Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: Update On Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) Lock-in Procedures For EB-5 Applicants By Bernard P. Wolfsdorf

    Update on Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) Lock-in Procedures for EB-5 Applicants

    by


    One of the most heart wrenching consequences of the Chinese Visa waiting line is the ageing out of derivative children. Before the mainland China cut-off date was established in May 2015, there was a small window of opportunity to “seek to acquire” permanent residence status which was effective in “freezing” the child’s age. However, now with the waiting line exceeding 30 months and getting longer, even though many petitions are pending one to two years, inevitably the priority date or filing date is not “current” at the time of approval of the I-526 petition, so taking steps to “seek to acquire” are not effective in freezing the child’s age. Thus, unless the child was 17, or maybe 18 at the time of filing, most of the 20-year-old, and a lot of the 19-year-old children may age out.

    So while hundreds of I-526 petitions that were filed in 2014 and 2015 had teenage derivative children seeking lawful permanent residence with their parents, many who were approved but who failed to take steps before May 2015, will likely age out. This is because a derivative child must obtain a green card before turning 21 years of age. As the China visa backlog increases the likelihood that many of these children will “age-out” and will not be issued green cards is high.

    The Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”) provides a solution allowing applicants to “freeze” the age of these derivative children and prevent them from aging out.  However, satisfying the CSPA requirements to lock-in the derivative’s age is anything but child’s play.  Practitioners and EB-5 families must navigate multiple departments within the Department of State (“DOS”) and keep abreast of changing guidance.

    Here are the essentials everyone must know regarding lock-in procedures under the CSPA.

    • CSPA Basics. CSPA allows a derivative child to subtract the time the immigrant visa petition (I-526) was pending from his or her actual age.  The CSPA age is the child’s actual age on the date a visa became available (either the date the petition was approved or the first day of the month when the priority date is current according to the Final Action Date Chart A) minus the time the petition was pending.  However, the CSPA does not provide “age-out” relief for the time after the I-526 petition is approved until the date a visa becomes available unless the child’s age was frozen by taking steps at a time when a visa was available. Before May 2015 there was no waiting line but now, when applicants receive their I-526 approval, the priority date is usually not current unless the case has been pending for longer than the adjudication time.
    • Lock-in CSPA Age. To be effective, the child must “seek to acquire” permanent residence within one year of a visa becoming available.  This locks or freezes the child’s CSPA age if a visa is available at the tie these steps are taken and ensures that the child will not age out before the final adjudication of the immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
    • How to Lock-in. Previously, the Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) offered three primary ways to lock-in a child’s age.  9 FAM 42.42 N12.6 advised:
      • File Form DS-260, but allowed submission of Form DS-230, the form that preceded the online DS-260;
      • File Form I-824 if the principal applicant adjusted status in the U.S. and the derivative child seeks a visa to follow to join; or
      • File Form I-485 adjustment of status if both the principal applicant and the derivative child are in the U.S. and eligible to do so. Filing Form I-485 for the principal alone will not lock in the child’s age.
      • Guidance from the State Department also indicated that payment of the consular visa fee alone was sufficient (of course one can’t pay the fee, unless a Fee bill is issued and in many instances DOS would not issue a fee bill). The issuance of fee bills was random and unpredictable.
    • April 15, 2016 Policy Memorandum. USCIS published guidance after the BIA decision in Matter of O. Vazquez[1] clarifying the CSPA lock-in procedures.  Notably, it advised that payment of the visa application fees, rather than the submission of the actual visa application, “may” satisfy the “sought to acquire” requirement.
    • New Rule Changes. CSPA lock-in rules changed when the DOS revised and reorganized the FAM, and when the Visa Modernization Initiative created the Final Action Date and Date for Filing Charts in the Visa Bulletin.  As a result, the new rules found in 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(6) made the following changes:
      • While submitting Form DS-260 still freezes a child’s age, applicants can no longer submit Form DS-230.
      • Payment of the visa fee “can” satisfy the sought to acquire requirement.
    • Current Issues. Despite the new language in the FAM, complying with these provisions is harder than it appears.  To submit Form DS-260 and pay the fee, the National Visa Center (“NVC”) must send a fee bill for each family member.  However, if NVC determines that a child is close to aging out, it will not issue a fee bill for that child, thus making it impossible to complete the lock-in procedures for a family that cannot file Form I-485.  By contrast, the Form DS-230 was filed on paper, and thus could be done without NVC issuing fee bill.  It is also common to see derivative children left off of interview appointment notices, precluding them from presenting their case to a Consular Officer.  It is advisable to notify USCIS at the I-526 stage that derivative beneficiaries will seek consular processing, with copies of passports, birth certificates and national identification cards, so when the case is forwarded to NVC, it can issue the appropriate number of fee bills.
    • More Issues. Even if lock-in procedures were completed flawlessly, the challenge becomes, how does an applicant prove this to the Consular Officer?  The antiquated paper Form DS-230 is not entered into a central database, so the Consular Officer does not know that the proper lock-in procedures have occurred.  Similarly, despite the purpose of Form I-824, the DOS is not automatically notified by USCIS that this form has been filed.
    • Solutions. Practitioners must continually request the issuance of a fee bill in these cases.  If a child is not included on the interview notice, practitioners must contact the Consular Post to present a legal brief supporting the claim that the child has not aged out and providing evidence of the lock-in steps that have been completed.  It is important to point out that final determination of a child’s age is to be conducted at the interview, not before.

    Many applicants who complied with the CSPA requirements one and a half years ago will find that their actions may not have complied with the current CSPA requirements.  It is vital that their immigration attorney understand these changing rules to effectively advocate before the NVC and the DOS and present the strongest argument that their age was indeed frozen under the CSPA.

    The attorneys at Wolfsdorf Rosenthal have extensive experience and knowledge regarding these complex issues that have now become critical. In many cases parents, have decided to withdraw their applications and refile so their children can at least immigrate.

    This post is designed to provide practical and useful information on the subject matter covered.  However, it is provided with the understanding that no legal, tax, accounting, or other professional services are being rendered or provided.  If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

    [1] The USCIS Policy Memorandum refers to the case as Matter of O. Vasquez, however the correct spelling is Vazquez.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group. Copyright © 2016 Wolfsdorf Connect - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Bernard Wolfsdorf Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (www.wolfsdorf.com), and the past national president of the 14,000-member American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Established in 1986, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP is known worldwide for providing exceptional quality legal services. With 19 lawyers and offices in Los Angles and New York, the firm was recently listed as a top-tier immigration practice by Chambers & Partners with several of the firm's attorneys listed in the 2015 International Who's Who Legal. Mr. Wolfsdorf specializes in EB-5 investment immigration in addition to the full range of global immigration matters. Robert Blanco specializes in business and employment immigration cases. He prepares both immigrant and non-immigrant petitions for skilled workers, executive managers, high net worth investors, and people of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, and business. As a member of the firm's EB-5 team, Mr. Blanco prepares cases for individual investors and advises U.S. businesses on how to structure investment projects under the regulations of the EB-5 program. He also represents clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: