April 25, 2014

Board of Immigration Appeals Clarifies 245(i) Eligibility for Derivative Beneficiaries

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) recently held in Matter of Ilic, 25 I. & N. Dec. 717 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2012), that, in order for a foreign national to independently qualify for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i)(2006) as a derivative “grandfathered alien,” the principal beneficiary of the qualifying visa petition must satisfy the requirements for grandfathering, including the physical presence requirement of INA § 245(i)(1)(C), if applicable.

Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act permits certain foreign nationals to adjust status to Lawful Permanent Resident, notwithstanding an unlawful entry or other unlawful presence. To be eligible for 245(i), the foreign national must have had an immigrant visa petition or labor certification filed on her behalf prior to April 30, 2001, be admissible to the United States, and have an immigrant visa immediately available to her. There is also a requirement that the 245(i) applicant be physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000. Beneficiaries of derivative petitions filed prior to April 30, 2001, or dependents of principal beneficiaries of such petitions, are also eligible to be grandfathered.

The respondent's wife in Matter of Ilic is the beneficiary of an approved family-based immigrant visa petition, which was filed by her sister on December 1, 1999. The respondent entered the U.S. most recently on August 15, 2005, without inspection. As the beneficiary of an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition filed by his employer, he would be eligible to adjust under 245(i) if he can be grandfathered based on the 1999 petition filed for his wife. The Immigration Judge found the respondent eligible to adjust under 245(i), but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed.

In its decision, the Board explained that the respondent's eligibility turned on whether the principal beneficiary of the qualifying visa petition (i.e. his wife) could meet all the requirements to adjust under 245(i) herself, including the physical presence requirement. Derivative grandfathered applicants are not required to meet this physical presence requirement themselves, but the Board held that a derivative beneficiary is only entitled to the status available to the principal beneficiary. Thus, respondent had to prove that his wife met the requirements of 245(i). Because the record was unclear as to whether the respondent's wife was physically present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000, the Board remanded to the Immigration Judge for further fact-finding.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author


William J. Flynn, III is the Practice Leader of the International Practice Group.  His practice includes a large immigration practice representing foreign nationals and U.S. corporations that employ foreign nationals. In this capacity, he represents clients before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of State.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.