Age-out - but not official!!!
Aug 9th 2005, 3:00 am
#31
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: West By God VA
Posts: 104
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
BTW, the actual holdings in Dixon & Dawson are under prior versions of law [for example, the "viability" doctrine has been dead and gone for some time] -- however, the principle I cite the cases for is that the conditions of the NON-immigrant entry are what controls and that the ADJUSTMENT is not the same as required in the I-130 context.
The fact that a K-2 can adjust while 20 years of age when parent married is an example of this dichotomy. The absense of age-out on adjustment is the same.
BTW, I'm surprised that I keep to having write on this -- it appears quite obvious to me.
BTW, the actual holdings in Dixon & Dawson are under prior versions of law [for example, the "viability" doctrine has been dead and gone for some time] -- however, the principle I cite the cases for is that the conditions of the NON-immigrant entry are what controls and that the ADJUSTMENT is not the same as required in the I-130 context.
The fact that a K-2 can adjust while 20 years of age when parent married is an example of this dichotomy. The absense of age-out on adjustment is the same.
BTW, I'm surprised that I keep to having write on this -- it appears quite obvious to me.
Well we did find it very odd that the DOS would issue K2's up till the child's 21st birthday, seeing there is no way on earth that the USCIS could process the AOS, but then again we chalked it up to the INA|USCIS|DOS not being in sync.
Thanks Again
Aug 9th 2005, 3:31 am
#32
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: West By God VA
Posts: 104
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by lovenlife
Well we did find it very odd that the DOS would issue K2's up till the child's 21st birthday, seeing there is no way on earth that the USCIS could process the AOS, but then again we chalked it up to the INA|USCIS|DOS not being in sync.
Thanks Again
Thanks Again
Something my wife pointed out in the I-485 application last night:
Persons Who Are Not Eligible to Adjust Status.
Unless you are applying for creation of record based on
continuous residence since before January 1, 1972, or
adjustment of status under a category in which special rules
apply (such as 245(i) adjustment, asylum adjustment, Cuban
adjustment, special immigrant juvenile adjustment, or special
immigrant military personnel adjustment), you are not eligible
for adjustment of status if any of the following apply to you:
You entered the United States in transit without a visa;
You entered the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman;
You were not admitted or paroled following inspection by
an immigration officer;
Your authorized stay expired before you filed this
application;
You were employed in the United States, without USCIS
authorization, prior to filing this application;
You failed to maintain your nonimmigrant status, through
no fault of your own or for technical reasons; unless you <<<<< Unless
are applying because you are:
-- An immediate relative of a United States citizen (parent,
spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21
years old);
-- A K-1 fiancé(e) or a K-2 fiancé(e) dependent who married
the United States petitioner within 90 days of admission;
or
An H or I nonimmigrant or special immigrant (foreign
medical graduates, international organization
employees or their derivative family members);
You were admitted as a K-1 fiancé(e), but did not marry
the U.S. citizen who filed the petition for you, or you were
admitted as the K-2 child of a fiancé(e) and your parent
did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition;
You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under
the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying <<<<< Unless
because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen
(parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under
21 years old);
You see with the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen the unmarried son or daughter has to be under 21, where as the K2 dependent has no such stated restriction. Ok Ok this is only a form but hey that's what it says, it can't be that simple can it?
Aug 9th 2005, 5:00 am
#33
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by lovenlife
Something my wife pointed out in the I-485 application last night:
Persons Who Are Not Eligible to Adjust Status.
Unless you are applying for creation of record based on
continuous residence since before January 1, 1972, or
adjustment of status under a category in which special rules
apply (such as 245(i) adjustment, asylum adjustment, Cuban
adjustment, special immigrant juvenile adjustment, or special
immigrant military personnel adjustment), you are not eligible
for adjustment of status if any of the following apply to you:
You entered the United States in transit without a visa;
You entered the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman;
You were not admitted or paroled following inspection by
an immigration officer;
Your authorized stay expired before you filed this
application;
You were employed in the United States, without USCIS
authorization, prior to filing this application;
You failed to maintain your nonimmigrant status, through
no fault of your own or for technical reasons; unless you <<<<< Unless
are applying because you are:
-- An immediate relative of a United States citizen (parent,
spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21
years old);
-- A K-1 fiancé(e) or a K-2 fiancé(e) dependent who married
the United States petitioner within 90 days of admission;
or
An H or I nonimmigrant or special immigrant (foreign
medical graduates, international organization
employees or their derivative family members);
You were admitted as a K-1 fiancé(e), but did not marry
the U.S. citizen who filed the petition for you, or you were
admitted as the K-2 child of a fiancé(e) and your parent
did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition;
You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under
the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying <<<<< Unless
because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen
(parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under
21 years old);
You see with the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen the unmarried son or daughter has to be under 21, where as the K2 dependent has no such stated restriction. Ok Ok this is only a form but hey that's what it says, it can't be that simple can it?
