The Denver-based federal appeals court joined three of its peers earlier this month and determined the child of a newly naturalized U.S. citizen is not moved to a longer visa line as a result of his parent gaining citizenship, and the government acted outside its authority by reclassifying the son of a new citizen into a less-favorable category.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit interpreted the provisions of the 2002 Child Status Protection Act. The law sought to solve the problem of “minor children” — meaning those under 21 — aging out of the opportunity to immigrate with family members solely because of bureaucratic processing delays. Consequently, the CSPA freezes the child’s age at the time their U.S. citizen parent files a visa petition on their behalf.

The process is similar for children of lawful permanent residents.

However, when Dalila Dekovic became a naturalized citizen in 2021, the National Visa Center changed the designation for her son, Alejandro Jimenez Ramirez, who was under 21 as calculated by the law. He was no longer the minor child of a lawful permanent resident who would have had immediate access to a visa. Instead, the government relabeled him the adult son of a U.S. citizen.

“Although a visa had been available for Mr. Jimenez Ramirez when his mother naturalized, the reclassification decision removed his current visa availability and placed him on a waitlist that is approximately twenty years long, meaning that Mr. Jimenez Ramirez may need to wait for two decades or more before he can rejoin his family in the United States based solely on the fact that his mother became a U.S. citizen,” wrote Judge Carolyn B. McHugh in the March 10 opinion.

“Nothing in the statute seems to anticipate the Government reclassifying a beneficiary” in that way, she continued. “Thus, the statutory text as written did not permit the National Visa Center to engage in the reclassification decision that occurred in this case.”

The Ninth, Second, and, as of last year, First Circuits previously reached that same conclusion. However, a trial judge in Colorado read the law differently.

In addressing Dekovic’s challenge to her son’s reclassification, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Robert E. Blackburn acknowledged the significant wait times for adult children seeking admission to the country, compared to minor children, who can obtain an immediate-relative visa “shortly after” the government approves their petition.

However, he believed the law relied upon the child’s age on the date of their parent’s naturalization as the standard.

“No doubt, in passing the CSPA, Congress sought to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of children aging out on their coveted status as visa applicants under 21 years of age,” he wrote in December 2024. But the language of the law “is not rendered ambiguous.”

Dekovic and Jimenez Ramirez appealed, noting he would be living in the U.S. if his mother had remained a lawful permanent resident.

“However, because his mother became a U.S. citizen, an action that one might reasonably think would improve Alejandro’s lot, he is now facing a wait of approximately two decades or more before he can enter the U.S.,” wrote attorney Mark Robert Barr.

The 10th Circuit panel rejected the government’s argument that it could not adjudicate the underlying petition. McHugh observed that, under the government’s logic, Jimenez Ramirez could not challenge the National Visa Center’s decision to reclassify him until he finally receives a visa interview, perhaps 20 years in the future.

“The Government’s position, if accepted by this court, would effectively insulate a rights-determining agency decision from judicial review,” she wrote.

The panel also rejected the government’s view that Jimenez Ramirez’s reclassification was proper under the Child Status Protection Act.

The record of Congress’ actions “strongly points to the conclusion that the CSPA was intended to prevent precisely the outcomes that the Government wants to achieve in this case — penalizing child petitioners who turn twenty-one before they can obtain a visa due to bureaucratic processing delays, and penalizing beneficiaries for their parents’ decision to become naturalized citizens rather than remaining (lawful permanent residents),” wrote McHugh.

The case is Dekovic et al. v. Rubio et al.