Child Status Protection Act
The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was enacted in order to keep immigrant families intact despite family-based and employment-based waiting times which can range up to 23 years or more.
Prior to CSPA, once a child turned 21 years of age, he or she “aged-out” and was no longer able to immigrate (or adjust status) along with his or her parents. CSPA “freezes the age” of immediate relative children when their petitioning U.S. citizen parent submits a visa petition on their behalf; when a petitioning permanent resident parent naturalizes; or when a married son or daughter who has been petitioned by a U.S. citizen parent becomes divorced or widowed.
CSPA also creates a mathematical formula which allows the amount of time that a visa petition was pending to be subtracted from a child’s age.
What happens if a child “ages-out” despite the mathematical formula? Again, the Child Status Protection Act provides relief for “aged-out” children in the form of the “automatic conversion” clause. Unmarried sons and daughters are permited to retain the priority date of the original petition and automatically convert to the appropriate category. However, this subsection of CSPA is currently being litigated in the Supreme Court. Our law firm is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
CSPA also contains an “opt-out” clause which permits unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizen to choose between the family-based 1st and 2B preference categories depending on which category allows them to reunite with their parents faster.
CSPA is applicable not only to persons who were sponsored for lawful permanent residence after the law took effect, but to many people who were sponsored for green cards prior to August 6, 2002. Therefore, it applies many thousands of persons.
” I endorse this lawyer’s work. I’ve known Carl professionally for many years. He is highly respected within the immigration bar. Carl’s online site reflects his knowledge – and his generosity with the public and with the bar. Knowledge, hard work, and empathy combine in Carl to the benefit of his clients and the profession.” (More attorney endorsements…)
- Jay Solomon, Immigration Attorney, Atlanta, GA
The Child Status Protection Act is divided into the follow subtopics:
- The Law and Related Articles
- Success Stories
- CSPA Videos
- Nationwide Class Action CSPA Lawsuit (Supreme Court)
- Nationwide Class Action CSPA Lawsuit (Ninth Circuit)
- CSPA Lawsuit (Eleventh Circuit)
- CSPA Lawsuit (Seventh Circuit)
- CSPA Lawsuits (Fifth Circuit)
- CSPA Lawsuit (Second Circuit)
- CSPA Lawsuit – District Court (Central District of California)
- CSPA Cases Certified to the BIA
- Government Guidance
- Federal Court Decisions
- Administrative Decisions
The Law and Related Articles
- Child Status Protection Act (H.R.1209)- Signed into Law (8-6-02)
- Child Status Protection Act FAQ
- House Report (107-045) on the Child Status Protection Act – Original House Version (2001)
- AILA Interview: Carl Shusterman on CSPA (November 2012)
- The Child Status Protection Act: AIC Practice Advisory (11-04-09)
- 9th Circuit Victory: Don’t File Yet! (10-19-12)
- Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) Victory! (9-26-12)
- Immigrants Fight to Bring Adult Children to U.S. (8-25-09)
- CSPA for Married Couples (8-12-09)
- BIA’s CSPA Decision Not Entitled to Deference (7-27-09)
- CSPA Update (7-22-09)
- BIA Decision Would Separate Families (6-16-09)
- Way Cleared for Lawsuit to Keep Families Together (5-14-09)
- New Guidance on Child Status Protection Act (June 2008)
- How “Age-Outs” Can Benefit under CSPA (April 2007)
- How CSPA Works with Respect to “Age-Outs” (January 2007)
CSPA LAWSUIT – U.S. SUPREME COURT
- Extension Granted to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (2-22-13)
- Department of Labor’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (1-25-13)
SUCCESS STORIES
CSPA Videos
- CSPA Case Heads to the Supreme Court
Attorney Shusterman advises immigrants and their attorneys about what they should do while our Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) victory in DeOsorio v. Mayorkas heads for the Supreme Court.
- How the Child Status Protection Act Can Help You (Part 1)
This video explains the fundamentals of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), including how to freeze the immigration age of children so they remain immediate relatives
- How the Child Status Protection Act Can Help You (Part 2)
In this segment, Attorney Shusterman discusses the retroactive effect of the law and the ongoing litigation in Federal Court concerning the “automatic conversion” clause.
- Attorney Shusterman’s 9th Circuit
Oral Argument
On June 19, 2012, Attorney Shusterman presented his oral argument before the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).