Persons Who Are Not Eligible to Adjust Status.
Unless you are applying for creation of record based on
continuous residence since before January 1, 1972, or
adjustment of status under a category in which special rules
apply (such as 245(i) adjustment, asylum adjustment, Cuban
adjustment, special immigrant juvenile adjustment, or special
immigrant military personnel adjustment), you are not eligible
for adjustment of status if any of the following apply to you:
You entered the United States in transit without a visa;
You entered the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman;
You were not admitted or paroled following inspection by
an immigration officer;
Your authorized stay expired before you filed this
application;
You were employed in the United States, without USCIS
authorization, prior to filing this application;
You failed to maintain your nonimmigrant status, through
no fault of your own or for technical reasons; unless you <<<<< Unless
are applying because you are:
-- An immediate relative of a United States citizen (parent,
spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21
years old);
-- A K-1 fiancé(e) or a K-2 fiancé(e) dependent who married
the United States petitioner within 90 days of admission;
or
An H or I nonimmigrant or special immigrant (foreign
medical graduates, international organization
employees or their derivative family members);
You were admitted as a K-1 fiancé(e), but did not marry
the U.S. citizen who filed the petition for you, or you were
admitted as the K-2 child of a fiancé(e) and your parent
did not marry the U.S. citizen who filed the petition;
You were admitted to the United States as a visitor under
the Visa Waiver Program, unless you are applying <<<<< Unless
because you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen
(parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under
21 years old);
You see with the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen the unmarried son or daughter has to be under 21, where as the K2 dependent has no such stated restriction. Ok Ok this is only a form but hey that's what it says, it can't be that simple can it?
Hi:
Actually, the law is kind of weird when it comes to "immediate relatives" -- unlike all other immigrant categories [and many of the non-immigrant categories], there is NO derivative status. The spouse and children of an IR [or CR] need a separate visa petition. This can have weird effects -- for example, my father remarried after my mother's death long after I became an adult -- I could petition for him, but he could not bring his wife. Or lets say the US Citizen has baby brother 15 years young than she is -- he could not immigrate with his parents.
When I started in Immigration Law in the 1970's -- the leading treatise on immigration law described this as an "oversight." But it has never been changed and I think it is no longer an "oversight."
Go figure.
Aug 9th 2005, 10:59 am
#34
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: West By God VA
Posts: 104
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Ok I know this is a major mistake (a layman putting out INA statues) but I'm trying to get my hands/head/heart around this, so bear with me here.
The Child Definition as it applies:
Sec 101(b)(1)(A) Definitions
The term "child" means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is a child born in wedlock
The K2 definition:
Sec 214.2(k)(3) Admission of nonimmigrants
Children of beneficiary. Without the approval of a separate petition on his or her behalf, a child of the beneficiary (as defined in section 101(b)(1) (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of the Act) may be accorded the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary if accompanying or following to join him or her.
Adjustment of status of NonImmigrants:
Sec 214.2(k)(6)(ii) Admission of nonimmigrants
Nonimmigrant visa issued on or after November 10, 1986. Upon contracting a valid marriage to the petitioner within 90 days of his or her admission as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a valid K-1 visa issued on or after November 10, 1986, the K-1 beneficiary and his or her minor children may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the Act. Upon approval of the application the director shall record their lawful admission for permanent residence in accordance with that section and subject to the conditions prescribed in section 216 of the Act. (Amended 8/14/01; 66 FR 42587)
Sec 245(d) Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence
The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216. The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K) 2aa/ except to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216 as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to the citizen who filed the petition to accord that alien's nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(K).
