A Devastating Wait: Family Unit and The Immigration Backlogs

A Devastating Wait:
Family Unity and the

Immigration Backlogs
Acknowledgements
A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs

was produced by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Daniel Huang is the report’s principal author.
Special thanks to:

Asian American Institute Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc.
April Lewton Loc Nguyen
Asian American Justice Center Filipino American Service Group, Inc.

Tuyet Duong Susan Dilkes
Karen Narasaki Rhoda Francisco
George C. Wu
Law Office of Daniel Huang
Asian Law Caucus Daniel T. Huang
Joren Lyons
Pilipino Workers Center
Asian Pacific American Legal Center Strela Cervas
Daniel K. Ichinose Aquilina Soriano
Lindsey Kawahara
Stewart Kwoh South Asian Americans
Nam-Pho Nguyen Leading Together
Tammy Peng Priya Murthy
Adrienne Platts
Sara Sadhwani South Asian Network
Rebecca Shea Shiu-Ming Cheer
My B. Trinh
Karin Wang
Mark Yoshida
This report made possible

with support from the
© 2008 Asian Pacific American Legal Center. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form by any means without attribution. Printed in the United States of America.
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (APALC) is the nation’s largest legal
organization serving the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) communities. Founded in 1983, APALC is a unique
organization that combines traditional legal services with civil rights advocacy and leadership development.
The mission of APALC is to advocate for civil rights, provide legal services and education and build
coalitions to positively influence and impact Asian and Pacific Islanders and to create a more equitable and
harmonious society.
APALC is affiliated with the Asian American Justice Center (formerly known as NAPALC) in Washington, D.C.
Contents
01 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
02 Background – Family Unity in Immigration Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S. Immigration Law Before 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Current U.S. Immigration Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Key Terms in U.S. Immigration Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Benefits of Family-Based Immigration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
03 The Problem Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Family Backlogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Backlogs and Other Immigration Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Adam Khan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pedro D. Alpay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Impact on New Immigrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sumathi Athluri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Impact on the Elderly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Francisco Villacrusis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Impact on Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Jennifer Xu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Impact on Asian Americans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
John Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Impact on Latinos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Same-Sex Couples and Family Immigration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
04 A Greater Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
My D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
05 Proposed Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Increase in Family Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Redefining Family Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Relief for Special Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Caps on Waiting Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Recapture of Unused Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Increase of Per Country Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
06 Summary of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
07 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
01 Introduction
IN THE SPRING OF 2000, the plight of a young For the most part, our immigration laws also
Cuban boy, six-year-old Elian Gonzalez, became promote family unity by awarding the majority of
the subject of heated debate in the United States. U.S. immigrant visas to the husbands and wives,
Elian had left Cuba months earlier, surviving a children and parents, and brothers and sisters
tragic crossing across the Florida Straits that of current U.S. residents so that families are not
claimed the lives of his mother and 10 others split apart. The principle of family unity has long
after the small boat they were in sank at sea. been an important part of our immigration tradition,
Elian’s father had not been informed of the and even during the most restrictive years, U.S.
crossing attempt and, upon learning of his son’s immigration laws have allowed immigrants to bring
whereabouts, demanded his return to their family in in their family members.
Cuba. In Miami, however, several of Elian’s distant
relatives quickly took custody of Elian and refused Immigration laws that promote family unity have
to let the boy return home. benefited the U.S., providing social stability
and economic prosperity in numerous ways.
Despite the historic animosity between the U.S. For instance, family-based networks have
and Cuba, most Americans sided with Elian’s been shown to prevent a wide range of social
father during the ensuing standoff.1 The U.S. and health problems, from asthma and drug
government also sided with Elian’s father and, on abuse to teen pregnancy and gang violence.2
April 22, 2000, seized Elian from the Miami home And family-sponsored immigrants, particularly
of his paternal great uncle in a well-publicized women, play a dynamic role in the U.S. economy
raid. By the end of June, Elian and his father were as entrepreneurs of small and medium-sized
headed back to Cuba. businesses, an important driving force behind
urban revitalization and job growth in every major
The Elian Gonzalez case was a potent reminder metropolis in the U.S.3
of both our country’s dedication to the concept of
family unity and its importance to the American However, our efforts to keep families together have
public. The principle of family unity – to keep been seriously undermined by extremely long waits
married couples, children, and siblings together for family-based visas that force families apart for
– is shared by nearly all societies and enshrined in years. A backlog of visas – experienced in many
many laws. U.S. family law, for instance, strongly immigration categories, but especially for family
prioritizes finding solutions to keep children with members – currently separates immigrants from
their parents. Federal and state disability laws spouses and their young children for over five years
allow adults time off from work and compensation and separates elderly parents, adult children, and
to be with and care for an ailing parent or spouse. siblings for as many as 23 years. The waits affect
millions of immigrants and U.S. citizens alike and
create immense suffering as residents are forced
to live many years without the companionship and
support of their closest loved ones.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Other immigration rules often make matters worse
by denying visits to family members, prolonging
and exacerbating waits, or separating an immigrant
from one family member after reuniting her with
another. For instance, seniors may learn to
difficult decisions, such as the mother who, with
their despair that a spouse’s recent death has
child in hand, visits her permanent resident
invalidated immigration applications for their
husband in the U.S. on a tourist visa and then
children, forcing them to reapply and wait an
chooses to remain with him rather than return to
additional eight to 15 years. In other cases, family
the Philippines where raising their child without
members receive their visas after many years in
a father is an unacceptable option. Like so
the backlog, only to learn that their children can no
many other long-term residents, she will live
longer immigrate with them because they recently
without rights and often without stability, facing
turned 21 years old and must now apply separately
poor prospects for advancement and fearing
as adults.
deportation on a daily basis.
The impact of the backlogs on families has been

both powerful and disturbing. Newer immigrants A DEVASTATING WAIT: FAMILY UNITY AND
must live without the love and support of their THE IMMIGRATION BACKLOGS seeks to add
spouses, children grow up without one or both value to the ongoing debate on immigration reform.
parents for years, and the elderly live without the Any effective immigration reform must resolve the
support of family during a period when they need problem of serious backlogs in our immigration
them most. system, especially for family-based immigrants.
The backlogs also disproportionately impact A Devastating Wait attempts to provide the reader
particular populations, such as Asian Americans, with a better understanding of the family backlog
Latinos, and women. Asian Americans and Latinos problem and its impact. It details the economic
in the U.S., with higher levels of foreign-born,4 are and social benefits of family-based immigration and
much more likely to be separated from family by the presents real stories of immigrants impacted by the
backlogs. Women, often exploited and prevented family backlogs. The stories, collected through first-
from seeking employment, are more likely to be hand interviews and media articles by the Asian
waiting in the backlogs because other options for Pacific American Legal Center and our partner
immigration are not open to them.5 organizations, highlight painful – and sadly common
– tales of separation shared by millions of families
And the lengthy waits for immigrant families of U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and would-
contribute to the problem of “illegal immigration.” be immigrants. Most importantly, A Devastating
For many of the approximately 12 million Wait offers possible solutions to the problem of the
unauthorized immigrants that currently live in the backlogs and our recommendations on solving this
U.S., remaining close to family members is the tremendously harmful and devastating problem. n
primary reason for arriving without documentation
or overstaying a visa.6 Immigrants must make

02 Background – Family Unity in
Immigration Law
U.S. Immigration
Law Before 1965
THE PRINCIPLE OF FAMILY UNITY has long been But at the same time, Congress created rules
a part of our immigration tradition in the United within the discriminatory new quotas that sharply
States. For centuries before the establishment mirrored our current framework for immigrant
of federal immigration laws, entire families would family unity. Wives and minor children were
immigrate to the U.S. from Europe together or be exempted from the quotas, and a preference
reunited after the arrival of the head of a household. system was established within the quotas for the
The U.S. government imposed few, if any, close relatives of U.S. citizens, including parents,
restrictions on entrance and welcomed immigrants. siblings, and adult children.9
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Congress began Current U.S.
to restrict immigration in an ugly and discriminatory
manner, but U.S. courts made exceptions to these
Immigration Law
laws for the sake of family unity. For instance,
In 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement,
family unity arguments successfully challenged
Congress established our current immigration
racist Chinese exclusion laws during this period,
system. Seeking to abolish the racism of prior
which otherwise banned any Chinese from entering
law, the Immigration Act of 1965 turned family
the U.S, creating rare exemptions for the wives and
unity into the central pillar of U.S. immigration law
children of Chinese merchants and U.S. citizens.7
and replaced the Quota Acts with a new system
Congress took note of the court challenges and in
allocating visas primarily on family sponsorship and
1917, preemptively included exemptions for family
employment preferences.10 Today, while there are
members while designing discriminatory literacy
other routes through which an immigrant may gain
laws aimed at limiting the immigration of Southern
residency, family-based immigration receives the
and Eastern Europeans.8
majority of permanent resident visas in our system.11
In the 1920s, the U.S. government laid down the

Family-based immigrants can be divided into
foundation for our current framework of family
two types – immediate relatives and the family
unity. With the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924,
preference categories. In U.S. immigration law,
Congress again enacted racist and discriminatory
“immediate relatives,” who typically account for over
immigration laws, but also made considerations for
two-thirds of all family-based immigrants, include
family unity. The Quota Acts imposed numerical
the spouse, minor children (unmarried and under
limits on visas and gave the majority of visas to
age 21), and parents of a U.S. citizen. Siblings
white immigrants from Northern and Western
and older children do not qualify as “immediate
Europe. Asians were excluded entirely, and
relatives” in U.S. immigration law.
Congress severely limited the immigration of
Southern and Eastern Europeans.

