protects the age of minor children of US citizens under the age of 21. These minor children are termed Immediate Relatives (IR) under INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i). When a US citizen parent files an I-130 petition for an IR minor child, the child’s age will be frozen under 21 even if there is a delay in the grant of permanent residency and the biological age of the child crosses 21. See INA 202(f)(1).

What happens when a minor child of a permanent resident naturalizes? The child automatically converts from the Family Second (2A) to the IR category. If the biological age of the child is under 21 at the time of the parent’s naturalization, the child’s age pursuant to INA 201(f)(2) freezes. Even if there is a delay in the grant of permanent residency and the child’s biological age is over 21, the child’s statutory age remains frozen under 21.

So far so good. What happens if the child’s biological age under the F2A was over 21 but was protected under the CSPA? Section 3 of the CSPA protects the age of a child who is the beneficiary of a F2A petition under a special formula. This is how it works:

When the Family 2A petition becomes current under the State Department Visa Bulletin, one has to look at the age of the child on the first day of the month when the F2A becomes current. If the biological age of the child is over 21 at that time, the age can be subtracted by the amount of time the I-130 petition took to get approved from the date of filing. If this subtraction reduces the age of the child under 21, the child can remain under F2A rather than slide into the less favorable Family 2B preference (F2B), which applies to unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents. There is clearly a big advantage of remaining under F2A rather than F2B. The F2A is current under the March 2021 Visa Bulletin while the F2B cutoff date in the worldwide category is July 22, 2015.

Although the age of the child is protected under F2A, when the parent naturalizes, the USCIS has taken the position that the age could no longer be protected. Thus, the child gets penalized when the parent became a US citizen. It also leads to the absurd result of inhibiting the parent from naturalizing as the child is better off remaining the child of a lawful permanent resident than a citizen.

These were precisely the facts in Cuthill v. Blinken. On September 29, 2016, when Veronica Cuthill was a permanent resident, she filed an I-130 petition for her daughter, Tatiana Maria Diaz de Junguitu Ullah, who was exactly 19 years 9 months and 6 days old. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) took 363 days to process the I-130 petition and approve it. Although the daughter’s biological age exceeded 21 while she was waiting for the F2A visa, under the CSPA formula the daughter remained in the F2A preference.

On June 25, 2018, while Diaz was waiting for an F2A visa, Cuthill naturalized as a US citizen. At that time Diaz was still statutorily eligible under the F2A visa based on the 363 days of subtraction of processing time from her biological age. Cuthill sought to convert Diaz’s F2A petition for an IR visa, but the State Department instead notified her that Diaz would be placed in the Family First Preference (F1) queue rather than be considered an IR.

The key issue is whether Cuthill’s daughter Diaz could remain in F2A or whether she would convert into F1. If the daughter converted from F2A to F1, it would cause a great setback. Under the March 2021 Visa Bulletin, the cutoff final action date for F1 beneficiaries is August 8, 2015. The F2A, on the other hand, is current.

INA 201(f)(2) allows a conversion from F2A to IR when the parent naturalizes. This provision is reproduced below:

Age of parent’s naturalization date – In the case of a petition under section 204 initially filed for an alien child’s classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(2)(A), based on the child’s parent being lawfully admitted to permanent residence, if the petition is later converted, due to the naturalization of the parent, to a petition to classify the alien as an immediate relative under section (b)(2)(A)(i), the determination described in paragraph (1) shall be made using the age on the date of the parent’s naturalization (emphasis added).

The question before the Second Circuit was whether “the age on the date of the parent’s naturalization” is the biological age of the child or the CSPA age of the child? Judge Katzmann writing the decision for the three judge panel, acknowledged that “although no one will ever accuse the CSPA of being reader-friendly” ingeniously found a textual path to hold that it is the CSPA age and not the biological age that counts. Although INA 203(h)(1)(A) (which protects the age of F2A beneficiaries) and INA 201(f)(2) (which protects the age of IRs) are separate sections within the INA, there is a connection between the two as they both reference the definition of a child under INA 101(b)(1).

