by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer and his Partner, David Isaacson
The Insightful Immigration Blog

Our firm provided selected comments to the  proposed DHS rule entitled “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers.” These comments are based primarily on three recent blogs:

Including Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed DHS Rule Impacting High-Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants

Preserving H-1B Extension For Spouse And Freezing Age Of Child In Rule Impacting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

The Opportunity to Be Heard: Why New DHS Proposed Regulations Regarding I-140 Petitions Should Incorporate and Expand Upon the Rule of Mantena v. Johnson.

Our comments focused on areas that others may not have commented on, and may require the DHS and even the DOL to propose supplemental rules. However, if our comments are considered, they will greatly improve the proposed rule.

The centerpiece of the rule is to grant work authorization to beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions who are caught in the crushing employment-based backlogs. The requirement of demonstrating compelling circumstances has disappointed beneficiaries, along with further restrictions relating to the renewal of the work authorization. We do hope that the DHS removes these restrictions so that deserving beneficiaries are able to easily obtain work authorization.

It would also be highly desirable for beneficiaries of such approved I-140 petitions to exercise   job portability, and not be required to re-start the labor certification process through a new employer, even though the proposed rule allows for the retention of the old priority date under certain circumstances. Recognizing that INA 204(j) requires a pending I-485 adjustment application for 180 days, and thus the DHS may not be receptive to arguments that may justify portability, we proposed that DHS also consider promulgating a rule that would recognize the ability of applicants to file early adjustment applications based on a filing date that would be far ahead of the final action date in the State Department Visa Bulletin, even if theoretically one visa is only available in a preference category. The existence of a pending I-485 application would allow for true job mobility pursuant to INA 204(j).  If DHS does not accept our proposal for an early adjustment filing, we have proposed in our comment the following innovation, which we reproduce below:

“Modifying Labor Certification Rules to Provide Greater Flexibility to Beneficiaries of Approved Labor Certifications

Finally, we take this opportunity to suggest that USCIS propose to another Executive Branch department, specifically, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), some regulatory changes which would mesh well with those that USCIS has proposed and assist in accomplishing the goals of the President’s initiative.

First, we propose that the DOL should formalize a policy, previously suggested in some case law of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”), whereby an employer who wishes to offer an alien prospective employee a position which in substance has already been the subject of an approved labor certification, even for another employer, does not need to go through the entire labor certification process all over again.

In Matter of Law Offices of Jean-Pierre Karnos, 2003-INA-18, 2004 WL 1278081 (Bd. Alien Lab. Cert. App. 2004) [hereafter referred to as Matter of Karnos], BALCA held that if “there is a bona fide job opportunity which remains the same, despite the change in employers,” then “[t]he absence of a contractual agreement between [the employers] does not negate the fact that a bona fide job opportunity exists” and thus “the change in employers, when an adequate test of the labor market has been performed and when the position remains the same, does not offend the policies of labor certification.” Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3. This is, we would submit, consistent with the text and purpose of INA § 212(a)(5)(A), which focuses on the effect on U.S. workers of the alien filling a particular position, rather than the identity of the employer who wishes to hire the alien to fill that position.

In Matter of Karnos, the lawyer who had operated the law office that was the original employer, Jean-Pierre Karnos, had died before a final decision was made on the application for labor certification. Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *1. James G. Roche, Esq., continued to run a similar law firm under the name of the Law Offices of James Roche, but could not demonstrate that he had any formal contractual relationship with Mr. Karnos so as to assume ownership of Mr. Karnos’s firm. Id. at *1-2. The initial Certifying Officer within the Department of Labor denied labor certification based on the difference in employers, as BALCA explained:

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2.

In his request for review by BALCA, Mr. Roche clarified that while he could not establish a formal relationship with the late Mr. Karnos, “he was offering the same position of accountant, under the same terms and conditions, including the same wage, set forth in the original application.” Id. BALCA agreed that this was sufficient:

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3.

DOL should amend the governing regulations to make explicit, and expand upon, the holding of Matter of Karnos. Where a new employer wishes to sponsor an employee for a position that remains the same, and is in the same area of employment, a new application for labor certification should not be required.

We also propose that DOL should add to Schedule A, at 20 CFR 656.5, a new “Group III” comprising persons who will be employed in a same or similar occupation to one for which they already have an approved labor certification from a different employer. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for the Department of Labor to conclude on a categorical basis that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, and that the wages of United States workers similarly employed will not be adversely affected, because a similar determination has already been made in the process of granting the previously approved labor certification.  New employers should under such circumstances therefore be able to process their labor certification through USCIS pursuant to 20 CFR 656.15.  At the very least, even if DOL is not willing to have Schedule III cover such same or similar occupations on a nationwide basis, it should cover instances in which the alien has an approved labor certification for a same or similar occupation, and the area of intended employment for the position covered by the Schedule III filing is within normal commuting distance of the area of intended employment for the position covered by the previously approved labor certification.”

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer
The Insightful Immigration Blog

The purpose of this blog is to draw attention to two little know legal concepts, which must either be preserved or introduced through the proposed rule entitled Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers”. They are concepts worthy of promotion since they would greatly benefit delayed green card applicants, especially with respect to extending H-1B status beyond the six years and freezing the age of a child under the Child Status Protection Act under a new I-140 petition. While there are many other proposals in need of repair and improvement, I focus on these two since I have dwelt on them with passion in past blogs, here and here, and now is a time to advocate for their inclusion in the proposed rule.

This rule when finalized will provide relief to skilled immigrants who are presently on nonimmigrant visas and are caught in the crushing employment-based backlogs. The centerpiece of this rule would allow beneficiaries of approved employment based immigration visa petitions, known as I-140 petitions, to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD), although it has disappointed many by setting stringent criteria, which would deter most from taking advantage of it. This has been addressed in my prior blog – Allowing Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed Rule Impacting Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants. Those who are disappointed must continue to forcefully advocate so that EADs can be granted to deserving beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions less restrictively in the final rule.

Preserving the Ability Of H-1B To Seek H-1B Extension Based On Other Spouse’s Labor Certification

The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC 21) allows for an extension of H-1B visa status beyond the statutory time limitation of six years for those who cannot obtain a green card within this period. There are two pivotal provisions. AC 21 §106(a) allows for one year H-1B extensions beyond the sixth year if a labor certification application or I-140 petition was filed at least one year prior to the last day of the alien’s authorized admission in H-1B status. Under second provision, AC 21 §104(c), the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition can seek an H-1B extension for three additional years if it can be demonstrated that he or she is eligible for permanent residence but for the per country limitation.

The proposed rule seeks to provide this benefit only to the principal beneficiary and not to the spouse, assuming both are in H-1B status. While it is true that the other spouse who is not the direct beneficiary of a labor certification or I-140 petition can change status from H-1B to H-4 status, and seek an EAD as an H-4 spouse under the recently promulgated rule that allows for this, experience has shown that this can be a long process. Changing from H-1B to H-4 status can take several months, and there would also be additional delays in receiving the EAD. Even if the H-1B spouse proceeds overseas to apply for an H-4 visa, it would take at least 90 days before the H-4 spouse can obtain the EAD after being admitted into the US in that status. It is thus more convenient for the spouse who is also in H-1B status to continue to extend that H-1B status, and not disrupt his or her employment.

The rationale for not allowing a spouse who is also on an H-1B visa to use the other spouse’s labor certification or I-140 petition is not very convincing. The preamble discusses AC 21 §104(c), which limits H-1B nonimmigrant status beyond the six-years to the ‘beneficiary of a petition filed under section 204(a) of [the INA] for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) [of the INA].” According to DHS’s logic, INA §203(b) applies only to principal beneficiaries, but not to derivative beneficiaries who are separately addressed in INA §203(d). The preamble also emphasizes that §104(c) refers to “the beneficiary” in the singular. The DHS uses this same logic to deprive the other H-1B spouse from extending H-1B status one year at a time based on the other spouse’s labor certification or I-140 petition filed 365 days prior under AC 21 106(a).

Unlike AC 21 104(c), which the DHS focused on, there is a clearer basis in AC 21 106(a) to allow an H-1B spouse to seek a one year extension of H-1B status beyond six years when the other spouse is the beneficiary of an appropriately filed labor certification.

On November 2, 2002, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (“21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act”) took effect and liberalized the provisions of AC21 that enabled nonimmigrants present in the United States in H-1B status to obtain one-year extensions beyond the normal sixth-year limitation. See Pub. L. No. 107–273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). The new amendments enacted by the 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act liberalized AC21 § 106(a) and now permits an H-1B visa holder to extend her status beyond the sixth year if:

1. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of any application for labor certification that is required or used by the alien to obtain status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 203(b), 
   
2. 365 days or more have passed since the filing of an Employment-based immigrant petition under INA § 203(b). 
   

Previously, AC21 § 106(a) only permitted one-year extensions beyond the sixth-year limitation if the H-1B nonimmigrant was the beneficiary of a labor certification or an I-140 petition, and 365 days or more had passed since the filing of a labor certification application or the I-140 petition. See Pub. L. No. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251 (2000). The term “any application for labor certification” was absent in the original version of AC 21§106(a). Even under this more restrictive version of AC21 § 106(a), the Service applied a more liberal interpretation, permitting H-1B aliens to obtain one-year extensions beyond the normal sixth-year limitation where there was no nexus between the previously filed and pending labor certification application or I-140 petition and the H-1B nonimmigrant’s current employment. This is now fortunately preserved in the proposed rule, but there is no reason to also not allow a spouse to use “any” application for labor certification, which could be the labor certification filed on behalf of the other spouse.

With regards to the absence of INA §203(d) in AC21 §104(c) or §106(a), does this suggest that that only the principal spouse can immigrate under INA §203(b) and the derivative needs INA §203(d)? But INA 203(d) states that the spouse is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection (INA § 203(a), § 203(b), or § 203(c)), if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent. Thus, the derivative spouse still immigrates under INA 203(b).” INA § 203(d), which was introduced by the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT90”), is essentially superfluous and only confirms that a derivative immigrates with the principal. See Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990). Prior to IMMACT90, there was no predecessor to INA § 203(d), and yet spouses immigrated with the principal. Thus, it is clear that a spouse does not immigrate via INA § 203(d), and the purpose of this provision is merely to confirm that a spouse is given the same order of consideration as the principal under INA § 203(b).

In conclusion, there is a very good argument under AC 21 §106(a) that the H-1B spouse can use “any” labor certification, which includes the labor certification filed on behalf of the other spouse, to seek an additional one year H-1B extension. Furthermore, there is also an equally good argument, applicable under both AC 21 §106(a) and §104(c), that the exclusion of the mention of INA §203(d) is not fatal as a derivative spouse also ultimately immigrates under INA §203(b). The fact that “beneficiary” is mentioned in the singular and not in the plural should also not undermine support for the notion that any beneficiary, either as principal or spouse, can qualify for an AC 21 H-1B extension who is capable of immigrating under a labor certification or I-140 petition, or both. DHS must interpret existing ameliorative provisions in AC 21 that Congress has specifically passed to relieve the hardships caused by crushing quota backlogs in a way that reflects the intention behind the law.

On a separate note, there is also no need to penalize an H-1B worker from availing from an AC 21 H-1B extension if s/he fails to file an adjustment application or make an application for an immigrant visa within 1 year of availability. If the rule allows an H-1B extension based on a labor certification or I-140 petition filed by another employer, it may take some time for the new employer to obtain another labor certification and I-140 approval. The exception provided in the rule for failure to file within 1 year should include this circumstance, where the applicant is waiting for another labor certification and I-140 petition through a new employer.

Freezing The Age Of A Child Under The Child Status Protection Act Even Through A New Petition

One of the bright spots in the proposed rule at 8 CFR §204.5 is to clarify that even if an I-140 petition is revoked by the employer, the priority date of that I-140 petition can still be used if a new employer files another I-140 petition. Even if the earlier I-140 petition is not revoked, and the same employer wishes to upgrade from an EB-3 I-140 to an EB-2 I-140 petition, the priority date of the earlier EB-3 I-140 petition can still be retained. The ability to retain an old priority date always existed in the rule, but the proposed rule also clarifies that retention of the priority date is further permissible when an employer revokes a petition or goes out of business.

The key issue is whether the new I-140 petition would be able to continue to protect the age of the child under the CSPA even if it is filed after the child has turned 21. We assume that the prior I-140 petition froze the age of the child under the CSPA age protection formula because it was filed prior to the child turning 21, the date became current, and an I-485 adjustment application was filed within one year of visa availability. There are many beneficiaries under this scenario, including the class of 2007 adjustment applicants whose priority dates under the India EB-3 have not become current after they retrogressed in August 2007.Alternative, we assume that when the priority date of the earlier I-140 becomes current, it would still potentially be able to protect the age of the child. At issue is whether the new I-140 petition continues to protect the age of the child.

The CSPA, as codified in INA 203(h), applies to the “applicable” petition, and without further clarification it may be difficult to bootstrap the new I-140 onto the “applicable” prior I-140 petition, which is no longer being utilized but was filed before the child’s 21st birthday. There is room to interpret the term “applicable” petition to include the new I-140 petition, especially since the new I-140 petition recaptured the priority date of the old I-140 petition. This should be made explicit in the final rule where the new I-140 petition is considered the “applicable” petition for purposes of protecting the age of the child under the old petition. If an old I-140 petition revoked by an employer can be used for purposes of preserving the priority date in a new petition, port to another employer or seek an AC 21 H-1B extension, it should also be preserved for preserving the age of a child under the CSPA. Similarly, even if the I-140 petition is not revoked, a new I-140 petition, filed either by the same or new employer should be able to freeze the age of the child if the old I-140 petition was able to do so.

Conclusion

It is important that everyone impacted by this rule should strive to improve it by submitting comments. We will continue to blog on this rule with the goal of providing stakeholders with good ideas for comments. While there is no guarantee that the DHS will incorporate all good and worthy ideas, it is important to continue to float such ideas as they can never truly be eliminated, and have the potential to be included in other rules or even subsequently through legislation. The deadline for submitting comments to this proposed rule is February 29, 2016.

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL member and his Associate David Isaacson
The Insightful Immigration Blog

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio. (The case had previously been known as Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio before Lori Scialabba was appointed as Acting Director of USCIS, replacing former Director Alejandro Mayorkas.)  The Court ruled in Cuellar de Osorio that the BIA’s previous interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), as set out in Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009), was a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.  In particular, the Court deferred to the BIA’s narrow interpretation of INA §203(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1153(h)(3), severely limiting which derivative beneficiaries of visa petitions could retain their parents’ priority dates.  This is a disappointing decision, but the details of the opinions in Cuellar de Osorio do leave room for some hope.

As discussed in several several previous posts on this blog, INA §203(h)(3) provides for “automatic conversion” in the cases of certain beneficiaries of preference visa petitions whose age, even as adjusted under the CSPA to account for the time taken to process the visa petition, is determined to be above 21.  Some principal and derivative beneficiaries, according to the statute, will under these circumstances have their petitions automatically converted to the appropriate category, and retain the original priority date.  The question in Cuellar de Osorio and Matter of Wang was who gets to benefit from this automatic conversation.  The en banc Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Cuellar de Osorio, as well as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Khalid v. Holder, had argued for a broad interpretation which allowed all derivative beneficiaries to benefit, as at least some of the language of the statute seemed to suggest.  The BIA in Matter of Wang, as well as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Li v. Renaud and an earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Cuellar de Osorio, had chosen narrower approaches, which in effect allowed automatic conversion and priority date retention only for the principal and derivative beneficiaries of family 2A preference petitions, not the derivative beneficiaries of other categories of preference petitions.  The Supreme Court took the Cuellar de Osorio case to resolve this disagreement.

There was no single Supreme Court majority opinion in Cuellar de Osorio, but a total of five justices accepted the BIA’s narrow interpretation of the statute as set out in Matter of Wang, for two different sets of reasons.  The plurality opinion was written by Justice Kagan, and supported by Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg.  Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Scalia, authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, but for somewhat different reasons.  Justices Sotomayor and Alito authored dissenting opinions; Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Justice Breyer in its entirety and by Justice Thomas except with regard to one footnote.

To appreciate the different opinions in Cuellar de Osorio, it is helpful to review the text of §1153(h)(3), quoted in the opinion of the Chief Justice and in a footnote to the plurality opinion.  It states:

The different opinions in Cuellar de Osorio took different views of what Congress may have meant in prescribing that “the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”

Justice Kagan’s plurality opinion described §1153(h)(3) as “Janus-faced”.  Kagan slip op. at 14.  The first half of the provision, she said, looks toward a broader interpretation of the sort supported by the Ninth Circuit, but the second half describes a remedy, automatic conversion, which Justice Kagan and the plurality saw as most naturally applying only when the new petition to which automatic conversion would occur would have the same petitioner and same beneficiary.  Given this “internal tension”, Justice Kagan said, the BIA was entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)—often abbreviated as “Chevron deference”.  As Justice Kagan and the plurality saw it, there are “alternative reasonable constructions” of §1153(h)(3), “bringing into correspondence in one way or another the section’s different parts.  And when that is so, Chevron dictates that a court defer to the agency’s choice—here, to the Board’s expert judgment about which interpretation fits best with, and makes most sense of, the statutory scheme.”  Kagan slip op. at 14.  As the plurality opinion explained in its conclusion:

Kagan slip op. at 33.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Scalia, reached essentially the same conclusion as the three-Justice plurality led by Justice Kagan, but for different reasons.  Concurring in the judgment, the Chief Justice wrote that he did not see “conflict, or even internal tension . . . in section 1153(h)(3).”  Roberts slip op. at 2.  Rather, he “d[id] not think the first clause points to any relief at all.”  Id. at 3.  Instead, he described the second clause of §1153(h)(3) as “the only operative provision.”  Id. at 3-4. In that only operative provision, he took the view that beyond certain basic requirements, “Congress did not speak clearly to which petitions can “automatically be converted.”  Id. at 4.

The dissenting Justices, in contrast, were of the view that even if there was some ambiguity in the statute, it was not sufficient to justify the interpretation that the Board adopted in Matter of Wang.  While “Section 1153(h)(3) is brief and cryptic” and “may well contain a great deal of ambiguity, which the [BIA] is free to resolve,” Justice Alito wrote, it was at least clear that “the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”  Alito slip op. at 2 (emphasis added in original).  The BIA, he contended, was “not free to disregard this clear statutory command.”  Id.  Justice Sotomayor, as well, argued in her dissent that because a reading of the statute was possible that gave effect to both the automatic conversion language and the statute’s broad description of who was eligible for automatic conversion, that reading should have been followed.  Because there were potential interpretations that “would treat §1153(h)(3) as a coherent whole,” she said, “the BIA’s construction was impermissible.”  Sotomayor slip op. at 9.

On the surface, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuellar de Osorio is obviously disappointing for a great many immigrants who were hoping to recapture priority dates of petitions initially filed for their parents through automatic conversion.  Aged-out children who have waited patiently for many years for their parent’s priority date to become current are told that they must now go back to the beginning of the line on a new petition filed by their parent under the Family 2B preference—which for most of the world has a backlog of more than seven years as of the June 2014 Visa Bulletin, and is backlogged many years more for those chargeable to Mexico or the Philippines.  While it is an unfortunate decision from that perspective, however, Cuellar de Osorio does contain some seeds of hope for better outcomes in the future.

The first seed of hope, with respect to §1153(h)(3) itself, is the latitude which the Court has provided for the executive branch to reconsider its decision.  Justice Kagan’s plurality opinion is careful to state that “we hold only that §1153(h)(3) permits—not that it requires—the Board’s decision to so distinguish among aged out beneficiaries.”  Cuellar de Osorio slip op. of Kagan, J., at 21.  The concurring opinion of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia is not as explicit in this respect, but it describes its disagreement with the plurality as involving “a different view of what makes this provision ambiguous under Chevron” rather than going to the question whether the provision is ambiguous at all. Indeed, the Chief Justice criticized Justice Kagan’s “Janus-faced” metaphor of §1153(h)(3). “But when Congress assigns to an agency the responsibility for deciding whether a particular group should get relief, it does not do so by simultaneously saying that the group should and that it should not. Direct conflict is not ambiguity, and the resolution of such a conflict is not statutory construction but legislative choice.” Id. at 2.   Thus, a majority of the Court agrees that the meaning of §1153(h)(3) is an ambiguity subject to Chevron deference, rather than suggesting, as the Second Circuit had done in Li v. Renaud, that a narrow reading of §1153(h)(3) is compelled by the statute.

