Marta is an LPR who is married with three children. She is eligible to naturalize, but wants to know whether to proceed. She filed an I-130 petition for her husband, Pablo, and named their three children as derivatives. The I-130 was filed on November 12, 2010 and was approved on April 13, 2011. The F-2A priority date became current in September 2013, and everyone filed for an immigrant visa within one year. The eldest child, Diana, was born on November 24, 1992.
By Susan Schreiber
When you read the words "marriage fraud,” you probably think of a marriage entered into for purposes of obtaining an immigration benefit. Such marriages, among other things, trigger INA § 204(c) consequences, i.e. a bar against petition approval where the beneficiary has previously sought status based on a fraudulent marriage or "has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws."
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced executive actions to change immigration policy. One of these reforms will expand the existing “parole in place” program for the spouses, children, and parents of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. That program was officially recognized and implemented by a November 15, 2013 memo that described eligibility and filing procedures for parole in place. This FAQ summarizes that memo and the proposed expansion.
What is parole in place?
Topics include information on how to advocate locally on behalf of unaccompanied minors.
The Supreme Court has now weighed in and answered one of the last remaining questions regarding the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA): do derivative children who age out before the principal beneficiary immigrates retain the original priority date when their parent becomes an LPR and files a new petition on their behalf in the F-2B category? The answer has been no, based on a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec.
BIA Clarifies When Derivatives May Adjust under 245(i)
By Charles Wheeler
In a recent decision the Board of Immigration Appeals held that after-acquired derivatives are not eligible to be considered “grandfathered” for purposes of eligibility for section 245(i) adjustment of status. Matter of Estrada, 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013). This decision clarifies but is consistent with prior USCIS memos interpreting this provision.
Sixth Circuit Finds that TPS Creates Eligibility for Adjustment Under Section 245(a)
By Jennie Guilfoyle
In 2000-2001, CLINIC published a series of reports on immigration issues based on numerous case studies. These are not current reports.
The reports identify, track, and examine the impact of our nation's laws and immigration policies on at-risk immigrants. They illustrate particularly compelling problems faced by immigrants, clear explanations of the law at the root of such problems, and other research.