Contact us now!
Like or Share Us
Approved Waiver Notices
- The Ranchod Law Group
With Offices in:8880 Cal Center Dr #400
Sacramento, CA 95826
Phone: (916) 613-3553
5201 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
By appointment only
“After deciding to bring my future wife here to the US from China I did a lot of fiancé K-1 visa research online. I was very overwhelmed with the process and decided to hire an immigration attorney. I did some searches and came across the Ranchod Law Group. I met Kaushik and immediately felt that his services were exactly what I needed. Kaushik’s group was very professional and made my life much less stressful during our visa and later green card process. Emma took immediate action when one of our documents was reported as missing in our initial visa application. Later, Yesenia’s assistance in preparing us for our green card interview was very helpful. My wife and I are very pleased with the services we received and highly recommend the Ranchod Law Group. Dave and Tianan”
Because certain family based petitions have priority dates that take over a decade to become current, many parents worry about their children “aging out” before there is a visa available for them and wonder if the Child Protection Act will protect their children.
For immigration purposes a “child” is defined as an individual who is unmarried and under the age of 21
Before the Child Protection Act (CSPA) took effect on August 6, 2002, a beneficiary who turned 21 at any time prior to receiving permanent residence could not be considered a child for immigration purposes. This situation is described as “aging out.” Children who “aged out” were no longer eligible for the intended immigration benefit.
The Child Protection Act altered when and how a child would be considered to have “aged out” in the visa petition process. This article will discuss two specific circumstances:
- When the child is the son or daughter of a US citizen
- When the child is a son or daughter of a legal permanent resident who naturalizes
- Other children
Child of a U.S. Citizen
The son or daughter of a U.S. citizen will not “age out” as long as the petition Form I-130 was filed before the child turned 21. This is often referred to as “freezing”; in other words the child’s age halts for immigration purposes. For example: U.S. citizen father properly files Form I-130 on behalf of his son who is 5 months shy of turning 21 and the adjudication of his petition takes 8 months causing him to “age out” — in this case the child is protected by CSPA because his age “froze” at the time Form I-130 was filed when still 20 years old.
Child of a Legal Permanent Resident Who Naturalizes
Furthermore, where a legal permanent resident has filed a petition for his child and he subsequently naturalizes prior to the child “aging out,” that child is also protected by CSPA. That child’s age will also “freeze” at the time the legal permanent resident father naturalizes. However, this only applies to a child whose petition was first filed based on being the child of a legal permanent resident who subsequently naturalizes.
Other Children: Derivatives
While the first two categories were straight forward, the next category is much more complicated requiring careful analysis. “Other” children’s age is determined by taking the age of the child at the time the immigrant visa number becomes available reduced by the time a properly filed I-130 petition was pending. Additionally, to qualify the child must file for legal permanent status within one year of the approval of the petition.
Let’s look at an example: John, a U.S. Citizen filed an I-130 petition on behalf of his sister Penny. At that time Penny had a son Adam who was Penny’s derivative in the application. The I-130 was approved exactly one year after it was properly filed and received. Sixteen years later, the priority date became current—meaning a visa number became available. Unfortunately, a few days before the visa number became available, Adam had turned 21. Thankfully, CSPA applies to Adam’s case. Even though Adam had already turned 21, CSPS allows him to subtract the time a petition was pending from his current age at the time a visa number became available. In this case the I-130 was pending 1 year from the time it was received until the time it was approved. Thus, Adam is considered to still be 20 years old and a qualified derivative eligible for an immigrant visa.
Most cases are much more complicated than Adam’s and require an in depth analysis of dates. Consequently, it is best to consult with an experienced attorney who can evaluate the particulars of your case.