Sec 216(a)(1) Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters
Conditional basis for status.-Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien spouse (as defined in subsection (g)(1)) and an alien son or daughter (as defined in subsection (g)(2)) shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Note to self, I see no statements as to the age of a child to adjudicate before the age of 21 to adjust in 216
Adjustment of Immigrants
Sec 204 Procedure for granting immigrant status
This is the section that deals with Immediate relatives and the children having to adjust by the age of 21, but found no mention of nonimmigrants
I see no conditions in this case as to where the INA states that a conditional LPR child needs to meet the adjutication requirement by the age of 21. Am I even close? LOL
The Child Definition as it applies:
Sec 101(b)(1)(A) Definitions
The term "child" means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is a child born in wedlock
The K2 definition:
Sec 214.2(k)(3) Admission of nonimmigrants
Children of beneficiary. Without the approval of a separate petition on his or her behalf, a child of the beneficiary (as defined in section 101(b)(1) (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of the Act) may be accorded the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary if accompanying or following to join him or her.
Adjustment of status of NonImmigrants:
Sec 214.2(k)(6)(ii) Admission of nonimmigrants
Nonimmigrant visa issued on or after November 10, 1986. Upon contracting a valid marriage to the petitioner within 90 days of his or her admission as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a valid K-1 visa issued on or after November 10, 1986, the K-1 beneficiary and his or her minor children may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the Act. Upon approval of the application the director shall record their lawful admission for permanent residence in accordance with that section and subject to the conditions prescribed in section 216 of the Act. (Amended 8/14/01; 66 FR 42587)
Sec 245(d) Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence
The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216. The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K) 2aa/ except to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216 as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to the citizen who filed the petition to accord that alien's nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(K).
Sec 216(a)(1) Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters
Conditional basis for status.-Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien spouse (as defined in subsection (g)(1)) and an alien son or daughter (as defined in subsection (g)(2)) shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Note to self, I see no statements as to the age of a child to adjudicate before the age of 21 to adjust in 216
Adjustment of Immigrants
Sec 204 Procedure for granting immigrant status
This is the section that deals with Immediate relatives and the children having to adjust by the age of 21, but found no mention of nonimmigrants
I see no conditions in this case as to where the INA states that a conditional LPR child needs to meet the adjutication requirement by the age of 21. Am I even close? LOL
Aug 9th 2005, 11:47 am
#35
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by lovenlife
Ok I know this is a major mistake (a layman putting out INA statues) but I'm trying to get my hands/head/heart around this, so bear with me here.
The Child Definition as it applies:
Sec 101(b)(1)(A) Definitions
The term "child" means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is a child born in wedlock
The K2 definition:
Sec 214.2(k)(3) Admission of nonimmigrants
Children of beneficiary. Without the approval of a separate petition on his or her behalf, a child of the beneficiary (as defined in section 101(b)(1) (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of the Act) may be accorded the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary if accompanying or following to join him or her.
Adjustment of status of NonImmigrants:
Sec 214.2(k)(6)(ii) Admission of nonimmigrants
Nonimmigrant visa issued on or after November 10, 1986. Upon contracting a valid marriage to the petitioner within 90 days of his or her admission as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a valid K-1 visa issued on or after November 10, 1986, the K-1 beneficiary and his or her minor children may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the Act. Upon approval of the application the director shall record their lawful admission for permanent residence in accordance with that section and subject to the conditions prescribed in section 216 of the Act. (Amended 8/14/01; 66 FR 42587)
Sec 245(d) Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence
The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216. The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K) 2aa/ except to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216 as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to the citizen who filed the petition to accord that alien's nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(K).
Sec 216(a)(1) Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters
Conditional basis for status.-Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien spouse (as defined in subsection (g)(1)) and an alien son or daughter (as defined in subsection (g)(2)) shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Note to self, I see no statements as to the age of a child to adjudicate before the age of 21 to adjust in 216
Adjustment of Immigrants
Sec 204 Procedure for granting immigrant status
This is the section that deals with Immediate relatives and the children having to adjust by the age of 21, but found no mention of nonimmigrants
I see no conditions in this case as to where the INA states that a conditional LPR child needs to meet the adjutication requirement by the age of 21. Am I even close? LOL
The Child Definition as it applies:
Sec 101(b)(1)(A) Definitions
The term "child" means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is a child born in wedlock
The K2 definition:
Sec 214.2(k)(3) Admission of nonimmigrants
Children of beneficiary. Without the approval of a separate petition on his or her behalf, a child of the beneficiary (as defined in section 101(b)(1) (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of the Act) may be accorded the same nonimmigrant classification as the beneficiary if accompanying or following to join him or her.