When a statute is ambiguous in this way, the Supreme Court has made clear in National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the agency may reconsider its interpretation even after the courts have approved of it. Thus, the Court’s description of §1153(h)(3) as an ambiguous statute subject to Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpretation implies that the BIA could, even after Cuellar de Osorio, reverse its position in Matter of Wang.  So too could the Attorney General, on whose behalf the BIA ultimately acts, go against Matter of Wang and adopt a broader interpretation of §1153(h)(3).  As the INA provides, within the executive branch, “determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.”  INA §103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. §1103(a)(1).  Ultimately, it is within the power of Attorney General Holder to save those beneficiaries who have waited in line for many years, and now find themselves pushed to the back of a new line that may be decades long.  Whether or not these results of the Wang interpretation affirmed in Cuellar de Osorio may be legally permissible, they are not desirable as a policy matter, and the Supreme Court has left the Attorney General the power to recognize this.  In light of the Obama Administration’s many noteworthy administrative reform measures in the face of Congressional inaction, the provisional waiver rule and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals being such examples, a broader interpretation of §1153(h)(3) would be consistent with these efforts.

Of course, Congress too could fix the problem, by redrafting the statute to make it clearer that all derivative beneficiaries whose adjusted age is over 21 can retain the principal beneficiary’s priority date.  This was done in section 2305(d)(5)(C) of  S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, which unfortunately has not been brought to a vote in the House of Representatives.  But if Congress continues not to act, the executive branch has the power to remediate the unfairness of requiring those who have waited in line with their parents for many years to go to the back of a new line and start over from the beginning.

Another policy argument in favor of such a reversal of Matter of Wang which would be worth the consideration of the BIA or the Attorney General, or for that matter Congress, is that the Matter of Wang interpretation of §1153(h)(3), now affirmed in Cuellar de Osorio, reintroduces some of the arbitrariness which the enactment of the CSPA had sought to avoid.  The age-adjustment process under INA §203(h)(1), 8 U.S.C. §1153(h)(1), in effect subtracts from the adjusted age of a visa applicant the time during which a visa petition was pending.  If the adjusted age of a derivative applicant is under 21, the CSPA as interpreted in Wang and Cuellar de Osorio will allow the applicant to utilize a principal beneficiary parent’s priority date; otherwise, the benefit of the priority date will be lost entirely.  But that means that children whose parents were petitioned for on the same date, and whose parents’ priority dates become current simultaneously, may be treated in dramatically different fashion depending on how long it happened to take USCIS to process the petition on behalf of their parents during the time that no visa number was available.  The broader interpretation of §1153(h)(3) rejected by the BIA in Matter of Wang would have reduced this arbitrariness, by enabling even a child whose parent’s petition happens to be processed relatively quickly, and whose CSPA-adjusted age is therefore over 21 when the priority date becomes current, to enjoy some benefit from that petition and its priority date.

The potential positive implications of Cuellar de Osorio beyond the CSPA context are also worth considering.  As previously discussed in posts on this blog and articles by co-author Cyrus D. Mehta and Gary Endelman regarding “The Tyranny of Priority Dates” and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Through Executive Fiat”, the executive branch’s authority under Brand X can potentially be used as a force for good in the immigration context.  This occurred for example in Matter of Douglas, 26 I&N Dec. 197 (BIA 2013), where, as discussed in one of the aforementioned blog posts, the BIA chose not to follow an unfavorable decision by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding procedures for acquisition of citizenship under former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  If, as the plurality in Cuellar de Osorio indicates, tension between the apparent meaning of different statutory provisions is sufficient to activate the Chevron and Brand X authority of the executive branch even if one could conceive of a potential interpretation which could harmonize the different provisions (at the cost of some awkwardness), this will expand the power that the executive branch may have to use Chevron and Brand X for pro-immigration ends.

Take, for example, the proposal in “The Tyranny of Priority Dates” that the executive branch re-interpret INA §203(d) so that derivative family members do not consume additional visa numbers beyond those taken up by the principal beneficiaries of visa petitions, thus freeing up a greater quantity of visa numbers for use by others.  As discussed in that article, there are admittedly some statutory provisions which might be read as pointing against such an interpretation.  But there are also statutory provisions which pull in favor of such an interpretation, most notably the text of INA §203(d) itself when it states that a derivative family member is “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.”  INA §203(d), 8 U.S.C. §1153(d).  If family members must be provided with separate visa numbers, then how can one fulfill this command for the family members of the principal immigrant who receives the last available visa number in a fiscal year for a particular category—will they not inevitably be subject to a delay in their “order of consideration” that is inconsistent with §203(d)?  This tension, interpreted in line with the version of Chevron deference implemented by the Cuellar de Osorio plurality, would provide sufficient authority to reinterpret the priority-date system in a way that could significantly reduce the current backlogs in the visa preference categories.

