Making a Real Difference in People's Lives

Today I had the pleasure of taking a client to her legal permanent residency interview. You should ask me, "So what attorney? This happens every day." What is remarkable is that my client had entered the country in 2001 under a temporary program known as the V-2. As the beneficiary of the V-2 we were able to demonstrate that she had maintained lawful status since her entry 8 years ago, and that she was entitled to work the entire time. This allowed my client to remain in the U.S. lawfully and she was not subject to any penalties or fees under INA Section 245i.

The V-Visa program allowed spouses of legal permanent residents whose immigrant visas had been pending for more than three years and their children to enter the United States and wait for their visa numbers to become current. My case Akhtar v. Burzynski was filed in order stop USCIS policy of denying employment authorization benefits to the children who entered as V-2 immigrants but then reached the age of 21. USCIS denied work authorization to thousands of applicants at age 21 and stated that they were no longer lawfully in the United States and demanded their departure.

In Akhtar v. Burzynski I convinced the 9th Circuit that the “age out” regulations drafted by the USCIS did not match the laws passed by Congress and these regulations were overturned by the Court. Ultimately USCIS official O’Reilly issued a nationwide memo revising the USCIS policy on V-2 visas allowing children who reached the age of 21 to remain with their parents.

It was gratifying, some five years later to see the fruits of my labor, a grateful client with tears in her eyes as she received her approval notice, no questions asked, and with no demands for additional waiver applications or fees. My client’s file was originally handled by another attorney, I could see that she had been denied work authorizations despite this important change in the law. I was also under the impression that if the client had not been accompanied by a knowledgeable attorney at her interview she may have been forced to file and additional waiver application and pay and additional $1,000.00 in fees.

I encourage all persons who entered the United States under the V-Visa program particularly young persons who were issued denials of work authorization and demands to leave the United States, to seek qualified legal counsel before filing your adjustment of status application. The benefits of this change in the law may be lost if a client and their attorney are not able to show that they consistently maintained legal presence in the United States even after reaching the age of 21. As the attorney responsible for this change in the law I believe it is extremely important that all V-2 visa holders reap the benefits of this case.

Robert J. DuPont is an attorney with the law firm of Wilner & O'Reilly. Mr. DuPont Graduated from Yale University and USC Law School and is admitted to the California Supreme Court, and Federal District Courts in the Central and Northern Districts of California as well as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. DuPont is a regular speaker with ILW, and past chairman of the Immigration Law Committee with the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Mr. DuPont has risen to prominence with a 10 year practice in the field of immigration law as well as influencing Department of State and USCIS practices and policies through Federal District Court litigation including a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on V-Visas eliminating age-out of minor V-visa recipients.

Robert J. DuPont is the founding attorney for The Law Offices of Robert J. DuPont. Mr. DuPont graduated from Yale University and USC Law School. He is admitted to the California Supreme Court, Federal District Courts in the Central and Northern Districts of California, as well as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. DuPont has been a speaker at ILW, a leading immigration law publisher. He was the founder of the Immigration Law Committee with the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Mr. DuPont has risen to prominence with over a decade’s practice in the field of immigration law. He has brought cases to their successful conclusion before the EOIR, BIA, AAO, Federal District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A similar version of this article may have been published in the Asian Journal.