Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.
Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, et al.
(Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States)
(for the respondents)
Facts of the Case 

The respondents are all immigrants to the United States and are considered lawful permanent residents. At various times each of the respondents applied for family-sponsored visas. However, because of the delays caused by visa quotas and serious backlogs in the U.S. immigration system meant that all of their children had turned twenty-one and, based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), had “aged out” of eligibility for any derivative child-visas. As a result, their visa applications converted from child-applications to adult-applications and were moved to the bottom of the adult-application list, which potentially added years to their wait to receive a visas.

In 2009, after the Board of Immigration Appeals converted several child visa petitions to adult petitions, the respondents filed two cases in federal district court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California asking hat the court order the Board to retain use of their children’s original visa filing dates. That court denied the request. The respondents then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, the petitioners argued that certain provisions in the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) should allow the use of the children’s original application dates for certain visa applications. The Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that the language of both CSPA and the INA allow the child-status petition to convert to an adult petition while still retaining the original date when the visa petition was filed.


(1) Does the INA allow aliens who qualify as “children” at the time a visa application is filed but subsequently “age out” by turning twenty-one to retain their original application date?

(2) Did the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably interpret the INA when denying the respondents’ request?

Cite this Page
MAYORKAS v. DE OSORIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 April 2014. <>.
MAYORKAS v. DE OSORIO, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, (last visited April 18, 2014).
"MAYORKAS v. DE OSORIO," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed April 18, 2014,