I-601 and I-601a Waiver Expedite
Filed: December 28, 2015
Approved: May 13, 2016
Client entered the U.S. at the age of 15. He is married to a U.S. Citizen and the couple has three children. We argued on client’s behalf an element of medical hardship because client’s wife was hospitalized once previously and one of the children has a medical issue which is being monitored. Also, the family relies on the incomes of both client and his wife and client and his wife both care for the children. In some cases, the hardship is very clear; in most cases, there are many small elements of hardship. We argue that these small factors of hardship should result in extreme hardship as a whole.
I-601A Waiver Approvals by the Ranchod Law Group
Filed: December 26, 2015
Approved: April 18, 2016
- Client was brought into the U.S. when she was a child
- She was raised in the U.S. where she met and married her high school sweetheart, a U.S. Citizen
- The couple has three children born in the U.S
- The Ranchod Law Group argued that client’s waiver should be approved because client was a stay at home mom and her husband could not both work and take care of all of the children
Also, client’s husband does not earn enough to pay for childcare. Additionally, one of the children was hyperactive and difficult to care for and there would be extreme emotional hardship to client’s husband if client’s waiver was denied.
Client and her husband were thrilled when their waiver was approved particularly because since client has been here since childhood this is the only country she really knows at all. At Ranchod Law we have experience supporting I-601A waiver cases and making strong arguments to present the very best case possible for our clients.
I-601 Waiver Approval process
Filed: September 4, 2015
Request for Evidence Issued: February 1, 2016
Filed Response to Request for Evidence: March 7, 2016
Approved: March 30, 2016
History of Procedure
- Client entered the U.S. illegally in 2004
- Married a U.S. Citizen – together the couple had two U.S. citizen children
- Client returned to Mexico in 2010 to care for a sick relative
- Client’s U.S. citizen spouse filed an I-130 immigrant petition for client and as soon as client was denied at his immigrant interview abroad (had previously entered and remained in the U.S. illegally)
- We filed client’s I-601 waiver
- Client’s wife has a family history of cancer
- Client’s family had been having a very hard time financially since his departure relying on payday loans and barely getting by
All of this extreme stress was taking a serious toll on the mental health of client’s U.S. citizen wife. Also, client’s wife could not relocate to Mexico to be with her husband because she has other children from a prior relationship who live in the U.S. USCIS issued a request for evidence and we replied in great detail with additional paperwork supporting the case we already established.
Client will finally be able to reenter the U.S. legally as a lawful permanent resident to be with his wife and children. Even if a client previously did not have legal advice, we can help client’s correct previous mistakes. Although it is best to hire an immigration attorney from the beginning, we have experience working with clients at all stages of the I-601 waiver approval process – our results speak for themselves.
Although often controversial, executive actions have been used since the 1950’s by every president to cure immigration problems in this country.
In September 2014, through a series of executive orders President Obama sought to address the immigration issues faced by millions of illegal immigrants. His Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, immigration directives, included a Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
DAPA is expected to provide relief to approximately 3.8 million immigrants living in the country illegally, who have U.S. citizen children. Similar to DACA, DAPA would provide recipients security from deportation and grant them a work authorization. Moreover, the DACA expansion would give up to 300,000 more immigrants the opportunity to apply for relief. The expansion would eliminate the age cap requirement that an applicant be under the age of 31 on June 15, 2010; change the mandatory date of entry to January 1, 2010; allow for a 3 year grant instead of 2; and allow advance parole to travel.
Since September 2014, 26 states have filed lawsuits to block DAPA and DACA leading to a federal injunction placing the executive orders on hold while awaiting a court decision. On April 18, 2016, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the opposing states including Texas. Texas argued that the president does not have authority to make or pass immigration laws as that’s Congress’s job. President Obama has consistently contended that he is exercising his discretion in enforcing existing immigration laws; because the executive branch does not have the resources to simply place all illegal immigrants in removal proceedings, he is using the limited resources to go after “high priority” illegal immigrants, such as felons and terrorists, while granting parents of US citizens and young teens brought to the US as children deferred action regarding their illegal status.
