Status as of October 7, 2026. A federal judge in Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to a mother challenging the State Department's classification of her son's immigrant-visa case. The court held that the Child Status Protection Act's statutory-age calculation controlled and that the beneficiary qualified as an immediate-relative child despite being almost 24 biologically.
The October 6 decision addresses a recurring problem in family immigration: a child turns 21 while the government is processing a petition, and the petitioner's own status later changes through naturalization.
What happened to the I-130 petition
Konjit Fantaye filed Form I-130 for her son, Henok Tefera, on November 21, 2018 while she was a lawful permanent resident. He was 15 at the time.
USCIS approved the petition on January 25, 2024, after more than five years of processing. By then Tefera had turned 21. Fantaye became a U.S. citizen on February 13, 2024.
The State Department classified Tefera as F1, the family-preference category for adult unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. Fantaye argued that the Child Status Protection Act preserved a younger statutory age and that the case should instead be treated as an immediate-relative case.
How the court read the Child Status Protection Act
The dispute centered on how the word “age” operates when an F2A petition for a permanent resident's child is affected by the petitioning parent's later naturalization.
The government argued that the beneficiary's biological age on the naturalization date controlled. The court rejected that reading and held that the statutory age calculated under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1) controls the age determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(2).
The judge noted that the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Circuits had reached the same basic conclusion in related cases.
The five-year processing delay changed the calculation
The CSPA formula subtracts qualifying petition-processing time when calculating statutory age in covered cases. In Tefera's case, the court calculated a statutory age of 18 years, 6 months and 15 days as of October 6, 2026, despite his biological age being almost 24.
The court therefore concluded that he qualified as the immediate-relative child of his mother and granted summary judgment in Fantaye's favor.
What the ruling does and does not establish
This is a federal district-court judgment resolving the parties' dispute. It does not by itself issue a nationwide order reclassifying every F2A or F1 case.
Its reasoning, however, follows published appellate decisions from multiple circuits and adds another judicial rejection of the State Department's biological-age interpretation in this context.
Factum Immigration's Green Card guide explains family immigration, adjustment and consular processing.
Frequently asked questions
Did the court say biological age controlled the visa category in this case?
No. The court held that the beneficiary's statutory age under the Child Status Protection Act controlled the age determination at issue.
What visa category did the court say applied to the beneficiary?
The court concluded that the beneficiary qualified as the immediate-relative child of his U.S.-citizen mother under the CSPA calculation used in the case.
Does this district-court ruling automatically reclassify every similar visa case nationwide?
No. The judgment resolves this case. The court relied on similar appellate decisions from several circuits, but individual cases depend on the applicable law and facts.
Official sources
Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.