Dvdport

I am trying to revive this topic.

The Final Action Date (Cut-off Date) for F4 got stuck on 3/22/2007 since 09/2021 for almost a full year, and there is no movement since then. Anybody can shed light on why it never move forward beside the Covid-19? Anybody has any information for the total number got stuck in the backlog since 09/2021 up to now?

this is  a long but interesting BLOG, but nothing comes out of it...

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2014/06/scialabba-v-cuellar-de-osorio-does-dark.html

It did cried out the unfairness of Aged-out children who have waited patiently for many years for their parent’s priority date to become current are told that they must now go back to the beginning of the line on a new petition filed by their parent under the Family 2B preference.

it is a quite surprise that it seems all forgot about case like " Matter of Garcia" and nobody ever mention it when the Supreme Court  deferred to the agency’s interpretation of this provision.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,1005-patel.shtm

The agency’s first interpretation was " Matter of Garcia", not "MATTER OF WANG" and "MATTER OF PATEL"...

Appreciate very much for your quick response.

Thanks for your update. one more question:

can F2B be converted to F1 once the parents becomes USC?

I have been looking for  the applicable PD date over child age out of derivative beneficiary under a principal beneficiary of F4,  I have found successful case like " Matter of Garcia" in which she was successful for retaining the earlier priority date of the original petition that enabled the original principal beneficiary (her mother) become a lawful permanent resident.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,1005-patel.shtm

https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/mariagarcia-childstatusprotectionact.pdf

i also found denied cases like "MATTER OF WANG" and "MATTER OF PATEL".

https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/EOIRWang.pdf

https://www.shusterman.com/pdf/Matterofpatel111.pdf

Any one with expertise can explain why  a much earlier successful case " Matter of Garcia" would not apply to these two much later cases and have been denied?