Opinion ID: 2743141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board’s Decision in Matter of Le

Text: Although the INA is silent as to when during the immigration process a K-2 visa holder must be under 21 to be eligible for adjustment of status, the Board has provided guidance in Matter of Le. In that case, the applicant entered the United States with his mother when he was 19 years old, but turned 21 before USCIS adjudicated his application for adjustment of status. 25 I. & N. Dec. at 542. USCIS denied the application because Le had turned 18 before the date of his mother’s marriage. Id. An IJ likewise denied Le’s adjustment of status, but on the ground that he had turned 21 before the agency had adjudicated his application. Id. The Board addressed two questions in Le’s appeal: (1) at what age is a child no longer a “minor child,” and, critical to this appeal, (2) at what point in the immigration process does the child’s age become “fixed” for purposes of the minor child determination. Id. at 544. Regarding the first question, the Board concluded that the defining age for a “minor child” determination is age 21, not 18. Id. at 550 (noting the “longstanding interpretation by the implementing agency” and Congress’ implicit approval of that interpretation). 10 In addressing the second question –- at what point the K-2 applicant must establish eligibility -- the Board looked to a previous decision in which it had analyzed the same question for K-1 applicants. In Matter of Sesay, the Board concluded that an alien fiancée parent’s eligibility for adjustment of status must be established at the time of admission to the United States with the K-1 nonimmigrant visa. Matter of Sesay, 25 I. & N. Dec. 431, 440 (B.I.A. 2011). The Board in Matter of Le found Matter of Sesay’s reasoning to be equally persuasive in the context of K-1 visa holders’ minor children. Matter of Le, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 545. Consequently, the Board determined “that to adjust status based on a K-2 visa, an alien derivative child must establish that he or she was under 21 years of age at the time of admission to the United States.” Id. at 541 (emphasis added). Since Le met that requirement, the Board held he was eligible for adjustment and reversed the IJ’s decision. 1 1 We reject Regis’ argument that because Le had not yet turned 21 at the time he was admitted into the United States, Matter of Le is somehow inapplicable to this case. In deciding whether Le was eligible for adjustment, the Board was tasked with defining “minor child” and with designating the appropriate time for determining eligibility. Some, like Le, may satisfy the Board’s interpretation, and others like Regis, will not. The resulting interpretation nonetheless is applicable to all K- 2 applicants for adjustment. 11