Asian Journal- The Filipino-American Community Newspaper

KATRINA is a derivative beneficiary of the approved I-130, Immigrant Petition for Alien Relative that was filed in behalf of her father, Danilo, by her grandfather on October 29, 1988.

The petition was initially approved on July 7, 1989. Unfortunately, the petitioner passed away on May 15, 1997 even before the beneficiaries have been granted immigrant visas, causing the automatic revocation of the approved immigrant petition.

The beneficiaries filed a request with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the reinstatement of the petition based on humanitarian grounds.

On March 3, 2005, the USCIS issued a letter approving the request for reinstatement of the petition and reaffirming the approval of said petition. On same date, the USCIS issued an Amended Notice of Approval of the I-130, Immigrant Petition for Alien Relative filed in this case.

On the basis of said amended approval and since the priority date of the case was already current at that time, Katrina and her parents applied for immigrant visas with the US Embassy in Manila, Philippines. An interview was scheduled on September 21, 2005. At the end of the interview, the consular officer approved the immigrant visa applications of her parents but denied her application on the ground that she had already "aged out." The US Embassy in Manila issued to Katrina a notice of denial of her application on same date.

On July 11, 2006, the US Embassy in Manila issued Katrina an F-1 student visa. On August 03, 2006, Katrina entered the United States on the basis of said visa and was permitted to stay for the duration of her status ("D/S").

In 2007, Katrina and her family learned about the benefits of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). They decided to hire a big and well-known law firm to prepare and file an application for lawful permanent residence in her behalf pursuant to the CSPA. Unfortunately, the case was denied just a few months later.

Last year, Katrina and her family heard about the CSPA victories of our firm. They consulted me and after reviewing the facts they provided, I informed them that Katrina has a strong case under the CSPA and the case filed by their previous attorney was denied simply because a wrong provision of the CSPA was used.