Key Terms in U.S. Immigration Law:
Visa – A stamp or document in your passport that Family Preference – Any of the four family-based
allows you to travel to the U.S. There are two types of immigration categories: 1) the unmarried adult children
visas – immigrant (for those who have been found eligible of a U.S. citizen, 2) the married adult children of a U.S.
to live and work in the U.S. permanently) and nonimmigrant citizen, 3) the siblings of a U.S. citizen who is over 21,
(for those who are found eligible to stay in the U.S. for a and 4) the spouse and unmarried children of a legal
limited period of time and for a specific reason, e.g. tourist permanent resident.
visa, student visa).
Derivative – The spouse and unmarried children under 21
Permanent Resident or Legal Permanent Resident of an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa holder.
(LPR) – A non-U.S. citizen who has been given permission
to live and work permanently in the U.S. The U.S. Diversity Visa – An immigrant visa lottery program held for
government issues a green card as proof of permanent persons born in countries that do not typically send many
residency, so permanent resident and green card holder immigrants to the U.S.
refer to the same thing.
Refugee/Asylee – A person who receives permission to
Immediate Relative – The spouse of a U.S. citizen, an enter or stay in the U.S. based on a fear of persecution in
unmarried child under 21 of a U.S. citizen, and a parent of his/her home country. Refugee refers to a person who is
a U.S. citizen who is over 21. outside of the U.S. when receiving permission, while asylee
refers to a person who is already inside the U.S.
Instead, siblings and children aged 21 or older fall into the “family preference”
categories of U.S. immigration law, along with the spouse and minor children of
legal permanent residents (LPRs). These are the only family members outside
of “immediate relatives” allowed to immigrate to the U.S.
The family preferences are categorized as follows:

Chart 1: “Family Preference” Categories in U.S. Immigration
Category Type of Relationship

FB-1 Unmarried child, aged 21 or older, of a U.S. citizen
FB-2A Spouse and unmarried children under 21 of an LPR
FB-2B Unmarried child, aged 21 or older, of an LPR
FB-3 Married child, aged 21 or older, of a U.S. citizen
FB-4 Brothers and sisters of a U.S. citizen
Perhaps the most important distinction between “immediate relatives” and

“family preferences” in U.S. immigration law is that immediate relatives are not
subject to a quota – a fixed ceiling or cap on the number admitted – limiting
their immigration, while each family preference category faces different quotas
that have not been updated in nearly two decades.

Continued: Background – Family Unity in Immigration Law
The overall annual quota on immigrants who fall Benefits of Family-Based

in the family preference categories is 226,000 and
is actually a “floor” – a minimum number admitted Immigration
– within another quota for all family-sponsored
For U.S. residents who are able to reunite with
immigrants, including immediate relatives. The
family members, family unification brings multiple
floor goes into effect and acts as a cap when the
benefits to them and to the country as a whole.
higher quota is full, an inevitable occurrence each
Immigrant family members, as in other families,
year in recent decades.
support and sustain each other and provide
security and shelter in times of need. They bolster
These quotas cause serious problems for U.S.
the success and integration of their U.S.-born and
residents and their family members in the family
immigrant family members by taking care of young
preference categories because each year, the
children and buying homes together. Such support
quota of visas available does not meet the need for
is particularly important for any individual who is
those visas. New applicants are placed “in line” for
learning the language, systems and processes of a
the next available visa, but today the waiting time
new country – a period that is difficult and stressful
in that “line” can be many decades. U.S. residents
for most immigrants.
and immigrants waiting for those visas are
separated from their family members for prolonged
Indeed, immigrant families have proven to be
and devastating periods of time, during which they
vital emotional, psychological, and cultural
may die, divorce, or otherwise suffer from the loss
resources for entire communities, not only family
of support and intimacy created by the separation.
members. Public health and psychology research
demonstrate that family networks help prevent
a wide range of health and social problems in
communities, from substance abuse and teen
pregnancy to suicide and gang violence.12 One
study of Latinos in Chicago even showed that
those living in neighborhoods with high densities
of foreign-born Hispanics and their immediate
families had significantly lower rates of asthma
and other breathing problems than those living in
communities with a low percentage of foreign-born
residents and with minimal family support.13

Economically, family-based immigration has had
a real positive impact, especially for long-term
economic growth. Again, research has shown that
because family-based immigrants tend to invest
highly in additional schooling and training, they
are more adaptable to changing market and labor
conditions and are less likely to compete with
the native-born for jobs. In fact, family-based
immigrants have a statistically positive effect on
the earnings and employment of U.S.-born whites
and blacks.14
Scholarly research also indicates that a family-based admissions

system fosters innovation and the development of new businesses that
would not otherwise exist. For this reason, family-based immigrants,
particularly women, have been credited for playing a dynamic role in the
U.S. economy as entrepreneurs of small and medium-sized businesses
that are a driving force behind inner-city revitalization and job growth in
nearly every major metropolis.15 Family-based immigration is essential to
this entrepreneurship – research has even shown a positive correlation
between siblings admission and immigrant entrepreneurship.16
Family unity also provides stability for workers. Long-term family

separation causes undue stress on workers, and immigrant workers
without families are more prone to get sick, get sick faster, and not seek
or obtain the healthcare they need.17
Finally, family unity is economically sound policy for the U.S. because
it keeps important dollars in the country. With family unity, immigrants
– many of whom are the bread winners of their families – no longer need
to send money home to support their spouse, children, siblings, and
parents. Each year billions of dollars are sent overseas in remittances
to family members in an immigrant’s home country.18 Family unity keeps
those dollars in the U.S. where U.S. residents and immigrants use them to
purchase homes and consumer goods and strengthen our economy. n

03 The Problem Defined
Family Backlogs
IN 2001, MING LEE of Rowland Heights, California
filed a petition with U.S. immigration authorities for
his sister to join him and his 72-year-old mother
in the United States. His mother wished to be
reunited with her daughter after moving to the U.S.
from China, but in 2008, seven years after Ming
filed the petition, they still faced four more years of
family separation.
Why does Ming Lee have to wait so long for his

sister’s visa? Unfortunately, despite a continued
emphasis on family unification in U.S. immigration
law, families immigrating to the U.S. still face
considerable challenges to staying together and
obtaining visas for spouses, children, and siblings. Today, expected wait times for family-sponsored
Families residing in the U.S. may apply for their immigrants have extended, in many cases, to
family members overseas, but if the immigrating
decades. For instance, the current wait time for
family member falls within a “family preference”
spouses and minor children of LPRs is five years,
category, the family member’s ability to immigrate
and the wait time for children of U.S. citizens aged
is affected by the U.S. system of quotas on family-
based visas. 21 or older is even longer – six years for those still
single and eight years for those who have married.
Each year, the quota of visas available to Family members and their derivatives (spouse or
immigrants in each of the family preference minor child) in the category of brothers and sisters
categories does not meet the need for these visas. of U.S. citizens must currently wait between ten and
The quotas operate on a “first come, first served” eleven years if they apply today.
basis, and as the number of family members
annually applying through the family preference And family members from China, India, Mexico,
categories regularly exceeds the annual quotas, and the Philippines face even longer waiting
new applicants are placed “in line” for the next periods because of low caps per country,
available visa. In recent decades, this line has regardless of that country’s size or ties to the U.S.
grown longer and longer as more and more family A child of a U.S. citizen over 21 years old and
members are sponsored but the number of visas from Mexico currently must wait over fifteen years.
available each year remains static. Over many Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens from the
years, the quotas have created an immense Philippines must wait nearly 23 years.
backlog of spouses, children, and siblings of U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents (LPRs)
waiting to reunite with their sponsoring family
members in the U.S.
10 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Chart 2: Expected Family Preference Visa Wait Times (in Years) as of December 2007
Category* General China India Mexico Philippines

FB-1 6 Years 6 6 15 ½ 15
FB-2A 5 5 5 5½ 5
FB-2B 9 9 9 15 ½ 11
FB-3 8 8 8 15 ½ 16 ½
FB-4 10 ½ 11 11 ½ 13 22 ½
*See page 7 – Current U.S. Immigration Law – for an explanation of the categories
The expected wait times for family members from China, India,
Mexico, and the Philippines in each family preference category are
indicated in the table above.19
An estimated four to five million spouses, children, and siblings of

U.S. citizens and green card residents currently wait in enormous
backlogs for visas that will reunite them with their loved ones.20 The
lengthy waiting periods have created havoc for millions of immigrant
families whose shared lives are placed on hold for years, and
sometimes decades.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 11