Under INA 101(b)(1), a child is “an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age.” However, the definition of the child is modified under INA 203(h)(1)(A) for F2A children. As noted, under this provision, a child’s CSPA age under F2A can be reduced to under 21 even if the biological age has exceeded 21 by subtracting the age based on the amount of time the I-130 petition took to get approved. Since INA 201(f)(2) also references INA 203(a)(2)(A), there is a connection between the two sections, and the child’s age can be interpreted as the CSPA age rather than the biological age when the parent naturalizes, and thus Diaz should convert from F2A to the uncapped IR rather than remain in the backlogged F1.

Judge Katzmann did not end the analysis here, but examined the broader purpose of the CSPA. “We examine Congress’s purpose in enacting the CSPA, and it is there that we find our clincher: The legislative history shows a clear desire by Congress to fix the age-out problem for all minor beneficiaries, and there is nothing to suggest that Congress intended to exclude beneficiaries like Diaz,” Judge Katzmann wrote.

The government’s argument of insisting that Diaz move from F2A to F1 after her mother Cuthill naturalized ran counter to CSPA’s purpose of to protect child beneficiaries from aging out of their age-dependent visas. While reliance on legislative purpose is often criticized since Congress is a divided body, with respect to the CSPA, Judge Katzmann emphasized that it passed the House by a unanimous 416-0 vote, then passed the Senate by a unanimous vote and again passed the House again by a unanimous vote. “Penalizing people for becoming citizens runs counter to the entire family-based visa scheme,” Judge Katzmann said. Finally, Judge Katzmann also did not give Chevron deference to a prior decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I&N Dec. 606, 611 (BIA 2011), in which the BIA adopted the same flawed interpretation as the government tried to unsuccessfully advance in Cuthill. When the intent of Congress is clear, a court need not give deference to an agency’s interpretation of the statute.

The Second Circuit in Cuthill v. Blinken follows the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Tovar v. Sessions that also held that the naturalization of a parent ought not to adversely impact the protected age of the child under the CSPA. Both these courts of appeals have ruled correctly and consistently with the purpose of the CSPA. Rather than appealing to the Supreme Court, it is about time that the DHS and the State Department under President Biden issue a policy to ensure that the holdings of the Second and Ninth Circuits be uniformly implemented – at the USCIS and State Department – for all children whose age is protected under F2A and whose parents subsequently naturalize.

If these decisions are not implemented uniformly, parents of children whose age is protected under the F2A will be inhibited from naturalizing to US citizenship. If they go ahead and naturalize, children will be involuntarily converted into the F1 category, which is hopelessly backlogged. Such a result could not have been the intent of Congress when it spoke with one voice to pass the CSPA, and two courts of appeals, the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, have correctly held that INA 203(h)(1) and INA 201(f)(2), when read together, unambiguously provide a pathway for children to gain permanent residency as immediate relatives even when their parents become US citizens.

Frequently Asked Questions on Filing a “Downgrade” EB-3 petition under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin

October 5, 2020/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

The October 2020 Visa Bulletin significantly advanced the Filing Date of the employment-based third preference (EB-3) for India to January 1, 2015. This would make many beneficiaries with approved I-140 petitions caught in the EB-3 backlog eligible to file I-485 adjustment of status applications. Even those with approved I-140 petitions under the employment-based second preference (EB-2) could potentially file a downgrade I-140 petition under EB-3 and concurrently file I-485 applications. Following the posting of our blog last week, Downgrading from EB-2 to EB-3 Under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin, we have received many questions, which I address below:

1. I have an approved I-140 petition under EB-2 with a priority date of May 15, 2013. Am I able to file a downgrade I-140 under EB-3 along with a concurrent I-485 application for myself, spouse and minor child?

