Question about derivative status

[qyz891023 0]

ok so i found the document, and i dont think the immigration officer interpret it right

(d) Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), ©, (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or ©, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.

the officer thought it was regarding the treatment of family member of the petitioner, therefore i need to be a "child" of the petitioner, but i was not, therefore, denial.

however, i think it should have been interpreted as the treatment of family member of the principle applicant, and i am a child of my mom so i should have been qualified. .

does it make sense?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

ok so i found the document, and i dont think the immigration officer interpret it right

(d) Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), ©, (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or ©, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.

the officer thought it was regarding the treatment of family member of the petitioner, therefore i need to be a "child" of the petitioner, but i was not, therefore, denial.

however, i think it should have been interpreted as the treatment of family member of the principle applicant, and i am a child of my mom so i should have been qualified. .

does it make sense?

Yes, INA 203(d) is the correct section. By itself, it seems a bit muddled and confusing, but it makes sense when taken in context with the rest of section 203.

The IO is obviously confused. A derivative is claiming a relationship with the primary beneficiary through whom they are seeking an immigration benefit. A derivative isn't claiming a relationship with the petitioner, and isn't required to have any relationship to the petitioner.

There are multiple definitions of a child in section 101(b)(1). The IO was referring specifically to the definition in 101(b)(1)(B). If that was the only definition that ever applied then only step-children of the petitioner would ever qualify as derivatives. Hell, MY step-kids got derivative K2 visas, and neither of them were my step-kids yet when the visas were issued. One of them was also over 18, and the other was only a few weeks away from her 18th birthday. The only requirement for a derivative child is that they are unmarried, under 21 when a visa number becomes available, and fit the definition of a child of the primary beneficiary.

You can't spend a month finding an attorney. You don't have that long. Unless you'd like to be arguing your case in front of in immigration judge while facing deportation then you need to get the motion to reopen filed as soon as possible.

[qyz891023 0]

yeah i was just kidding, i actually found one, meeting him tomorrow

why would i ever face deportation? i thought h1b would make me in status?