Yea I agree with you in most of what you said bar a couple of things. Momeni filed for adjustment after he had been arrested for overstaying the visa waiver program. Obviously for some reason he came to the attention of ICE and was taken into custody. Had he been able to file before coming to the attention of ICE the outcome may have been different. All of the cases involved people who either came into contact with ICE and tried to adjust, committed some crime that would have resulted in their deportation had they been prosecuted and/or similar. Even with the Freeman case..she was ultimately denied adjustment.
In any event when a minor is held accountable for someone else s actions it does seem that it would be prejudicial. The minor that is brought into the US under the age of 18 illegally does not accrue any unlawful presence time at all. In fact the clock only starts ticking at the age of 18...so why would similar not apply to something signed on behalf of said minor?
The minor doesn't have a choice. Even if they state that they don't wish to enter the US as a child, what about the child that enters at the age of 2 on a Visa waiver and seeks to adjust status? Im just thinking out loud here but I'm sorry I don't think its as clear cut for every case but you wont know until it is tested in the courts.
Thanks for your input.
Momeni didn't challenge the validity of the waiver, which is the defense you proposed. Momeni simply claimed that the AOS petition should have stopped the removal proceedings. I brought up Momeni because it demonstrates the likelihood of any court accepting the case for review or appeal. The case is interesting beyond that because the court stated, unequivocally, that a VWP overstay cannot adjust status without raising a conflict in the law.
The fact that the parent signed the I-94W (which they had the legal authority to do) would not be prejudicial. If the OP had signed it instead then the outcome would have been the same. If nobody had signed it then the OP would not have been admitted, and would not be applying for adjustment of status.
It would be different if the OP, or their legal guardian, had been coerced into signing a document that they were not required to sign, and now that document was being used against them. For example, if the OP or their legal guardian were coerced into signing a statement agreeing that they would never attempt to adjust status, and CBP had the discretion to admit them without forcing them to sign the document, then they would have a valid argument for prejudice. Without the document, they would have been allowed to adjust status. This isn't the OP's situation. Without the I-94W, the OP would not have been admitted to the US. The OP can't claim that the waiver prejudiced their case because their case would not exist without the waiver. In order to show prejudice the petitioner has to prove that the outcome would have been different.
When the OP became an adult they accepted the benefits that came with the decision their parents made, and chose to remain in the United States. They can't now claim not to be subject to the conditions that came with that decision.