Since the Filing Date for EB-2 India is May 15, 2011 in the October 2020 Visa Bulletin, and the priority date on your I-140 petition is May 15, 2013, you cannot file an I-485 with your I-140 petition under EB-2. However, your employ will be able to file a new downgrade I-140 petition under EB-3 (as a petition approved under EB-2 should meet the lower threshold requirement of EB-3 and the EB-3 date is January 1, 2015), based upon which you will be able to file a concurrent I-485, and your spouse and child will also be able to file I-485 applications as derivatives with your I-485 application.

2. How will filing an I-485 application benefit me?

Filing an I-485 application under a Filing Date will not result in permanent residency or the green card. The Final Action Date in the Visa Bulletin needs to become current for you to be eligible to receive the green card. The Filing Date is a prediction of where the Final Action Date will be at the end of the fiscal year. As this is just an estimate, there is a possibility that if the advance in dates results in many I-485 filings, the Filing Date can also retrogress rather than move forward. While your I-485 is pending, you and your derivative family members will be eligible to apply for an employment authorization document and advance parole or travel permission. If the I-485 application is pending for 180 days, you will also be able to exercise job portability under INA 204(j) in a same or similar occupation either with the same or another employer.

3. Must I be in a nonimmigrant status in order to be eligible to file the I-485? What if I am in violation of my H-1B status since my last entry because my employer terminated me during the Covid-19 economic downturn 120 days ago, but now wishes to hire me back?

Yes. You need to be in a lawful nonimmigrant status as a condition to filing an I-485 application, but with an exception. If your employer terminated you 120 days back, you have been out of status for 60 days (as you were entitled to a 60 day grace period upon termination). Fortunately, under INA 245(k), you may still be eligible to file an I-485 as 245(k) renders one ineligible to apply for adjustment of status who has failed to maintain status for more than 180 days from your last admission. Since you failed to maintain status for 60 days from your last admission, you will still be able to file an I-485 application if your employer files the downgrade I-140. 245(k) will also apply to your spouse and child if they too fell out of status for less than 180 days.

Upon filing the I-485, you can also apply for an Employment Authorization Document. Upon receiving the EAD, your employer will be able to employ you.

4. Assuming that I was in H-1B status at the time of filing the I-485 application, do I still need to remain in H-1B status after I file the I-485 application?

While it is always prudent to remain in H-1B status (as one who is maintaining status cannot be placed in removal proceedings), it is not required as being an I-485 applicant authorizes you to remain in the US. However, an I-485 applicant without the underlying H-1B status can theoretically be placed in removal proceedings, although as a practical matter this rarely happens. For instance, if you wish to port to a new employer, and the new employer is not willing to file an H-1B extension, you can rely on the employment authorization document that was issued to you as a pending I-485 applicant. Likewise, you may also rely on the advance parole for purposes of travel, and this would even obviate the need for you to seek a new H-1B visa from the US Consulate during the Covid-19 period, which may only issue emergency visa appointments.

5. What if the Final Action Date on my prior EB-2 I-140 becomes current before the Final Action Date on my EB-3 becomes current?

The USCIS does have the ability to use the most appropriate I-140 – whether under EB-2 or EB-3 – when the visa becomes available for the appropriate preference category. If the USCIS does not do this on its own volition, you can write to the USCIS to request that the I-485 application be transferred from one basis to another, see https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-a-chapter-8 . Alternatively, you can also try calling the USCIS Contact Center at i-800-375-5283 and request a transfer of the I-485 from one basis to another. There is no need to file a new I-485 based on the EB-2 I-140 if the EB-2 Final Action Date becomes current.

6. My son is 18, will his age be protected under the Child Status Protection Act if he turns 21 and our I-485 applications are still pending?

Under current USCIS policy, the Filing Date does not freeze the age of the child based on the Filing Date (see Recipe for Confusion: USCIS Says Only the Final Action Date in the Visa Bulletin Protects a Child’s Age under the Child Status Protection Act). So, if the Final Action Date does not become current before your child turns 21, your child will not be able to adjust to permanent residence with you. Note, however, that under the CSPA, you can subtract the number of days the I-140 petition remained pending from the age of your child if he is over 21 at the time the Final Action Date becomes current.

