Jump to content

19 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Argentina
Timeline
Posted

I think you don't seem to understand, even if the NVC is sending out the paperwork early, you still have to wait until the priority date becomes current. sometimes immigration send the paperwork up to 2 years earlier, and then when you see your date on the bulletin, that means there is a visa available and you will have your interview.

instead of waiting until your priority date is current, then begin to file all this paperwork, then have the interview, they do it earlier.

if you check the bulletin I put, immigration is currently working with those who's priority date is Dec 22nd, 2002, for category F2B. Since this Is the forum for citizens filing petitions, I assumed that your grandfather was a US Citizen. F2B is for residents filing for unmarried children.

so you still have more than 2 years of waiting if your priority date is in 2005.

Posted

Where is your mother? Is she in Manila? Is your sister married?

If you are qualified under the statutes of the Child Status Protection Act you can try and invoke that law in the Consular processing. At this time, CSPA is still under review before the Supreme Court, the government contested the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals intrepretation En Banc, the Class Action.

Worse case scenario, Consulate will not allow you to retain your derivative status of your mother's petition as you aged out, because they already deemed you ineligible in the first place, I am sure your name isn't even listed on the correspondence from NVC.

If you are single, never married in the Philippines you should be able to be included on or after your mother's visa approval by filing another petition or I-130 on your behalf with a request to AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT the petition and RETAIN the ORIGINAL priority date upon receipt of the original petition that was filed on your mother's behalf by your grandparent. Apparently there is no current guideline or cable on the correct and reasonable interpretation of Section 203 (h)(3) of the Act with respect to the new ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I know this for a fact as I fought for my own rights in accordance with the law of course with the help of an attorney -- 5 yrs ago.

I-485 Adjustment of Status

10/21/2000 - Entry as B2 visa, changed status to F1

07/25/2005 - Mom filed F2B

03/01/2007 - Filed AOS to Permanent Resident under 245(i) by virtue of Section 203(h)(3) of the Child Status Protection Act of 2001; Public Law 107-208 (CSPA). Automatic Conversion of F2B petition and Retention of Priority date of an F4 petition as derivative beneficiary of dad filed in 1982 by his sister (hereinafter referred to as the "Automatic Conversion and Retention" clause of the CSPA). With the help of a lawyer from Los Angeles - who sent lots of briefs and case laws previously cited by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and Federal Courts to support our arguments.

03/04/2007 - Notice of Action for AOS Received

03/31/2007 - Biometrics Appointment

06/--/2007 - Interviewed in Chicago, District Adjudicator unable to approve AOS outright as more time was needed to review our case arguments, will notify us of the decision.

08/03/2007 - Decision on AOS - "DENIED" on the basis that F2B petition filed by mom was not current. USCIS misconstrued the basis for eligibility for AOS. (Copy of F2B petition mom filed only submitted as evidence that I sought to acquire status as a permanent resident within one year of the availability of the visa (F4 visa current on 12/2004), a requirement for seeking relief under CSPA and INA 203(h)(3))

08/28/2007 - Filed Request for Reconsideration of Decision on Adjustment of Status Application Based on Service (USCIS) Error, that filing for AOS eligibility was based on dad's 1982 petition, that CIS made an error in determining eligibility. (Motion to Reconsider on Form I-290B was filed without a fee, lawyer argued due to the fact that basis for AOS was erred by the Service)

01/24/2008 - Motion to Reconsider/Appeal Rejected by the USCIS District Adjudicator in Chicago due to non-payment of fee.

02/15/2008 - Re-submitted Motion to Reconsider Denial of AOS to Permanent Resident on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), Washington, DC.

02/19/2008 - USCIS received re-filed Motion to Reconsider with a fee of $585. Motion to Reconsider was later transferred to the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) in Chicago, IL.

07/28/2008 - Motion to Reconsider Denial of Adjustment on Form I-290B was reconsidered. USCIS Director in Chicago in its own motion submitted a Motion to Reopen, to reopen the case in its entirety. USCIS Director requested for 2nd interview and biometrics (after I sent tons of inquiries to the US Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin representing Illinois)

08/02/2008 - 2nd Biometrics Appointment

08/18/2008 - Dad filed another F2B petition requesting F2B conversion from F4 under CSPA and retention of his priority date of 1982. (CSPA decisions and case laws with BIA, Federal Courts and Court of Appeals for the 5th and 9th Circuits do not require that petitioners on later filed F2B petitions be the same as the beneficiary of the original petition, in my case dad was the beneficiary of an F4, but USCIS stance on conversion is that it does not apply to other immigration petitions except F2A and it should not be considered automatic in nature, therefore filing is necessary). A new F2B petition to the derivative beneficiary of the original petition would not have been necessary as afforded by the Act, but the USCIS does not conform to its automatic conversion clause as was on the Act.

