Hanging On

My concern is that they are trying to cover all of the bases with a grand slam, when all we need is a bunt single! I have read that even Pelosi isn't behind the current house bill. In the senate version, S.1085 very specifically covers our needs: S.1085 Reuniting Families Act (Introduced in Senate) SEC. 8. FIANCEE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION. (a) Definition- Section 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)(iii)) is amended by inserting `, provided that a determination of the age of such minor child is made using the age of the alien on the date on which the petition is filed with the Secretary of Homeland Security to classify the alien's parent as the fiancee or fiance of a United States citizen (in the case of an alien parent described in clause (i)) or as the spouse of a United States citizen under section 201(B )(2)(A)(i) (in the case of an alien parent described in clause (ii));' before the semicolon at the end. (B ) Adjustment of Status Authorized- Section 214(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(1)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and (2) in paragraph (1), by striking `In the event' and inserting the following: `(2)(A) If an alien does not marry the petitioner under paragraph (1) within 3 months after the alien and the alien's minor children are admitted into the United States, such alien and children shall be required to depart from the United States. If such aliens fail to depart from the United States, they shall be removed in accordance with sections 240 and 241. `(B ) Subject to subparagraphs (C ) and (D), if an alien marries the petitioner described in section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) within 3 months after the alien is admitted into the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, subject to the provisions of section 245(d), may adjust the status of the alien, and any minor children accompanying or following to join the alien, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216 if the alien and any such minor children apply for such adjustment and are not determined to be inadmissible to the United States. `(C ) Paragraphs (5) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) shall not apply to an alien who is eligible to apply for adjustment of his or her status to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under this section. {edit} To remove and © and relace with (B ) and (C )

The Asian American Justice Center has provided this easy way to show your support for immigration reform. Just go to this web site and fill in the blanks. It takes just seconds. http://www.advancingequality.org/FamilyPetition/ Please forward this site to your friends, and write your congressmen! David & Carrie

Chris - The age "16" is not a typo. The "Dream Act" benefits illegals only! Question, what is happening with (S)? I see he was reprimanded previously. I understand he didn't file it, but did he ever fill in the I-290B? If I understand Randy correctly, the MTR is probably a waste of time and money, except to buy some time. We have an appointment next week with an immigration attorney. No response from any of the congressman I wrote. They are probably all busy with the big funeral. We can always hope they will pass the "Family" act quickly as a tribute. David

Thanks to everyone for their support. I will do my best to share what I learn and am able to do. I have posted info on several sites, and was excited to be contacted by Verovkin's father earlier this evening. We all owe him for pushing the envelope for his son. I have also written Grushin's lawyer, asking if the government ever appealed the case. This is a wonderful site for us with Chinese loved ones. I have not found any others with this quality of help. We need a site for everyone! Any suggestions. David

Hello usual suspects, and hopefully some new blood. My stepson was denied his AOS on Aug 14, 2009, because he turned 21 on April 11. The I-485 etc was filed in December, 2008. We have been researching and talking to lawyers, but haven't yet hired one. The next step, if we follow protocol, is to file a MTR (Motion to Reconsider) on an I-290B (opt E). To do this, we need supporting: "Statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions". If anyone has any example MTR it would be extremely helpful. We have Verovkin and Grushin, but neither court has much clout nationally. The cover letter of Grushin states: "THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS". Does anyone know if this was done? If not, I think the governments¡¯ failure to appeal would be significant evidence. I am still trying to figure out the hierarchy of the immigration courts. I believe this is the order, or chain of command: Milwaukee USCIS office would handle the Motion to Reconsider? Next to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Washington? Next to a Judge in Immigration Court (somewhere)? Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) I also don¡¯t understand at what point this could move from the immigration courts into the Federal Courts. US District Court in Milwaukee 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago (are there other courts?) US Supreme Court Any help figuring this out will be appreciated. I have contacted American Families United, but not yet had a response. Are there other advocacy groups? Thanks, David

