Copyright 2017. Law Office of Carlo Borja. Disclaimer

Carlo Franco L. Borja is a licensed attorney in California and is authorized to represent clients in immigration matters nationwide. Based in Southern California, the immigration law firm serves clients mainly in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County including, but not limited to: Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Carson, Cerritos, Claremont, Commerce, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, Eagle Rock, El Monte, El Segundo, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Huntington Park, Industry, Inglewood, Irwindale, La Habra, La Mirada, La Puente, La Verne, Lakewood, Lancaster, Lawndale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Palmdale, Palos Verdes, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Redondo Beach, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Temple City, Torrance, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, Adelanto, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Hesperia, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, Victorville, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Indio, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley. Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Palm Springs, Riverside, Temecula and surrounding areas. Filipino Immigration lawyer representing clients in all US states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

In its Policy Memorandum dated April 15, 2015, USCIS issued guidance for claiming extraordinary circumstances for late filings when the applicant must have sought to acquire Lawful Permanent Residence within 1 Year of visa availability pursuant to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA).

As stated in the memo, in order to establish extraordinary circumstances, the alien must demonstrate that:

The circumstances are beyond the control of the alien and must not have been intentionally created by his or her own action or inaction. (See 8 CFR 208.4(a)(5)).
Those circumstances were directly related to the alien’s failure to file the application within the one-year period; and
The delay was reasonable under the circumstances.

Examples of extraordinary circumstances that may warrant a favorable exercise of discretion include, but are not limited to:

• Serious illness or mental or physical disability during the one-year period;

• Legal disability, such as instances where the applicant is suffering from a mental impairment, during the one-year period;

• Ineffective assistance of counsel, when the following requirements are met:

Alien filed an affidavit setting forth in detail the agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard;
Counsel whose integrity or competence is being impugned has been informed of the allegations leveled against him and been given an opportunity to respond, or that a good faith effort to do so is demonstrated; and
Alien indicates whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel’s ethical or legal responsibilities and, if not, why;

• Death or serious illness or incapacity of the alien’s legal representative or a member of the alien’s immediate family

Further, the memo provides that when considering a claim of extraordinary circumstances, the officer should weigh the totality of the circumstances and the nexus of the circumstances presented to the failure to meet the “sought to acquire” requirement, as well as the reasonableness of the delay. In order to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion, the circumstances must be extraordinary and beyond the alien’s control. Circumstances such as financial difficulty, minor medical conditions, and circumstances within the alien’s control such as when to seek counsel or begin preparing the application package are not considered extraordinary. Further, the fact of being or having been a child is common to all applicants seeking protection under the CSPA and does not constitute extraordinary circumstances beyond one’s control to timely “seek to acquire”.

While filing error will not ordinarily be related to extraordinary circumstances, USCIS recognizes that in certain limited instances where the filing error is corrected and the application is re-filed in a reasonable period of time thereafter, the applicant’s failure to meet the deadline may be excused.