F3Category, - Aged out child regarding

[rkaushik1961 0]

My mother being a US citizen has sponsored me and ,my family for Green card under F3 category. She had applied in March 2006 a d my priority date is 7th March 2006 and it was approved in May 2010. My daughter was born on n April 1992.  I understand that from the various projections, the Green Card would be issued in the next 2 or 3 months since the current PD is January 8th 2006. The problem is that my daughter has aged out.

But I understand that as per the Child Status Protection Act ( CSPA ) she will still be protected and will be eligible to obtain the Green Card and her category will automatically change to F2B category with the March 2006 priority date, which is applicable to me. Current status of F2B category is November 2010, hence my daughter would be eligible to get the Green Card along with me. I have tried to research and find out as to how to apply for my daughters green card.

 

Do I need to seperately petition her after I  get my Green Card under F2 category? Or will NVC send the documents including her name, since it was approved in May 2010 and subsequently she aged out? In case her documents do not come in or payment link for her does not come in, then can I write to NVC about adding her name despite her agening out? Its all so confusing. I searched all over the net and could not find any info about how to move forward. I tried contacting an office of a US based immigration lawyer in India asking them whether they can handle our Green Card consular processing and my daughter's aged out issue. The lady tells me to pay USD 300 upfront to discuss the matter and then will let me know whether they will take up consular processing and my daughter's aged out issue or not. Sounded like extortion.

 

I would be grateful if you could kindly guide me as to how do I go about. I am totally lost. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

The $300 is not “extortion” unless you think lawyers charging for their time is extortion. An exorbitant fee for India, perhaps, but immigration lawyers know many people are desperate to get to the US and charge accordingly. Personally I wouldn’t pay that to someone just to find out if they are prepared to assist the case..

 

Others may correct me but I’ve never heard of the child of an F3 petition automatically converting to F2B upon the parent getting a green card. Where did you see that, can you post a link? As far as I understand after you get your green card you petition for her but then the priority date is the date of that petition, not the F3 one. CSPA is different, it freezes the age at 21 for certain dates, it doesn’t convert it to a different type of visa. I don’t know if CSPA applies in your case, there are CSPA calculators out there you can use, or someone who knows about that here can assist.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[Boiler 46,123]

Sounds like her CSPA adjusted age is still over 21.

 

She has no priority date, she was a dependent.

 

When you immigrate you can then petition her assuming she is not married.

[rkaushik1961 0]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

The $300 is not “extortion” unless you think lawyers charging for their time is extortion. An exorbitant fee for India, perhaps, but immigration lawyers know many people are desperate to get to the US and charge accordingly. Personally I wouldn’t pay that to someone just to find out if they are prepared to assist the case..

 

Others may correct me but I’ve never heard of the child of an F3 petition automatically converting to F2B upon the parent getting a green card. Where did you see that, can you post a link? As far as I understand after you get your green card you petition for her but then the priority date is the date of that petition, not the F3 one. CSPA is different, it freezes the age at 21 for certain dates, it doesn’t convert it to a different type of visa. I don’t know if CSPA applies in your case, there are CSPA calculators out there you can use, or someone who knows about that here can assist.

Here is the link as you asked http://lawandborder.com/immigration-victory-for-aged-out-sons-and-daughters-de-osorio-v-mayorkas-9th-cir-2012/

The above article very clearly indicates that the original priority date will be retained after the petition is converted to F2B category.

In terns of the lawyers fees, one needs to understand that the professional ethos in each country differ. Unlike in US, where you pay for the time, in India lawyers charge for a task and number of hearings. The concept of charging for time is not prevalent in India. In fact after the law firm wrote to me about the charges, I Googled to check the review and what I found was that they were notorious for charging you just to let you know whether they can handle a case or not. And ninety percent of the complaints were that they don't respond by mail as to whether they can handle a case or not. They push you to meet them after paying USD 300 and then let you know that they cannot handle the case. And they keep spamming you with mails to meet them, which no Indian law firm does. The time they take to push you to meet them after paying them USD 300 could be spent on letting you know whether they can handle the task/case or not. And if they can handle it, they will obviously be retained.