After the passing of late Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court has been divided between four conservative and four liberal justices which could cause a 4-4 tie. Unless one of the conservative justices sides with liberal, the injunction will remain and millions of immigrants will remain without relief.
Optimistically, at least one of the conservative justices will reason that Texas has no legal standing or basis to oppose President Obama’s executive actions, thus upholding DAPA and DACA and granting relief to millions of hopefuls. Having peace of mind from being deported and being able to work lawfully to provide for themselves and their families is a dream to many of these immigrants—a dream that has been on hold for too long.
Why would someone want to apply for U.S. citizenship? There are a lot of reasons, but for many immigrants, one of the most compelling is that it ensures they can stay in this country. Even green card holders with permanent immigration status can be deported if they commit a serious crime.
Another major advantage given to citizens of the United States is the ability to vote. Permanent residents and green card holders aren’t granted that right, but citizens can vote in all national elections and in state elections as well, except in cases where they’re convicted felons in states that bar felons from voting.
If you’re interested in participating in politics more than by simply voting, becoming a U.S. citizen allows you to run for public office. This is a right only afforded to citizens, and it’s what allows them to represent constituents and affect change in state and national laws and policies. The only instance where this isn’t possible is in becoming the U.S. president, which requires you to be a natural born citizen.
That fact segues nicely into an interesting case. Ted Cruz is currently a presidential candidate, but he was technically born in Canada, which would seem to prevent him from becoming a United States president. But because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen as well, even though he wasn’t born within U.S. borders — and that’s why he’s allowed to run for president. Recent state court cases that disputed his eligibility for election have ruled in his favor, including a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling. To learn more, check out the article “U.S. Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz Wins Citizenship Lawsuit Case” on Lawyerherald.com.
If you have immigration questions please call 916-613-3553.
I was recently reminded of the importance of taking a family vacation. To celebrate my wife’s 40th birthday, we decided to go down to San Diego. We went to the beach, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, and SeaWorld. We had an awesome time everywhere we visited.
As it happens, it’s been over a year since our last trip together as a family. We usually try to take a family trip at least once a year, but for one reason or another, it didn’t happen last year. So now we’re making up for that lost time.
While I was out of the office, with my family by the ocean, I realized how refreshing it is to have this time with my family. We’re together, relaxing, having a great time, and not worrying about our everyday lives back home. While I was away, I was thankful to know that our legal team was making sure that all of our clients were being taken care of.
Being that we were in San Diego, the weather was perfect for spending time on the beach and exploring the parks. It also made me realize how much I missed the ocean, living in the Sacramento area.
On the topic of travel, and with the summer travel season coming up in a matter of months, I wanted to take some time to talk about a situation travelers need to be mindful of if they are in the U.S. on a visa.
Before traveling out of the U.S., either on a return visit back home, for vacation, or for any other reason, be sure to check the expiration date on your passport. As a general rule, it’s always important to know when it expires so that if you need to renew it, you can take care of it ahead of your travel plans.
In this case, however, while you want to be aware of your passport’s expiration, you also need to be sure your passport is valid for at least as long as the validity of your visa and authorized stay in the U.S. Otherwise, when you return to the U.S. — without extending the validity of your passport — your I-94 will only be issued up until the point your passport expires.
It’s a confusing situation to be in. Let’s say your passport expires in 2019, but your visa expires in 2021. When you re-enter the U.S., the port of entry officer will not provide you an I-94 that is valid beyond the date that your passport expires. This can lead to situations where people think they’re in the U.S. legally when they’re not — and it’s because they didn’t check the validity of these documents.
Not being aware of the valid dates of your passport, visa, or any other immigration document can lead to a lot of legal issues. These issues can then lead to lost time, money, and other complications as you try to correct the problem.
So as you plan your next vacation or trip back home to visit family, check your document and expiration dates. That way, when you return to the U.S., you can be sure you’re here legally and you don’t have anything to worry about.
If you have immigration questions please call 916-613-3553