(a) General. An alien who is not a lawful permanent resident is eligible to apply for benefits under the Family Unity Program if he or she establishes:
(1) That he or she entered the United States before May 5, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(B) or (b)(2)(C) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), or as of December 1, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), and has been continuously residing in the United States since that date; and
(2) That as of May 5, 1988, (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(B) or (b)(2) (C) of section 301 of IMMACT 90) or as of December 1, 1988, (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2) (A) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), he or she was the spouse or unmarried child of a legalized alien, and that he or she has been eligible continuously since that time for family-sponsored immigrant status under section 203(a) (1), (2), or (3) or as an immediate relative under section 201 (b)(2) of the Act based on the same relationship.
(b) Legalization application pending as of May 5, 1988 or December 1, 1988. An alien whose legalization application was filed on or before May 5, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(B) or (b)(2)(C) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), or as of December 1, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), but not approved until after that date will be treated as having been a legalized alien as of May 5, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(B) or (b)(2)(C) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), or as of December 1, 1988 (in the case of a relationship to a legalized alien described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of section 301 of IMMACT 90), for purposes of the Family Unity Program.
[62 FR 10360, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 43679, July 14, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1999–2018 · leading case:
Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2017).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 (a)(1). Sanchez submitted his Family Unity Benefits and Employment Authorization applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") on May 11, 2004.”
Luis Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions, 870 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 236.12 . 2 On September 16, 1993, Sanchez was convicted of violating California Vehicle Code § 23109(c) (exhibition of speed on a highway), § 12500(a) (driving without a license), and § 40508(b) (failing to pay SANCHEZ V.”
Vasquez De Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2011).
“See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.12 , 236.15. Second, the FUP excludes all applicants from eligibility if they are: (a) An alien who is deportable under any paragraph in section 237(a) of the Act [ 8 U.”
Carlos Alvarez Leal v. Loretta E. Lynch, 673 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3 Carlos also applied for adjustment of status based on his father’s 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 (2016). 2 See Child Status Protection Act, Pub.”
Camarena v. Meissner, 78 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 (1999). An individual applicant for family unity benefits must file a Form 1-817, along with a required fee, with the appropriate INS service center.”
Yepez-Razo v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 (b). Although Yepez-Razo’s father legalized under 8 U.”
Luis Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions (9th Cir. 2018).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 (a)(1). Sanchez submitted his Family Unity Benefits and Employment Authorization applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) on May 11, 2004.”
Ociel Gomez-Soria v. Eric Holder, Jr., 595 F. App'x 433 (5th Cir. 2015).
“Gomez challenges the BIA’s determination that a grant of benefits under the Family Unit Program (FUP), 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 , does not constitute an “admission in any status” for the purposes of 8 U.”
Soto v. Holder, 319 F. App'x 604 (9th Cir. 2009).
“Soto argues that the BIA erred when it affirmed the IJ’s order of removal because he was allegedly “admitted” as a beneficiary of the Family Unity Program, see 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 , and was therefore (1) not inadmissible under 8 U.”
Soto v. Holder, 319 F. App'x 604 (9th Cir. 2009).
“Soto argues that the BIA erred when it affirmed the IJ’s order of removal because he was allegedly “admitted” as a beneficiary of the Family Unity Program, see 8 C.F.R. § 236.12 , and was therefore (1) not inadmissible under 8 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.