Adjustment Of Status In Immigration Practice Today
Editor's Note: The following are the materials for this seminar.
"Adjustment Of Status In Immigration Practice Today"
From Romulo E. Guevara
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this document (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to: email@example.com
From Dinesh Shenoy
INA 245(a) - main statute for most adjustments of status
INA 245(a)(3) - the rule requiring an immigrant visa number available on the Visa Bulletin at the time of I-485 filing
DOL figure that total number of backlogged Labor Certs is approx.
355,000 - 71 Fed. Reg. 7656, 7658 (Feb. 13, 2006), available online at
DOL predicting elimination of Labor Cert Backlog by September 30, 2007
9 FAM 40.1 N8 - "cross-chargeability" rule allowing derivative spouse's more favorable country of chargeability (e.g., Japan) to be invoked by a principal alien worker spouse chargeable to a backlogged country (e.g., China)
Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) Section 3 (now INA 203(h)) - rule that prevents age-out of derivatives in SOME employment-based cases
8 CFR 204.5(e) - retention of priority date provision
INS Memorandum dated May 9, 2005 titled "Transferring Section 245 Adjustment Applications to New or Subsequent Family or Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Petitions" (reprinted at 77 Interp. Rel. 716, May 26, 2000) - applying 8 CFR 204.5(e).
20 CFR 656.5(b) - defining aliens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences or arts or performing arts as belonging to "Schedule A" along with professional nurses and physical therapists.
Division B, Title V, Section 502 of the "Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act" of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13 (enacted May 11, 2005)
20 CFR 656.15(d) & 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) - DOL and USCIS regulations addressing elements that show an alien is of "exceptional ability"
AC21 sec. 106(a) as modified by 2002 DOJ Authorization Act, Pub. L. No.
107-273, sec. 11030A(a), 116 Stat. 1836-37, available online at
INA 204(j) - portability provision (also referred to as "permanent portability" or "I-140 portability")
USCIS Memorandum dated May 12, 2005 - interim guidance on AC21 -
available on the USCIS website at
USCIS Adopted Decision 06-0001 (concerning recapturing time outside USA
towards 6-year limit on H-1B status) - available on the USCIS website at
USCIS Adopted Descision 06-0002 (concerning 204(j) portability where after 140/485 concurrently filed alien ported and then 140 was denied)
Matter of Perez-Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005) (Immigration Judges have no authority to determine whether the validity of an alien's approved employment-based visa petition is preserved under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2000), after the alien's change in jobs or employers.)
From Kristina Rost
From Dinesh Shenoy and Laurence Johnson
From Nancy E. Miller
From Lori A. Pinjuh
I would like to amend one answer given during the Q&A portion of the 3/23 telecon on adjustment of status. This concerns the situation of a derivative H-4 child of a principal alien H-1B worker who is the beneficiary of an approved Labor Certification (ETA-750 or ETA-9089 under PERM, either kind), but who is in a category and from a country where the family faces a potential wait of several years before being able to file I-485 applications for permanent residence. For example, this could be an EB-3 Canadian-born worker and derivatives, or an EB-2 Chinese-born worker and derivatives. Assume for the moment that the Visa Bulletin cut-off dates are not expected to be moved up significantly or be eliminated by Congress increasing the quota of employment-based visa numbers in the foreseeable future (a possibility at the present time). In such cases, H-4 children might well age-out and be unable to derive LPR status through the parents even if CSPA sec. 3 (INA sec. 203(h)) is applied to them. By the time a visa number becomes available in the world-wide EB-3 category or Indian/Chinese EB-1/EB-2/EB-3 categories, the derivative children could be 23, 24 or even 25 years old, so old that subtracting off the days the I-140 is pending is not going to do much at all to reduce their to back under 21.
Answer by Dinesh Shenoy:
In answer to a question from a caller about this general scenario, I mistakenly said that by delaying filing of the I-140, the employer might be able to help stave off the possibility of age-out (by attempting to delay the moment in time when the immigrant visa number becomes available to the family, by delaying the moment of I-140 approval). However, that is incorrect; approval of the I-140 no longer is the moment an immigrant visa number becomes available (as it had been from July 2001 to December 2004 in all EB preference categories). In any preference category that does not have "currently" available immigrant visa numbers, the moment when the Visa Bulletin cut-off for that principal worker's category will reach his/her priority date is an unknown future date that cannot be predicted with any accuracy. Therefore, delaying the filing of the I-140 would be of limited value in the CSPA calculation.
After the telecon I remembered that the reason I might advise an employer to delay I-140 filing was not because I could thereby help prevent age-out. Instead, delaying I-140 filing would be for the separate reason of delaying the moment in time when the H-4 derivative exhibits immigrant intent. If an H-4 derivative of an EB-3 Indian worker is now 20 years old and the family is unable to file I-485s before the H-4 child turns 21 years of age and falls out of status, then the H-4's best strategy might be to either change status to F-1 student status and/or exit the United States and obtain an F-1 visa abroad and return to the United States on the F-1 visa. In either circumstance (filing of an I-539 and/or a DS-156), the only way the derivative can honestly answer "no" to the questions concerning whether an immigrant petition has been filed for him/her is if the I-140 has not been filed yet. I believe the derivative would have better chances of being granted a change of status to F-1 and/or being granted an F-1 visa stamp overseas if the I-140 is not filed (since when filed the I-140 must list the child as a derivative on page 2 of the I-140 form).
So the strategy of not filing the I-140 would be geared towards the planning for the derivative in the event that the visa number backlog does not clear up before the child ages out (not towards trying to actually prevent age-out, which we are powerless to do through timing of I-140 filing). It goes without saying that any plan to delay filing of the I-140 must have the employer and employee's full consent. That is becasue while there is this up-side to not filing the I-140 (better chances of future F-1 status/visa for the aged-out derivative), the downside of not filing the I-140 right away is that the priority date (date of Labor Certification) is not truly locked in for 8 CFR 204.5(e) priority date retention purposes unless and until the I-140 is APPROVED. If the employment relationship is severed at a future time when the Labor Cert is approved but the I-140 was being deliberately withheld from filing by the employer because of strategizing for a derivative's future change to F-1 status (and the employer never has any intention of ever hiring the worker back again in the future and thus cannot file an I-140 anymore for that worker), the principal worker alien would discover in a new job with a new employer starting over on a new Labor Certification that the previous Labor Certification's filing date is not a retained priority date for the new employer's future I-140. Therefore, the pros and cons of deciding to delay I-140 filing after Labor Certification approval must be weighed and the decision must be made by the employer, which may want to factor in the alien employee's wishes on whether or not to file the I-140 right away.
This strategy of delaying I-140 filing is possible under the present
regulations at 20 CFR 656.30(a) which state that approved Labor
Certifications are valid indefinitely. If the proposed DOL rule requiring
filing of I-140s within 45 days after Labor Certification approval (see 71
Fed. Reg. 7656, 7663 (Feb. 13, 2006)), is adopted as a final rule or interim
final rule then of course this strategy is no longer possible.
Dinesh Shenoy, et al. are the speakers for the Adjustment Of Status In Immigration Practice Today seminar.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.