CSPA LAWSUIT – U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DE OSORIO v. NAPOLITANO
- Government’s Motion to Extend Mandate (12-18-12)
- Blog Post: “Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) Victory!” (9-26-12)
- Decision of the 9th Circuit (9-26-12)
- Video of Oral Arguments (6-19-12)
- Panel Announced for June 19th Appeal (6-8-12)
- Government Reply to Amicus Briefs (6-5-12)
- Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted by AILA and CLINIC (5-11-12)
- Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted by the NIJC and the AIC (5-11-12)
- Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted by Dreamactivist (5-11-12)
- Petition for Rehearing En Banc Granted (4-20-12)
- Government’s Reply Brief (11-29-11)
- Court Orders Government to File Reply Brief (11-08-11)
- AIC/AILA Brief in Support for Rehearing En Banc (10-24-11)
- Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (10-17-11)
- Decision (9-2-11) (Decision Overturned: See Above)
- Oral Argument (7-15-11)
- Appellants’ Reply Brief (10-5-10)
- Defendants-Appellees’ Brief in Costelo (8-16-10)
- Order Granting Consolidation (6-7-10)
- Government’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Appeals and Reset Briefing Schedule (6-6-10)
- Amicus Curiae Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants in Costelo (5-25-10) Submitted by Mary Kenney for the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
- Opening Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants in Costelo (5-18-10)
- Amicus Curiae Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants in Cuellar de Osorio (4-28-10) Submitted by Mary Kenney for the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
- Opening Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants in Cuellar de Osorio (4-19-10)
CSPA LAWSUIT – U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MEDINA TOVAR v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
CSPA DECISION – U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
AROBELIDZE v. HOLDER
CSPA LAWSUITS – U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Khalid v. Holder
- Court Denies Government’s Request for a Rehearing En Banc (1-24-12)
- Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (12-29-11)
- Time to File Reply Brief Extended to January 4, 2012 (12-12-11)
- Government’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (11-14-11)
- Government’s Petition for Panel Rehearing (11-14-11)
- Decision of Circuit Court (9-8-11)
- Oral Argument (4-28-11)
Wu v. Holder
CSPA LAWSUIT – U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
LI & CEN v. RENAUD
- Amici Curiae Brief filed by the NIJC (8-31-11)
- Petition for Rehearing by Panel or En Banc (8-15-11)
- Decision (6-30-11)
- Declaration in Support of Motion to File a Post-Argument Letter as Amicus Curiae (6-23-11)
- Civil Appeal Pre-argument Statement (4-27-11)
- Petitioner’s Reply Brief (3-10-11)
- AIC/AILA’s Brief in Support of Plaintiffs (10-28-10)
- Petitioner’s Brief (10-22-10)
- Appellant’s Reply Brief (10-5-10)
- Scheduling Notification (7-7-10)
- Challenges Interpretation of CSPA by USCIS (4-27-10)
- Defendant’s Memorandum (2-11-10)
- Plaintiff’s Memorandum (3-11-10)
- Defendant’s Reply Memorandum (3-25-10)
- Consolidated CSPA Lawsuit (3-3-10)- Memorandum and Decision Order
- Wang v. Holder – Complaint in Federal District Court (7-16-09)
CSPA LAWSUIT – DISTRICT COURT
- Judge’s Decision Granting Government Motion for Summary Judgment (10-9-09)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply To Government’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment (9-21-09)
- Government’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (9-21-09)
- Government’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 9-14-09)
- Judge’s Order Denying Government’s Motion to Stay (9-9-09)
- Plaintiff’s Opposition to Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (9-8-09)
- Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (8-31-09)
- Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (8-31-09)
- Judge’s Order Denying the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and Granting a Stay of Proceedings (12-2-08)
- Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion to Hold in Abeyance (11-24-08)
- Government’s Motion to Dismiss-Part 1 (9-22-08)
- Government’s Motion to Dismiss-Part 2 (9-22-08)
- Government’s Proposed Order to Dismiss (9-22-08)
- Government’s Exhibit A (9-22-08)
- Government’s Exhibit B (9-22-08)
- Government’s Exhibit C (9-22-08)
