ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

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

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




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

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: CSPA Interpretations-Critical# 17 PLS COMMENT

  1. #1
    Guest
    dear cspa fans,

    even though i have to wait for my lawyers course of action and consultation results on september 27, i wanted to interpret the law in its intricate detail and i found conflicting statements, one way to the other...

    by the way my lawyer is from glendale,california by the name of ATTY. MICHAEL GURFINKEL, you know him guys especially boni?

    yes its true that those entitled to CSPA are the following who met one of the 3 conditions stated in the interpretations ( GO CHECK OUT NIMISH'S POSTING OF INTERPRETATION WEBSITE ) which basically says that there should be no final adjudication being made on the visa application..but READ INTERPRETATION NO. 17 under SECTION 3- PREFERENCE CATEGORIES and DV categories..

    there in number 17, it stated the 3 conditions but what iam confused of is the interpretation/explanation written there saying..

    UNDER THIS INTERPRETATiON, BENEFICIARIES (AND DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES) OF PETITIONS APPROVED PRIOR TO AUGUST 6,2002 WHO NEVER APPLIED FOR A VISA PRIOR TO AUGUST 6 BECAUSE THEY HAD AGED OUT WILL RECEIVE NO BENEFIT FROM SECTION 3 AND CANNOT APPLY AFTERWARD IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A BENEFIT.

    go read it on no. 17..its very confusing..

    how will a derivative beneficiary apply for a visa prior to august 6, 2002 if in the first place, he cannot anymore apply for visa because he was already excluded by the NVC in the list because even before his priority date become current, he aged out? get my point?

    so in my interpretation, i cannot anymore avail of the CSPA because even though there has been no final adjudication on my parents application, the fact is i never did apply for the visa because in the first place, i havent submitted the 130 form for filling up because they exclude me from the list already.

    what do u think boni and others?

    so does it mean this CSPA is available only to those who have pending petitions and currently being processed petitions in which the derivative beneficiary initially is below 21 but already did apply for the visa ( paid the 260$ et al ) before august 6 but during the process aged out?

    so in theory, this law is not in essence retroactive.? but a mere consolation to those person who will be turning 21 in a months time and not to those who aged out- above 21?

    its confusing...i have to wait for my lawyers answer but what do u think people?

    to reiterate/repeat the last condition ( one of the 3) states that cspa is applicable to those
    #1,#2
    #3..and certain cases where the petition was approved prior to august 6, 2002 but only if a final determination has not been made on the beneficiary's ( including derivatives) application for a visa or adjustment of status prior to that date.

    AND SO, HOW WILL I BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE VISA SINCE I WASN'T ABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY OUT OF THE LIST, RIGHT?

    thats why in the interpretation it says SECTION
    3 is complicated and subject to ongoing discussions and interagency discussions..

    its veru confusing and conflicting, lawfully speaking..

    it's like giving a law not actually for those who AGED-OUT but for those who will soon be AGING OUT,
    RIGHT?

    i dunno what to say but the interpretations are somehow confusing and clashing with other statements like this one...

    under section 3 ( interpretaion#12) it says, its available for derivatives but only available to those aliens who seek to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of visa availability..

    but interpretation 17 says CSPA is available to those derivatives whose petition is approved but applied visa before august 6, 2002..meaning if you did not file visa application once it became current before august 6, then u can no longer avail of cspa? weird!!!

    example, in my case, this march 2002, my petition as a derivative became current, then i still have until march 2003 to seek visa application for permanent residence, right? but section 17 interprets and saying that if u did not file visa application before august 6, not entitled to CSPA..its so weird, confusing and so many loopholes..

    u got my point boni and others?

    and so i have to interpret this and say that CSPA is not really retroactive theoretically and is neither prospective as to the petitions filed before august 6 because of the #17 interpretation
    which includes the statement saying CSPA is not entitled to those petitions who never applied visa prior to August 6 because they have aged-out.. its funny right?!!

    the reason why u did not apply visa prior to august 6 is because u have already aged-out, AND WHY WILL THEY NOT BE ENTITLED TO CSPA when in fact, it should be because they have aged-out..

    then for what sense that CSPA has been signed into lAW, right? its very selective and not beneficial for all..

    conditions solely are so strict and yet they have made it even stricter as to its implementation, regulation and interpretation.

    what do u think CSPA fans?

    this is just my opinion..any comments? what do u think of my case? am i entitled?

    i havent applied for the visa since i aged out, i was excluded from the NVC list but the petition is currently being processed, no final adjudication yet but i havent filed my application sincei aged-out..

    its really confusing..

    hope for the best,
    antman23

  2. #2
    Guest
    dear cspa fans,

    even though i have to wait for my lawyers course of action and consultation results on september 27, i wanted to interpret the law in its intricate detail and i found conflicting statements, one way to the other...

    by the way my lawyer is from glendale,california by the name of ATTY. MICHAEL GURFINKEL, you know him guys especially boni?

    yes its true that those entitled to CSPA are the following who met one of the 3 conditions stated in the interpretations ( GO CHECK OUT NIMISH'S POSTING OF INTERPRETATION WEBSITE ) which basically says that there should be no final adjudication being made on the visa application..but READ INTERPRETATION NO. 17 under SECTION 3- PREFERENCE CATEGORIES and DV categories..

    there in number 17, it stated the 3 conditions but what iam confused of is the interpretation/explanation written there saying..