Adjustment of status of NonImmigrants:
Sec 214.2(k)(6)(ii) Admission of nonimmigrants
Nonimmigrant visa issued on or after November 10, 1986. Upon contracting a valid marriage to the petitioner within 90 days of his or her admission as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a valid K-1 visa issued on or after November 10, 1986, the K-1 beneficiary and his or her minor children may apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the Act. Upon approval of the application the director shall record their lawful admission for permanent residence in accordance with that section and subject to the conditions prescribed in section 216 of the Act. (Amended 8/14/01; 66 FR 42587)
Sec 245(d) Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence
The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis under section 216. The Attorney General may not adjust, under subsection (a), the status of a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(K) 2aa/ except to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States on a conditional basis under section 216 as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant (or, in the case of a minor child, the parent) to the citizen who filed the petition to accord that alien's nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(K).
Sec 216(a)(1) Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters
Conditional basis for status.-Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien spouse (as defined in subsection (g)(1)) and an alien son or daughter (as defined in subsection (g)(2)) shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Note to self, I see no statements as to the age of a child to adjudicate before the age of 21 to adjust in 216
Adjustment of Immigrants
Sec 204 Procedure for granting immigrant status
This is the section that deals with Immediate relatives and the children having to adjust by the age of 21, but found no mention of nonimmigrants
I see no conditions in this case as to where the INA states that a conditional LPR child needs to meet the adjutication requirement by the age of 21. Am I even close? LOL
Surely the path to madness, believe me.
Anything with a "point" in it, [eg 214.2] is from the REGULATIONS. If there is no "point", [eg 214 or 214(a) ] then it is from the Immigration & Nationality Act. In a favor to immigration practitioner, government functionaries and the courts, the attorney who actually wrote the initial set of regulations back in the 50's, George Rosenberg, keyed the regulatory numbering system of the immigration regulations to the numbering system of Immigration & Nationality ACT [btw, there is the official parallel CODE citations in title 8 of the US Code, which matches title 8 of the Code of Federal REGULATIONS -- these numbers are NOT used in the immigration field other than in judicial cases and both citations will be noted. E.g. 8 USC 1255, Section 245 INA.
The basic immigrant system is set forth in sections 201 & 203 of the Act. Section 201 gives the numerical system [don't try to understand it, no one really does -- the Oracle at Olympia otherwise known as the Department of State Visa Office in DC speaks ex cathedra on this one and no one really understands it. However, Terry Fiertag in Chicago once represent PRO BONO one Refugio Silva in Chicago and the litigation turned into a Class Action and Terry won a big victory for poor Refugio -- a lot of work for no pay. As to the class members, they benefited too and Terry later ruefully noted that his "15 minutes of fame" made "lots of money for OTHER lawyers" while HE didn't even get the filing fee for the lawsuit back. But I digress, and the lovingly creased and repaired "Silva Letters" are now a part of immigration lore fading in the institutional memory of the immigration community].
Back on subject -- note that 203(d) is the provision that covers derivative immigrants and does NOT include "immediate relatives". But then, a K-2 non-immigrant derives only NON-immigrant status from parent and on the adjustment, just that parent married within the 90 day period.
A lot of what I am positing on this subject arises from the SILENCE in the statute. And the powers that be cannot impose "statutory" restrictions that do not exist in the Act.
Aug 9th 2005, 12:30 pm
#36
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: West By God VA
Posts: 104
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Surely the path to madness, believe me.
Anything with a "point" in it, [eg 214.2] is from the REGULATIONS. If there is no "point", [eg 214 or 214(a) ] then it is from the Immigration & Nationality Act. In a favor to immigration practitioner, government functionaries and the courts, the attorney who actually wrote the initial set of regulations back in the 50's, George Rosenberg, keyed the regulatory numbering system of the immigration regulations to the numbering system of Immigration & Nationality ACT [btw, there is the official parallel CODE citations in title 8 of the US Code, which matches title 8 of the Code of Federal REGULATIONS -- these numbers are NOT used in the immigration field other than in judicial cases and both citations will be noted. E.g. 8 USC 1255, Section 245 INA.
The basic immigrant system is set forth in sections 201 & 203 of the Act. Section 201 gives the numerical system [don't try to understand it, no one really does -- the Oracle at Olympia otherwise known as the Department of State Visa Office in DC speaks ex cathedra on this one and no one really understands it. However, Terry Fiertag in Chicago once represent PRO BONO one Refugio Silva in Chicago and the litigation turned into a Class Action and Terry won a big victory for poor Refugio -- a lot of work for no pay. As to the class members, they benefited too and Terry later ruefully noted that his "15 minutes of fame" made "lots of money for OTHER lawyers" while HE didn't even get the filing fee for the lawsuit back. But I digress, and the lovingly creased and repaired "Silva Letters" are now a part of immigration lore fading in the institutional memory of the immigration community].