The lack of CSPA protection based on a Filing Date is erroneous policy. My colleague Brent Renison has filed a lawsuit to force USCIS to accept the Filing Date for CSPA protection, and you can visit his website, http://www.entrylaw.com/backlogcspalawsuit, to join the lawsuit in case your child will be impacted by this policy.

7. Should I request premium processing on the downgrade I-140 petition?

The USCIS has specifically indicated that premium processing for an I-140 will be precluded if the original labor certification was filed with the previous I-140 under EB-2, although some have requested premium and USCIS accepted request. If a child is involved who may need CSPA protection, then requesting premium on the I-140 is not advisable as you will be able to subtract more time (as the I-140 petition will take longer to get approved) from the child’s age in case the child turns 21.

8. I have an approved EB-3 I-140 filed by a prior employer with a priority date of January 1, 2014. My new employer has just filed my labor certification and is hoping to capture the priority date of the prior I-140 after the labor certification gets approved. Can I use the prior I-140 to file an I-485 application?

The prior employer would have to offer the job to you on an I-485 Supplement J. It has to be a bona fide offer of employment based on the terms of the underlying labor certification of that I-140. If is not a bona fide offer of employment, it would certainly not be advisable to go ahead and file the I-485 application based on the previously approved I-140. Rather, it would be prudent to wait for the labor certification to get approved and recapture the old priority date when the current employer is able to file the I-140 petition. However, there is no way of knowing whether the Filing Date will continue to be current by the time the new labor certification is approved. Still, this would be the only approach if the prior employer’s offer of employment is not bonafide.

9. Can the EB-3 I-140 downgrade be denied?

There is nothing in the law or regulations precluding the existence of two I-140 petitions, one under EB-2, and the other under EB-3. 8 CFR 204.5(e)(1), which was last amended in 2017, contemplates the existence of multiple approved petitions on behalf of a single beneficiary even if filed by the same employer, and the beneficiary is entitled to capture the earliest priority date when a subsequently filed petition is approved. However, one cannot foreclose the possibility of a USCIS examiner inventing erroneous reasons to deny an EB-3 I-140 based on the same labor certification that supported an I-140 under EB-2.

Still, an I-140 downgrade can be denied on legitimate legal grounds such as if the employer cannot demonstrate ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary if the tax returns show losses, or if the USCIS revisits an issue that it did not pay attention to while adjudicating the prior I-140 petition such as whether the foreign degree was a single source degree.

10. If the EB-3 I-140 gets denied, will my previously I-140 EB-2 be safe?

If the grounds for denying the EB-3 were based on issues that were relevant to the approval of the EB-2, such as whether the beneficiary possesses a single source degree or whether the employer had the ability to pay the proffered wage at the time the labor certification was filed, then there is a risk that the I-140 under EB-2 can also get revoked.

Downgrading from EB-2 to EB-3 under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin

September 25, 2020/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On September 24, 2020, the Department of State released the October 2020 Visa Bulletin. Importantly, the Filing Date for an EB-3 from India has advanced to January 1, 2015 from February 1, 2010 in the September 2020 Visa Bulletin, while the Filing Date for an EB-1 from India advanced to September 1, 2020 from July 1, 2018. By contrast the Filing Date for EB-2 India advanced to only May 15, 2011 from August 15, 2009.

Significantly, however, the USCIS issued guidance on the same day that the Filing Date, rather than the Final Action Date, applies to employment-based I-485 adjustment of status applications. Historically, USCIS has been very reluctant to allow applicants to use the Filing Date, only doing so in very limited instances. The last time USCIS used the Filing Date for most visa categories was in March 2020. In 2019, USCIS used the Filing Date only four times – in January, October, November, and December. Otherwise, applicants must use the Final Action Date to determine when to submit their I-485. According to earlier guidance from USCIS, applicants may use the Filing Date to determine when to submit an I-485 when the USCIS determines that there are more immigrants visas available for the fiscal year than there are applicants. The Filing Date only allows the filing of an I-485 application when permitted by the USCIS. The Final Action Date determines when lawful permanent residence is issued. USCIS’s decision to apply the Filing Date comes as a surprise under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin, albeit a pleasant one, given the agency’s previous unwillingness to allow applicants to use the Filing Date.