The Backlogs and Other
Immigration Rules
Other immigration rules often exacerbate the plight Worse, many children of family-based immigration
of families in the immigration backlogs. In some applicants originally qualify to immigrate with their
cases, the long waits trigger rules that invalidate parents as “derivatives” (spouse or minor child)
an individual’s application or extend waits for many of the primary applicant. However, after waiting
more years. In other cases, restrictions designed many years, these children age out of their ability
to prevent immigration abuse instead keep family to immigrate with their parents, sometimes turning
members from traveling to see each other or 21 only months before their families receive
unnecessarily separate parents from young children. permission to immigrate. These children typically
face at least an additional decade-long wait before
For instance, many rules can interact with the being able to reunite with their families in the U.S.
backlogs to invalidate a longstanding application.
One such rule involves “aging out,” or turning 21 Marriage can also invalidate a longstanding
years old. When minor children of LPRs “age out” application or add years of waiting to it. For
of their immigration category, they must wait an children over 21 years old of LPRs, exchanging
additional four to 10 years before reuniting with marriage vows would nullify their immigration
their parents (assuming they move from the FB-2A applications. For children over 21 years old of U.S.
to FB-2B category). citizens, marriage typically adds several years to
their waiting times.
Sometimes, a family member waits in the backlogs

for so long that their petitioner dies before the wait
is over. When this happens, instead of recognizing
the sad nature of the situation, U.S. immigration
law nullifies the family member’s immigration
application. Too often, the petitioner’s spouse (the
other parent of the applicant) survives the petitioner,
is still separated from his or her children, and now
must reapply and wait many additional years or
decades. This tragic scenario actually takes place
very frequently both because the backlogs are so
long and because filing an immigration application
costs hundreds to thousands of dollars for each
petitioner, making separate petitions from each
parent infeasible for many elderly citizens with
limited incomes.

Adam Khan* *Name changed to protect identity
A dam Khan’s youngest daughter was

eleven years old in 1980 when their
family decided to move from Pakistan
From the United States, Adam filed the
new application and again they were
informed the process would take many
to the United States, where they knew years. To keep the family intact and ease
a better life awaited them. That year, their daughter’s loneliness, Adam’s wife
Adam’s brother, a U.S. citizen, filed a traveled back and forth between the
petition for Adam and his wife and three United States and Pakistan every year
young daughters to immigrate to the as they waited for many years. Their
United States, but they soon learned daughter was barred from visiting them
that the siblings category of the U.S. in the United States during these years
immigration system had a large backlog because of her impending application for
of applicants that would require them immigration – yet another archaic rule in
to wait many years. Disappointed, they the U.S. law books.
nonetheless prepared themselves for the
move, which seemed to be inevitable Adam and his wife were able to
with some prerequisite patience. celebrate a joyous occasion during this
period as their daughter fell in love
Ten years later, Adam and his wife with a man and soon thereafter got
received their visas to immigrate to the married. But when the date came for
United States. They looked forward to their daughter to finally receive her visa,
rejoining their eldest two daughters, they discovered that her application
who had both married U.S. citizens. But had been invalidated because she had
just a few months earlier, their youngest gotten married. To reunite the family,
daughter had turned 21– the dreaded Adam would have to apply again for his
cutoff age for derivative beneficiaries of daughter as a U.S. citizen and wait many
immigration applicants. Based on this more years in the immigration backlogs.
rule, she was denied a visa to accompany
her parents to the United States. In 2008, Adam’s daughter finally received
her visa, 28 years after her parents first
With difficulty, the family decided to told her she could look forward to a future
separate temporarily. Adam and his wife in the United States. “Like so many
moved to the United States so they would others that come to us, the system simply
not lose their long-awaited green cards, did not work for them,” said Shiu-Ming
and their daughter remained in Pakistan, Cheer of the Los Angeles-based South
where she would stay until she received a Asian Network, who provided information
visa under a new application as the adult and assistance to the Khans. “The
child of a U.S. green card holder. existing visa system does not fit the needs
and realities of people who are waiting to
be reunited with their families.” n

Other immigration rules prevent travel or separate families
unnecessarily. For instance, family members are regularly
denied tourist and other temporary visas to the U.S. if they
have a pending family-based immigrant application because
government officials are afraid the family members will stay
in the U.S. after their visas expire. If their petitioner is an
LPR, he or she also may face travel restrictions because
LPRs must live predominantly in the U.S. to keep their
permanent resident status. In combination, these rules often
curtail a family’s ability to visit each other while waiting in the
interminable backlogs.
Another absurd rule denies visas to the spouses and minor

children of immediate relative applicants. In most other
immigration categories, spouses and minor children can
receive visas as derivatives, but in this case, families of
immediate relatives are denied derivative benefits and end up
separated or undocumented when there is no other recourse
for them.
Finally, citizenship rules can exacerbate backlogs by adding

many years to the waiting time for many families. In general,
LPRs are required to wait five years before applying for U.S.
citizenship. The citizenship application process often takes
an additional nine months to well over a year. For LPRs
separated from spouses or minor children, the wait time for
citizenship is as long as the wait time in the backlogs. For
immigrants separated from adult children or siblings, their wait
in the backlogs usually comes on top of the six years they
have waited to become a citizen.

Pedro D. Alpay
W hen Pedro D. Alpay heard in 1990 that

the United States would finally fulfill its
broken promise of U.S. citizenship to Filipino
Fifteen years later,
their youngest son,
Manuelito, received
World War II veterans, he immediately began his visa and joined
dreaming of a better life in the United States his parents in Los Angeles. A civil engineer in
for himself and his family. Pedro, a WWII the Philippines, Manuelito is now 46 years old
veteran who fought against the Japanese with and has remained single due to the longer wait
a guerilla unit in the mountains of Luzon, times facing married children. “It was painful
proudly became a U.S. citizen in March 1992 not seeing my parents for so many years and
and began his new life in California with his not having the chance to take care of them,”
wife at the elderly age of 70. says Manuelito. “The time remaining now is
too short.”
Within months, Pedro and his wife began the
task of bringing their immediate family to the Pedro’s other children remain in the
United States, filing immigration applications Philippines. Most of them have married and
for their seven children, who were unable to will not receive their visas for another two to
immigrate with their parents because they four years. One daughter, Evangeline, is a
were all over the age of 21. Pedro soon learned single mother whose own daughter was ten
that the enormous backlog of immigration years old when Pedro petitioned for them but
applications meant long wait times for Filipino is now over 21. The family faces a dilemma
green card holders and naturalized citizens – does Evangeline stay in the Philippines and
alike. His heart sank when he heard that his lose the green card and opportunities her
children would not receive their visas for at parents sacrificed so much for and the ability to
least fifteen years. “I waited almost half a be with her parents in their twilight years? Or
century to become a U.S. citizen,” Pedro said. does she move to the United States to be with
“I did not think I would have to wait again for her parents but face a twenty year wait before
my family to join us.” her own daughter can receive a visa?
Although at times sad and lonely, Pedro and his “We have seen so many families in their
wife were determined to bring their family to situation,” said Aquilina Soriano of the Pilipino
the United States and stayed in their adopted Workers Center in Los Angeles, who is working
country, praying regularly for an early reunion with the Alpays to bring their family to the U.S.
with their children. As their children were “It is often heartbreaking, and these elders
unable to receive even tourist visas during should be able to be with their families at this
this time, the elderly couple bore the burden golden age in their lives, especially someone
of travel to visit their family, which they could like Pedro who fought for America.” n
only do once every few years.

Impact on New Immigrants
For newer immigrants, many of whom have recently received
permanent resident (LPR) status, the backlogs can be
particularly devastating. The wait time for spouses and minor
children of LPRs is currently five years. Most families facing the
five year wait are young families, recently married or with young
children.21 The wait separates husbands from wives and young
children from parents.
The consequences of separation for these young families

are very serious. Marriages fall apart as couples must live
separately for many years in a long-distance relationship.
Children spend a significant portion of their youth growing up
without one of their parents. Breadwinners are overextended
trying to provide for two households.
And other immigration rules exacerbate the family’s separation.

