Notably, the DFFC’s monthly cut-off dates are relatively closer to the present and thus are more widely inclusive than the FADC dates since they allow people with newer priority dates (or those petitioned later) to apply for adjustment of status sooner than when using the FADC dates.

Thus, if discretionally mandated by the USCIS as the adjustment of status filing basis for a given month, the DFFC dates would allow US-based applicants to submit green card applications despite the fact that, technically speaking, no visas are yet available, giving the applicants the opportunity to avail of incidental interim benefits such as work permit eligibility, employer transfer privilege, lawful US presence, among others.

To illustrate, the July 2024 Visa Bulletin’s DFFC cut-off date for the “unmarried sons and daughters of US citizens” category from the Philippines is 22 April 2015, while the FADC’s cut-off date is 1 March 2012. If elected by the USCIS as the adjustment of status filing basis for the month of July, those who were petitioned on 22 April 2015 or earlier could now submit adjustment of status applications in the US, although only those petitioned on or before 1 March 2012 would actually be issued a green card.

However, up until last year, and despite occasionally allowing US-based applicants to utilize the more generous DFFC dates for filing adjustment of status applications, the USCIS had always used the FADC dates to calculate the child’s age for CSPA purposes, resulting in widespread uncertainties among adjustment of status applicants with aging out children.

Indeed, submitting an adjustment of status application (and paying hefty fees) by using the DFFC dates offered no guarantee that an aging out child would still qualify as a “child” under the CSPA formula by the time that a visa actually became available under the FADC list.

Thus, to remove the uncertainties and provide a more liberal interpretation of the CSPA age calculation formula, the USCIS announced last year that whenever the DFFC dates are chosen by the USCIS to be the adjustment of status filing basis for a given month, the said dates would likewise be used as the reference point to determine visa availability for CSPA age calculation purposes.

In the previous example, let us tweak the facts a bit and assume that Ms. Nursie’s petition or priority date became “preliminarily” current under the DFFC cut-off date when Childo was 22 years and 6 months old, and that they applied forthwith for adjustment of status pursuant to a USCIS discretionary election. Let us assume further that by the time the priority date “finally” became current under the FADC date, Childo was already 24 years old.

Were it not for the USCIS’ new policy, Childo would have aged out because by deducting 2 years (length of time the petition is pending) from 24 (Childo’s age when a visa “finally” became available under the FADC list), Childo’s CSPA age would have been locked in at 22, which would have removed him from the legal definition of a “child.”

However, in using the DFFC date as the reckoning point for visa availability purposes (under the new policy), and deducting the 2 years that the petition was pending from Childo’s DFFC age of 22 years and 6 months, his CSPA age would have been frozen at 20 years and 6 months, well within the definition of a “child” for green card purposes.

One could only hope that this liberal administrative policy will soon be parlayed into a regulatory rule of firmer footing, if not an actual law, for the benefit of the young.