Since USCIS will accept I-485 filing, a new I-140 will need to be filed for an individual who, for example, wants to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3. Since the EB-3 Filing Date has significantly overtaken the EB-2 Filing Date, a beneficiary of an approved EB-2 petition may want to re-file, or downgrade to EB-3. If the beneficiary qualified under EB-2, the beneficiary should be able to qualify for EB-3, and the appropriate “professional”, or “skilled worker” will need to be checked on the form. The individual may still rely on an old labor certification when filing the I-140 under EB-3. The I-140 can be filed concurrently with the I-485, so the I-140 need not be approved at the time the I-485 is filed with USCIS.

There is nothing in the law or regulations precluding the existence of two I-140 petitions, one under EB-2, and the other under EB-3. Still, a beneficiary who wishes to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3 must seek legal advice. Some may be of the view, and they have some support in the Neufeld Memo of June 1, 2007 that the new “downgraded” I-140 under EB-3 should be checked as an amendment rather than as a separate petition. The Neufeld Memo suggests that a new I-140 petition filed after a previously approved I-140 was filed within 180 days of the grant of the labor certification should be filed as an amendment where a new visa classification is being sought. But doing that would nullify the earlier EB-2 petition, and this may not be so desirable in case the EB-2 dates overtake the EB-3 at some point in the future. If that were to happen, then a new amendment of the EB-3 would need to be filed for upgrading to EB-2 On the other hand, 8 CFR 204.5(e)(1), which was last amended in 2017, contemplates the existence of multiple approved petitions on behalf of a single beneficiary even if filed by the same employer, and the beneficiary is entitled to capture the earliest priority date when a subsequently filed petition is approved. This regulation does not preclude the filing of an I-140 petition subsequent to the use of the labor certification through a previously approved labor certification Therefore, the prevalent view is in favor of filing a standalone I-140 to downgrade to EB-3 is preferable to filing it as an amendment. See Multiple I-140s, Priority Date Retention, and the 2013 China EB-2/EB-3 Anomaly, AILA Liason (Dec. 16, 2013), available at: https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-multiple-i-140s-priority-date-retention. However, this is not to assume that USCIS will not insist that the I-140 should have been checked off as an amendment and may deny the EB-3 petition.

Although an I-485 filed pursuant to a current Filing Date does not confer permanent residence, the I-485 filing confers a number of significant benefits, such as allowing the applicant to “port” to a different job or employer in the same or similar occupational classification after 180 days pursuant to INA 204(j), obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that enables them to work in the United States, and request advance parole or travel permission. Note, however, that USCIS’ use of the Filing Date will not help those who are waiting for a visa interview abroad, although the National Visa Center (NVC) will initiate the case and obtain documents before the Final Action Date becomes current.

Other complications arise under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which “freezes” the age of applicants under the age 21 who would otherwise age out before being approved for LPR status due to lengthy USCIS backlogs. USCIS has made clear that only Final Action Dates, and not Filing Dates may be used to freeze a child’s age. Thus, an applicant who files an I-485 based on a Filing Date should be aware that their child will no longer be protected if the child ages out before the Final Action Date becomes available. The child’s I-485 application will be denied, and she can even be put into removal proceedings if she has no nonimmigrant status. We discussed this predicament at greater length, and argued that there is a significant legal basis to use the Filing Date to protect the age of a child under the CSPA in an earlier blog.

