Jump to content
wadelmaki

Status of Children after single parent's Naturalization

By wadelmaki in US Citizenship General Discussion

 Share

33 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted (edited)

An N-600 is never necessary. Proof of U.S. citizenship is parent's Certificate of Naturalization + child's green card.

And I don't see a point to tell people to register for another site when the information here is already complete.

I answered the question to my understanding of the acquired citizenship. If it is not at all required to obtain a certificate of citizenship, then it is not. But unless you are a lawyer or someone who has deep understanding of the law, then he should never listen to you. My thoughts.

The point is, as he feels as if his children's cases are complicated enough, it's free then he should ask someone who went to law school and understands the law very well than anyone in this forum can who may not even have graduated college for god's sake. He won't lose a cent for doing what I asked him to do, only if he so chooses... anyways.

Edited by Jay2Pnoy

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

wadelmaki Apprentice

wadelmaki   0

Posted
Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: Canada
 Timeline
  • Author
Posted

Silkafi88, newacct, NINA80, Balio, Jay2Pnoy & Hypnos

Thank you for your feedback. It looks like most of you agreed on the fact that after they enter the US on Lawfull PR Status I can apply for their passports!

I was rerading through the 2000 Child Act and the following statements confused me a bit and I wonder if someone could explain the highlighted bullets:

Another section of the Child Citizenship Act provides that children (biological or adopted) of American citizens who are born and reside abroad, and who do not become American citizens at birth can apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security for a certificate of citizenship if the following conditions are met.

  • At least one parent of the child is an American citizen by birth or naturalization.
  • The American citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for a total of at least five years, at least two of which are after the age of 14. If the child's American citizen parent cannot meet the physical presence requirement, it is enough if one of the child's American citizen grandparents can meet it.
  • The child is under the age of eighteen.
  • The child lives abroad in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent and has been lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant.

Children who acquire citizenship under this new provision do not acquire citizenship automatically. They must apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service in the Department of Homeland Security and go through the naturalization process.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted (edited)

You basically cannot apply for their derivative citizenship until they arrive in the US as permanent residents, only after then you may file N600.

That's my interpretation of the Act as well.

Good Luck!

Edited by Jay2Pnoy

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted
Overview

The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 allows certain foreign-born, biological and adopted children of American citizens to acquire American citizenship automatically. These children did not acquire American citizenship at birth, but they are granted citizenship when they enter the United States as lawful permanent residents (LPRs).

What Are the Requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000?

The child must meet the following requirements:

  • Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
  • Be under 18 years of age;
  • Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and
  • Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.

In addition, if the child is adopted, the adoption must be full and final.

What Is the Effective Date of the Child Citizenship Act?

The effective date of the Child Citizenship Act is February 27, 2001. Children who met these requirements on that date automatically became American citizens. Children who were 18 years of age or older on that date did not acquire American citizenship from the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

What Happens When the Child is Adopted in the United States?

A child who enters the United States on an IR4 visa (to be adopted in the United States) will acquire American citizenship when the adoption is full and final in the United States.

How Does a Child Show Lawful Permanent Residence?

A child who has lawful permanent residence (LPR status) will have a permanent resident card (green card). Another way to show LPR status is the I-551 stamp in the child's passport. This stamp shows the child has entered the United States on an immigrant visa and/or has been admitted as a lawful permanent resident.

Must the Child Get a Certificate of Citizenship?

You do not have to apply for a certificate of citizenship for your child. If you want to apply for a certificate, please go to How to Get a Certificate of Citizenship for your Child for instructions.

How Does the Child Get a Passport Under the Child Citizenship Act?

You will need the following when the child applies for a passport:

  • Proof of the child's relationship to the American citizen parent. For the biological child of the American citizen this will be a certified copy of the foreign birth certificate (and translation if not in English). For an adopted child, it is a certified copy of the final adoption decree (and translation if not in English);
  • The child's foreign passport showing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security (USCIS) I-551 stamp in the passport, or the child's permanent resident card (green card);
  • Proof of identity of the American citizen parent(s)
  • Passport application, passport photographs and fees. Go to Passport Services for forms and full instructions.
Can My Child Get a Birth Certificate (Consular Report of Birth Abroad or CROBA) from the Embassy or Consulate?

No. Only a child who acquired citizenship at birth can get a birth certificate from an embassy or consulate.

What Are the Other Provisions of the Child Citizenship Act?

Another section of the Child Citizenship Act provides that children (biological or adopted) of American citizens who are born and reside abroad, and who do not become American citizens at birth can apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security for a certificate of citizenship if the following conditions are met.

  • At least one parent of the child is an American citizen by birth or naturalization.
  • The American citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for a total of at least five years, at least two of which are after the age of 14. If the child's American citizen parent cannot meet the physical presence requirement, it is enough if one of the child's American citizen grandparents can meet it.
  • The child is under the age of eighteen.
  • The child lives abroad in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent and has been lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant.

Children who acquire citizenship under this new provision do not acquire citizenship automatically. They must apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service in the Department of Homeland Security and go through the naturalization process.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wadelmaki Apprentice

wadelmaki   0

Posted
Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: Canada
 Timeline
  • Author
Posted

The only case I am sure off is when one of the parents became a citizen before the child was born, then the child automatically becomes a USC if born abroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

Here is a useful link: Derivative Citizenship

http://shusterman.com/uscitizenshipchart3.html

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

A child may derive U.S. citizenship during the below listed historical periods if such child was under the statutory age AND a) the child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence AND b) the parent(s) naturalized. It does not matter in which order the actions occurred.

