Asian Journal- The Filipino-American Community Newspaper

Article Index
Understanding the Child Status Protection Act
Page 2
All Pages

Here are some examples as to how you, your family, or your friends can benefit from the CSPA:
 
1. In the case of derivative beneficiaries of a family-based petitions, employment-based petitions, and visa lottery applications, the CSPA provides the rule in determining whether the beneficiary should be considered as a “child” for purposes of acquiring lawful permanent resident status as derivative beneficiary of the principal applicant’s approved petition.
 
According to the CSPA, the age of derivative beneficiary is fixed as of the date the parent’s visa number becomes available “reduced by” the number of days that underlying petition was pending. For this rule to apply, however, the beneficiary must apply for permanent residence within one year from date the parent’s visa became available.
 
To illustrate, a hospital in Los Angeles filed a petition on behalf of Gloria, a registered nurse, on December 14, 2004. The petition was approved on April 29, 2005. Her son, Jose, turned 21 on June 15, 2005.
 
Jose’s age will be fixed as of the date that his parent’s visa number became available (in Gloria’s case, as of June 15, 2005 when the USDOS issued a Revised Visa Bulletin for June 2005 stating that visa numbers for Schedule A workers are current) “reduced by” the number of days that the petition was pending. The petition filed on December 14, 2004 was approved on April 29, 2005 after being pending for approximately 4 1/2 months. These 4 1/2 months must be subtracted from Jose’s age as of the date that Gloria’s visa number became available.
 
As of June 15, 2005, Jose was 21 years old, less the number of days the petition was pending, i.e., 4 1/2 months. Therefore, Jose’s age is frozen at 20 years, 7 1/2 months. This means that he should still be considered as a “child” for purposes of acquiring lawful permanent resident status as derivative beneficiary of Gloria’s approved petition.
 
2. The CSPA likewise provides the rule in determining whether the beneficiary should be still be considered as a child under the 2nd preference A family-based category [F2A].
 
To illustrate, Ferdinand, an LPR, filed a petition on behalf of his daughter, Corazon, on February 12, 2001. Said petition was approved on February 15, 2005. Corazon turned 23 on June 26, 2005.
 

Corazon’s age should be fixed as of the date that a visa number became available to her (as per May 2005 Visa Bulletin, the cut-off date for the F2A category is March 01, 2001) “reduced by” the number of days that said petition was pending (in Corazon’s case, the petition was filed on February 12, 2001 and was approved on February 15, 2005; thus, it had been pending for 4 years and 3 days. These 4 years and 3 days must be subtracted from her age as of the date the visa number became available.
 
As of May 01, 2005, Corazon’s age was 22 years, 10 months and 5 days.  This, less the number of days of the petition was pending, i.e., 4 years and 3 days, will result in the freezing of Corazon’s age at 18 years, 10 months and 2 days.  This means that she should still be considered as a “child” under the F2A category.  Thus, even if she is already more than 21 years old, she should still be allowed to apply for permanent residence under the F2A category and not under the F2B category.
 
If you have further questions regarding this topic, please feel free to call us at (818) 956-8844 [Glendale] or at (626) 331-8188 [Covina] to schedule an appointment for your free initial consultation. You may also visit us www.palacioslawfirm.com.
 
***
Attorney Eugene M. Palacios is the founder and principal of the Law Offices of Eugene M. Palacios. He is a highly experienced and respected immigration attorney with a successful track record in handling employment and family-based petitions as well as PERM and naturalization applications. He is licensed as an attorney in California and is admitted to practice before U.S. Immigration Courts, the U.S. Central District Court, and California State Courts. He is also an active member of the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association. His offices are located at 100 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 600, Glendale, California 91203 and at 800 South Barranca Avenue, Suite 250, Covina, California 91723.
 
The above article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice for a specific immigration problem and does not create an attorney-client relationship between our office and the reader. It is for informational purposes only and reflects our law firm’s opinions and views on general issues.

< Prev