During the long wait, the spouse and children are prohibited
from entering the U.S. for a visit, but at the same time, the
LPR husband or wife must reside predominantly in the U.S. or
risk losing permanent resident status. Families are essentially
forced to stay apart for most of the five years they must wait for
available visas.
U.S. citizenship could speed up the process of reunification

since spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens face no
backlog. However, in the U.S., LPRs must also wait five
years before applying for citizenship. Other countries such as
Australia and Canada allow permanent residents to apply for
citizenship more quickly.22

Sumathi Athluri
Excerpt from “Families Pay Price of Faulty Policies,” April 12, 2006 by Jeff Jacoby,
Boston Globe columnist:
“W HEN SUMATHI ATHLURI

met the man she was destined
to marry, it was love at first sight. She
Hoping to be quickly reunited with her
husband, Sumathi filed a Form I-130, an
application for an immigrant visa that
sensed at once that Jeevan Kumar, a would allow Jeevan to enter the United
young physician working on a World States. That was when she ran headlong
Health Organization project to eradicate into what has been called the most anti-
polio in India, was someone special. And family, anti-marriage, anti-immigrant
the more she learned about his lifestyle aspect of American law: the prolonged
and values, she was telling me the other and pointless separation of legal
day by phone from Salem, where she permanent residents from their spouses
now lives, “the more I felt he was the and children.
man I was looking for.”
Sumathi’s I-130 application for Jeevan
Jeevan was equally taken with Sumathi, was submitted more than three years
a software engineer from Hyderabad ago; unless the law changes, it is likely
who had moved to the United States to take at least two more years before
on an H-1B work visa in 1999 and had his immigrant visa is finally approved. In
become a legal permanent resident – the the meantime, he is barred from entering
holder of a green card – in February the United States to visit his wife, even
2002. The couple was married in India briefly. Because Sumathi has a green card
in August 2002, and for the first three – because she is here lawfully and will
months of their marriage they were soon be eligible for US citizenship – her
virtually inseparable. husband cannot get even a tourist visa to
come see her.” n
But green-card holders are not permitted
to remain abroad indefinitely, and when
the time came for Sumathi to return to
the United States, she was a wreck. “It
was so painful to leave him,” she says.
“I was crying in the plane all the way to
the US.”

Impact on the Elderly
For the elderly, the family backlogs affect aging parents who are
sponsoring their children to live with them in the U.S. The wait
time for U.S. citizen parents sponsoring their children aged 21
or older is long – six years for those with children who are still
single and eight years for those with children who have married.
For parents with children in Mexico or the Philippines, the wait
time is much longer – 15 to 17 years. Again, this wait often
comes on top of the five years an elderly immigrant must wait
after receiving his or her green card before applying to become
a U.S. citizen.
For the elderly, the backlogs translate into years of pain as

they wait for their children to arrive to help take care of them or
provide relief from the loneliness that often accompanies old
age. Many must decide between living with their children and
greater private access to better medical care in the U.S – an
important consideration for the elderly. Some have come to
live with one child in the U.S. but feel emotionally distressed
that other children have been left behind. Thousands of elderly
Filipino World War II veterans who only received U.S. citizenship
in the 1990s are torn between returning to the Philippines to be
with their children and their allegiance to a country they have
served and loved.
Regardless of the individual situation, many elderly citizens do

not live long enough to be reunited with their children in the U.S.
Despite years of contribution and sacrifice they may have given
to the country, the backlogs deprive these elderly immigrants of
the happiness and support they deserve in their twilight years.

Francisco Villacrusis
F rancisco Villacrusis came to the

United States from the Philippines
in the late 1980s with his wife, but their
In September 2005, with the
assistance of the Asian Law Caucus
in San Francisco, Francisco asked
son, Cielito, and daughter, Ligaya, U.S. authorities to reinstate his wife’s
both stayed behind in the Philippines petitions for his son and daughter on
because they were over the age of 21 humanitarian grounds. With his serious
and thus too old to immigrate on their health condition, Francisco argued that
parents’ visas. In 1994, Francisco and Ligaya, a nurse, and Cielito, a physical
his wife began to work on their family’s therapist, could provide skilled care
reunification, applying for their son and and emotional support to their father if
daughter’s visas under his wife’s name. allowed to come to the United States.
They were appalled to learn that their Despite the circumstances, his request
children would not be able to come to was summarily denied.
the United States for 15 years due to the
enormous backlog of applications from Francisco, a U.S. citizen, remains
the Philippines. separated and without the care and
support of his children today. If he lives,
In 1997, Francisco’s wife passed away. he will have to wait until 2019 before
Mourning his wife’s death, Francisco his son and daughter receive their visas
never imagined that U.S. immigration – and longer if either gets married. He
authorities would nullify his children’s will have waited 25 years since he and
visa applications because she had passed his wife first applied for their children
away. But in 2003, Francisco learned that to join them in the United States. “I do
Cielito and Ligaya’s applications, which not believe I will live long enough,”
they had already waited nearly ten years Francisco says. “I miss my children
for, had been nullified. very much.” n
The news hurt Francisco immensely.

Francisco was already in his 70s,
a widower, and in poor health.
Hospitalized in 2005, Francisco
suffered from coronary artery disease,
hypertension, and high cholesterol.
And he was lonely.

Impact on Women
The family backlogs disproportionately hurt women, who are
more likely to wait in the backlogs than men. Women are
both overrepresented among family-based immigrants and
underrepresented among employment-based immigrants,
making them much more likely than men to apply for their green
cards through family-based immigration and thus to get stuck in
the backlogs.
A Department of Homeland Security examination of fiscal year

2004, for instance, showed women using 58% of all family-
sponsored visas and 54% of the family preference visas.23 In
contrast, women were the principal visa holders of a paltry
28% of employment-based immigrant visas,24 and they were
the recipients of a minority of all diversity25 and refugee/
asylum visas.26
Chart 3: Allocation of Visas by Gender in Fiscal Year 2004
Category Male Female

Family-Based 42.1% 57.9%
Employment-Based 72.2% 27.7%
Diversity 54.7% 45.3%
Refugee/Asylum 50.6% 49.4%
Put another way, 69% of all female immigrants received

their permanent residency through the family-based system,
compared to 50.6% of all male immigrants. Women were 38%
more likely to obtain their green cards through a family-based
visa than men.27
Family-based immigration benefits women who, more than men,

are often denied access to resources and education and face
social constraints both in their home countries and the U.S.28
The backlogs are a serious problem for women, and cutting back
on family-based immigration options would likely harm women
more than men.

Jennifer Xu
J ennifer Xu came to the United States

in 1996 from a humble background
in rural China. She was an ordinary
Twelve years later, her daughter finally
received her visa after a decade of
uncertainty and instability in China.
worker, she explains, and a single Without knowledge of how long she
mother to one daughter who was her would have to wait, she was unable
only family. She had little money and to start a family or focus her energies
came to the United States at the age of properly on a career. In anticipation of
52 hoping for a better life. But she had her new life in the United States, she
few expectations in the land of promise had focused all her energy on studying
and opportunity other than to be able to English instead. Now 43, she is happy
bring her daughter over as quickly as to be reunited with her mother but
possible so they could start their lives bitter at having spent many important
together in their new country. years – from young adulthood to middle
age – waiting. “How many decades do
Jennifer applied immediately for her you have in a lifetime and how many
daughter’s visa in 1996, but Jennifer and decades do you have while you’re
her daughter had few resources to tell young?” asked her mother rhetorically.
them how long they would have to wait.
Unable to afford a computer or even a Despite her outgoing and cheery
refrigerator, Jennifer also did not have personality, Jennifer also expresses
access to an attorney, who might have bitterness. The wait was mental torture,
been able to warn her that because her she says, and the separation placed
daughter was over 21 years old, they great stress on their relationship. “The
faced a wait of over a decade for her immigration laws are inhumane,”
daughter’s visa. Jennifer says from her home in Los
Angeles. “Why do they make us wait?
Our families are so important to us and
our children are our children forever.” n

Impact on Asian Americans
Asian Americans and their family members waiting abroad
are more likely than other groups to be caught in the backlogs
waiting for family unification. With a percentage of foreign-born
greater than any other major ethnic group (due to the exclusion
of Asians to the U.S. until 1965), Asian Americans are more
likely to have close family members remaining overseas. Asian
Americans thus rely heavily upon family-sponsored immigration.
Indeed, the majority of Asian immigrants come to the U.S.

through family immigration. In 2006, for instance, 63% of Asian
immigrants came through family sponsorship,29 and in the five-
year period from 2002-2006, over one million Asian American
family members received their green cards through family-based
immigration.30 Although Asian Americans comprise only 4-5% of
the U.S. population,31 they sponsor nearly one-third of all family-
based immigrants.32
Asian Americans also use certain family preference categories

– married adult children of U.S. citizens and siblings of U.S.
citizens – more than other groups. In 2007, for instance, Asian
American families used 64% of all visas issued by the U.S. State
Department to adult married children of U.S. citizens and 75% of
all visas issued to siblings of U.S. citizens.33 In that same year,
Asian American families also used almost half of all the visas
issued to parents in the “immediate relatives” category.34
As a result, a disproportionate number of Asian Americans have

family members waiting in the family immigration backlogs.
Nearly half of the applicants waiting in the backlogs are the
spouses, children, and siblings of Asian Americans.35 Of the one
million Asian American family members who received their green
cards from 2002-2006, almost 40% of them received their green
cards through the family preference categories after waiting
many years in the backlogs.36