Remarkably, Cuellar de Osorio was not decided on the usual conservative-liberal ideological lines as with many Supreme Court decisions. The pairings of justices who decided one way or the other are rather odd much like combining a full-bodied red Malbec with a delicate white fish -  Ginsburg and Scalia were part of the plurality that denied relief to children while Sotomayor and Thomas vigorously dissented. The outcome in this case is neither a liberal nor a conservative victory.  This could potentially give President Obama through his Attorney General some political cover if they decided to use Brand X as a force for good by reversing Matter of Wang. Of course, the government caused this in the first place by litigating all the way to the Supreme Court. Sceptics will rightly question why the government would change course after having gone so far. However, the Attorney General, through the BIA, has reversed course before. For example, in Matter of Silva, 16 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 1976), the BIA acquiesced to Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976), and allowed 212(c) relief for LPRs in deportation proceedings who had not previously departed and returned, despite its earlier contrary holdings in Matter of Francis and Matter of Arias-Uribe, 13 I&N Dec. 696 (BIA 1971). If Congress fails to  enact Congressional reform, it is likely that the Administration will endeavor to provide relief through further administrative measures. Our blog provides the Administration with a way to do so for children who were left out of the American Dream solely because they were unlucky to have aged out.

by Cyrus D. Mehta, ABIL Lawyer
The Insightful Immigration Blog

In Matter of O. Vasquez, 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012), the first precedential decision on this issue, the Board of Immigration Appeals has clarified the “sought to acquire” provision under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).  The CSPA artificially freezes the age of a child below 21 years of age so that he or she is not deprived of permanent residency when the parent is granted the same status. One of the requirements is for the child to seek permanent residency within one year of visa availability. Often times, a CSPA protected child falls through the cracks by failing to meet the prevailing rigid filing requirements within the one-year deadline. Thus, the meaning of the term “sought to acquire” permanent residency has been hotly litigated in recent times. Does it encompass only a filing of an application or can it encompass something less than a filing of an application for immigration status?

According to the BIA in Matter of O. Vazquez, an alien may satisfy the “sought to acquire” provision of section 203(h)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”) by filing an application for adjustment of status or by showing that there are other extraordinary circumstances in the case, particularly those where the failure to timely file was due to circumstances beyond the alien’s control. The BIA further elaborated that the “sought to acquire” requirement could still be met if the applicant filed an adjustment application, but was rejected for technical reasons, such as the absence of a signature. With respect to a showing of extraordinary circumstances, the BIA indicated that an applicant could show that he or she paid an attorney to prepare an application prior to the one year deadline, but the attorney then failed to take the ministerial step of actually filing the application, thus effectively depriving the aged out child from the protection of the CSPA for no fault of its own.

While the BIA did provide examples of “sought to acquire” just short of a filing; unfortunately, the BIA’s interpretation in Matter of O. Vazquez is more restrictive than its earlier interpretations in unpublished decisions discussed in a prior blog, BIA Continues To Reaffirm Broad “Sought To Acquire” Standard Under CSPA.  The BIA stopped short of holding that the term can encompass other actions not associated with the filing of an adjustment application, such as seeking the advice of an attorney or other similar sorts of efforts. In Matter of O. Vazquez, the “aged out” child argued that he sought to acquire permanent residency by consulting a notario organization within one year of the visa availability. The BIA held that such an action did not fall under the “sought to acquire” definition. Given that the CSPA is a remedial statute to ameliorate the hardships caused to children who age out, the facts in this case were also sympathetic as the alien was wrongly advised by an organization not authorized to practice law in the first place, and thus deprived of the chance to be protected under the CSPA.

As a background, INA §203(h), introduced by Section 3 of the CSPA, provides the formula for determining the age of a derivative child in a preference petition even if the child is older than 21 years. To qualify as a child under INA §101(b)(1), one must be below the age of 21 and unmarried. The age is determined by taking the age of the alien on the date that a visa first became available (i.e. the date on which the priority date became current and the petition was approved, whichever came later) and subtracting the time it took to adjudicate the petition (time from petition filing to petition approval). Based on this formula, if the child’s age falls below 21, the child is protected under the CSPA. Specifically, §203(h)(1)(A) also requires the alien to have “sought to acquire” LPR status within one year of visa availability. It is the interpretation of the term “sought to acquire” that was the subject of the Board’s holding in Matter of O. Vazquez.

