sap283

Hello,

This may be wrong forum, but I have this dilemma and getting mixed answers so, I thought of posting here.

I got green card and US citizenship based on USC wife.

I am sponsoring my mom, on family based immigration. And I have a brother who is 20 years old. And I am getting mixed responses, even from attorneys whether he can come with my mother or no. Some say as he is under 21, he can immigrate with my mom, some say no he requires separate I-130 and that will fall under family 4th category and hence it will be 10-11 years wait.

I would appreciate, if someone can clarify this.

Thank you in advance for reading and/or commenting.

Thanks,

Ray

Mum can quickly
brother many years
see for yourself

http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bu...etin_4417.html

ian-mstm

I think his age is largely irrelevant. What's important is that he's your brother and therefore in 4th category - and that means there's a quota in place, and he will not get a visa until his priority date is current. You can petition for him now, but it will still be a *very* long time before he's eligible to apply for a visa.

Ian

YUN

i could not see that priority for mum. did i miss something?

meauxna

Parents of US citizens are "Immediate Relatives". There is no numerical visa limitation for their category.

That is the dilema. The parents can come immediately, sponsored by their USC child. Other children (siblings of the USC) can not come immediately.

sap283

I completely understand that. But one attorney I talked to told me that although he is my brother, he is minor child of my mom, and hence he can immigrate with mom, and that’s why I am confused.

Thanks,

Noorah101

That lawyer was mistaken.

ian-mstm

He's an idiot. I hope you didn't pay him money for his wrong advice!

Ian

Rete

That is only applicable if you were still a PR and filing for your mother. There is a quirk in the law and that avenue is not available to USC.

sap283

Thanks Rete,

Oh really, I was never aware that GC holder can petition for parents. It would be great if you can elaborate.

Thanks

Folinskyinla

Hi:

There is a quirk in the immigration laws which fools a lot of attorneys -- once. When I first started doing this stuff back in the 70's, the leading treatise called this an "inadvertent oversight" which would surely be corrected. Well, it hasn't.

Your parents will be coming as "immediate relatives." There is no deriviative status for immediate relatives. This has two effects -- first, you will have to file separate I-130's for each parent and for your brother [i.e. three separate I-130's]. Second, your brother will not be able to immigrate with your parents.

Now, if your parents immigrate before your brother turns 21 and they each file an I-130 on his behalf before he turns 21, he will be a beneficiary of "CSPA" but there will still be a long wait. Please note that the parents' I-130's will become invalid if brother marries BEFORE the parents' naturalize. However, under CSPA, the I-130 filed before remain FB-2A and your brother turns into an "immediate relative" of your parents! I just had a 26 year old immigrate as an immediate relative under that scenario.

"The trouble is all inside your head she said to me. The answer is easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free." Paul Simon.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Unfortunately, this is a common error which many attorneys learn is in error the hard way. I learned by an extensive "CLE" course.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The immigration laws are complicated and drive people nuts. I posted a collection of quotes of judicial frustration on this subject.

From past experience, I know that Rete will go "oops!" when she reads your post. When this happens to me, I post a "mea culpa" post -- "mea culpa" is latin for "oops!" In the jargon of the Department of State, this is called a "whoopsie." However, whoopsie is usally reserved for a big mistake.

Folinskyinla

Ian:

Sigh. Being wrong does not make one an "idiot." I'm working on an ineffective assistance of counsel case where the attorney made a big error in that it had grave consequences -- but it is not malpractice because there was no way for him to know the nature of his error because it involved the procedures in effect in 1993.

sap283

Thank you very much Folinskyinla for all clarifications.

Thanks,