John Park* *Name changed to protect identity
J ohn Park immigrated to the United

States with his family when he was only
ten years old. His father, who had spent
John went to consult with an immigration
attorney, but the attorney did not have good
news for him. If John left the United States and
some time in the United States before and returned to Korea, a country he hardly knew
possessed an MBA degree, was invited to anymore, he would be alone and separated
work in southern California by a corporation from his family for decades. His parents could
that sponsored his H-1 employment visa. petition for him as the minor child of legal
John and his mother came along on the permanent residents (LPR), but a backlog in
accompanying H-4 spouse and child visas. that category would require a wait of over five
John’s two older sisters had been born in the years, and John would turn 21 years old and
United States and did not require visas as “age out” of the category by then. He would
they were birthright U.S. citizens. also age out before his parents could become
U.S. citizens and sponsor him in the immediate
John had big dreams – he wanted to attend relative category. Once he aged out, the wait
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and for children over 21 of U.S. citizens or LPRs
become a star in the computer industry – so would take an additional six to nine years.
he worked hard at school, performing well
even during the early years when he could At the age of 17, John became an
hardly speak English. By his senior year of undocumented immigrant – at the top of his
high school, John was a straight-A student class, but unsure of his college prospects for
with a 4.55 grade point average, ranked the upcoming fall. Without financial aid, many
first in a class of 510 students. A well-liked of the best universities were now out of reach.
and mature teenager, John flourished as he Without legal status, John was not likely to
pursued his American dream and prepared to find gainful employment in the future.
go to college.
In March 2007, John wrote an email to nearly
However, John soon received frightening 200 individuals in Los Angeles describing his
news. His H-4 visa was about to expire, plight. “I feel as though all the hard work I put
and unlike his parents, John could not in throughout high school will come to nothing,
immediately receive a green card through his since I currently do not have a path to legal
sisters’ sponsorship because the backlogged residence in the United States.” Never one to
sibling category had an eleven year wait for let despair turn to paralysis, he then asked the
a visa. John also could not receive a green recipients for their support of the DREAM Act,
card through his parents’ application because a legalization bill for undocumented students.
a immigration rule denied visas to the “If the DREAM Act were to be enacted,
spouses and children of immediate relative students in situations like mine would benefit
applicants. tremendously,” he wrote. “Just one phone call
to your representatives in Congress could make
a difference in the lives of students like me.” n

Impact on Latinos
Latinos are disproportionately stuck waiting for their family
members in the immigration backlogs. With a high percentage
of foreign born and the greatest overall numbers of foreign born
in this country,37 Latinos are more likely to have close family
members remaining overseas. As a result, although Latinos
comprise only 14% of the U.S. population, they sponsor almost
40% of all family-based immigrants.38
For instance, Latin American and Caribbean countries

comprised half of the nations sending the most family-based
immigrants to the U.S. in 2006. Mexico, in particular, heavily
relied on family sponsorship, with 15% of all immediate
relatives and nearly 30% of family preference immigrants
arriving from that country. Other Latin American and Spanish-
speaking Caribbean countries sending large numbers of family-
based immigrants included the Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Guyana, Guatemala, and Colombia.39
Latinos also use certain family preference categories

– unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens and spouses and
children of LPRs – more than other groups. Latin American
and Caribbean countries dominate the unmarried adult
children of U.S. citizens and LPRs categories.40 Latinos from
Mexico sponsor over half of the spouses and minor children of
LPRs – the one family preference category exempt from per
country limits – in any given year.41
As a result, Latinos face some of the longest waits in the world

and are forced to make tremendous sacrifices. With so many
family members overseas – especially spouses and children –
Latinos suffer disproportionately from the immigration backlogs
and its impact on their families and community.

Same-Sex Couples and Family Immigration
While many groups face enormous obstacles together, same-sex spouses are unable to obtain
with the backlogs for family-sponsored an immigrant visa or green card as the husband
immigrants, one group has seen its families shut or wife of a U.S. citizen. They are unable to
out entirely. Same-sex couples and their children obtain derivative benefits as the spouse of a
have no standing in U.S. immigration law, and temporary worker or other visa holder.
as a result many committed bi-national couples
in the U.S. – where one partner is a U.S. citizen With few alternatives, many same-sex couples
or permanent resident – and their families are have been forced to split apart or move their
forced to separate or live in constant fear of families overseas. Asian American gay and
separation. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, lesbian couples are particularly likely to meet
an estimated 40,000 such couples currently live this fate because of the high rate of foreign-
together in the U.S.42 Others have already been born in the Asian American community and the
separated or live together outside the U.S. large percentage of Asian American same-sex
households raising children.44 To end this unfair
For these couples, the challenge to obtaining practice, the Asian Pacific American Legal
immigration benefits begins with marriage Center supports two key changes to U.S. federal
discrimination. Immigration benefits for opposite- and immigration law proposed by human rights
sex couples are based on marriage, but in most advocates.
of the U.S. and elsewhere, same-sex couples are
unable to get married. Marriage discrimination First, Congress should pass the Uniting American
against same-sex couples is widespread, and Families Act (UAFA), a bill that would allow U.S.
many states and several countries have gone citizens and permanent residents to sponsor
so far as to enact bans on same-sex marriage in their same-sex partners for immigration to the
recent years. As of June 2008, only two states, U.S. By adding the term “permanent partner” to
California and Massachusetts, and six countries sections of U.S. immigration law where “spouse”
worldwide – Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, now appears, UAFA would provide an immediate
Norway, South Africa, and Spain – allow same- fix for many bi-national same-sex couples who
sex couples to get married.43 intend to make a lifelong commitment to each
other. Second, Congress must repeal DOMA,
Even when same-sex couples are able to an obvious and necessary step to ending federal
get married, however, the U.S. still denies discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.
them spousal immigration benefits. In 1996, The repeal of DOMA would allow married
Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act same-sex couples to sponsor their spouses
(DOMA), which prohibits the federal government through established immigration channels and
from recognizing same-sex marriages for any receive equal treatment for their families in U.S.
purpose, including immigration. Despite making immigration and federal law.45 n
a lifelong commitment and often raising children

04 A Greater Threat
In May 2007, Toan P. of Garden Grove, California, In addition, the White House proposed to set
a father of two and immigrant from Vietnam, an annual quota on parents of U.S. citizens.
learned that the Bush administration had submitted Through the quota, the White House proposal
a proposal to invalidate his July 2005 application effectively moved parents of U.S. citizens out of the
for his daughter. Appalled and concerned, Toan “immediate relatives” category and created a new
wrote to his members of Congress. “My wife and preference category. The numerical limit on visas
I are reaching a late stage in our lives and need to for this new category was set far below the known
be with our children,” Toan said. “Not only do we need, creating an immediate backlog of parents
miss our daughter, but we also need her to help who wished to reunite with their children.
take care of us. This [bill] is something that would
devastate our family and leave my daughter facing In place of an immigration system based on family
a very difficult future.” unification, the White House wanted to set up a
point-based immigration system based largely on
Toan was not mistaken in his understanding that specialized occupational skills, level of education,
the White House proposal would separate him and English language ability. The system gave
permanently from his daughter. The proposal and very few points based on family relationships,
its resulting Senate bill invalidated most of the and rewarded those points only when immigrants
backlogged family-based applications submitted had already passed a high bar on the other
after May 1, 2005, including Toan’s. Even worse, qualifications.46
the proposal permanently terminated the ability
of U.S. citizens to sponsor close family members, The White House attempted to push through the
including all children over 21 and all siblings. To proposal as a sincere effort to clear the backlogs
make this change, the White House essentially for family-based immigrants, and they put forward
gutted the concept of family unity by eliminating the visa point system alternative as proof that their
four out of the five family preference categories proposal was not anti-immigrant. But the central
– unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens (FB-1), purpose of the proposal’s changes to the parent
unmarried adult children of LPRs (FB-2B), married and family preference categories was to decrease
children of U.S. citizens (FB-3), and brothers and legal immigration by severely limiting the ability of
sisters of U.S. citizens (FB-4). immigrants to sponsor more immigrants through
family-based immigration. The White House
had been swayed by unfounded fears of “chain
migration,” a baseless theory that through family

sponsorship, one immigrant would sponsor hundreds
of other immigrant family members, creating – as
one anti-immigrant organization put it – “endless and
often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals” who
are “the chief culprits in America’s current record-
breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl,
congestion, school overcrowding, and other impacts
that reduce American’s [sic] quality of life.”47
Such fears of chain migration were nothing new. They

had prompted, in fact, regular attacks on the family
preference categories for decades. The siblings
category had come under attack in particular. As
early as 1972, when Asian and Latino immigrants
began to dominate the family-based immigration,
Congressmember David W. Dennis (R-IN) introduced
a bill amendment limiting the sponsorship of siblings
to unmarried brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.48
In the 1980s, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and
Congressmember Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) proposed
eliminating sibling sponsorship entirely – a provision
that would be proposed again and again in the ensuing
decades.49
Nor were the prior attacks on family unification

limited to the siblings category. In 1982, for example,
when Senator Simpson and Congressmember
Mazzoli attempted to eliminate sibling sponsorship,
they also proposed placing a cap on spouses,
children, and parents of U.S. citizens.50 In 1988-89,
Senators Simpson and Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
proposed a bill that would include further limits on
spouses and children of LPRs.51 And in the 1990s,
Congressmember Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced a
bill eliminating all “nonnuclear family preferences.”52

In 2007, family advocates joined Toan and other immigrant families
in protesting the White House attack on immigrant family unity. The
proposed point system, they pointed out, would never work for
women, who are both a majority of family-based immigrants and
highly under-represented in employment-based immigration.53 Nor
would members of low-income and refugee families, with less access
to high levels of education, skill development, and English language
classes, be able to immigrate. They would instead face permanent
family separation. Elderly immigrants would be negatively impacted
in two ways. Elderly U.S. citizens would be permanently separated
from their adult children, and long waits would immediately ensue for
the elderly immigrant parents of U.S. citizens.
And Asian American and Latino families would be disproportionately

hurt by the eliminations in the White House proposal. Asian American
families are among the highest users of the to-be-eliminated FB-3
and FB-4 categories,54 while Latino families are among the highest
users of the FB-1 and FB-2B family preference categories.55 Both
communities use the visas for parents heavily and would be hurt
tremendously by limits on parents.
Despite the protests of family advocates, the Bush administration

and its allies in the Senate pushed forward the elimination of current
family unification principles in a broad immigration reform bill during
the spring and early summer of 2007. The bill was ultimately defeated
because it included a legalization plan for undocumented immigrants
– but not because of its strong anti-family bent. Before its defeat,
laudable efforts to remove the harmful family provisions were voted
down at every stage.
If we are to learn any lesson from recent and past history, it is that the
attacks against siblings and other important immigration categories
for family unification will be back in the future. The elimination of
family preference and immediate relative categories will continue to
be a legislative threat that family and immigrant rights advocates must
monitor and fight at every turn. n

My D.
I n the spring of 2007, My D., a mother of two, learned that the

Bush administration had submitted a plan that would invalidate
her October 2005 immigration application for her son in Vietnam.
My had already waited many years to become a U.S. citizen so
she could sponsor her son, so the news came as a huge blow to
her. Even worse, the White House plan prevented her from ever
reuniting with her son since it also eliminated most of the family-
based immigration categories. She decided to write to her two
senators from California, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
Boxer, as the proposal had already become a bill in the Senate.
“Please stop [the senate bill],” she wrote. “This bill makes
too many U.S. immigrant mothers suffer deeply. I am one of
these suffering mothers.” The prospect of being permanently
separated from her son made her feel hopeless and “very sad,
almost to the point of dying.” The bill felt “like a sharp knife
stabbing my heart.”
Later that spring, My learned that the White House proposal had
been unable to pass a vote of the full Senate. The pleas from My
and other immigrant mothers had fallen largely on deaf ears, but
ironically her application was saved by anti-immigrant forces,
whose active lobbying managed to sway many legislators to vote
against the bill because it also included a quasi-legalization plan
for undocumented immigrants. My’s immigration application for
her son would move forward.
Today, My continues to wait for her family’s reunification, the

application for her son stuck in the immigration backlog for at
least four more years. She is sad knowing that her eldest son
is alone with no other family in Vietnam, but she talks to him
regularly on the phone. “We will be together soon,” she tells
him. “Please don’t despair. I love you.” n

05 Proposed Solutions
Increasing Family Visas Several ways to increase visas for the family
preference categories in this manner have already
Jun Yuan Ye is a Chinese immigrant living in been proposed. During the last two sessions of
Gardena, California. He is separated from his Congress, Congressmember Sheila Jackson-
eldest daughter, who wishes to reunite with her Lee (D-TX) sought to double the annual quota
family here. He suffers deeply knowing that his on all family-sponsored visas, including both
daughter has no other family in China and will family preference categories and immediate
have to wait years before coming to the United relatives, from 480,000 to 960,000 per year.56
States. Because of the backlogs, Jun will have While laudable, this proposal might not provide
to wait seven to eight more years for his family’s as much relief to the backlogs as one would
reunification. expect. Without specific provisions to increase
visas for family preference categories, the majority
Perhaps the most obvious approach to resolving of the visa increase in Jackson-Lee’s bill could
Jun’s dilemma and the family unification and go to immediate relatives, who already face no
backlog problem is to increase the annual quota of restrictions on visa numbers.
visas available for the family preference categories.
Increasing the number of visas for applicants in An improvement on Jackson-Lee’s proposal would
these categories would immediately shorten the be to remove immediate relatives from the overall
backlogs and decrease wait times for those in line. family-sponsored immigration cap so that all
A large enough increase of available visas each visas under the cap could be used for the family
year could eliminate the backlogs over a short preference categories. Congressmember Luis
period of time. Gutierrez (D-IL) included such a provision in the
STRIVE Act of 2007. The removal of “immediate
relatives” from the cap would effectively increase
the annual quota for the family preference
categories from 226,000 to 480,000.57 According
to one estimate, such a provision would have
eliminated the family backlogs in an estimated six
to eight years.58
A general increase in visas for the family preference

categories would immediately reduce backlogs
and wait times across all preference categories.
As with the STRIVE Act, such an increase could
also eliminate the backlogs if the increase is
large enough. However, unless a review and
reconsideration of the quotas also occurs on a
regular basis, this approach could fall short of
providing a permanent solution (leaving visas
unused or allowing backlogs to again develop).

Redefining Family
Categories
Another approach for providing broad and
immediate relief from the backlogs is to reclassify
certain family preference categories as “immediate
relatives.” For instance, the spouses and minor
children of LPRs or the adult children of U.S.
citizens could be redefined as immediate relatives.
Redefining preference categories in this manner
would provide immediate relief from the backlog
for applicants in those categories. Such a
A reclassification of spouses and minor children
reclassification would also free up additional visas
of LPRs as “immediate relatives” would eliminate
for all remaining family preference categories.
one of the harshest consequences of the backlog
In 1990, Congress considered a measure to
dilemma. Would-be immigrants could gain
reclassify the spouses and minor children of LPRs
permanent residency without fear of a lengthy
as immediate relatives – effectively lifting the
separation from wives, husbands, or young
numerical limit on visas for those family members
children. Any such redefining of family preference
by placing them in the same category as spouses
categories would bring our immigration system
and minor children of U.S. citizens. Through the
more in line with the popular definition of immediate
leadership of Congressmember Bruce Morrison
relatives and provide an immediate and permanent
(D-CT), then Chair of the House Immigration
solution for backlogs in those categories.
Subcommittee, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed the measure. However, the Senate refused
to approve the reclassification and the measure Providing Relief for
was dropped from the final bill.59 Special Categories
Morrison’s approach has become the most popular Another way to provide relief from the backlogs is
attempt in Congress at redefining family categories to exempt certain categories of family-sponsored
to provide relief from the backlogs. In 2007, immigrants from the annual quotas for humanitarian
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) again proposed or other compelling reasons.
to reclassify the spouses and minor children of
LPRs as immediate relatives in an amendment to For example, in recent years, legislation to provide
the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act relief to thousands of aging Filipino World War II
of 2007. The Clinton amendment failed to pass veterans and their children has gained traction
a Senate vote, but family and immigrant rights among many members of Congress. The veterans,
advocates continue to push for the reclassification mostly in their 80s and 90s, served with the U.S.
in new bills. Armed Forces during World War II when the
Philippines was a colony of the U.S., but they

were stripped of both the ability to become U.S. Establishing Caps
citizens and the rights and benefits given to all
other veterans after the war. In 1990, Filipino on Waiting Times
WWII veterans were finally given the opportunity to
A cap on wait times in the backlogs is a proven
obtain U.S. citizenship and spend their remaining
measure for providing relief to family-based
years in the U.S., but these veterans soon found
immigrants. Such a measure would provide
themselves separated from their children and
visas immediately and in the future to any family-
families due to the backlog of visas to adult children
sponsored applicant who has waited for a specified
of U.S. citizens. Thousands of these veterans
amount of time. The cap would provide immediate
remain separated from their families today and
relief for severe cases of family separation while
are spending their twilight years without the daily
providing a safeguard against future cases of
interaction and support of family members.63
interminable backlogs.
A bill to exempt the children of Filipino World War

Congress enacted such a cap in 2000 with the Legal
II veterans who are naturalized citizens of the U.S.
Immigration Family Equity Act and its amendments
from the annual family-sponsored immigration
(LIFE Act).60 The LIFE Act established the V-visa,
quotas has been proposed in Congress. In 2006,
a temporary visa for the spouses and children of
the legislation, known as the Filipino Veterans
legal permanent residents who had already waited
Family Reunification Bill, was successfully added
in the backlogs for three or more years. The V-visa
as an amendment to a larger immigration bill that
allowed these family members to live and work in the
passed in the Senate. However, members of the
U.S. with their U.S. resident family members while
U.S. House of Representatives prevented the
waiting in the backlogs for their permanent immigrant
larger bill from enactment, and the Filipino veterans
visas. Unfortunately, the LIFE Act was a one-time
amendment died along with the Senate bill.64
fix for the spouses and children of legal permanent
residents who had applied for their visas prior to
December 21, 2000. For subsequent applicants, the
V-visa and corresponding cap on wait times was not
an option.
Several organizations have been pushing for

a more permanent cap on wait times in recent
years. The National Immigration Forum, a leading
immigrant rights organization, has proposed a
five-year cap on wait times for all backlogged
applicants.61 In 2007, a nationwide coalition of
community leaders and organizations went even
further in their “Unity Blueprint for Immigration
Reform,” which proposed a one-year cap on wait
times for family members.62