- Government’s Exhibit D (9-22-08)
- Government’s Exhibit E (9-22-08)
- Plaintiffs’ Complaint (6-23-08)
CSPA CASES CERTIFIED TO THE BIA
MATTER OF WANG
- BIA Denial of Motion to Reconsider (5-21-10)
- Motion To Reconsider And Request For En Banc Consideration (July 2009)
- BIA Decision (6-16-09)
- Notice of Certification and Memorandum for Certification to BIA (March 2008)
- Wang’s Brief to the BIA (April 2008)
- Government’s Supplemental Brief (August 2008)
- Wang’s Supplemental Brief (October 2008)
MATTER OF PATEL
- BIA Nonprecedent Decision (1-11-11)
- Amicus Curiae Brief (January 2009)
- Patel’s Supplemental Brief (October 2008)
- Government’s Supplemental Brief (August 2008)
- Patel’s Brief to the BIA (June 2008)
- Notice of Certification to BIA, Notice of Action, Decision of USCIS’ California Service Center on I-130, Memorandum for Certification (June 2008)
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE
USCIS Guidance
- USCIS Teleconference Recap: Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) – How Is It Working For You? (5-05-11)
- USCIS Guidance on the Applicability of the Child Status Protection Act (6-15-09)
- USCIS Fact Sheet: Revised Guidance on the Applicability Of CSPA (5-06-08)
- USCIS – Revised Guidance for the Child Status Protection Act (4-30-08)
- USCIS: Clarification of Aging Out Provisions as They Affect Preference Relatives and Immediate Family Members Under CSPA Section 6 And Form I-539 Adjudications for V Status (6-14-06)
- USCIS Memo Interpreting Section 6 of the CSPA (3-23-04) – Amended by June 14, 2006 Memo
- USCIS Memo: CSPA – Children of Asylees and Refugees (8-17-04)
- INS Memo Re: Child Status Protection Act (2-14-03) – Replaced by USCIS Guidance of 4-30-08
- INS Memo Re: Child Status Protection Act (9-20-02) – Replaced by USCIS Guidance of 4-30-08
- INS Memo Re: CSPA and Asylum (8-07-02)
State Department Guidance
- State Department Cable Re: Child Status Protection Act (May 2003) – ALDAC #4
- State Department Cable Re: Child Status Protection Act (MAy 2003) – ALDAC #3
- State Department Cable Re: Child Status Protection Act (January 03) – ALDAC #2
- State Department Cable Re: Child Status Protection Act (August 02) – ALDAC #1
- State Department Cable: Revised Interpretation of Age-Out Provision of PATRIOT Act (June 02)
FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS
- Robles-Tenorio v. Holder – U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Automatic Conversion – Unpublished (8-26-11)
- Midi v. Holder – U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit Upholds BIA’s Ruling That CSPA Does Not Apply to HRIFA Applicants (5-12-09)
- Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales (9th Circuit – 12-29-06)
- Baruelo v. Comfort No. 05-6659 (ND ILL – 12-29-06) (Unpublished District Court Opinion) – Appropriate Category is 2B
- Rodriguez v. Gonzales No. CV 04-8671 (CD CA – 5-31-06) (Unpublished District Court Opinion)
- Calix-Chavarria v. Attorney General of U.S. No. 05-3447, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (5-12-06) – Not Precedential
- Gomes v. USCIS No. CV 05-3767 (CD CA – 3-22-06) (Unpublished District Court Opinion)
- Corea v. U.S. Attorney General No. 05-14479, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (3-15-06) – Unpublished
- Padash v. INS – U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Rules On Meaning Of “Final Determination” under CSPA (2-19-04)
- Dandan v. Ashcroft – U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit Rules on Derivative Asylum Benefits under CSPA (8-11-03)
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
- Matter of Vasquez – Precedent BIA Decision re: “Sought to Acquire” (6-08-12)
- Matter of Zamora-Molina – Precedent BIA Decision re: Operation of the Opt-Out Provision (10-06-11)
- Matter of Azam – Non-Precedent BIA Decision re: Status of Children Who Aged-Out under CSPA (4-12-11)
- Matter of Murillo, Non-Precedent BIA Decision re: “Sought to Acquire” (10-06-10)
- Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) – Precedent Decision Regarding CSPA’s “Automatic Conversion” Clause (6-16-09)
- Matter of Avila-Perez, 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) – Precedent Decision Addresses Effective Date of CSPA (2-09-07)
- Matter of Garcia – Non-Precedent BIA Decision re: Status of Children Who Aged-Out under CSPA (6-16-06)
- Matter of Ki Na Kim – Non-Precedent BIA Decision Interpreting “Final Determination” (6-07-06)
- Matter of Ji Young Kim – Non-Precedent BIA Decision Interpreting “Sought to Acquire” (12-20-04)