Child Status Protection Act

<This page is under construction>

In amicus briefs filed in cases at the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals (a class action and two individual appeals [first appeal and second appeal]), the LAC argues that the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) allows a derivative beneficiary of any family preference, employment, or diversity visa petition to retain the priority date of that petition when he or she is found to have “aged-out” by turning 21. The LAC argues that the BIA, in Matter of Wang, was mistaken in limiting INA §203(h)(3) to only beneficiaries of family second preference visa petitions.

• Ting-Ting Wu v. Holder, No. 10-60093, 5th Circuit
• Costelo and Ong v. Napolitano, et. al., No. 09-56846, 9th Circuit    
• Rosalina De Osorio, et al. v. Jonathan Scharfen, et al., No. 09-56786, 9th Circuit

In this amicus brief, the LAC argues for a broad interpretation of the CSPA requirement that a child must have “sought to acquire” the status of a lawful permanent resident within one year of visa availability.

• In re Jose Jesus Murillo                  BIA                        No. A099-252-007

In this amicus brief, the LAC argued, on behalf of AILF and AILA, that the BIA erred in Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) when it held that derivative children who “aged-out” were not entitled to retain the earlier priority date of their parent’s visa petition under section 3 of the CSPA, and that this decision is not entitled to any deference by the district court in its decision as to whether to certify a national class of LPR parents who seek to enforce INA § 203(h)(3) for their “aged out” children.

• Costelo, et al. v. Chertoff, et al.     District Court, Central District of Califonia     No. 08-688

In this amicus brief, the LAC argued that a derivative beneficiary of an asylum application is covered by the CSPA when the beneficiary is unmarried at the time that asylum is granted, notwithstanding a prior, brief marriage that ended in divorce.

• Maximov . Gonzales                        2nd Circuit            Nos. 03-40124; 04-0033

In this amicus brief, the LAC argued that the CSPA applies to an applicant for adjustment of status where the application was denied prior to the effective date of the CSPA if the applicant renews the applicant in removal proceedings subsequent to the effective date.

• Sandoval-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General            11th Circuit            No. 07-14747-DD