Got this quotation around 1 May and wanted to know everybody's opinion on it.
Also I attached the company website. The portfolio seems pretty solid but still wanted to know if anybody has any experience working with this company and yeah .
Also the ROI that they mentioned in the 2nd image seems to good to be true given the current circumstances but still wanted everyones opinion on that as well.
Thanks in advance!!
I am currently in Pakistan. I have a time-sensitive CSPA question affecting an F4 immigrant visa case. NVC fee payment decision is due this Friday and we need clarity on whether to pay for a derivative who may have aged out.
Case facts:
- Category: F4 (Brother/Sister of US Citizen)
- Priority date: November 19, 2009
- I-130 receipt: November 24, 2009
- I-130 approval: September 21, 2010
- Petition pending: 9 months 28 days (~301 days)
- Processing type: Consular processing
- NVC case created: May 26, 2026
- Country of chargeability: uses "All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed" column
Derivative in question:
- DOB: August 3, 2004
- Currently 21 years, 9 months old
- Derivative child on the principal's petition
Current Visa Bulletin (June 2026):
- F4 ROW Dates for Filing: December 22, 2009 — priority date is current ✓
- F4 ROW Final Action Dates: November 8, 2008 — priority date NOT current ✗ (~12 months behind)
Core question:
For consular processing CSPA calculation, does Department of State use Final Action Dates exclusively per 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4), or does any current path allow Dates for Filing to establish "visa availability date"?
Three possible interpretations:
NVC case creation date (May 26, 2026): Bio age 21y 9m 23d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
First of month DFF became current (May 1, 2026): Bio age 21y 8m 28d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
Final Action Dates becoming current (hasn't occurred): If FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009 by late 2027 / 2028, bio age ~23, CSPA age ~22 → aged out
My understanding is DOS applies interpretation #3 (Final Action Dates only), and USCIS realigned to this rule on August 15, 2025 (PA-2025-15). I'm not aware of pending litigation or policy reversal (Nakka v. USCIS was dismissed) that would change this.
Specific questions:
Is 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4) the controlling rule — Final Action Dates only — for consular CSPA?
Given F4 ROW FAD is ~12 months behind the priority date, is the derivative likely to age out before FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009?
Is paying the IV fee still worthwhile as insurance for "sought to acquire" under 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(8), or is this wasted given current law is settled?
If the derivative ages out, can the principal file a new I-130 under F2B immediately upon LPR admission? Does Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio eliminate any priority-date retention from the 2009 petition?
Any guidance — even a brief response confirming the controlling rule — would help us decide.
Thank you.
I have a time-sensitive CSPA question affecting an F4 immigrant visa case. NVC fee payment decision is due this Friday and we need clarity on whether to pay for a derivative who may have aged out.
Case facts:
- Category: F4 (Brother/Sister of US Citizen)
- Priority date: November 19, 2009
- I-130 receipt: November 24, 2009
- I-130 approval: September 21, 2010
- Petition pending: 9 months 28 days (~301 days)
- Processing type: Consular processing
- NVC case created: May 26, 2026
- Country of chargeability: uses "All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed" column
Derivative in question:
- DOB: August 3, 2004
- Currently 21 years, 9 months old
- Derivative child on the principal's petition
Current Visa Bulletin (June 2026):
- F4 ROW Dates for Filing: December 22, 2009 — priority date is current ✓
- F4 ROW Final Action Dates: November 8, 2008 — priority date NOT current ✗ (~12 months behind)
Core question:
For consular processing CSPA calculation, does Department of State use Final Action Dates exclusively per 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4), or does any current path allow Dates for Filing to establish "visa availability date"?
Three possible interpretations:
NVC case creation date (May 26, 2026): Bio age 21y 9m 23d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
First of month DFF became current (May 1, 2026): Bio age 21y 8m 28d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
Final Action Dates becoming current (hasn't occurred): If FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009 by late 2027 / 2028, bio age ~23, CSPA age ~22 → aged out
My understanding is DOS applies interpretation #3 (Final Action Dates only), and USCIS realigned to this rule on August 15, 2025 (PA-2025-15). I'm not aware of pending litigation or policy reversal (Nakka v. USCIS was dismissed) that would change this.
Specific questions:
Is 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4) the controlling rule — Final Action Dates only — for consular CSPA?
Given F4 ROW FAD is ~12 months behind the priority date, is the derivative likely to age out before FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009?
Is paying the IV fee still worthwhile as insurance for "sought to acquire" under 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(8), or is this wasted given current law is settled?
If the derivative ages out, can the principal file a new I-130 under F2B immediately upon LPR admission? Does Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio eliminate any priority-date retention from the 2009 petition?
Any guidance — even a brief response confirming the controlling rule — would help us decide.
Thank you.
I have a time-sensitive CSPA question affecting an F4 immigrant visa case. NVC fee payment decision is due this Friday and we need clarity on whether to pay for a derivative who may have aged out.
Case facts:
- Category: F4 (Brother/Sister of US Citizen)
- Priority date: November 19, 2009
- I-130 receipt: November 24, 2009
- I-130 approval: September 21, 2010
- Petition pending: 9 months 28 days (~301 days)
- Processing type: Consular processing
- NVC case created: May 26, 2026
- Country of chargeability: uses "All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed" column
Derivative in question:
- DOB: August 3, 2004
- Currently 21 years, 9 months old
- Derivative child on the principal's petition
Current Visa Bulletin (June 2026):
- F4 ROW Dates for Filing: December 22, 2009 — priority date is current ✓
- F4 ROW Final Action Dates: November 8, 2008 — priority date NOT current ✗ (~12 months behind)
Core question:
For consular processing CSPA calculation, does Department of State use Final Action Dates exclusively per 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4), or does any current path allow Dates for Filing to establish "visa availability date"?
Three possible interpretations:
NVC case creation date (May 26, 2026): Bio age 21y 9m 23d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
First of month DFF became current (May 1, 2026): Bio age 21y 8m 28d − 301 days = CSPA age ~20y 11m → safe
Final Action Dates becoming current (hasn't occurred): If FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009 by late 2027 / 2028, bio age ~23, CSPA age ~22 → aged out
My understanding is DOS applies interpretation #3 (Final Action Dates only), and USCIS realigned to this rule on August 15, 2025 (PA-2025-15). I'm not aware of pending litigation or policy reversal (Nakka v. USCIS was dismissed) that would change this.
Specific questions:
Is 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(4) the controlling rule — Final Action Dates only — for consular CSPA?
Given F4 ROW FAD is ~12 months behind the priority date, is the derivative likely to age out before FAD reaches Nov 19, 2009?
Is paying the IV fee still worthwhile as insurance for "sought to acquire" under 9 FAM 502.1-1(D)(8), or is this wasted given current law is settled?
If the derivative ages out, can the principal file a new I-130 under F2B immediately upon LPR admission? Does Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio eliminate any priority-date retention from the 2009 petition?
Any guidance — even a brief response confirming the controlling rule — would help us decide.
Thank you.