09/05/2008 - Email Notice on Adjustment of Status "APPROVAL." (without 2nd interview as originally requested on CIS letter when decided to reopen the case). {Approved AOS based on a hard fought CSPA Automatic Conversion of my F4 derivative status to F2B and Retention of dad's Priority Date of 1982 (therefore making the F2B petition current having retained dad's PD). Law that the government decided to ignore for more than a decade now since the Act was enacted in 2001 signed by President Bush. (The lawyer who represented my case before the District Office Director in Chicago was from the same law firm in Los Angeles who sued the government, in a class action, due to its restrictive interpretation of CSPA denying benefits to those who are otherwise beneficiary of the law, those children of intending immigrants who aged out due to no fault of their own. The law firm was successful in overturning Federal Court ruling in Los Angeles when it appealed the class action to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, En Banc decision.) The government then appealed the decision En Banc of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which basically entitled "aged outs", or those derivative beneficiariess of any family based, employment based, diversity visa categories, who turned over 21 yrs of age, to join their parents upon receiving permanent residency status) to the Supreme Court, conjoined Federal Courts decisions out of the 2nd and 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals. PENDING before the Supreme Court, anticipating decision or ruling in 2014.}

09/10/2008 - Received Green Card

N-400 Application for Naturalization

09/05/2013 - Eligibility

06/08/2013 - Sent Form N-400 (90-day rule)

06/10/2013 - Priority Date

06/10/2013 - Check Cashed

07/03/2013 - Biometrics

08/05/2013 - In line for Interview

08/12/2013 - Email Notice N-400 scheduled for Interview

08/19/2013 - Interview Letter - received

09/17/2013 - Interview @ 0930am @ 101 West Congress Parkway, 2nd Floor Citizenship Office, Chicago, IL -- APPROVED!!!

09/18/2013 - Oath Letter - mailed from Chicago USCIS Office

09/19/2013 - Oath Letter - mailed from the National Benefits Center

09/20/2013 - Oath Letter - from Chicago USCIS Office received

09/21/2013 - Oath Letter - from the National Benefits Center received

2 Oath Ceremony Appointment Letters

09/27/2013 - Oath Ceremony

Posted

Irrespective of the date of when the visa will become current, you and your sister should still be able to be included in her petition. I tell you, my sister was 27, I was 25 when we were approved under Section 3 of the Child Status Protection Act of 2001. My cousins were 24, 25, 28 years old, they too were able to retain their parent's original priority date by virtue of Section 3 of the Act. There are ways to go about this, but rather very complicated. You need an attorney who is experienced in this statute, this can turn out ugly. I was in the US under a different visa, attempted to adjust our status to that of permanent residents being derivatives of our parents' petition but we were denied, we then appealed to the Commissioner invoking the error by adjudicator, to the Administrative Appeals Office in Washington, DC. Then the Administrative Appeals Unit in Chicago District Office of USCIS took over the documents, and then the case was sent for reconsideration, the USCIS moved the case to be reopened altogether, requested another interview and another set of biometrics, but we didn't even have to go through all of that, we were approved blindly.So, all of us, my sister and 3 cousins, all of whom over the age of 21 even after the calculation set forth in Section 3 (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the Act, in addition to the leeway of 45 days set forth in the Patiot Act.

I am not so familiar with the Consular processing, although I helped my other cousin who also turned over the age of 21, processed her permanent resident status through the Embassy of the United States in Manila. We hired a lawyer based in Manila at that time, a very well known and respected in the immigration law in Manila. Let me know if you have any further questions. I might be able to help you.

I-485 Adjustment of Status

10/21/2000 - Entry as B2 visa, changed status to F1

07/25/2005 - Mom filed F2B

03/01/2007 - Filed AOS to Permanent Resident under 245(i) by virtue of Section 203(h)(3) of the Child Status Protection Act of 2001; Public Law 107-208 (CSPA). Automatic Conversion of F2B petition and Retention of Priority date of an F4 petition as derivative beneficiary of dad filed in 1982 by his sister (hereinafter referred to as the "Automatic Conversion and Retention" clause of the CSPA). With the help of a lawyer from Los Angeles - who sent lots of briefs and case laws previously cited by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and Federal Courts to support our arguments.

