Skip to main content

Did the definition of Orphan just change?

By


I had to abandon my car on the side of the road on Tuesday night due to the (2 inches of) snow “storm” so I’m stuck in my house with time on my hands. I’ve read a few blogs over the past couple of days (some from very reputable sources) which state that the definition of orphan has changed. Oh no it hasn’t! 

Everyone who is adopting from a Non-Hague country knows that it is very important that the child they seek to adopt falls under the definition of orphan i.e. that the child was abandoned, deserted, the parents disappeared or there is only one parent who cannot care for the child.  This has not changed.

What has changed is the requirement that both parents see the child prior to the adoption proceeding if they want that child to enter as a United States citizen as opposed to as a lawful permanent resident.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 has changed the requirement as follows:

“PREADOPTION VISITATION REQUIREMENT - 16 SEC. 7083. Section 101(b)(1)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(F)(i)) is 18 amended by striking ‘‘at least twenty-five years of age, 19 who personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings;’’ and inserting ‘‘who is at 21 least 25 years of age, at least 1 of whom personally saw and observed the child before or during the adoption proceedings;’’

This means that if only one parent travels overseas and meets the child prior to obtaining an adoption decree or during the adoption proceedings; then the child will receive a Certificate of Citizenship instead of just a green card when he or she comes to the United States.  Good news for adoptive parents who cannot both travel overseas due to work commitments, financial difficulties, (2 inches of) snow storms etc. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If You Are An Immigrant (even a US Citizen), Here Are 9 Things You Should Know

By
Are you a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, Visa Holder, or an Undocumented Immigrant? We recommend you take the following steps to protect yourself in our current version of America. The last couple of weeks have reminded immigrants, even naturalized U.S. citizens, that they were not born in the United States. Our office has received countless phone calls, emails, and social media messages from people worrying about what their family’s future in the United States holds. Most people want to know what they can do now to protect themselves from what promises to be a wave of anti-immigration activity by the federal government. Trump's Executive Order on Interior Enforcement has some provisions that should make most Americans shiver.  We recommend the following actions for each of the following groups: Naturalized U.S. citizens. In particular if you have a foreign accent, and you are traveling within 100 miles of any US Border (including the oceans...
231 comments
Read more

Seven Reasons Why the Georgia Legislature Should Repeal HB-87

By
Recently the Alabama Attorney General called on the Alabama State Legislature to repeal parts of Alabama's horrid anti-immigration law ( HB 56), because of the "unintended" consequences of the bill (frankly, what happened was not unintended). Because of the similarity between the two laws, Georgia's Speaker of the House, David Ralston was asked whether Georgia Legislature would repeal part or all of HB 87, Georgia own anti-immigration law. HB 87 has caused almost a half a billion dollars in damage to the Georgia economy (along with untold suffering in Georgia's immigrant communities) without any noted or reported positive effect. Speaker Ralston plainly stated that the Georgia Legislature would NOT do anything to repeal HB 87 . While it understandable why a politician would not admit that a pet bill he shepherded and pushed through the state legislature was simply bad law, it is also clear that Speaker Ralston is facing a challenge on his RIGHT in th...
1 comment
Read more

Why is USCIS Taking So Long to Renew DACA Work Permits?

By
If the calls to our office are any indicator, there are thousands of DACA recipients whose work permit applications were filed at least three months prior to expiration, who are still waiting for their renewed work permits.  Without renewed permits, these individuals lose the right to work legally, the right to drive, and may once again accrue unlawful presence. The DHS published a notice in October 2014 advising DACA recipients that they could file their request for extension up to 150 days (5 months) prior to expiration.  As with all things government, very few of the DACA recipients, who tend not to frequent government websites, knew about the memo and many did not file so far before expiration perhaps thinking that extending a work permit was a like extending a drivers license, its is done in a few minutes.  As an experienced immigration lawyer will tell you, the USCIS does nothing quickly, and certainly does not worry that a person may lose their job or their drive...
16 comments
Read more