Children became LPR before the statutory age of 18.

Naturalization of parent/s prior to the statutory age of the child. (One parent by birth or naturalization)

Child is residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the USC parent. Applies to an adopted child of a USC; must meet §101(b)(1) INA adopted child requirements.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted (edited)

READ this link, you can understand this better. There are various provisions of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 that pertains to acquisition of citizenship, depending on the facts.

Link from USCIS:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CCA_102504.pdf

Edited by Jay2Pnoy

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

It did not mention that you have to use N-600!

I was trying to edit my post earlier, it didnt let me. Pardon me, N-600 is NOT necessary for derivative citizenship under the applicable law.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

Sorry, I was saying that N600 is not a requirement under the previous applicable law, but after the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, N600 is required, see page 3 of the link, USCIS.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay2Pnoy Explorer

Jay2Pnoy   3

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

Thanks Jay2Pnoy. It is a bit confusing when you read through the different laws!

You bet! In the acquisition of citizenship there are a few provisions in the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. That's why its hard to understand, first you have to determine which provision you fall under, only then you can read through the statutes. But again, the cable from USCIS should be easier to understand better than those other links online.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Markieboy Proficient

Markieboy   104

Posted
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Philippines
 Timeline
Posted

An N-600 is never necessary. Proof of U.S. citizenship is parent's Certificate of Naturalization + child's green card.

That is absolutely incorrect!

My wife naturalized this past May. Her daughter was a minor at that time. What I understand is...that she (daughter) automatically derives U.S. citizenship.

However, this is not as simple as showing her mother's naturalization certificate as well as the child's green card.

My stepdaughter's birth certificate was registered late (more than 1 year). She also lacked documentary evidence (baptismal certificate, medical records, dental records), which are dated before the delayed registration of birth certificate. We applied at a regional passport agency...and her application was denied. The agent questioned my stepdaughter's maternity (that she is, in fact, my wife's daughter).

The agent said we could have dna testing done (which is $500) or can apply for my SD's certificate of citizenship ($600). The choice is very clear. We recently received an approval letter for the N-600. Her oath taking is next week.

In our case, an N-600 was very necessary. Hope this helps others in similar situation.

NATURALIZATION
02/15/13 - Mailed N-400
02/19/13 - Received by Phoenix Lockbox (day 01)
02/21/13 - NOA1 issued (day 03)

REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS (WIFE)
02/18/12 - Eligible for Removal of Conditions on Residence
03/23/12 - Mailed I-751 to CSC
03/26/12 - Received by CSC (day 01)
03/31/12 - Received NOA1 (day 06)
05/02/12 - Biometrics done (day 38)
10/23/12 - Received approval email (day 212)
11/01/12 - Received green card (day 221)

IR-2 (STEPDAUGHTER)
06/01/10 - Mailed I-130 petition
06/03/10 - Package delivered to USCIS (day 01)
06/08/10 - NOA1 issued (day 06)
11/03/10 - Received approval email (day 154)
11/08/10 - Received approval notice in mail (day 159)

NATIONAL VISA CENTER (STEPDAUGHTER)
11/08/10 - NVC received case from USCIS
11/09/10 - NVC case # & IIN generated, email addresses given, DS-3032 sent via email & USPS (day 01)
11/16/10 - Received and paid AOS bill (day 08)
11/17/10 - AOS bill marked as PAID; AOS packet express mailed (day 09)
11/19/10 - Received and paid IV bill; DS-3032 accepted (day 11)
11/22/10 - IV bill marked as PAID; IV packet express mailed (day 14)
12/03/10 - Sign-in failed (day 25)
12/09/10 - INTERVIEW SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 10, 2011 @ 6:45AM
12/28/10 - Medical exam done at SLEC Manila - PASSED! (day 40)
01/10/11 - Interview at USEM Manila - APPROVED! (day 53)
01/21/11 - Stepdaughter received passport with IR-2 visa! (day 64)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
newacct Experienced

newacct   688

Posted
Filed: Timeline
Posted (edited)

That is absolutely incorrect!

My wife naturalized this past May. Her daughter was a minor at that time. What I understand is...that she (daughter) automatically derives U.S. citizenship.

However, this is not as simple as showing her mother's naturalization certificate as well as the child's green card.

My stepdaughter's birth certificate was registered late (more than 1 year). She also lacked documentary evidence (baptismal certificate, medical records, dental records), which are dated before the delayed registration of birth certificate. We applied at a regional passport agency...and her application was denied. The agent questioned my stepdaughter's maternity (that she is, in fact, my wife's daughter).

The agent said we could have dna testing done (which is $500) or can apply for my SD's certificate of citizenship ($600). The choice is very clear. We recently received an approval letter for the N-600. Her oath taking is next week.

In our case, an N-600 was very necessary. Hope this helps others in similar situation.

The proof of citizenship for applying for a passport and for applying for a Certificate of Citizenship are the same. If the passport accepting agent wasn't skeptical about the child's maternity, then how come USCIS when you applied for a Certificate of Citizenship wasn't skeptical of it? It makes no sense. Most likely, if you just went to a different passport acceptance place, they will take it.

Edited by newacct
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 
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
 Share
Go to topic listing
- 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...