Additionally, a small group of EB-2 beneficiaries from India who already have pending I-485 applications (as they filed I-485s in 2012 and then the EB-2 India dates retrogressed) may decide to “downgrade” to an EB-3 from an EB-2, given the more advanced Filing and Final Action Dates for an EB-3. Individuals who find themselves in this situation will need to file a new I-140, which may not protect a child from aging out under the CSPA. CSPA applies only the “applicable” petition, which most likely means the old EB-2 I-140 petition. Individuals who want to downgrade from EB-2 to EB-3 because of the more favorable dates should be aware that their children who were protected under the CSPA under a prior I-140 may not longer receive that protection when a new I-140 is filed if the child is now over 21 years old. Please refer to our earlier blog post for a more in-depth discussion of the CSPA.

EB-1 beneficiaries from India are also in luck, and so long as the EB-1 I-140 was filed on or before September 1, 2020, a concurrent I-485 may be filed. In this case too, legal advice should be taken since the I-485 with all its attendant benefits may not survive if the pending I-140 is denied.

While the movement in the Filing Dates will give relief to many, they are quixotic and ephemeral. The EB-3 India dates have overtaken the EB-2 dates. At one point, it was always assumed that EB-2 would be ahead of EB-3. But there might be a flipflop as more people are lured into filing under EB-3, and then both EB-2 and EB-3 will be hopelessly backlogged. But those who managed to file I-485 applications will be permitted to apply for employment authorization and can port to new jobs in same or similar occupations. While the green card may still be far away, at least I-485 applicants will be better off than being on a 12^th year H-1B extension as they will have more mobility and their spouses and children will also be able to work. Ideally, the immigration system ought to be reformed by eliminating per country limits, and better still, infusing the EB preferences with more visa numbers. For that to happen, Congress has to aligned and in today’s polarized environment, this too seems unlikely to happen until at least after the elections.

(Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD degree from Penn State Law School and works as a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC)

Filing an EB-1 as a Multinational Manager After the Approval of an EB-2 for a Backlogged Indian Beneficiary

November 18, 2019/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

It requires skill and creativity to assist Indians caught in the employment based backlogs to find ways speed up the process or ameliorative solutions. The India employment-based second preference (EB-2) and employment-based third preference (EB-3) dates have barely moved for years, and the prospects for a beneficiary of an I-140 petition born in India for obtaining permanent residence anytime soon are bleak.

One strategy is to file an I-140 petition in the employment-based first preference (EB-1) for an individual who is stuck in the EB-2. Under the State Department November 2919 Visa Bulletin, the Final Action Date for EB-2 India is May 13, 2009. The Final Action Date for EB-1 India is January 1, 2015. Since it is possible to capture the earlier priority date of the EB-2, a successful filing under EB-1 can assist the person to escape the backlog and gain permanent residency more quickly.

Take for instance Sunil Kumar who already has an approved I-140 under EB-2 with a priority date of January 1, 2012. His employer, ACB Corp. sponsored him through the labor certification process as a Systems Analyst. ABC Corp. wishes to promote Sunil to the position of Vice President, Cloud Projects. Under the new position, Sunil will be required to manage all cloud based projects of ABC Corp’s Fortune 500 corporate clients. Sunil will oversee subordinate managers and professional employees, mainly software developers and systems analysts, in this new position of Vice President, Cloud Projects.

Before moving ahead, an important caveat: Sunil and his fact pattern is a made up for purposes of illustrating a legal strategy. Any resemblance to actual persons, entities or actual events is purely coincidental.

Prior to coming to the US, Sunil was employed with ABC Pvt. Ltd. in India, a wholly owned subsidiary of ABC Corp., in the position of Systems Analyst from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010. He entered the US in H-1B status on January 1, 2011 to work for ABC Corp as a Systems Analyst.

