Family Immigration

How family-based immigration works

Family-based immigration lets U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents petition for certain relatives. The process begins with Form I-130, the Petition for Alien Relative, filed under INA § 201 or § 203.

Immediate relatives (no annual cap)

• Spouses of U.S. citizens
• Unmarried children under 21 of U.S. citizens
• Parents of U.S. citizens age 21 or over

Family-preference categories (annual caps apply)

1. F1 — unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
2. F2A / F2B — spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
3. F3 — married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
4. F4 — brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens

Eligibility is only half the story — admissibility decides the case

A qualifying relationship gets you to the door. Admissibility under INA § 212 decides whether you walk through it. Even an approved I-130 will not save an applicant who triggers a ground of inadmissibility without a waiver:

• Unlawful presence under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) — a 3-year or 10-year bar after departing the United States, often requiring a provisional I-601A waiver before consular processing.
• Misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) — checking the wrong box on a prior visa, an old border statement, or an SSN issue can be fatal absent an I-601 fraud waiver tied to extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.
• Crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled-substance offenses under INA § 212(a)(2) — even dismissed or expunged cases must be analyzed against the categorical approach.
• Public charge under INA § 212(a)(4) and the I-864 Affidavit of Support — household-size math, joint sponsors, and the Totality of Circumstances analysis matter.
• Prior removal orders under INA § 212(a)(9)(A) — a Form I-212 permission to reapply must be filed before a green card can be issued.

Missing one of these issues at the petition stage is the single most common reason cases that "looked simple" are denied — sometimes years and tens of thousands of dollars later. Our intake screens every client against the full INA § 212 grid before we file a single form.

What we do

• Draft the I-130 narrative and the bona-fide marriage evidence packet
• Run a full INA § 212 admissibility audit and identify any waivers needed (I-601, I-601A, I-212, 212(d)(3), 212(h), 212(i))
• Manage NVC document collection and DS-260 strategy
• Prepare you for the consular interview in Ciudad Juárez, Manila, Guangzhou, or wherever your post is
• Handle the post-arrival conditional residency removal (Form I-751)

The agencies that decide your case

A family case is not "a USCIS case" — it is a coordinated workflow across:

• U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) — the I-130 petition, the I-485 adjustment, the I-751 removal of conditions, and the field-office interview.
• National Visa Center (NVC) and the Kentucky Consular Center for cases going through consular processing.
• The U.S. Embassy or Consulate that holds the consular interview (Ciudad Juárez, Manila, Guangzhou, Mumbai, Lagos, etc.) — staffed by Department of State officers under 9 FAM authority.
• Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — the inspection at the port of entry, the I-94 record, and the CBP One scheduling system.
• The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for I-601, I-601A, I-212, and certain I-130 denials.
• The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) when an I-130 denial reaches removal proceedings.
• Immigration courts (EOIR) when an applicant is in removal proceedings — only the immigration judge can adjudicate adjustment in that posture.
• Federal district courts for mandamus actions on long-delayed I-130s and 1447(b) actions on stalled N-400 follow-ons.

We represent clients in front of every one of these forums, and we keep the file consistent across all of them — a single inconsistent statement to one agency can be cited against the client by another a decade later.

Why government error and shifting policy require counsel

The largest source of family-case denials is not the applicant — it is the system. A-files get lost between Service Centers, the CARRP controlled-application review program quietly holds cases for years without notice, policy-memo reversals between administrations change adjudication standards mid-stream, and RFEs and NOIDs routinely demand evidence the regulations do not require. We track these patterns, file the right responses, and litigate the agency in federal court when administrative remedies are exhausted.