03/04/2007 - Notice of Action for AOS Received

03/31/2007 - Biometrics Appointment

06/--/2007 - Interviewed in Chicago, District Adjudicator unable to approve AOS outright as more time was needed to review our case arguments, will notify us of the decision.

08/03/2007 - Decision on AOS - "DENIED" on the basis that F2B petition filed by mom was not current. USCIS misconstrued the basis for eligibility for AOS. (Copy of F2B petition mom filed only submitted as evidence that I sought to acquire status as a permanent resident within one year of the availability of the visa (F4 visa current on 12/2004), a requirement for seeking relief under CSPA and INA 203(h)(3))

08/28/2007 - Filed Request for Reconsideration of Decision on Adjustment of Status Application Based on Service (USCIS) Error, that filing for AOS eligibility was based on dad's 1982 petition, that CIS made an error in determining eligibility. (Motion to Reconsider on Form I-290B was filed without a fee, lawyer argued due to the fact that basis for AOS was erred by the Service)

01/24/2008 - Motion to Reconsider/Appeal Rejected by the USCIS District Adjudicator in Chicago due to non-payment of fee.

02/15/2008 - Re-submitted Motion to Reconsider Denial of AOS to Permanent Resident on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), Washington, DC.

02/19/2008 - USCIS received re-filed Motion to Reconsider with a fee of $585. Motion to Reconsider was later transferred to the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) in Chicago, IL.

07/28/2008 - Motion to Reconsider Denial of Adjustment on Form I-290B was reconsidered. USCIS Director in Chicago in its own motion submitted a Motion to Reopen, to reopen the case in its entirety. USCIS Director requested for 2nd interview and biometrics (after I sent tons of inquiries to the US Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin representing Illinois)

08/02/2008 - 2nd Biometrics Appointment

08/18/2008 - Dad filed another F2B petition requesting F2B conversion from F4 under CSPA and retention of his priority date of 1982. (CSPA decisions and case laws with BIA, Federal Courts and Court of Appeals for the 5th and 9th Circuits do not require that petitioners on later filed F2B petitions be the same as the beneficiary of the original petition, in my case dad was the beneficiary of an F4, but USCIS stance on conversion is that it does not apply to other immigration petitions except F2A and it should not be considered automatic in nature, therefore filing is necessary). A new F2B petition to the derivative beneficiary of the original petition would not have been necessary as afforded by the Act, but the USCIS does not conform to its automatic conversion clause as was on the Act.

09/05/2008 - Email Notice on Adjustment of Status "APPROVAL." (without 2nd interview as originally requested on CIS letter when decided to reopen the case). {Approved AOS based on a hard fought CSPA Automatic Conversion of my F4 derivative status to F2B and Retention of dad's Priority Date of 1982 (therefore making the F2B petition current having retained dad's PD). Law that the government decided to ignore for more than a decade now since the Act was enacted in 2001 signed by President Bush. (The lawyer who represented my case before the District Office Director in Chicago was from the same law firm in Los Angeles who sued the government, in a class action, due to its restrictive interpretation of CSPA denying benefits to those who are otherwise beneficiary of the law, those children of intending immigrants who aged out due to no fault of their own. The law firm was successful in overturning Federal Court ruling in Los Angeles when it appealed the class action to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, En Banc decision.) The government then appealed the decision En Banc of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which basically entitled "aged outs", or those derivative beneficiariess of any family based, employment based, diversity visa categories, who turned over 21 yrs of age, to join their parents upon receiving permanent residency status) to the Supreme Court, conjoined Federal Courts decisions out of the 2nd and 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals. PENDING before the Supreme Court, anticipating decision or ruling in 2014.}

09/10/2008 - Received Green Card

N-400 Application for Naturalization

09/05/2013 - Eligibility

06/08/2013 - Sent Form N-400 (90-day rule)

06/10/2013 - Priority Date

06/10/2013 - Check Cashed

07/03/2013 - Biometrics

08/05/2013 - In line for Interview

08/12/2013 - Email Notice N-400 scheduled for Interview

08/19/2013 - Interview Letter - received

09/17/2013 - Interview @ 0930am @ 101 West Congress Parkway, 2nd Floor Citizenship Office, Chicago, IL -- APPROVED!!!

09/18/2013 - Oath Letter - mailed from Chicago USCIS Office

09/19/2013 - Oath Letter - mailed from the National Benefits Center

09/20/2013 - Oath Letter - from Chicago USCIS Office received

09/21/2013 - Oath Letter - from the National Benefits Center received

2 Oath Ceremony Appointment Letters

09/27/2013 - Oath Ceremony

 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...