    UNDER THIS INTERPRETATiON, BENEFICIARIES (AND DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES) OF PETITIONS APPROVED PRIOR TO AUGUST 6,2002 WHO NEVER APPLIED FOR A VISA PRIOR TO AUGUST 6 BECAUSE THEY HAD AGED OUT WILL RECEIVE NO BENEFIT FROM SECTION 3 AND CANNOT APPLY AFTERWARD IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A BENEFIT.

    go read it on no. 17..its very confusing..

    how will a derivative beneficiary apply for a visa prior to august 6, 2002 if in the first place, he cannot anymore apply for visa because he was already excluded by the NVC in the list because even before his priority date become current, he aged out? get my point?

    so in my interpretation, i cannot anymore avail of the CSPA because even though there has been no final adjudication on my parents application, the fact is i never did apply for the visa because in the first place, i havent submitted the 130 form for filling up because they exclude me from the list already.

    what do u think boni and others?

    so does it mean this CSPA is available only to those who have pending petitions and currently being processed petitions in which the derivative beneficiary initially is below 21 but already did apply for the visa ( paid the 260$ et al ) before august 6 but during the process aged out?

    so in theory, this law is not in essence retroactive.? but a mere consolation to those person who will be turning 21 in a months time and not to those who aged out- above 21?

    its confusing...i have to wait for my lawyers answer but what do u think people?

    to reiterate/repeat the last condition ( one of the 3) states that cspa is applicable to those
    #1,#2
    #3..and certain cases where the petition was approved prior to august 6, 2002 but only if a final determination has not been made on the beneficiary's ( including derivatives) application for a visa or adjustment of status prior to that date.

    AND SO, HOW WILL I BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE VISA SINCE I WASN'T ABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY OUT OF THE LIST, RIGHT?

    thats why in the interpretation it says SECTION
    3 is complicated and subject to ongoing discussions and interagency discussions..

    its veru confusing and conflicting, lawfully speaking..

    it's like giving a law not actually for those who AGED-OUT but for those who will soon be AGING OUT,
    RIGHT?

    i dunno what to say but the interpretations are somehow confusing and clashing with other statements like this one...

    under section 3 ( interpretaion#12) it says, its available for derivatives but only available to those aliens who seek to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of visa availability..

    but interpretation 17 says CSPA is available to those derivatives whose petition is approved but applied visa before august 6, 2002..meaning if you did not file visa application once it became current before august 6, then u can no longer avail of cspa? weird!!!

    example, in my case, this march 2002, my petition as a derivative became current, then i still have until march 2003 to seek visa application for permanent residence, right? but section 17 interprets and saying that if u did not file visa application before august 6, not entitled to CSPA..its so weird, confusing and so many loopholes..

    u got my point boni and others?

    and so i have to interpret this and say that CSPA is not really retroactive theoretically and is neither prospective as to the petitions filed before august 6 because of the #17 interpretation
    which includes the statement saying CSPA is not entitled to those petitions who never applied visa prior to August 6 because they have aged-out.. its funny right?!!

    the reason why u did not apply visa prior to august 6 is because u have already aged-out, AND WHY WILL THEY NOT BE ENTITLED TO CSPA when in fact, it should be because they have aged-out..

    then for what sense that CSPA has been signed into lAW, right? its very selective and not beneficial for all..

    conditions solely are so strict and yet they have made it even stricter as to its implementation, regulation and interpretation.

    what do u think CSPA fans?

    this is just my opinion..any comments? what do u think of my case? am i entitled?

    i havent applied for the visa since i aged out, i was excluded from the NVC list but the petition is currently being processed, no final adjudication yet but i havent filed my application sincei aged-out..

    its really confusing..

    hope for the best,
    antman23

  3. #3
    Guest
    Dear Antman23,
    I am also in same situation like you. We have got DSL forms but we have not send it. My name was not in the list because i was age-out.
    I think section 8 state that final determination must not be made on beneficiary visa(parent's visa) not derivative beneficiary visa.
    As per mentioned in DOS Cable, section 3 is under discussion. I have informed to Mumbai(India) visa office about my case. They will give answer within 15 days.

    Hope for the best.

    Regards,
    Arpit

  4. #4
    Guest
    Hi,
    I am just wondering if any of you CSPA fans is in the U.S. right now, and under what status? I'm just wondering if anyone is in the same situation as me.. I am in the U.S. with F1 student visa right now.

Similar Threads

  1. Mohan pls comment.
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2003, 12:17 AM
  2. Mandeep ...Pls Reply--CSPA
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-30-2003, 11:12 PM
  3. CSPA---Mandeep pls help US
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-30-2003, 11:05 PM
  4. CSPA COMMENT TO BONI
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2002, 10:46 PM
  5. CSPA COMMENT TO HEY
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-25-2002, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
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: