U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
July 11, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43145
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Summary
Family reunification is a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based
admission categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based admissions. The five
categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that
vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based
relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.
Of the 1.03 million foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2012 as lawful
permanent residents (LPRs), 680,799, or 66%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of these
family-based immigrants admitted in FY2012, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens. Many of the 1.03 million immigrants were initially admitted on a legal temporary basis
and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident.
The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing
in the United States (53%) exceeded that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration
petitions processed while living abroad (47%), although such percentages varied considerably
among the five family-based admission categories.
Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have accounted for all
of the growth in family-based admissions. Between FY2000 and FY2009, immigrants who
accompanied or later followed principal (qualifying) immigrants averaged 12% of all family-
based admissions annually. During that period, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the
Dominican Republic sent the most family-based immigrants to the United States.
Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored
preferences exceeds the supply of legal immigrant slots. As a result, a visa queue has accumulated
of foreign nationals who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to
immigrate to the United States. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to be
processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas not yet available due to INA-
specified numerical limits. As of November 2012, 4.3 million persons stood in the visa queue.
Every month, the Department of State (DOS) produces its Visa Bulletin, which lists “cut-off
dates” for each of the four numerically limited family-based admissions categories. Cut-off dates
indicate when petitions that are currently being processed for a numerically limited visa were
initially approved. For most countries, the cut-off dates range between 2.5 years and 12 years ago.
For countries that send the most immigrants, the range expands to between 2.5 and 23 years ago.
Current bipartisan interest in comprehensive immigration reform has increased scrutiny of
family-based immigration and revived debate over its proportion of total lawful permanent
admissions. Past or current proposals for overhauling family-based admissions have been made
by numerous observers, including two congressionally mandated commissions.
Those who favor expanding the number of family-based admissions point to this sizable queue of
prospective immigrants who have been approved for lawful permanent residence but must wait
years separated from their U.S.-based family members until receiving a numerically limited
immigrant visa. Their proposals generally emphasize expanding the numerical limits of family-
based categories. Others question whether the United States has an obligation to reconstitute
families of immigrants beyond their nuclear families. Corresponding proposals would eliminate
Congressional Research Service

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

several family-based preference categories, favoring only those for the immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Such proposals reiterate recommendations made by
earlier congressionally mandated commissions on immigration reform.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy ...................................................................... 2
Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions ................................................................................. 3
Legal Admissions Limits ........................................................................................................... 3
Per-country Ceilings .................................................................................................................. 5
Laws Governing Individual Admission ..................................................................................... 6
Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence..................................................... 6
Derivative Admissions ........................................................................................................ 7
Laws Governing Child Admissions ..................................................................................... 8
Conditional Resident Status ................................................................................................ 9
Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated Commissions .................................................... 9
Profile of Legal Immigrants ........................................................................................................... 11
Legal Immigration Admission Trends ..................................................................................... 11
Demography of Family-Based Immigrants ............................................................................. 13
Potential Legislative and Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 17
Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence ........................................ 17
Assessing the Per-country Ceiling ........................................................................................... 20
Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives .................................................................................... 21
Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws ..................................................................................... 21
Aging Out of Legal Status Categories ..................................................................................... 22
Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children ................................................................................. 22
Same-Sex Partners ................................................................................................................... 23
Broader Immigration Questions ..................................................................................................... 23
Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution ............................................................... 23
Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities ................................................................... 24
Chain Migration....................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Figures
Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012 ......................................... 12
Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012 ............ 13
Figure 3. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ........................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act ................................................ 4
Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2012.................................... 5
Table 3. Principal & Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 ............. 14
Congressional Research Service

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Table 4. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission,
FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 16
Table 5. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009 .............. 17
Table 6. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with
Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2012 ................................. 18
Table 7. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, July 2013 .............................. 19
Table A-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-
FY2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Table A-2. Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012 ................. 31
Table A-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful permanent Admissions, FY2001-FY2012 .......... 32

Appendixes
Appendix. ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Overview
Current U.S. immigration policy governing lawful permanent admissions emphasizes four major
principles: (1) family reunification; (2) admission of persons with needed skills; (3) refugee
protection; and (4) country-of-origin diversity.1 Family reunification, which has long been a key
principle underlying U.S. immigration policy, is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based2 admission categories. In addition,
the INA also places a limit on total family-based admissions from any single country. The five
categories include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that
vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based
relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant.3
Family-based immigration currently makes up two-thirds of all legal permanent immigration.4
Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status
exceeds the total number of legal immigrants that the United States can accept each year under
the INA. Consequently, a visa queue has accumulated of roughly 4.3 million persons who qualify
as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a numerically limited visa to immigrate to the
United States.5
The current debate on comprehensive immigration reform has increased scrutiny of family-based
immigration and has revived the discussion over what its proportion of total lawful permanent
admissions should be. As a backdrop to this debate, this report provides an examination of family-
based immigration
policy. In doing so, it outlines a brief history of U.S. family-based
immigration policies, discusses current law governing admissions, and summarizes
recommendations made by previous congressionally mandated committees charged with
evaluating immigration policy. It then presents descriptive figures on legal immigrants entering
the United States during the past decade and reviews the sizable backlog of approved immigrant
petitioners waiting for an immigrant visa. It closes by discussing selected policy issues.

1 These principles are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) first codified in 1952. The Immigration
Amendments of 1965 replaced the national origins quota system (enacted after World War I) with per-country ceilings.
Congress has significantly amended the INA since 1965 with (among other laws) the Refugee Act of 1980, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Immigration Act of 1990 represented the last major revision to legal
permanent immigration policy. For a brief review of immigration policy history, see archived CRS Report 91-141
EPW, A brief history of U.S. immigration policy, by Joyce Vialet (hereinafter referred to as “Vialet, A brief history of
U.S. immigration policy
”).
2 In this report, “family-based” is synonymous with “family-sponsored.”
3 In this report, “immigrant” is synonymous with “lawful permanent resident” or “legal permanent resident (LPR).”
Immigrant refers to a foreign national admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Unless otherwise
indicated, “immediate relatives” refers to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
4 The other major categories of legal permanent immigration include employment-based immigration, diversity visa
lottery immigrants, and refugees and asylees.
5 Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered
at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012
, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State.
Congressional Research Service
1

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Evolution of U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
Although U.S. immigration policy incorporated family relationships as a basis for admitting
immigrants as early as the 1920s,6 the promotion of family reunification found in current law
originated with the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, P.L. 82-414).7
While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the
Immigration Act of 1924,8 it also established a hierarchy of family-based preferences that
continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy today, including prioritizing spouses
and minor children over other relatives, and relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful
permanent residents (LPRs).
The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-236), enacted during a period
of broad social reform, eliminated the national origins quota system, which was widely viewed as
discriminatory. It gave priority to immigrants with relatives living permanently in the United
States.9 The law distinguished between immediate relatives (spouses, children under age 21, and
parents) of U.S. citizens, who were admitted without numerical restriction, and other immigrant
relatives of U.S. citizens and immediate and other relatives of LPRs, who faced numerical caps.10
It also imposed a per-country limit on family-based and employment-based immigrants that
limited any single country’s total for these categories to 7% of the statutory total.
In 1990, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) that increased total
immigration under an overall permeable cap.11 The act provided for a permanent annual flexible
level of 675,000 immigrants, and increased the annual statutory limit of family-based immigrants
from 290,000 to the current limit of 480,000. Provisions of the 1990 act are described below in
Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions.”
Current U.S. immigration policy still retains key elements of its landmark 1952 and 1965
reformulations. However, critics consider it inadequate to address major current immigration
issues, notably, the large accumulated “visa queue” of prospective family-based immigrants with
approved petitions who are waiting for a visa.12 Given the continuity in immigration policy,
earlier recommendations for revising family-based immigration policy to address such issues may
still have relevance. Key proposals originated from two congressionally mandated commissions
established to evaluate U.S. immigration policy: the Select Commission on Immigration and

