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.

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.

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.