In order to sponsor an employee under INA 203(b)(1)(C) as a multinational manager or executive for permanent residency (EB-1C), not only must the proposed position in the US be managerial or executive in nature, but the prior employment in the qualifying entity in India should have also been managerial or executive in nature for one year in the past three years, which as will be explained below, can be tolled in certain circumstances. While Sunil was employed as a Systems Analyst at the qualifying entity in India with no obvious managerial duties, towards the end of his employment in India, from October 1, 2009 till December 31, 2010, due to his talent and acumen, Sunil was assigned to manage important migration projects on behalf of ABC Pvt. Ltd. clients in India even though he was not formally employed as a manager. While the title of his position remained Systems Analyst, Sunil managed other professional employees with respect to various complex migration projects that he successfully completed on behalf of his employer.

While Sunil was in H-1B status and performed his duties in an exemplary manner, ABC Corp decided to sponsor Sunil for permanent residency for the position of Systems Analyst. A PERM labor certification was filed on Sunil’s behalf on January 1, 2012, and after it got approved, an I-140 petition under EB-2 was also filed and easily got approved. The PERM labor certification that supported the I-140 under EB-2 required a Bachelor of Computer Science degree plus five years of progressively responsible experience as a systems analyst. The five years of experience described in Column K of the PERM labor certification for Sunial included managing technology migration projects for large corporate clients. The 15 months of Sunil’s employment at ABC Pvt Ltd. in India from October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 could have been viewed as managerial, but an I-140 under EB-1C was not contemplated in 2012 since the position of Systems Analyst in the US was not managerial. Moreover, it was not clear then whether the duties in India during the last fifteen months of his employment would be considered managerial as he was not formally employed as a manager. It was also not conceivable then that the EB-2 would languish in the backlogs until 2019 and beyond. At the present time, however, ABC Corp. is very keen on promoting Sunil to the position of Vice President, Cloud Projects, which is clearly a managerial position.

Sunil potentially qualifies under EB-1C based on the proposed position of Vice President in the US and his prior managerial experience in India from October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. Although the qualifying experience at the foreign entity must be for one year in the past 3 years, the “one of three year” requirement may be met even if the person is in the United States for more than three years if s/he is working for the same employer, affiliate, or subsidiary in the United States and was employed for at least one of the last three by company abroad before entering in valid nonimmigrant status. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). Sunil has been in valid H-1B status from January 1, 2011 till today for ABC Corp, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABC Pvt. Ltd in India. Although the six year limitation under H-1B has long since gone, he has been able to obtain 3 year extensions pursuant to § 104(c) of the American Competitiveness in the 21^st Century Act by virtue of his approved I-140 under the India EB-2, which has not yet become current. Thus, the experience that Sunil obtained from October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 would potentially be qualifying experience for classification as a multinational executive or manager under EB-1C. Although Sunil was admittedly a first level supervisor, INA § 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) states that “[a] managerial employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals.” Since Sunil managed professional employees, a case can be made that he was engaged in qualifying managerial role.

Sunil also has a daughter, Sujata, who is going to turn 21 on January 1, 2020. Pursuant to the current I-140 under EB-2, there is no hope that Sunil’s daughter will be able to protect her age under the Child Status Protection Act, codified at INA §203(h). If ABC Corp. files a new I-140 under EB-1C, however, even if Suneeta crosses 21 on January 1, 2020, once the EB-1C is approved and captures the EB-2 priority date of January 1, 2012 (and the priority date of January 1, 2012 for EB-1 India continues to remain current), any time between the filing of the I-140 petition and the approval of the I-140 petition can be subtracted from Sujata’s age pursuant to INA §203(h)(1)(A)&(B). As long as the I-140 was filed prior to her 21^st birthday, even if it gets approved after her 21^st birthday, that time can be subtracted from her age and artificially bring the age under 21. Sunil may also file an I-485 application for adjustment of status concurrent with the I-140 petition under EB-1C, and corresponding I-485 applications can be filed by his daughter, Sujata, and his spouse, Suneeta. The USCIS allows such an I-485 filing concurrently with an I-140 udder EB-1C if it is clearly explained that the EB-2 priority date will be captured upon the approval of the EB-1C. While Suneeta has work authorization under the H-4 EAD rule, 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(9)(iv), she is nervous that she will not be able to continue to have it as the Trump administration has declared its intention to rescind the rule. Suneeta will be able to obtain an EAD based on her I-485 pursuant to 8 CFR § 274a (12)(c)(9). Unlike the renewal of an H-4 EAD, an EAD obtained based through I-485 gets automatically renewed for 180 days provided the renewal is filed prior to the expiration of the initial EAD.