6 The principle of family reunification was initially enacted into law in 1921 as part of the Emergency Quota Law (P.L.
67-5), which exempted minor children of U.S. citizens from the first broad numerically limited immigration
restrictions.
7 Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act.
8 P.L. 68-139. The national origin quota system, created by the Immigration Act of 1924, limited annual admissions
from any single country to 2% of persons from that nation already living in the United States as of 1890.
9 P.L. 89-236, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.
10 The law provided for four broad immigrant categories: family-based immigrants, immigrants with desired
occupational characteristics, refugees, and non-preference immigrants. For further elaboration, see archived CRS
report, A brief history of U.S. immigration policy, by Joyce Vialet.
11 “Permeable cap” refers to an immigration limit that can be exceeded in certain circumstances.
12 See for example, Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign
Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009; Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable,
Breaking the Immigration Stalemate: From Deep Disagreements to Constructive Proposals, Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, October 2009.
Congressional Research Service
2

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh13 and the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan.14 Recommendations from these prominent immigration policy
assessments are discussed below in “Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated
Commissions.

Current Laws Governing Overall Admissions
Legal Admissions Limits
The INA enumerates a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal admissions15 (Table
1
). This limit, sometimes referred to as a “permeable cap,” is regularly exceeded because certain
LPR categories are unlimited. The permanent annual worldwide immigrant level includes (1)
family-sponsored immigrants, which are made up of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and
family preference immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based preference
numbers from the prior year); (2) employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus certain
unused family preference numbers from the prior year); (3) diversity visa lottery immigrants16
(55,000); and (4) refugees17 and asylees18 (unlimited). However, immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens, as well as refugees and asylees who are adjusting status, are exempt from direct
numerical limits.
The INA specifies five family-based immigration categories ranked according to the immigrant’s
relationship with his or her U.S.-based relative. The first category, immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens, includes spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of adult citizens.19 Immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens can become LPRs without numerical limitation, provided they meet
standard eligibility criteria that are required for all immigrants.20

13 Theodore Hesburgh had served as President of the University of Notre Dame, member of the U.S. Civil Rights
Commission, and Chair of the Rockefeller Foundation. U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy.
Final Report: U.S .Immigration Policy and the National Interest, Washington, DC, March 1, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Hesburgh Report”).
14 Barbara Jordan was the first southern black female elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving from 1973
to 1979. U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Legal Immigration Report to Congress, Legal Immigration: Setting
Priorities
, Washington, DC, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Jordan Report”).
15 INA §201.
16 The Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery encourages legal immigration from countries other than the major sending
countries of current immigrants to the United States. See CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
17 A refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based
upon race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See CRS Report
RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.
18 An asylee is a foreign national arriving or present in the United States who is able to demonstrate a well-founded fear
that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. See CRS Report R41753, Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy ,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
19 Family-based immigration policy distinguishes between three categories of children: (1) Minor children which refers
to unmarried children under 21 years of age; (2) Unmarried sons and daughters which refers to children age 21 and
older; and (3) Married sons and daughters.
20 Per §212(a) of the INA, these include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past
violations of immigration law. See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Table 1. Numerical Limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act
Family-Sponsored Immigrants


480,000

Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens:



unlimited


Family Preference Immigrants:


226,000



1st Preference:
Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
23,400




+ unused 4th Preference visas




2nd Preference (A):
Spouses and minor children of LPRs
87,900



2nd Preference (B):
Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
26,300





+ unused 1st Preference visas





3rd Preference:
Married children of citizens

23,400




+ unused 1st and 2nd Preference visas




4th Preference:
Siblings of adult U.S. citizens

65,000

+ unused 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Preference visas


Employment-Based Preference Immigrants


140,000
Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrants



55,000
Refugees and Asylees



Unlimited
TOTAL


675,000
Source: CRS summary of INA §203(a) and §204; 8 U.S.C. §1153.
The next four family preference categories are numerically limited. The first includes unmarried
adult children of U.S. citizens. The second includes two subgroups of relatives of lawful
permanent residents, each subject to its own numerical limit: the first subgroup (referred to as 2A)
includes spouses and unmarried minor children of LPRs, and the second subgroup (referred to as
2B) includes unmarried adult children of LPRs. The third family preference category includes
adult married children of U.S. citizens, and the fourth includes siblings of adult U.S. citizens.
The annual level of family preference immigrants is determined by subtracting the number of
visas issued to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens issued in the previous year and the number of
aliens paroled21 into the United States for at least a year from 480,000 (the total family-sponsored
level) and adding—when available—employment preference immigrant numbers unused during
the previous year.22 Unused visa numbers in any given category roll down to the next preference
category (Table 1).
Under the INA, the annual level of family preference immigrants may not fall below 226,000. If
the number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens admitted in the previous year happens to fall
below 254,000 (the difference between 480,000 for all family-based admissions and 226,000 for
family preference admissions), then family preference admissions may exceed 226,000 by that

(...continued)
Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
21 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the foreign national has been granted temporary permission
to enter and be present in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States and
parolees are required to leave when the parole expires, or if eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.
22 INA §201(c).
Congressional Research Service
4

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

difference. Nevertheless, annual immediate relative admissions have exceeded 254,000 each year
since FY1996, ranging from a low of 258,584 admissions in FY1999 to a high of 580,348
admissions in FY2006 (see Table A-1, Table 2, and Table A-3 in the Appendix for admission
data from FY2001-FY2012). As such, the annual limit of family preference admissions has
remained at 226,000.
Reflecting the INA’s numerical limits, actual legal immigration to the United States is dominated
by family-based admissions. In FY2012, a total of 680,799 family-based immigrants made up
almost two-thirds (66%) of all 1,031,631 LPR admissions (Table A-3). This proportion has
remained relatively stable for the past decade. The 478,780 immediate relatives23 of U.S. citizens
in FY2012 represented two-thirds of all family-based admissions and close to half of all legal
admissions. The proportion of all family-based admissions comprised of immediate relatives, at
roughly two-thirds, has not changed since FY2001 (Table A-3).
Table 2. Actual Family-Sponsored Admissions by Major Class in FY2012
Number
Percent
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
680,799
100%
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
478,780
70%
(A) Spouses
273,429
40%
(B) Minor children
81,121
12%
(C) Parents
124,230
18%
Family-preference immigrants
202,019
30%
1st Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
20,660
3%
2nd Preference: Spouses and children of LPRs
99,709
15%
(A) Spouses
27,927
4%
(A) Minor children
59,687
9%
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters
12,095
2%
3rd Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
21,752
3%
4th Preference: Siblings of U.S. citizens
59,898
9%
Source: CRS presentation of data from 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics,
Department of Homeland Security, Tables 6 and 7.
Note: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman type immediately above them. Differences between the actual
number of family preference admissions shown above and the statutorily determined number shown in Table 1
result from category “rol -downs” (unused visas in one category rol ing down to the next) and fiscal year timing
differences in when visa petitions were approved versus when the immigrant appeared in the United States. For
more information, see Randal Monger and James Yangkay, U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2012, Office of
Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, March 2013.
Per-country Ceilings
In addition to annual numerical limits on family preference admissions, the INA limits LPR
admissions from any single country to 7% of the total number of family-based and employment-