 

Since there are negative reviews about the law firm and the way they extract USD 300 which in India is extremely exorbitant,  I used the term extortion.

 

There is no offence meant to your response, since you have a view based on American ethos. Do in Rome as Romans do is what I believe in and that's why I was highlighting the deviation from the normal practice of lawyers in India.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

Hm, the problem is that the link you quoted (from 2012) mentions that the government sought to appeal that ruling. If you had followed up by searching the outcome of that appeal, you would have seen that the government was successful and the 9th court ruling was overturned. http://lawandborder.com/supreme-court-scialabba-v-cuellar-de-osorio/

In a nutshell, keeping the original priority date only applies if it's the same petitioner, and as an aunt/uncle cannot petition a niece/nephew it does not apply in your case for your child after all. As Boiler noted above, you have the priority date, not your child.

 

PS not to belabor the point, but I get pedantic about these things - it's not extortion, look up the definition, there was no threat to you. An exorbitant charge, a scam, yes, but not extortion. I'm glad you googled them before wasting your money on them.

Edited March 14, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[CEE53147 559]

$300 for an attorney is cheap!!!

[rkaushik1961 0]

I guess you did not read the whole story. It was not attorney fees to handle the case. But to meet and tell us whether they will handle our case or not. The fee for it was USD 300. While in India no one charges in USD and secondly, no attorney charges you to tell you whether they will handle your case or not. The attorney fees is finalised after the attorney lets you know that he is handling  your case. 

[Boiler 46,123]

Use another Lawyer

 

Simple

[rkaushik1961 0]

On March 14, 2018 at 10:03 PM, SusieQQQ said:

Hm, the problem is that the link you quoted (from 2012) mentions that the government sought to appeal that ruling. If you had followed up by searching the outcome of that appeal, you would have seen that the government was successful and the 9th court ruling was overturned. http://lawandborder.com/supreme-court-scialabba-v-cuellar-de-osorio/

In a nutshell, keeping the original priority date only applies if it's the same petitioner, and as an aunt/uncle cannot petition a niece/nephew it does not apply in your case for your child after all. As Boiler noted above, you have the priority date, not your child.

 

PS not to belabor the point, but I get pedantic about these things - it's not extortion, look up the definition, there was no threat to you. An exorbitant charge, a scam, yes, but not extortion. I'm glad you googled them before wasting your money on them.

Please see this link which is post the above case and gives much more clarity, while dealing in length each of the definitions . There is lot of contradictory information in the net and no one seems to be able give a clear picture on what the current law is.

[Boiler 46,123]

43 minutes ago, rkaushik1961 said:

Please see this link which is post the above case and gives much more clarity, while dealing in length each of the definitions . There is lot of contradictory information in the net and no one seems to be able give a clear picture on what the current law is.

You have been given a clear picture of what the current law is.

 

There is contradictory information on the web about pretty much everything.

[arken 4,197]

I had also come across one article about the ruling that starting late 2014, PDs of only the derivatives beneficiaries of F2A petitions are retained, the rest of the category’s PD will be void.

 

Your category was F3, so once you get yout GC, you have to file a new petition for her which will give her a new PD.

 

 

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/cspapracticeadvisory_oct2014.pdf

Edited March 15, 2018 by arken

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, rkaushik1961 said:

Please see this link which is post the above case and gives much more clarity, while dealing in length each of the definitions . There is lot of contradictory information in the net and no one seems to be able give a clear picture on what the current law is.

This is 4 years before the link I posted. In the legal world, the latest rulings are the ones that are currently law.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

17 minutes ago, arken said:

I had also come across one article about the ruling that starting late 2014, PDs of only the derivatives beneficiaries of F2A petitions are retained, the rest of the category’s PD will be void.

 

Your category was F3, so once you get yout GC, you have to file a new petition for her which will give her a new PD.

 

 

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/cspapracticeadvisory_oct2014.pdf

Yup - this cites the same appealed case before the Supreme Court that I linked to earlier - this one seems clearer (gets the point across easier) than that link  

Edited March 15, 2018 by SusieQQQ