If the I-140 under EB-1 gets approved, the January 1, 2012 priority date of the EB-2 will transfer to the EB-1, and Sunil, Suneeta and Sujata will get permanent residency once their I-485 applications are approved.

This strategy assumes that like Sunil, a backlogged beneficiary under EB-2, had qualifying managerial experience with a related foreign entity prior to being employed in the US, and the experience indicated in the PERM labor certification is consistent with the qualifying experience that will be indicated in support of the I-140 under EB-1C. The USCIS also strictly scrutinizes the managerial role of the beneficiary at both the qualifying foreign entity and the proposed managerial role in the US. Many similar cases have been arbitrarily denied even where a strong case was made demonstrating the managerial role at both entities. Still, those whose facts are similar to Sunil can try to file a new I-140 under EB-1. Even if the beneficiary does not have prior qualifying managerial experience at the related foreign entity, if he or she has attained recognition in cloud related projects and can qualify as a person of extraordinary ability under INA 203(b)(1)(A) (EB-1A), an I-140 petition can be attempted under EB-1A. An EB-1A I-140 filed as a person of extraordinary ability is also very difficult to obtain, and the USCIS routinely denies such petitions. Yet another more safe approach is to transfer the employee to the foreign related entity in an executive or managerial capacity for one year, and then file an EB-1C after the completion of one year of qualifying employment. However, this strategy will not help if there is a child who is imminently aging out and uprooting a family for one year from the US is less than ideal.

Still, when one’s back is against the wall, and there is a child who is aging out, it is worth trying every legitimate measure permissible under the law. My good colleague Brent Renison has also suggested creative solutions for surviving spouses and children who will age out. If there were no country cap, Indians would not be so badly affected and Sunil with a priority date of January 1, 2012 under EB-2 would have by now had a green card, and also likely become a US citizen, and so would his wife and daughter. Until country caps are eliminated through the passage of S386, or S2603, although S386 has a significantly better chance of passing than S2603, Indians will continue to languish in the EB backlogs. A lucky few may be able to escape the backlogs by filing EB-1 petitions, but not everybody will be eligible to do so.

(This blog is for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice).

Tag Archive for: CSPA

USCIS’ Change in CSPA Policy Can Help Aged Out Children Who Missed Out During the October 2020 Visa Bulletin EB-3 Advance for India

CSPA Disharmony: USCIS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Date for Fling while DOS Allows Child’s Age to be Protected under the Final Action Date

USCIS Updates Policy Guidance on CSPA ‘Sought to Acquire’ Requirement After Using Filing Date to Protect the Age of the Child

DHS’s Family Reunification Parole Initiative Can Serve as Template for Other Bold Executive Actions to Reform the Immigration System Without Fear of Being Sued by a State

The Dates for Filing Chart in the Visa Bulletin Not Only Protects Children from Aging Out But Can Be Dramatically Advanced To Allow Many More Backlogged Immigrants To File Adjustment of Status Applications

Some Highlights of the EB-5 Reauthorization: CSPA Protection and How 245(k) and Concurrent Filing Combine to Create a New Option for Some Applicants Who Have Recently Dropped Out of Status

CSPA Triumphs in Cuthill v. Blinken: Child of Parent who Naturalizes Should not be Penalized

Frequently Asked Questions on Filing a “Downgrade” EB-3 petition under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin

Downgrading from EB-2 to EB-3 under the October 2020 Visa Bulletin

Filing an EB-1 as a Multinational Manager After the Approval of an EB-2 for a Backlogged Indian Beneficiary

Links

Contact Us