Dear ........... My name is ........... I have lived in .............. for X years, and have supported your campaign. I have a family immigration issue I would like to describe to you. After a more than two year courtship, most of which time I was in China with my fianc¨¦, we successfully obtained the K1 and K2 visa's for her and her only son to come to the USA. They arrived here in October of 2008, and we were married on Thanksgiving Day in the presence of my family. They were happy to be here, and become part of an American family and join in the American life. My stepson, Tianyu, enrolled very quickly in the UWM ESL program, and was awarded an "Outstanding Student" award. He has done volunteer work in the community, and been working as a cleaner at the Bradley Center and Miller park. He is well liked, and a good worker. He has scored very well on both the TOEFL and the ACT, and has been tentatively accepted to MSOE once he gets his green card. We filed for the Adjustment of Status in December of 2008, requesting expedition due to age out potential. In spite of this, our interview was not until June 4th. We followed up with Info Pass appointments with the USCIS, and were told in the Milwaukee office, as well as from the 800 number help line, that we would be OK, since the I-485 was filed before Tianyu's 21st birthday. Even at the interview we were told that his age was: ¡°Not a problem¡±. My wife received her approval and green card within days, but we heard nothing regarding Tim. After waiting the 60 days they insist on, we again scheduled an Info Pass appointment to find out what was going on. 10 days later, we received the denial letter, based on the fact that Tianyu was already 21 at the time of the decision, and no longer a "child". This has been a huge blow to my family, an absolutely crushing disappointment to my stepson. He was very excited about attending MSOE this fall, and optimistic about his future. Tianyu is my wife¡¯s only child. She has raised him herself for the past 16 years, and taught him how to be honest, and work hard. We have letters from his teachers at UWM, supervisor at Miller Park, and the River Revitalization Foundation. These are people that believe in him, and support his goal of living and working here, while continuing his education. Tianyu would be an ideal immigrant, smart, hard working, and obeys the law. Prior to 1986, children of fianc¨¦ immigrants were granted status automatically following the marriage of their parent to a US citizen. The Immigration and Marriage Fraud Amendments inadvertently created this potential age out condition. It has been interpreted differently across the country and over time. We were hopeful, based on our conversations at the Milwaukee office that our application would go smoothly. Unfortunately, it did not, and we could use your help. In the decision for ¡°Verokvin v Still¡±, US District Judge Claudia Wilkin wrote on Dec 21, 2007: ¡°Nothing in the legislative history of the IMFA suggests that Congress intended to eliminate the availability of permanent residence for K-2 visa holders between ages of eighteen and twenty-one. Indeed, such an interpretation would render the K-2 visa meaningless for these children.¡± She further adds: ¡°Because USCIS applied the wrong statute in denying Plaintiff¡¯s application, its decision was arbitrary and capricious, and is subject to remand in any event.¡± In the Grushin case, Immigration Judge Michael H. Bennett wrote on Nov 5, 2008: ¡°Respondent should not be denied the ability to adjust his status in accord with the benefit Congress conferred upon him through the K visa category simply because he happened to turn twenty-one years of age while his mother¡¯s application to adjust her status was pending with USCIS. To find otherwise would render the K-2 visa issued to Respondent meaningless¡±. In spite of these rulings, the USCIS seems intent on expanding on the less friendly interpretation of the K2 Visa Age Out Issue. There is currently ¡°Reuniting Families Act¡± legislation in process in both the House and Senate. I am sure you are familiar with this issue, and am most likely already a supporter. I ask that you give this issue your full attention. In addition, my wife and stepson are both highly intelligent and interesting people, wanting to learn more about our government and its workings. It would be truly wonderful if we could meet with you, or a member of your staff to discuss our situation. Thank you for your time and attention, ............................

Chris - We are in a similar K2 age out, I485 denied status, and trying to decide if filing the MTR is worthwhile. How is it going for you? David & Carrie

We just received the letter from USCIS stating that my step-son had been denied his AOS due to age out. They came to the USA on K1/K2 visas in October, and we were married in November. We filed the I-485 in December, 2008, and had the interview on June 5th 2009. His mother was approved the next week, but we received no response on her son until now. They are saying he has 30 days to leave the country and there is no appeal. We had been told previously, both here in Milwaukee, and at the National 800# that there was no age out risk, since the I-485 was filed prior to his 21st birthday. The letter states although there is no appeal, I can pay $585 to file a motion to re-open the case. Does anyone have any experience with similar situations? Thank you for any help! David & Carrie

Randy - Thanks for the help. I have found the forms for filing a motion, but I don't know what our odds are. It costs $585 just to file. Question, if we don't file, does he need to leave within the 30 days stated in the letter? What happens? Can he continue to work? If anyone has any recent experience fighting this madness, please share. David and Carrie

We just received the letter today from USCIS stating that my step-son had been denied his AOS due to age out. We filed the I-485 in December, 2008, and had the interview on June 5th 2009. His mother was approved the next week, but we received no response on her son until today. They are saying he has 30 days to leave the country and there is no appeal. We had been told previously, both here in Milwaukee, and at the National 800# that there was no age out risk, since the I-485 was filed prior to his 21st birthday. I know others have been through this. I had previously bookmarked the article on ageout: http://www.asianjournal.com/pdf/PDF/2008_N...Y_sec2p%206.pdf I have sent this article together with the USCIS correspondence and the I-485 to a general purpose lawyer at Pre-Paid Legal. Any further suggestions, or experiences to share?

help

Thanks for the help. I believe we did everything the way you described, except the detail you recommended in the cover letter. We have a meeting scheduled Monday morning with the local Milwaukee USCIS. Hopefully, they will listen, and help us get this moving. It would be really nice if they would accept the package, and not make us send it back to Chicago.

No I-130 was filed. We paid a lawyer to handle this step, and the visa's were eventually obtained. I could not have filed an I-130 at the time, as he was not my relative. His name was on the 129-F as her son, and he obtained his visa as a derivative. All the other paperwork covered him, he attended the interview etc.

Yes - tell us whether he is K2, K4, CR-2, or what. If he is K-4, he is not eligible to file for AOS, and needs to return from China either when his visa expires, or when his mother successfully adjusts status. If he had not yet reached his 18th birthday when you were married, you can file an I-485 and I-130 simultaneously. Or, His mother can file an I-130 for him when she adjusts status. Sorry I wasn't specific enough. My stepson is here in the USA, and came with my new wife on the K1/K2 visa's obtained from the original I-129F. Are you saying that we NOW need to file an I-130 for him?

Our Packet was returned today. They said that my wife's 20 year old son's "priority date" could not be established. They are asking for the original I-130. We did not file one of these because the son's name is on her I-129. We have the I-797 for her 129, but it only has her name on it. Any suggestions?