Recapturing Unused Visas
Recapturing unused visas from past years would
immediately reduce the backlogs without increasing
the total number of allocated visas. Paradoxically, Increasing Per
thousands of family and employment-based visas Country Limits
are not used every year because of administrative
backlogs and bureaucratic delays and are lost Increasing per country limits on visas would
because unused visas do not roll over to the provide relief for family-based immigrants from
following year. If made permanent, recapturing the countries with the largest backlogs and
unused visas would ensure that suffering families longest wait times. These countries include
receive the maximum number of allocated visas China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines, which
provided by Congress. all have more immigration applicants than other
countries because of a combination of their large
For instance, in 2007, administrative delays kept populations, physical proximity, and/or historical
More than 31,000 family preference visas – more and familial ties with the U.S.
than one out of every seven allocated visas – from
being issued.65 31,100 close family members and Mexico and the Philippines, for instance, have the
everyone behind them in the backlogs would have 11th and 12th largest populations worldwide and
to wait another year before reuniting with their both have a close history and unique ties with
families due to bureaucratic ineptitude. The total the U.S. Without an increase in the per country
number of family-based immigrant visas lost from limits, applicants from Vietnam are likely to join
1998 to 2007 was an astonishing 209,769 visas.66 the other four countries with separate and longer
wait times. Vietnam has the 13th largest population
In 2008, Congressmembers Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and obvious recent ties with the U.S. – as a result,
and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced a Vietnam also has one of the largest backlogs in the
bill to recapture unused family and employment- family-based immigration system.68
based visas from 1992 to 2007 and create a
rollover mechanism for unused visas in the Recent immigration legislation has often proposed
future.67 Despite bipartisan support, the bill an increase from seven to 10 percent of the
remains pending as of this report’s publication. worldwide total in the per country limits on visas.
For instance, Congressmember Luis Gutierrez
(D-IL) included such a provision in the STRIVE Act
of 2007.69 In 2008, Congressmember Zoe Lofgren
(D-CA) proposed to increase the per country limit
on visas to 10 percent in the High Skilled Per
Country Level Elimination Act.70 n

06 Summary of Recommendations
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center supports fair and humane immigration reform principles that
keep families together and protect rights and liberties. Such immigration reform should include a path
to legal status and citizenship for undocumented immigrants and reasonable and adequate channels for
legal immigration in the future. In particular, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center strongly believes
that the tremendous backlogs in the family-based immigration system must be eliminated. Asian American
families suffer from some of the worst immigration backlogs in the world.
Therefore, we recommend the following legislative solutions:
1.
1 Remove immediate relatives from the overall family-sponsored immigration cap (which they are
not subject to in any case). Removing immediate relatives from the overall cap will reduce the
backlogs immediately and eliminate the backlogs within six to eight years.
2.
2 Recapture unused visas from 1992 to 2007. Recapturing unused visas from the past fifteen years
will help to reduce the backlogs. Rolling over unused visas in the future will ensure the maximum
use of all visas allocated by Congress.
3.
3 Reclassify the spouses and minor children of LPRs as immediate relatives. Reclassifying this
category will provide immediate relief for many families and permanently eliminate the harmful
practice of separating young spouses and their children from each other.
4.
4 Exempt Filipino WWII veterans and other special categories of family-sponsored immigrants from
the annual quotas. Creating exemptions for these categories will provide humanitarian relief for
individuals and their families who have served the U.S. well.
5.
5 Increase per country limits on visas to 10% of the overall quota. Increasing per country limits
will help decrease the most egregious backlogs for immigrants from China, India, Mexico,
and the Philippines.
6.
6 Place a permanent three-year cap on wait times for family-sponsored visas. A three-year cap will
ensure that backlogs are not developed in future years and also provide immediate relief for many
in our current backlogs.
7.
7 Add “permanent partner” to sections of U.S. immigration law where “spouse” now appears. Adding
this term would allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for
immigration to the U.S., providing an immediate fix for many bi-national same-sex couples and their
families who currently face separation or exile.

To resolve the present dilemma facing many U.S. families separated by
our immigration backlogs, we urge Congress to immediately enact a bill
including all of these fixes. In the absence of such a bill, we strongly
recommend that Congress enact any bills focusing on one of more of the
above fixes, such as the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act or the
Uniting American Families Act.
As Congress and a new administration look to enact comprehensive

immigration reform in 2009 and beyond, we hope they will understand that
any truly comprehensive immigration reform bill must include the above
legislative fixes if it is to achieve order and a permanent solution to the
many problems within our immigration system today.
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center also encourages Asian

Americans to share their personal immigration stories with us and
to contact their members of Congress to ask for fair and humane
immigration reform.
To find your member of the U.S. House of Representatives, visit

www.house.gov or call the House switchboard at (202) 225-3121.
To contact your Senators, visit www.senate.gov or call the Senate
switchboard at (202) 224-3121. n

07 Endnotes
1
ewport, Frank. April 4, 2000. Americans Continue
N 13
Cagney, Kathleen A., Christopher R. Browning
to Favor the Return of Elian Gonzalez to Cuba. & Danielle M. Wallace. May 2007. “The Latino
Gallup News Service. Paradox in Neighborhood Context: The Case
of Asthma and Other Respiratory Conditions,”
2
Lawrence, Stewart J. 2007. Divided Families: New
American Journal of Public Health 97(5).
Legislative Proposals Would Needlessly Restrict
Washington, D.C.: American Public Health
Family-Based Immigration. Washington, D.C.:
Association.
Immigration Policy Center.
14
Duleep, Harriet. May 8, 2007. “Is Family-Based
3
Ibid.
Immigration Good for the U.S. Economy?”
4
Asian American Justice Center and Asian Pacific Testimony of Harriet Duleep, Professor, Thomas
American Legal Center. 2006. A Community of Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College
Contrasts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders of William and Mary, before the U.S. House of
in the United States. Washington, D.C.: AAJC and Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
APALC. In the U.S., Asian Americans are 63% Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
foreign-born and Latinos are 40% foreign-born. By Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
comparison, the average rate of foreign-born for the Professor Duleep refers to Sorenson, Elaine. 1996.
entire U.S. population is 11%. “Measuring the Employment Effects of Immigrants
with Different Legal Statuses on Native Workers,”
5
Legal Momentum. 2007. Women Immigrants and Immigrants and Immigration Policy: Individual Skills,
Family Immigration. Washington, D.C.: Legal Family Ties, and Group Identities, Greenwich, CT:
Momentum. JAI Press.
6
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. 2000. 15
Wiata, Edward. May 4, 2007. “Study Shows
Placing Immigrants at Risk: The Impact of Our Laws Immigrants A Real Engine for Growth,” USA Today.
and Polices on American Families. Washington,
D.C.: Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. 16
Duleep, Harriet. May 8, 2007. “Is Family-Based
Immigration Good for the U.S. Economy?”
7
Lee, Erika. 2003. At America’s Gates: Chinese Testimony of Harriet Duleep, Professor, Thomas
Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. of William and Mary, before the U.S. House of
8
Tichenor, Daniel. 2002. Dividing Lines: The Politics Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
of Immigration Control in America. Princeton, N.J.: Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Princeton University Press. Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
9
Ibid.
17
Lawrence, Stewart J. 2007. Divided Families: New
Legislative Proposals Would Needlessly Restrict
10
Daniels, Roger. 2004. Guarding the Golden Door: Family-Based Immigration. Washington, D.C.:
American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since Immigration Policy Center. See also examples of
1882. New York: Hill and Wang. Ming Liu and Osvaldo Fernandez in Chapter 3 of
11
Jefferys, Kelly. Characteristics of Family-Sponsored Hing, Bill Ong. 2006. Deporting Our Souls: Values,
Legal Permanent Residents: 2004. Washington, Morality, and Immigration Policy, New York, NY:
D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. Cambridge University Press.
12
awrence, Stewart J. 2007. Divided Families: New
L
18
Migration Policy Institute Data Hub. 2008. Global
Legislative Proposals Would Needlessly Restrict Remittances Guide. Washington, D.C.: Migration
Family-Based Immigration. Washington, D.C.: Policy Institute.
Immigration Policy Center. 19
U.S. Department of State. November 2007. Visa
Bulletin for December 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of State.