23 Unless otherwise indicated, “immediate relatives” refers to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
Congressional Research Service
5

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

base admissions for that year.24 The per-country limit does not indicate that a country is entitled to
the maximum number of visas each year, but only that it cannot receive more than that number.
Two exemptions from this rule include all immediate relatives of U.S. citizens; and 75% of all
visas allocated to second (2A) family preference admissions (spouses and children of LPRs).25
Because the number of foreign nationals potentially eligible for a visa exceeds the annual supply
of visas under current law, waiting times for available family-based visas can extend for years,
particularly for persons from countries with many petitioners, such as India, China, Mexico, and
the Philippines (Table 7). For further discussion, see “Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S.
Lawful Permanent Residence
” and “Assessing the Per-country Ceiling,” below.
Laws Governing Individual Admission
Procedures for Acquiring Lawful Permanent Residence
Becoming an LPR on the basis of a family relationship first requires that the sponsoring U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident in the United States establish his or her relationship with the
prospective LPR by filing Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with DHS’s U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS).26 Upon approval of the Form I-130, the prospective LPR
must file a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. In some
cases, both petitions may be filed concurrently.27
If the prospective LPR already resides legally in the United States, USCIS handles the entire
adjustment of status process whereby the alien adjusts from a nonimmigrant28 category (which
had initially permitted him or her to enter the United States legally) to LPR status.29 If the
prospective LPR does not reside in the United States, USCIS must review and approve the
petition before forwarding it to the Department of State’s (DOS’s) Bureau of Consular Affairs in
the prospective immigrant’s home country.

24 INA §202(a)(2). Total admissions in this instance include only the numerically limited family preference and
employment-based preference immigrants (Table 1). The 7% computation is applied to admissions for the sum of all of
these family-based and employment-based admissions, not to admissions for individual categories, nor to admissions
for just family-based or just employment-based admissions. For further discussion of the employment preference
categories, see CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-
Country Ceilings
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
25 INA §202(a)(4). Other exceptions to the per-country ceilings affect dependent foreign states (limited to 2% of annual
admissions) and employment preference immigrants for oversubscribed countries if visas are available within the
world-wide limit for employment preferences (P.L. 106-313).
26 I-130 forms are first sent to a USCIS lockbox facility which does not adjudicate petitions but only determines if they
meet the acceptance criteria. Petitions are then either forwarded to the appropriate field office or service center where
they are assigned to immigration service officers for initial review and adjudication, or they are rejected. The
adjudication of visa petitions is an administrative proceeding. As such, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to
establish eligibility for the benefit sought, Matter of Brantigan, 11 I & N Dec. 45 (BIA 1966). U.S. Citizens must be at
least 21 years of age when filing for a parent or siblings, INA §201 (b)(2)(A)(i).
27 Immediate relatives and others who have a visa immediately available may be able to file concurrently, but most
categories require that the prospective immigrant establish eligibility for the immigrant category first with the I-130.
28 Nonimmigrants are admitted for a designated period of time and a specific purpose. They include a wide range of
visitors, including tourists, foreign students, diplomats, and temporary workers. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S.
Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
29 In FY2012, approximately 53% of all LPRs adjusted their status from within the United States. See 2012: Yearbook
of Immigration Statistics
, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Table 6.
Congressional Research Service
6

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

The DOS Consular Affairs officer, when the alien lives abroad, or USCIS adjudicator, when the
alien is adjusting status within the United States, must be satisfied that the alien is entitled to LPR
status. Such reviews ensure that potential immigrants are not ineligible for visas or admission
under the inadmissibility grounds in the INA.30 In both cases, if the petition is approved, DOS
determines whether a visa is available for the foreign national’s admission category. Available
visas are issued by “priority date,” the filing date of their permanent residence petition. For more
information, see “Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence” below.
While the INA contains multiple grounds for inadmissibility, the public charge ground (i.e., the
individual cannot support him or herself financially and must rely upon the state) is particularly
relevant for family-sponsored immigration. All such admissions require that U.S.-based citizens
and LPRs petitioning on behalf of (or sponsoring) their alien relatives submit a legally
enforceable affidavit of support31 along with evidence they can support both their own family and
that of the sponsored alien at an annual income no less than 125% of the federal poverty level.32
Alternatively, sponsors may share this responsibility with one or more joint sponsors, each of
whom must independently meet the income requirement. Current law also directs the federal
government to include “appropriate information” regarding affidavits of support in the Systematic
Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.33 This level of support is legally mandated for
at least 10 years or until the sponsored alien becomes a U.S. citizen.34
Derivative Admissions
Spouses and children who accompany or later follow qualifying or principal immigrants are
referred to as derivative immigrants. Under current law, derivative immigrants are entitled to the
same status and same order of consideration as principal immigrants they accompany or follow-
to-join
,35 assuming they are not entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a
visa under another section of the INA.36 Derivative immigrants count equally under category

30 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past violations of immigration
law. INA §212(a). See also CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and
Trends
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
31 An affidavit of support is a document an individual signs to accept financial responsibility for another person, usually
a relative, who is coming to the United States to live permanently. The person who signs the affidavit of support
becomes the sponsor of the relative (or other individual) coming to live in the United States.
32 INA §212(a)(4). Sponsors of the affidavit of support must be at least 18 years old and reside in the United States. The
income requirement for sponsors who are members of the Armed Forces is 100% of the federal poverty level.
33 The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provides government agencies access to data on
immigration status needed to determine noncitizen eligibility for public benefits. SAVE’s statutory authority dates to
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, P.L. 99-603.
34 For additional information, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
35 A derivative immigrant accompanies if they receive LPR status at the same time as the principal immigrant, either by
being in the personal company of the principal immigrant upon LPR admission into the United States or if they are
admitted separately for LPR status within six months of the principal’s entry or status adjustment. A derivative
immigrant follows-to-join if he or she derives immigrant status and a priority date from a principal applicant after six
months, as defined by the statute. There is no time limit for a follow-to-join beneficiary to seek a visa and admission.
Any foreign national classified as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen must be the direct beneficiary of an approved
petition for that classification. Therefore the minor unmarried child of an foreign national approved for classification as
the spouse of an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen is not eligible for derivative classification and must have a
separate petition filed on his or her behalf. 22 C.F.R. 40.1.
36 INA §203(d).
Congressional Research Service
7

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

limits. For instance, the 59,898 immigrants admitted in FY2012 under the 4th family preference
category (siblings of U.S. citizens) shown in Table 2 include 14,685 spouses of qualifying
immigrants, 23,863 children of qualifying immigrants, and 21,350 qualifying immigrants or
actual siblings of U.S. citizens. Derivative immigrant status attaches to approval of the principal
immigrant’s petition and requires no separate petition.37 In FY2012, derivative immigrants
represented about 13% of all family-based admissions and 24% of all LPR admissions.38
Laws Governing Child Admissions
How the INA governs child admissions depends on the child’s age and marital status, as well as
the legal status of the sponsoring U.S. relatives. The five family-sponsored categories described
above distinguish between “minor children” under age 21, and adult “sons and daughters” age 21
and over, as well as between unmarried and married children. Within the five categories, the INA
prioritizes minor over adult children, unmarried over married children, and children of U.S.
citizens over children of LPRs.
In the two cases (immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs) where it is necessary to
determine if the child is a minor, age varies by sponsorship category. For children sponsored as
immediate relatives, age is determined based on when the I-130 petition was filed.39 For children
sponsored under the 2nd family preference category, age is determined based on when an
immigrant visa number becomes available, reduced by the amount of time (converted into years)
that it took USCIS to process and approve the petition.40
Additionally, under current law, only adult U.S. citizen children may sponsor their foreign-born
parents as immediate relatives and their foreign-born siblings as 4th family preference
immigrants.41 Foreign-born children under age 18 automatically become naturalized U.S. citizens
if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization.42 Orphans adopted abroad by U.S.
citizens or prospective LPRs must have been so by age 16 (with exceptions) to acquire automatic
citizenship upon arrival in the United States.43

37 8 C.F.R. 204.2(d)(4). Children of foreign nationals who are classified as immediate relatives are not eligible for
immediate relative status in the same way as derivative immigrants, and must instead have separate petitions approved
on their behalves.
38 CRS analysis of data from the 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department
of Homeland Security, Table 7.
39 INA §201(f). For a family-based second preference beneficiary whose LPR parent naturalize and whose petition is
converted to immediate relative classification, the child’s age at the parent’s naturalization determines the child’s age.
40 INA §203(h). Note that the Child Status Protection Act of 2000 (CSPA) only credits the amount of processing time
for USCIS to approve the petition. It does not credit the amount of time that a child with an approved petition must then
wait in order for a visa to become available. This processing time “credit” applies only if the child has sought to acquire
LPR status within one year that a visa becomes available. Suppose, for example, that an LPR sponsors her 19 year old
unmarried daughter for LPR status under the 2nd (A) family preference category, and USCIS processes and approves
her visa after two years. She would receive a “credit” of two years. If a visa becomes available six years after USCIS
approves her petition, her biological age of 27 (19+2+6) would be reduced by the two year USCIS processing time, and
her “immigration age” becomes 25. Despite the credit, however, she must be now processed under the 2nd (B) family
preference category. The CSPA does allow children in these circumstances to retain their parent’s priority date under
the original USCIS petition so they do not start “at the end of the line” of a new preference category.
41 INA §201(b)(2)(A) and §203(a)(4), respectively.
42 INA §320.
43 INA §101(b)(1)(E).
Congressional Research Service
8

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Conditional Resident Status
Foreign national spouses of U.S. citizens and LPRs who acquire legal status through family-based
provisions of the INA must have a two-year evaluation period for marriages of short duration
(under two years at the time of sponsorship). Such foreign nationals receive conditional
permanent residence status
.44 This nonrenewable legal immigrant status, granted on the day the
foreign national is admitted to the United States, is intended to help USCIS determine if such
marriages are bona fide.45 During the two-year conditional period, USCIS may terminate the
foreign national’s conditional status if it determines that the marriage was entered into to evade
U.S. immigration laws or was terminated other than through the death of the spouse.
Within 90 days before the end of the two-year conditional period, the foreign national and his or
her U.S.-based spouse must jointly petition to have the conditional status removed. If the
petitioner and beneficiary fail to file the joint petition within the 90-day period, a waiver must be
obtained to avoid loss of legal status. Assuming conditions in the law have been met and an
interview with an appropriate immigration official uncovers no indication of marriage fraud,
conditional permanent resident status converts to lawful permanent resident status.46
USCIS may waive the requirements noted above and remove an alien’s conditional status in the
following situations: (1) if the noncitizen spouse can show that he or she would suffer “extreme
hardship” if deported from the United States; (2) if the conditional resident establishes that he or
she entered into the marriage “in good faith,” that the marriage was legally terminated, and that
the noncitizen was “not at fault” in failing to meet the joint petition requirement; (3) if the
conditional resident entered into the marriage in good faith but was battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty by the citizen or resident spouse; or (4) if the noncitizen entered into the marriage
in good faith, but the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse subsequently died.47 In all cases, USCIS reviews
the legitimacy of the marriage prior to removing or waiving the condition.
Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated
Commissions

On February 5, 2013, Dr. Michael Teitelbaum, commissioner and vice chair of the former U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform (Jordan Commission), testified at a hearing on the American
immigration system before the House Judiciary Committee.48 Six weeks later, on March 18, 2013,
Dr. Susan Martin, former executive director of the Jordan Commission, testified at a hearing on

44 INA §204.
45 Conditional permanent residence status grants the same rights and responsibilities as that of LPR status, including
legal status to live and work in the United States.
46 Conditional status was not part of the original 1952 INA which granted LPR status to aliens who married U.S.
citizens and LPRs. In 1986, in response to growing concerns about fraudulent marriages entered into for the sole
purpose of obtaining immigration benefits, Congress established the two-year conditional permanent status requirement
for foreign national spouses with the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA). INA §216.
47 8 U.S.C. §1186a (c)(4).
48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal
Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration
, testimony of Michael Teitelbaum, 113th Cong., 1st
sess., February 5, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee.49 During their
presentations, Teitelbaum and Martin both reiterated recommendations from the Jordan
Commission’s 1995 and 1997 reports. Their testimony, occurring 15 years after the commission
completed its assessment of U.S. immigration policy, underscores the continued relevance of past
congressional debates on current issues surrounding family-based immigration. The Jordan
Commission had relied on findings of its predecessor, the Select Committee on Immigration and
Refugee Policy chaired by Theodore Hesburgh (the Hesburgh Commission), which issued its
report in 1981, over three decades ago.50
The Hesburgh Commission acknowledged that certain large-scale and relatively predictable
demographic trends—fertility and mortality rates, for instance—could allow policy makers to
formulate immigration policies around pre-determined optimal population sizes.51 Although the
United States has never had a population policy specifying an appropriate population size for the
nation, the Hesburgh Commission was aware of arguments for either increasing or decreasing
immigration levels because of fiscal, cultural, environmental, and economic pressures, as well as
for foreign policy objectives, and national security. More recent legislative proposals have
suggested both increasing and decreasing the numbers of immigrants.52
Family reunification was cited by both the Hesburgh and the Jordon Commissions as the primary
goal of U.S. immigration policy.53 The Jordan Commission rejected formulaic procedures for
determining admissions criteria, supporting instead the existing framework that allows U.S.-based
relatives to decide whom to sponsor for immigration to the United States.54 Nonetheless, the
Hesburgh Commission, noting the imbalance between the demand for lawful permanent U.S.
residence and visa supply, asserted that “raising false hopes among millions with no prospect of
immigration” would foster unauthorized immigration and “widespread dissatisfaction with U.S.
immigration laws.”55 Both commissions considered options for reconfiguring family-based
categories, typically favoring spouses and minor children over other relatives, and the relatives of
U.S. citizens over those of LPRs.

49 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the
Needs of Women and Families
, testimony of Susan F. Martin, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 18, 2013.
50 More recently, prominent policy organizations examining U.S. immigration policy have offered recommendations
for revising U.S. immigration policy. See for example, Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S.
Immigration Policy
, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009;
Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate: From Deep Disagreements to
Constructive Proposals
, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, October 2009; and Pia Orrenius and Madeline
Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of Globalization (Washington, DC: AEI
Press, 2010).
51 Nevertheless, the Commission projected a total U.S. population of 274 million by 2050, a figure surpassed by the
2000 Census which enumerated 281 million persons.
52 For example, the 2007 McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill contained provisions increasing the
limit for family-sponsored immigration from 226,000 to 480,000.
53 The Hesburgh Commission, for instance, concluded that family reunification should be the primary goal of
immigration policy, citing its humanitarian character, benefits received by the United States through the stability,
health, and productivity of individual family members reunited with their immediate family members, and its
facilitation of newcomer adaptation and assimilation. Others have argued for prioritizing employment and skill-based
admissions. See Brookings-Duke Immigration Roundtable, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate, and Pia Orrenius and
Madeline Zavodny, Beside the Golden Door.
54 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p.5.
55 U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p. 378.
Congressional Research Service
10

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

The Hesburgh Commission recommended eliminating the current 4th family preference category,
siblings of U.S. citizens.56 The Jordan Commission went farther, recommending the elimination
of what are currently the 1st, 3rd, and 4th family preference categories, thereby allowing only
spouses and minor children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives), and spouses and
minor children of LPRs (2A preference category).57 Justifications for these revisions included
reunifying U.S. citizens and LPRs with their closest and most dependent relations; reducing
unreasonably long wait times for visas; and improving the credibility of the immigration system
while eliminating false expectations of easy permanent U.S. residence for more distant relatives
of U.S. citizens and LPRs.
The Hesburgh Commission recommended more flexible family-based immigration numerical
limits. For instance, it suggested establishing two numerical targets, one annual, and another for
a longer term, such as five years. This would allow annual admissions to vary, possibly within an
established range, accommodating unpredictable situations such as domestic concerns or
international conditions while maintaining a long-term ceiling. Another option suggested by the
Hesburgh Commission would permit borrowing between ceilings for subcategories (family,
employment, refugee) to accommodate such situations.
Profile of Legal Immigrants
Legal Immigration Admission Trends
Immigration statistics for FY2000 through FY2012 reveal several trends for lawful permanent
admission categories (Figure 1). First, admissions of total lawful permanent residents increased
23% over this period (with substantial fluctuations) from 841,002 persons in FY2000 to
1,031,631 persons in FY2012. Second, the number of immediate relatives increased from 346,350
to 478,780, the largest increase of all family-based categories. As such, they accounted for almost
the entire increase in total family-based admissions over this period.58 Third, other family-related
categories saw nominal declines in admissions. Partly as a result of these mixed trends, and also
as the result of increases in all other lawful permanent admissions, the proportion of family-based
admissions to total lawful permanent admissions remained the same over this period (66%) with
minor fluctuations (Table A-3).

56 Ibid, p. 380.
57 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, p. 61.
58 Major fluctuations in FY2001 and FY2006 occurred across all categories of legal immigrant admissions, caused
primarily by a decline and subsequent rebound in immigration volume after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Congressional Research Service
11


U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Figure 1. LPR Admissions by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012

Source: CRS presentation of data from 2009 and 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 6, Office of
Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based
immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants.
As noted in “Laws Governing Individual Admission,” nonimmigrants can become LPRs either
by adjusting to LPR status if they currently reside in the United States, or by petitioning for LPR
status from abroad if they reside overseas. Figure 2 presents the percentage of LPRs who
adjusted status by legal admission category. As such it represents the proportion of LPRs in each
class category that was already residing in the United States at the time LPR status was granted.
About half of all family-based immediate relatives of U.S. citizens adjusted their status from
within the United States over this period, while most family-based preference immigrants,
particularly in recent years, were admitted from abroad.59 In contrast, most non-family-based
immigrants adjusted their status from within the United States.60

59 CRS was unable to locate or conduct an analysis to explain the recent decline in the proportion of family preference
admissions adjusting their status from within the United States.
60 Laws for adjusting status vary depending on how the foreign national entered the United States. If a foreign national
entered the United States legally, overstayed his or her visa, and then married a U.S. citizen, he or she can adjust status
under INA §245(a), assuming other requirements for admissibility are met. However, if a foreign national under the
same circumstances married an LPR instead of a U.S. citizen, they cannot adjust status under INA §245(a). If they wish
to adjust status, they are treated by the INA like unauthorized aliens who entered illegally: they must leave the country,
and are barred from re-entering for either 3 years or 10 years, depending on whether they resided in the United States
illegally for 6-12 months or for more than 12 months, respectively. Persons who entered the country illegally and then
petitioned for LPR status or applied for labor certification before April 2001 may be eligible to adjust status through
INA §245(i). Given that this deadline is now a dozen years old, the number of unauthorized aliens for which this
section currently applies is relatively small. However, beginning March 4, 2013, some immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers before they leave the United States. The provisional
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12


U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Figure 2. Percent of LPRs Adjusting Status, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2012

Source: CRS presentation of data from the 2009 and 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of
Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based
immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants.
Demography of Family-Based Immigrants
This section examines family-based admissions by sex, principal versus derivative status, age,
region of origin, and occupation. For ease of presentation and to represent what occurred over the
past decade in its entirety, data were aggregated over the entire FY2000-FY2009 period.61
Table 3 distinguishes principal from derivative immigrant admissions for the entire FY2000-
FY2009 period. Absolute numbers of principal qualifying immigrants made up 76% of total LPR
admissions and 88% (not shown) of all family-based admissions. However, differences appear by
categories with 3rd and 4th preference admissions comprising greater numbers of derivative than
principal admissions over this period. They contrast sharply with admissions of immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens, and 1st and 2nd family preference categories, where principal admissions

(...continued)
unlawful presence waiver process allows individuals, who only need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence,
to apply for it while they are living in the United States rather than from abroad. They can then leave the United States
and apply for an immigrant visa to become lawful permanent resident. When they have their immigrant visa interview
at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad in order to return to the United States, they will already have the provisional
unlawful presence waiver. The new process is expected to shorten the time U.S. citizens are separated from their
immediate relatives while those family members are obtaining immigrant visas to become LPRs. See CRS Report
R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing Targeted Immigration Relief, by Andorra Bruno.
61 Figures in this section of the report come from unpublished DHS data that extend to only FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
13

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

outnumber derivative admissions. In comparison, all other (non-family) lawful permanent
admissions are more evenly divided between the two immigrant types.62
Table 3. Principal & Derivative Immigrants, by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009
(Figures represent admissions for the entire decade; proportions shown in parentheses)
1st
2nd
3rd
Preference:
Preference: Preference:
Unmarried
Spouses &
Married
4th
All Other
Total
Immediate
Sons &
Unmarried
Sons &
Preference:
Lawful
Lawful
Admissions
Relatives
Daughters
Children of
Daughters
Siblings of
Permanent
Permanent
Type
of USCs
of USCs
LPRs
of USCs
USCs
Admissions
Admissions
Principal 4,550,962 180,523 819,456 74,744 229,271
1,969,025
7,823,981
Derivative 3,090 68,621
156,148
170,159
404,660
1,671,195
2,473,873
Total
4,554,052 249,144 975,604 244,903 633,931
3,640,220
10,297,854








Principal 99.9%
72.5%
84.0%
30.5%
36.2%
54.1%
76.0%
Derivative 0.1% 27.5%
16.0%
69.5%
63.8%
45.9%
24.0%
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS),
Department of Homeland Security. Because of subsequent minor adjustments, these data may differ slightly
from published data found in the OIS Immigration Statistics Yearbook.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based
immigrants, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees.

Following the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, immigrant country-of-
origin composition shifted gradually from Europe to Asia and Latin America.63 European
immigration, which accounted for 56% of total admissions during the 1950s, made up just 13%
during the 2000s. In contrast, the proportion for Asian immigration increased from 5% during the
1950s, to 34% during the 2000s. For Latin American immigration (from Mexico, Central
America, and the Caribbean), it increased from 23% to 41%, respectively.64

62 Although not presented above, male and female admissions are roughly equal for many legal permanent admission
categories, both for principal and derivative immigrants. Females make up a higher percentage of both immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens (61%) and family 2nd preference immigrants (59%). Those proportions reflect a similar gender
mix among the larger principal immigrant populations in those two groups. All other legal permanent immigrants, by
contrast, included principal immigrants who were more likely to be male (63%) and derivative immigrants who were
more likely to be female (61%).
63 See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, Table 1 and Figure 2. The largest share of Latin American immigrants to the
United States originates from Mexico and the Dominican Republic; the largest share of Asian immigrants originates
from China, India, and the Philippines.
64 Computed by CRS with data from the 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, Table 2.
Congressional Research Service
14


U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Figure 3. Region of Birth by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009

Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of
Homeland Security.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants,
Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Latin America includes Mexico, Central
America, the Caribbean and South America. Oceana refers to Australia and New Zealand.
Figure 3 presents admissions by birth region for all family-based category and all other LPR
admissions from FY2000 to FY2009. Although dominated by Latin America and Asia, a greater
proportion of immigrants admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens during this period
originated from other regions in the world compared to immigrants admitted under other family-
based categories. Immigrants admitted under the 1st and 2nd family preference categories
originated mainly from Latin America, while those admitted under the 3rd and 4th preference
category originated primarily from Asia. All other LPR admissions were distributed more evenly
across geographic regions than immigrants admitted under any of the family-based categories.
Immigrant age composition is a demographic measure that has potential fiscal impacts.65 Table 4
displays the age distribution for immigrants admitted under each family-based admission
category and for all other LPRs, from FY2000 to FY2009. Adults in the prime 25-44 working-age
group dominate the 1st family-sponsored preference category as well as the all other lawful
permanent admissions category. Immigrants age 65 and above make up a greater proportion
among immediate relatives of U.S. citizens than among all other LPR categories, because that

65 For example, children tend to be net recipients of major publicly funded services such as public education, while
those of prime working age contribute taxes across the span of their working careers. For more examples and
discussion on how age affects the use of publicly funded services and tax contributions over immigrants’ lifetimes, see
archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of the Foreign-Born Population, by William A. Kandel.
Congressional Research Service
15

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

admission category is the only one that permits sponsorship of parents for LPR status. The 4th
preference category, siblings of U.S. citizens, has a relatively greater share of the next-to-oldest,
45-64 age group and the highest median age, due in part to the extensive waiting times required
for such persons to immigrate. In contrast, immigrants in the 2nd preference category (spouses and
unmarried children of LPRs), which includes minors, have the largest proportion of children
under age 18 and the lowest median age.
Table 4. Age Distribution and Median Age of Immigrants by Class of Admission,
FY2000-FY2009
1st
2nd
3rd
Preference: Preference: Preference:
Unmarried
Spouses &
Married
4th
All Other
Total
Immediate
Sons &
Unmarried
Sons &
Preference:
Lawful
Lawful
Age
Relatives
Daughters
Children of
Daughters
Siblings of
Permanent
Permanent
Range
of USCs
of USCs
LPRs
of USCs
USCs
Admissions Admissions
0-17
16% 22% 37% 32% 26% 20% 26%
18-24
14% 14% 17% 11% 13% 11% 13%
25-44
43% 56% 38% 37% 22% 53% 41%
45-64
17% 8% 8% 19% 37% 14% 17%
65+
9% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 2%

Total
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%








Median
Age
31 28 21 30 39 32 31
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of
Homeland Security.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based immigrants,
Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Admissions from all categories include
varying numbers of derivative immigrants, made up largely of children.
The subject of immigrant skills arises frequently in discussions of U.S. immigration policy.
While DHS collects occupational information from newly admitted immigrants, many do not
report an occupation, limiting comparisons of skills across admission categories. Table 5, which
displays the broad occupational status of immigrants admitted between FY2000 and FY2009,
indicates that 31% of all lawful permanent admissions during this period (10.3 million) did not
report their occupation.66 Despite this shortcoming, these data suggest that a relatively smaller
proportion of spouses and children of U.S. citizens are employed; that all immigrant categories
include large proportions of children enrolled in school and college; and that the United States
admits few retirees.


66 CRS analyzed the 31% of the cases in the unpublished Office of Immigration Statistics dataset that had missing
occupation data by examining frequency distributions of the following variables: country of birth, age, gender, class of
admission, year of LPR status, marital status, and occupation reported at time of naturalization. No systematic biases
for unreported occupation were evident from such distributions.
Congressional Research Service
16

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Table 5. Occupational Status of Immigrants by Admission Category, FY2000-FY2009
Percent of all admissions between FY2000 and FY2009
1st
2nd
3rd
Preference:
Preference: Preference:
Unmarried
Spouses &
Married
4th
All Other
Total
Immediate
Sons &
Unmarried
Sons &
Preference:
Lawful
Lawful
Employment
Relatives
Daughters
Children of
Daughters
Siblings of
Permanent
Permanent
Status
of USCs
of USCs
LPRs
of USCs
USCs
Admissions
Admissions
Employed
16% 31% 17% 32% 33% 34% 24%
Unemployed
10% 6% 4% 4% 5% 3% 6%
Military
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Homemaker
17% 4%
14%
12%
15% 7%
13%
Student
20% 32% 42% 40% 36% 26% 26%
Retiree
1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Unreported
37% 27% 24% 13% 11% 30% 31%
Total
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data for FY2000-FY2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department
of Homeland Security.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. All Other Lawful Permanent Admissions refer to employment-based
admissions, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants, refugees and asylees, and other immigrants. Occupational status is
based on occupation data col ected by DHS during the LPR petition process. For admissions of immigrants who
are newly arriving (excluding employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent
occupation before entering the United States. For admissions of immigrants who are adjusting status (excluding
employment-based principal immigrants), occupation refers to the most recent occupation in the United States.
(Note that most nonimmigrants, except temporary workers, are ineligible to work in the United States prior to
LPR approval. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.)
Potential Legislative and Policy Issues
Current policy may want to address a number of potential issues, including the supply-demand
imbalance for U.S. lawful permanent residence, the per-country ceiling for family-based
admissions, limitations on visiting U.S. relatives, the impetus to violate U.S. immigration laws,
aging out of certain legal status categories, the marriage timing of immigrant children, and how
immigration law treats same-sex partnerships.
Supply-Demand Imbalance for U.S. Lawful Permanent Residence
Each year, the number of foreign nationals petitioning for LPR status through family-sponsored
preferences exceeds the number of immigrants that can be admitted to the United States
according to current law (see Table 1). Consequently, a “visa queue” or waiting list has
accumulated of persons who qualify as immigrants under the INA but who must wait for a visa to
receive lawful permanent status. As such, the visa queue constitutes not a backlog of petitions to
be processed but, rather, the number of persons approved for visas that are not yet available due
to the numerical limits enumerated in the INA.
Congressional Research Service
17

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Table 6. Visa Queue of Prospective Family-Preference Immigrants with
Approved Applications, for Selected Countries, as of November 1, 2012
1st
2nd (A)
2nd (B)
3rd
Total
Preference: Preference: Preference: Preference:
Family
Unmarried
Spouses
Unmarried
Married
4th
Preference
Sons &
and Minor
Sons and
Sons &
Preference:
Prospective
Daughters
Children of
Daughters
Daughters
Siblings of
Country
Immigrants
of USCs
LPRs
of LPRs
of USCs
USCs
Mexico
1,311,960
93,431 88,054 201,225 183,113 746,137
Philippines
423,449
23,723 9,615 50,099 151,491 188,521
India
306,789
2,2621 2,9461 5,6481 65,134 230,799
Vietnam
267,067
7,140 n.s.
8,765
72,227
174,841
China
226,921
3,3031 4,1481 15,701 32,712 171,057
Dominican Republic
169,359
21,670 25,053 56,223 16,016 50,397
Bangladesh
161,731
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
150,747
Pakistan
n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s.
16,752
91,286
Haiti
n.s.
16,119 11,715 22,845
n.s. 44,433
Cuba
n.s.
7,677 13,801 15,715 22,606
n.s.
El Salvador
n.s.
8,307 n.s.
15,563 n.s. n.s.
Jamaica
n.s.
18,689 n.s.
7,153
14,564 n.s.
Worldwide
4,299,635 288,705 220,313 486,597 830,906
2,473,114
Totals
Source: Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-based preferences
Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012
, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State,
except for figures annotated with “1” which are unpublished figures provided by the National Visa Center.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. Figures include both principal applicants and any spouses and children entitled
to derivative status. China refers to mainland-born. Because the National Visa Center (NVC) Annual Report
lists the top countries for each category, some countries that appear as a top country in the visa queue for one
admissions category may not appear as a top country in another. In such cases, n.s. indicates the figure was not
shown separately in the NVC report for the country and preference category in question. Because these
numbers are missing, figures in columns and rows containing n.s. designations will not sum to the totals shown.
The most recent data available indicate that the visa queue of numerically limited family-
preference immigration petitions as of November 1, 2012, stood at 4.3 million applications
(Table 6), a 4% decline over the prior year’s queue of 4.5 million.67 Within this population,
queue size correlates inversely with preference category. For example, pending petitions filed
under the (highest) 1st preference category (288,705) represent just 7% of the total queue while
those filed under the (lowest) 4th preference category (2,473,114) make up 58% of the queue.

67 U.S. Department of State, National Visa Center, Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-
sponsored and Employment-based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012
. Note
that this figure represents only those visa applications held by the State Department. Data on visa applications in
various stages of processing by USCIS prior to being given to the State Department for visa allocation are not
available. However, testimony suggests a sizable quantity of petitions in addition to the visa queue shown in Table 6.
See for instance U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law,
testimony of Mr. Randall Emery and Mr. Demetrios Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
18

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Waiting periods vary significantly depending on preference category priority and comprise both a
statutory and a processing waiting period.68 Statutory waiting times typically account for most of
the waiting period. As noted, while U.S. immigration policy grants unlimited admission to
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, it limits annual admissions under the four family-sponsored
preference categories to 226,000. The number of admissions is also subject to the 7% per-country
ceiling discussed above, which, for “over-subscribed” countries with relatively large numbers of
LPR status petitions such as Mexico and China, increases visa waiting times substantially.
The Visa Bulletin, a monthly update published online by DOS, illustrates how the visa queue
translates into waiting times for immigrants (Table 7).69 DOS issues the numerically limited visas
for family-sponsored preference categories according to computed cut-off dates. DOS adjusts
these cut-off dates each month based on several variables, such as the number of visas used to
that point, the projected demand for visas, and the number of visas remaining under the annual
numerical limit for that country and/or preference category.70 Filing dates for qualified applicants
are referred to as priority dates. Applicants with priority dates earlier than the cut-off dates in the
Visa Bulletin are currently being processed.
All family-preference category visas were oversubscribed as of July 1, 2013. Table 7 indicates,
for example, that LPR petitions filed under the 1st family preference category on June 1, 2006,
were being processed seven years later for most countries. Countries that send many immigrants
to the United States, such as China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines, currently have above-
average waiting times. For instance, LPR petitions for unmarried Filipino children of U.S.
citizens (1st preference), that had been filed on or before July 1, 2000, were being processed on
July 1, 2013, exactly 13 years later.
Table 7. Visa Bulletin Cut-Off Dates for Family-Based Petitions, July 2013
(LPR petition filing dates for which immigration visas are available as of July 1, 2013)
Family Preference
All Other
Category China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Nations
1st: Unmarried adult
children of USCs
6/1/2006 6/1/2006 8/22/1993 7/1/2000 6/1/2006
2nd (A): Spouses and
children of LPRs
10/8/2011 10/8/2011 9/1/2011 10/8/2011 10/8/2011
2nd (B): Unmarried adult
children of LPRs
11/1/2005 11/1/2005 11/1/1993 12/22/2002 11/1/2005
3rd: Married adult
children of USCs
10/1/2002 10/1/2002 4/22/1993 11/22/1992 10/1/2002
4th: Siblings of USCs
5/22/2001
5/22/2001
9/22/1996
12/15/1989
5/22/2001
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for July 2013.
Notes: USC refers to U.S. citizen. China refers to mainland-born.

