<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
What happens after the Petitioner dies?
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?2908-Article-ABC-s-of-H-1B-Visa-Processing-Part-III-BY-Michael-Phulwani-David-Nachman-and-Rabindra-K.-Singh-Esq.#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
David H. Nachman, Esq. and Ludka Zimovcak, Esq.
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
<span itemprop=”datePublished” content=”2014-03-05″></span>
The loss of a loved one brings immense struggle and tragedy within a
family. However, when that loved one filed an
on behalf of a relative, it can be even more of a hardship because their
death causes the petition to be automatically revoked. Fortunately, USCIS
allows for family members to still benefit from these petitions so long as
they fall under one of three categories: Widowers of U.S. citizens, Certain
Surviving Relatives under INA Section 204(l), and Humanitarian
Widowers of United States Citizens can continue to benefit from their
spouse’s I-130 petition if they (1) do not remarry, (2) show that they were
legally married to the U.S. Citizen, (3) are otherwise admissible, and (4)
there was no legal separation or divorce at the time of death. The process
depends upon the status of the widower’s immigration case at the time of
the spouse’s death.
Another way to continue to benefit after the petitioner’s death is for
certain surviving relatives through INA Section 204(l). Unlike the
protection for widowers mentioned above it is available to not only the
principal beneficiary, but derivative beneficiaries as well. 204(l)
provides protection both when the petitioner dies and in some cases when
the principal beneficiary or other principal applicant dies. This form of
protection is available for I-130 family-based petitions, I-140
employment-based petitions, I-730 refugee/asylee relative petitions, T and
U nonimmigrant visa petitions
. In order to benefit, the applicant must demonstrate residence in the U.S.
both at the time of the death and at the time of the application.
The final way to benefit from an I-130 petition after the petitioner’s
death is through Humanitarian Reinstatement. Unlike INA Section 204(l),
only principal beneficiaries of an approved petition are eligible to use
this remedy. Humanitarian Reinstatement is a request to USCIS to not revoke
the approved petition for “humanitarian reasons” such as the impact of
family living in the U.S., advanced age or health concerns, ties to the
home country, unusually lengthy processing delays. Therefore, this
application is entirely discretionary, so it is important to provide USCIS
with a detailed and thorough submission.
The immigration system can be challenging to navigate, especially after the
death of a petitioner. Our office has assisted many beneficiaries of
pending and approved petitions in maintaining their eligibility for
immigration benefits after the petitioner has passed away through all three
available mechanisms. These provisions provide avenues to obtain U.S.
immigration status to surviving relatives who are struggling with not only
the loss of their loved one but the loss of their immigration case and can
provide clarity and comfort during a challenging time.
To schedule a consultation an Immigration and Nationality Lawyer at the
Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, please feel free to call the
Firm at 201-670-0006 x (107). Our main office is in Ridgewood, New Jersey.
We also have offices located in Raritan, New Jersey and New York City, as
well as affiliated offices in India and Canada. For more information about
our Firm’s immigration and nationality law practice, please feel free to
visit our website at http://www.visaserve.com or to send us an e-mail at
About The Author<br/>
<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>
<b>Kunal Patel</b> is a Management Analyst at Nachman, Phulwani, Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C.
<hr hight=”1px” width=”100%”>
<img title=”David Nachman” itemprop=”image” src=”http://wldimages.findlaw.com/images/1741179/1338878_1.png” alt=”David Nachman” align=”left” width=”85″ hspace=”10″>
<b>David Nachman</b> was born in New York and is a lifetime resident of New Jersey. Following his admission to practice, Mr. Nachman was employed for three years with one of New Jersey’s largest law firms in Newark, New Jersey, in Corporate and Business Law Department. Here, Mr. Nachman engaged in the business immigration law practice and he assisted with general corporate compliance and commercial litigation. Mr. Nachman, along with other firm attorneys, worked on such cases as Berger vs. Berger (a landmark decision regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a minority shareholder pursuant to the New Jersey Business Corporation Act) and Wolley vs. Hoffman-LaRoche (a landmark decision in the employment law arena concerning the legal and contractual implications arising from an employment handbook). Mr. Nachman also successfully completed nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications for national and international businesses of all sizes in many industries then joined another premier New Jersey law firm located Middletown.</p>
<hr hight=”1px” width=”100%”>
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>