20
sian American Justice Center. May 9, 2008. Asian
A 32
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. 2003-2007.
American Justice Center Applauds the Introduction Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2002-2006.
of Lofgren-Sensenbrenner Recapture Visa Bill: Calls Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
on Congress to Address Family and Employment Statistics.
Visa Backlogs. Washington, D.C.: Asian American 33
Asian American Justice Center. 2008. Asian
Justice Center.
Americans and Family-Sponsored Immigration.
21
Unite Families. 2004-08. Home. UniteFamilies.org. Washington, D.C.: Asian American Justice Center.
22
Unite Families. 2004-08. Alternatives. UniteFamilies. 34
Ibid.
org. 35
Narasaki, Karen. May 22, 2007. “Asian American
23
J efferys, Kelly. October 2005. Characteristics of Perspective on Comprehensive Immigration
Family-Sponsored Legal Permanent Residents: Reform,” Testimony of Karen Narasaki, Executive
2004. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration Director, Asian American Justice Center, before the
Statistics. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration.
24
Jefferys, Kelly. October 2005. Characteristics of
Employment-Based Legal Permanent Residents: 36
2004. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2002-2006.
Statistics. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Statistics.
25
Jefferys, Kelly. December 2005. Characteristics
of Diversity Legal Permanent Residents: 2004. 37
Asian American Justice Center and Asian Pacific
Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration American Legal Center. 2006. A Community of
Statistics. Contrasts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
in the United States. Washington, D.C.: AAJC and
26
Jefferys, Kelly. May 2007. Refugees and Asylees:
APALC.
2006. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Statistics. 38
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2002-2006.
27
Legal Momentum. 2007. Women Immigrants and
Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Family Immigration. Washington, D.C.: Legal
Statistics.
Momentum.
39
Migration Policy Institute. June 2007. How Changes
28
Ibid.
to Family Immigration Could Affect Source
29
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. 2007. “Table Countries’ Sending Patterns. Washington, D.C.:
10: Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Migration Policy Institute.
Status by Broad Class of Admission and Region 40
Ibid.
and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2006,” Yearbook
of Immigration Statistics: 2006. Washington, D.C.: 41
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. 2006. “Table
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. 5: Immigrant Visas Issued and Adjustments of
Status Subject to Numerical Limitations, Fiscal
30
Year 2005,” Yearbook of Immigration Statistics:
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2002-2006.
2005. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Statistics.
Statistics.
42
Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality.
31
sian American Justice Center and Asian Pacific
A
2006. Family, Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial,
American Legal Center. 2006. A Community of
and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples
Contrasts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
under U.S. Law. New York: Human Rights Watch/
in the United States. Washington, D.C.: AAJC and
Immigration Equality.
APALC.

Continued: Endnotes
43
tritof, Sheri and Bob Stritof. 2008. Same-Sex
S 55
Migration Policy Institute. June 2007. How Changes
Marriage FAQ – Gender-Neutral Marriage Laws. to Family Immigration Could Affect Source
About.com, a part of The New York Times Company. Countries’ Sending Patterns. Washington, D.C.:
Migration Policy Institute.
44
Asian American Federation of New York. 2004.
Asian Pacific American Same-Sex Households: A 56
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee. H.R. 750, Save
Census Report on New York, San Francisco, and America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.
Los Angeles. New York: Asian American Federation Introduced in Congress on January 31, 2007.
of New York. 57
Representative Luis Gutierrez, H.R. 1645, Security
45
uman Rights Watch and Immigration Equality.
H Through Regularized Immigration and A Vibrant
2006. Family, Unvalued: Discrimination, Denial, Economy Act of 2007 or STRIVE Act. Introduced in
and the Fate of Binational Same-Sex Couples Congress on March 22, 2007.
under U.S. Law. New York: Human Rights Watch/ 58
Narasaki, Karen. May 22, 2007. “Asian American
Immigration Equality.
Perspective on Comprehensive Immigration
46
White House, March 28, 2007. PowerPoint Reform,” Testimony of Karen Narasaki, Executive
presentation. Washington, D.C.: White House. See Director, Asian American Justice Center, before the
also Senate bill 1348, Comprehensive Immigration U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the
Reform Act of 2007, for details of the point proposal. Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration.
47
ee Numbers USA website, “Hot Topic: Reducing
S 59
Unite Families. 2004-08. What’s the Solution?
Legal Immigration” at www.numbersusa.com/ UniteFamilies.org.
hottopic/overall.html and Numbers USA, “Chain 60
egal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act), Title
L
Migration and the Senate Immigration Bill: The
XI of H.R. 5548, and the LIFE Act Amendments,
Impact of a Single ‘Guest’ Worker Over a 15 Year
Title XV of H.R. 5666. Signed into law by President
Period.”
Clinton on December 21, 2000.
48
Strach, Patricia. 2007. All in the Family: the 61
National Immigration Forum. January 2007.
Private Roots of American Public Policy, Stanford,
Immigration Backlogs are Separating American
California: Stanford University Press.
Families. Washington, D.C.: National Immigration
49
Tichenor, Daniel. 2002. Dividing Lines: The Politics Forum.
of Immigration Control in America. Princeton, N.J.: 62
Unity Blueprint Coalition. March 29, 2007. Unity
Princeton University Press.
Blueprint for Immigration Reform. Unityblueprint.org.
50
Ibid. 63
National Network for Veterans Equity. 2007. FAQ on
51
Ibid. Filipino World War II Veterans. National Network for
Veterans Equity.
52
Strach, Patricia. 2007. All in the Family: the
Private Roots of American Public Policy, Stanford, 64
Senator Daniel Akaka. S.A. 1186 to S.A. 1150 of S.
California: Stanford University Press. 1348. Agreed to in Senate 87-9 on May 24, 2007.
53
Legal Momentum. 2007. Women Immigrants and 65
Jefferys, Kelly and Randall Monger. March
Family Immigration. Washington, D.C.: Legal 2008. U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2007.
Momentum. Washington, D.C.: DHS Office of Immigration
Statistics.
54
Asian American Justice Center. 2008. Asian
Americans and Family-Sponsored Immigration.
Washington, D.C.: Asian American Justice Center.

Ericson
66
Herbas
DHS Office designed the
of Immigration cover and
Statistics. layout
2008. of the report.
“Table
6: Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident
Status
Thank by to
you Type
theand Major individuals
following Class of Admission: Fiscal photos: Aileen Almeria
for contributing
YearsMarie
Louie, 1998 Auyong,
to 2007,” Lona
Yearbook of Immigration
Cheung, Ericson Herbas, Daniel Huang,
Statistics:
Ryan 2007. Washington,
Khamkongsay, Justin Ma,D.C.:
HalaDHS Office
Masri, of
Nam-Pho Nguyen, Tammy Peng,
Immigration Statistics.
Paloma Rosenbaum, Mary Sam, Reshma Shamasunder, Jane Su,
Bonnie
67
Tang, My Zoe
Representative B. Trinh, Karin
Lofgren. H.R.Wang,
5882.Samuel Wei, and Clayton Yeung.
Introduced
in Congress on April 23, 2008.
68
Wikipedia. June 19, 2008. List of Countries by
Population. En.wikipedia.org.
69
Representative Luis Gutierrez. H.R. 1645, Security
Through Regularized Immigration and A Vibrant
Economy Act of 2007 or STRIVE Act. Introduced in
Congress on March 22, 2007.
70
Representative Zoe Lofgren. H.R. 5921, High
Skilled Per Country Level Elimination Act.
Introduced in Congress on April 29, 2008.

This report made possible
with support from the
Asian Pacific American Legal Center

1145 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: 213.977.7500
www.apalc.org
© 2008 Asian Pacific American Legal Center. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form by any means without attribution. Printed in the United States of America.

A Devastating Wait: Family Unit and The Immigration Backlogs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Devastating Wait: Family Unit and The Immigration Backlogs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Devastating Wait:

Family Unity and the

A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration Backlogs

Daniel Huang is the report’s principal author.

Special thanks to:

Asian American Justice Center Filipino American Service Group, Inc.

This report made possible

03 The Problem Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

The impact of the backlogs on families has been

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 

In the 1920s, the U.S. government laid down the

 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

The family preferences are categorized as follows:

Category Type of Relationship

Perhaps the most important distinction between “immediate relatives” and

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 

The overall annual quota on immigrants who fall Benefits of Family-Based

 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Scholarly research also indicates that a family-based admissions

Family unity also provides stability for workers. Long-term family

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 

Why does Ming Lee have to wait so long for his

10 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Category* General China India Mexico Philippines

An estimated four to five million spouses, children, and siblings of

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 11

Sometimes, a family member waits in the backlogs

12 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

A dam Khan’s youngest daughter was

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 13

Another absurd rule denies visas to the spouses and minor

Finally, citizenship rules can exacerbate backlogs by adding

14 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

W hen Pedro D. Alpay heard in 1990 that

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 15

The consequences of separation for these young families

And other immigration rules exacerbate the family’s separation.

U.S. citizenship could speed up the process of reunification

16 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

“W HEN SUMATHI ATHLURI

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 17

For the elderly, the backlogs translate into years of pain as

Regardless of the individual situation, many elderly citizens do

18 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

F rancisco Villacrusis came to the

The news hurt Francisco immensely.

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 19

A Department of Homeland Security examination of fiscal year

Chart 3: Allocation of Visas by Gender in Fiscal Year 2004

Category Male Female

Put another way, 69% of all female immigrants received

Family-based immigration benefits women who, more than men,

20 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

J ennifer Xu came to the United States

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 21

Indeed, the majority of Asian immigrants come to the U.S.

Asian Americans also use certain family preference categories

As a result, a disproportionate number of Asian Americans have

22 Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

J ohn Park immigrated to the United

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org 23

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org

Asian Pacific American Legal Center • www.apalc.org