The BIA unfortunately arrived at this more restrictive interpretation by agreeing with DHS’s position that the reason for Congress not including the term “filed” is because § 203(h) applies to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS), both of which adjudicate requests for immigration status. The DHS adjudicates applications for adjustment of status from within the US while the DOS adjudicates applications for immigrant visas from outside the US. Under DOS immigrant visa processes, one generally does not “file” an immigrant visa application, DS-230, but rather, the DOS regulations use the word “submit” or “submission” rather than “file” when referring to a DS-230 visa application. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.63 and 22 C.F.R. § 42.63(c). The “filing” of an application in DOS occurs after it is submitted and much later in the process, the BIA noted. See 22 CFR § 42.67(b). According to the BIA, it was due to the difference in the usage of terms in the DOS and DHS regulations that Congress compelled Congress to use the term “sought to acquire” permanent residency rather than to allow for broader actions such as consulting with a notario organization, as was done in Matter of O. Vasquez, to satisfy the “sought to acquire” definition.

Still, it can be argued that the discussion in Matter of O. Vazquez of the use of the word “filing” in DOS regulations, and the multi-step DOS process more generally, does seem to leave room for the possibility that something other than submission of a DS-230 can qualify as seeking to acquire permanent residence for CSPA purposes.  Matter of O. Vazquez holds that “it is reasonable to expect the proper filing of an application, when it comes to DHS cases, as a way to unquestionably satisfy the ‘sought to acquire’ element of the Act.”  25 I&N Dec. at 820.  This holding is limited by its terms to “DHS cases”, in which the formal application process is in the ordinary case more unified into a single step of filing an application form (or that single filing step plus an interview).  The taking of any substantial step in the multistage DOS immigrant-visa process, such as the payment of the immigrant visa fee, as we pointed out in State Department Takes Broader View Of “Sought To Acquire” Provision Under CSPA, or the making of a written request that a particular derivative child be added to a consular case, should arguably still be sufficient to meet the “sought to acquire” requirement even under Matter of O. Vasquez.

Another aspect worth exploring further may be footnote 3 of the decision, on page 821.  The BIA analogizes its “extraordinary circumstances” standard to that applicable to termination-of-registration cases under INA 203(g).  In practice,  DOS has not applied the 203(g) standard as strictly as, say, some IJs apply the asylum one-year “extraordinary circumstances” standard.  If that is so, the linkage of the new Matter of O. Vazquez CSPA sought-to-acquire standard to the 203(g) standard may be significant: the Matter of O. Vazquez standard for extraordinary circumstances is apparently supposed to be interpreted no more strictly than 203(g).

In the view of this author, Congress probably intended the “sought to acquire” requirement to apply more broadly than interpreted in Matter of O. Vazquez. In a prior unpublished decision In re Jose Jesus Murillo, A099 252 007 (October 6, 2010), the BIA interpreted the legislative history behind the CSPA as being expansive, which is worth reproducing here:

The congressional. intent in enacting the CSPA was to "bring families together" (Rep. Sensenbrenner, 148 Congo Rec. H4989-01, H49991, July 22, 2002) and to "provide relief to children who lose out when INS takes too long to process their adjustment of status applications"(Rep. Gekas, id. at R4992); see also, Rep. Jackson-Lee, "where we can correct situations to bring families together, this is extremely important.'.' ld. atH4991. In enacting the CSPA, Congress expressed its concern that alien children "through no fault of their own, lose the opportunity to obtain immediate relative status." H.R. Rep. 107-45, H.R. Rep. No.4 5, I 07th Cong., 1st Sess. 2001, reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 640, 641 (Apr. 20, 2001). Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the CSPA should "be construed so as to provide expansive relief to children of United State citizens and permanent residents." Padash v. INS,358 F.3d 1161, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004).

However, since Matter of O. Vazquez is a precedential decision, we will need to now live and work with it when dealing with instances under which our clients have “sought to acquire” permanent residency in order to protect their age under the CSPA.

(The author thanks David A. Isaacson for his thoughtful input)