Back on subject -- note that 203(d) is the provision that covers derivative immigrants and does NOT include "immediate relatives". But then, a K-2 non-immigrant derives only NON-immigrant status from parent and on the adjustment, just that parent married within the 90 day period.
A lot of what I am positing on this subject arises from the SILENCE in the statute. And the powers that be cannot impose "statutory" restrictions that do not exist in the Act.
Surely the path to madness, believe me.
Anything with a "point" in it, [eg 214.2] is from the REGULATIONS. If there is no "point", [eg 214 or 214(a) ] then it is from the Immigration & Nationality Act. In a favor to immigration practitioner, government functionaries and the courts, the attorney who actually wrote the initial set of regulations back in the 50's, George Rosenberg, keyed the regulatory numbering system of the immigration regulations to the numbering system of Immigration & Nationality ACT [btw, there is the official parallel CODE citations in title 8 of the US Code, which matches title 8 of the Code of Federal REGULATIONS -- these numbers are NOT used in the immigration field other than in judicial cases and both citations will be noted. E.g. 8 USC 1255, Section 245 INA.
The basic immigrant system is set forth in sections 201 & 203 of the Act. Section 201 gives the numerical system [don't try to understand it, no one really does -- the Oracle at Olympia otherwise known as the Department of State Visa Office in DC speaks ex cathedra on this one and no one really understands it. However, Terry Fiertag in Chicago once represent PRO BONO one Refugio Silva in Chicago and the litigation turned into a Class Action and Terry won a big victory for poor Refugio -- a lot of work for no pay. As to the class members, they benefited too and Terry later ruefully noted that his "15 minutes of fame" made "lots of money for OTHER lawyers" while HE didn't even get the filing fee for the lawsuit back. But I digress, and the lovingly creased and repaired "Silva Letters" are now a part of immigration lore fading in the institutional memory of the immigration community].
Back on subject -- note that 203(d) is the provision that covers derivative immigrants and does NOT include "immediate relatives". But then, a K-2 non-immigrant derives only NON-immigrant status from parent and on the adjustment, just that parent married within the 90 day period.
A lot of what I am positing on this subject arises from the SILENCE in the statute. And the powers that be cannot impose "statutory" restrictions that do not exist in the Act.
Sec 203(d) Allocation of immigrant visas
Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
The K2 would fall under:
Sec 203(a)(2)(A)
who are the spouses or children of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Thanks again, no wonder the old Greeks are no more and Olympia is in ruins, the Oracle is crazier then a mad hatter ;-)
Aug 10th 2005, 2:17 am
#37
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by lovenlife
Sec 203(d) Allocation of immigrant visas
Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
The K2 would fall under:
Sec 203(a)(2)(A)
who are the spouses or children of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Thanks again, no wonder the old Greeks are no more and Olympia is in ruins, the Oracle is crazier then a mad hatter ;-)
Treatment of Family Members. - A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
The K2 would fall under:
Sec 203(a)(2)(A)
who are the spouses or children of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Thanks again, no wonder the old Greeks are no more and Olympia is in ruins, the Oracle is crazier then a mad hatter ;-)
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
Aug 10th 2005, 2:23 am
#38
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: West By God VA
Posts: 104
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
Sorry did we stir up a hornets nest?
Aug 11th 2005, 7:22 am
#39
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 173
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
What a great thread this has now turned out to be!!
A good open debate by attorney and immigrants both learning from each other !!!!!!!!!!!
I guess we will all watch this space with interest. I will even though this case does not affect my sons CSPA case directly
Aug 11th 2005, 7:46 am
#40
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 88
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
I told you it was the path to madness, didn't I?
Immediate relatives are not mentioned in 201 and K-2's are not mentioned at all in either 201 or 203. That is the key to understanding to understanding about no K-2 age out.
BTW, I'll be reporting about a dinner I attended last night with the USCIS Ombudsman. I really wish you hadn't been so proactive in raising the "age-out" issue with the powers that be.
