In a landmark decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the “visa displayed age” for a child of a naturalized U.S. citizen must reflect the child’s statutory age—the age determined under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)—as of the date the parent became a U.S. citizen. Immigration authorities therefore can’t transfer a child’s visa status if their parent naturalized when they were under 21. This ruling provides critical clarity for families navigating the complex timing rules of family-based immigration.
Background: When Parental Naturalization Changes a Child’s Visa Category
The case of Teles de Menezes v. Rubio (1st Cir. 2025) arose after Eduardo Teles de Menezes, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), petitioned for his son’s immigrant visa in 2018 while his son was under 21. Immigration authorities approved the petition in 2019 under the F2A category (children of LPRS under 21).
When Teles de Menezes naturalized in 2021, the Department of State (DOS) automatically reclassified the petition into the F1 category (unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens). Because F1 visas have significantly longer wait times, this reclassification effectively delayed his son’s ability to immigrate. The father and son sued, arguing the reclassification was incorrect and that under immigration law, the son’s visa should have been upgraded to immediate relative status instead—since his statutory age (the “visa displayed age”) was still under 21 when the father naturalized.
District Court and Appeal
The district court initially dismissed the case, citing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which prevents courts from reviewing visa denials made by the DOS. Because the DOS manages U.S. consulates, the district court argued the doctrine of nonreviewability applies. However, on appeal, the First Circuit disagreed—holding that the lawsuit was not challenging a visa denial, but rather the unlawful reclassification of a visa petition, which is subject to judicial review.
The First Circuit’s Key Ruling
The appellate court focused on how the CSPA determines age. For children of lawful permanent residents, the CSPA allows the subtraction of the petition’s processing time from the child’s biological age to determine a “statutory age”—which then becomes frozen when a visa becomes available. When an LPR parent later naturalizes, this statutory age—rather than the biological age—determines whether the child still qualifies as an “immediate relative.” In this case, because Teles de Menezes’ son’s statutory age was still 20 at the time of naturalization, the court held that he should have been considered a “child” for immigration purposes. Therefore, the Department of State’s reclassification to the F1 category was in error.
Impact of the Decision
This decision clarifies that the “visa displayed age” for a child of a naturalized U.S. citizen must reflect the CSPA-protected statutory age, not the biological age. The ruling protects families from delays caused by administrative reclassifications and ensures that children don’t “age out” of eligibility simply because of government processing times or their parent’s naturalization timing. For families navigating the immigration system, this ruling reinforces the importance of accurate visa classification and careful tracking of petition timelines.
As always, Immigration USA actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, we’re with you every step of the way.