I would just like to thank you for the advice you have given myself and my husband. He is more "au fait" with all this than I am, simply because he looks at things more logically than me. As a woman I am dogged by the old emotions getting in the way and I just want to scream or cry!
I do see what you are saying and it is the best news we have had in years. Why nobody has ever pointed this out to us before, or why we didn't think of it, I don't know. Our attorney has been busy for the past few days and we haven't been able to speak to him about it. He did e-mail and say he hoped you were right and would look into it.
I would love to just find a document - any document - that confirms that K-2's do not age-out. If there was a document somewhere, a Court Decision maybe, anything that could show us in writing that this is actually the case. I know it is the "silence" of the statute that you refer to, but it would be nice to see something that confirms.
The waiting to speak with our attorney is killing me and my husband - I am curious to hear what he has to say about it. We did, indeed, go to him with Michael as a "possible" age-out, according to the USCIS caseworker. It would have been nice if he had checked that he was "actually" an age-out. But even if he had tried to find out, we have not had a response from the USCIS in years, so it is unlikely he would have had a reply.
We really can't thank you enough.
Aug 11th 2005, 8:04 am
#41
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Girona40
I would just like to thank you for the advice you have given myself and my husband. He is more "au fait" with all this than I am, simply because he looks at things more logically than me. As a woman I am dogged by the old emotions getting in the way and I just want to scream or cry!
I do see what you are saying and it is the best news we have had in years. Why nobody has ever pointed this out to us before, or why we didn't think of it, I don't know. Our attorney has been busy for the past few days and we haven't been able to speak to him about it. He did e-mail and say he hoped you were right and would look into it.
I would love to just find a document - any document - that confirms that K-2's do not age-out. If there was a document somewhere, a Court Decision maybe, anything that could show us in writing that this is actually the case. I know it is the "silence" of the statute that you refer to, but it would be nice to see something that confirms.
The waiting to speak with our attorney is killing me and my husband - I am curious to hear what he has to say about it. We did, indeed, go to him with Michael as a "possible" age-out, according to the USCIS caseworker. It would have been nice if he had checked that he was "actually" an age-out. But even if he had tried to find out, we have not had a response from the USCIS in years, so it is unlikely he would have had a reply.
We really can't thank you enough.
I do see what you are saying and it is the best news we have had in years. Why nobody has ever pointed this out to us before, or why we didn't think of it, I don't know. Our attorney has been busy for the past few days and we haven't been able to speak to him about it. He did e-mail and say he hoped you were right and would look into it.
I would love to just find a document - any document - that confirms that K-2's do not age-out. If there was a document somewhere, a Court Decision maybe, anything that could show us in writing that this is actually the case. I know it is the "silence" of the statute that you refer to, but it would be nice to see something that confirms.
The waiting to speak with our attorney is killing me and my husband - I am curious to hear what he has to say about it. We did, indeed, go to him with Michael as a "possible" age-out, according to the USCIS caseworker. It would have been nice if he had checked that he was "actually" an age-out. But even if he had tried to find out, we have not had a response from the USCIS in years, so it is unlikely he would have had a reply.
We really can't thank you enough.
It is done.
Aug 11th 2005, 8:11 am
#42
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 88
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by meauxna
karma-worthy
It is done.
It is done.
I wish it were done! Unfortunately, we have to live with the karma, which dictates our destiny, bestowed upon us by the USCIS.
One day we will have closure on this - I just hope it is sooner rather than later.
Aug 11th 2005, 9:21 am
#43
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Girona40
I know it is the "silence" of the statute that you refer to, but it would be nice to see something that confirms.
Ian
Aug 11th 2005, 9:21 am
#44
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by Girona40
I wish it were done! Unfortunately, we have to live with the karma, which dictates our destiny, bestowed upon us by the USCIS.
One day we will have closure on this - I just hope it is sooner rather than later.
One day we will have closure on this - I just hope it is sooner rather than later.
I'm hoping for sooner than later for you, as well
Aug 11th 2005, 9:43 am
#45
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 88
Re: Age-out - but not official!!!
Originally Posted by meauxna
Sorry.. I should've clarified. We have this karma thingie here at BE where we can reward posts we like. It gives you little blue boxes here & is just a silly thing.. but I karma'd you.
I'm hoping for sooner than later for you, as well
I'm hoping for sooner than later for you, as well
I'm sorry - I didn't realise. That's a very sweet idea, whoever thought of it.
I appreciate your kind words - it is getting so tiring now, for you all too listening to me whining on and on.