68 For more on agency processing, see archived CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’
Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context
, by William A. Kandel.
69 The Visa Bulletin, updated each month, can be accessed at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.
70 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System,
Washington, DC.
Congressional Research Service
19

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

The Visa Bulletin does not indicate how long current petitioners must wait to receive a visa, only
how long they can expect to wait if current processing conditions continue into the future.
However, visa processing rates vary for a variety of reasons, and changes in processing
conditions can lead to visa retrogression, where dates are pushed back and petitioners have to
wait longer, or visa progression, where dates advance forward and petitions are processed sooner.
Visa retrogression occurs when more people apply for a visa in a particular category or country
than there are visas available for that month. In contrast, visa progression occurs when fewer
people apply.71 As each fiscal year closes (on September 30th), priority data progression or
retrogression may occur to keep visa issuances within annual numerical limitations.72 Substantial
increases in the rate at which family-based LPR petitions have been filed over the past two
decades have extended actual waiting times for the most recent petitioners.73 Hence, while many
interpret the cut-off dates as a rough estimate of waiting times to receive a visa, this interpretation
may not be accurate for some categories.
While the waiting queue for visas reflects the excess of demand to immigrate permanently to the
United States over the supply of statutorily determined slots, it is criticized for keeping families
separated for what many view as excessive periods of time and for prompting actual and potential
petitioners to subvert U.S. immigration policy through unauthorized or illegitimate means (see
Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws” below). Several proposals addressing the visa queue
and their criticisms are discussed below in “Findings from Earlier Congressionally Mandated
Commissions
.”
Assessing the Per-country Ceiling
As stated earlier, the INA establishes a per-country ceiling limiting total legal immigration from
any single country for family-preference and employment-sponsored preference admissions to
7% of the worldwide immigration level to the United States. Exceptions to this rule include the
admission of all immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of all visas allocated to 2nd (A)
preference category of spouses and children of LPRs.
The per-country ceiling especially restrains immigrant admissions from countries with large
numbers of LPR petitioners, such as Mexico, the Philippines, India, and China. Petitioners from
these countries experience longer average waiting times to receive a visa (Table 7).
Proponents of the per-country ceiling assert that U.S. immigration policy has been more equitable
and less discriminatory in terms of country of origin following passage of the Immigration
Amendments of 1965. That act and its subsequent amendments, which ended the country-of-
origin quota system favoring European immigrants, imposed worldwide and per-country limits on
Western Hemisphere immigrants. Proponents also note the two major INA exceptions to the per-

71 For instance, some persons who filed for LPR status under one provision of immigration law may obtain such status
through another provision, thereby invalidating their initial petition. In other cases, petitioners may lose interest or
change their plans, abandoning their petitions. Both of these situations would reduce the queue of persons waiting for
visas and contribute to visa progression.
72 National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, The Operation of the Immigrant Numerical Control System,
Washington, DC.
73 For further discussion, see Stuart Anderson, Waiting and More Waiting: America’s Family and Employment-Based
Immigration System
, National Foundation for American Policy, NFAP Policy Brief, Arlington, VA, October 2011.
Congressional Research Service
20

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

country ceilings—immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and 75% of 2nd (A) preference
immigrants—that benefit oversubscribed countries such as Mexico, India, and China.74
Immigration reform advocates argue that family reunification should be prioritized over per-
country ceilings, and cite the visa queue faced by prospective family-based LPRs from India,
China, Mexico, and the Philippines. They assert that the current per-country ceilings are arbitrary
and should be increased to enable families from all countries to reunite.75
Limitations on Visiting U.S. Relatives
Because U.S. immigration law presumes that all aliens seeking temporary admission to the
United States wish to live here permanently, tourists and other temporary visitors must
demonstrate their intent to return to their home countries.76 Consequently, aliens with pending
LPR petitions (who intend to live permanently in the United States) as well as foreign nationals
with U.S. citizen and LPR relatives, who wish to either tour the United States or visit their U.S.-
based relatives, are often denied nonimmigrant visas to visit.77 The presumption of intention to
immigrate is stated explicitly in Section 214(b) of the INA, and is the most common basis for
rejecting nonimmigrant visa applicants.78 As an example, an unmarried adult Filipina daughter of
U.S. citizen parents wishing to visit them on a tourist visa would likely face challenges to
demonstrate that she possessed sufficient ties to the Philippines to prevent her from staying in the
United States. If denied a tourist visa, and having no occupational options available through
employment-based admissions, her only other alternative would be to apply for LPR status under
the 1st family sponsored preference category, which, based on the cut-off dates shown in the latest
Visa Bulletin, would take, at a minimum, 14 years. During this period, she would be unable to
visit her parents in the United States.
Impetus to Violate Immigration Laws
As noted, many foreign nationals with approved petitions to reside legally and permanently in the
United States face extensive waiting times for obtaining a visa. Given the corresponding family
separation that such wait times cause, some aliens who might otherwise abide by U.S.
immigration laws may choose to either violate the terms of their temporary visas by
“overstaying” in the United States or enter the United States without inspection (i.e., illegally).79
However, the number of unauthorized aliens who reside in the United States specifically because

74 See also CRS Report R42048, Numerical Limits on Employment-Based Immigration: Analysis of the Per-Country
Ceilings
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
75 National Immigration Forum, Immigration Backlogs are Separating American Families, Backgrounder, Washington,
DC, August 2012.
76 INA §214(b). Exceptions to this requirement include H-1 visa workers, L visa intra-company transfers, and V visa
family members. See CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
77 CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem, p. 7.
78 See CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
79 See CRS Report RS22446, Nonimmigrant Overstays: Brief Synthesis of the Issue, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and Philip
L. Martin and Elizabeth Midgely, Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America, Population Reference Bureau, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
21

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

their attempts to acquire LPR status within a reasonable period did not succeed is unknown.80 It is
also not known how many unauthorized aliens have petitions pending and are therefore part of
the 4.3 million family-based visa queue.81
Aging Out of Legal Status Categories
“Aging out” refers to the change in eligibility for a foreign national to receive an immigration
benefit because of changes in their age. It typically applies to children. In the case of family-
based admissions, it is particularly noticeable because of the different treatment of minor children
of U.S. citizens versus minor children of LPRs. Minor children of U.S. citizens are protected from
aging out by the Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-208), which provided them with
durable status protection.82 In contrast, if minor children of LPRs who are sponsored under the
2(A) family preference category (see Table 1) turn 21 after a petition for lawful permanent
residence has been filed on their behalf (but before they receive LPR status), they automatically
“age out” of the 2(A) category and must be sponsored for admission under the 2(B) category.83
This occurs because children of LPRs do not possess the same durable status protection of
immediate relative children of U.S. citizens. The net result of this 2(A) to 2(B) shift upon aging
out is a substantially longer waiting time to obtain LPR status. The Visa Bulletin (Table 7)
indicates that reclassification of 2(A) to 2(B) petitions currently extends the visa cut-off date and
any attendant family separation by roughly 6 to 18 years.84 (See also “Laws Governing Child
Admissions
” above.)
Marriage Timing of Immigrant Children
Differential treatment for unmarried children under the 1st family preference category and married
children under 3rd family preference categories may motivate potential LPR petitioners to delay
marriage in order to receive more favorable immigration treatment under the INA. The INA
prioritizes the former family preference category over the latter, a ranking that translates into a
difference in visa cut-off dates of between one and four years, depending on the country of
emigration (Table 7). This difference results because unmarried children of U.S. citizens do not
retain a durable marital status when they apply for LPR status under the 1st family preference
category. Hence, the need to remain in the 1st family preference category may motivate such
petitioners to postpone marriage until their visas become available.

80 Estimates do exist of the relationship between authorized entry and unauthorized residence. For instance, the Pew
Hispanic Center estimated in 2006 that 45% of the total unauthorized population initially entered the United States
legally. Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry of the Unauthorized Migrant Population, Fact Sheet, May 22, 2006. The
45% figure is comparable to previous estimates noted in the Pew Fact Sheet.
81 Claire Bergeron, Going to the Back of the Line: A Primer on Lines, Visa Categories, and Wait Times, Migration
Policy Institute, Issue Brief No. 1, Washington, DC, March 2013, p. 7.
82 Durable status protection applies to minor children of U.S. citizens. It means that, for immigration purposes, age is
recorded as of the date an immigration petition was filed. This age then remains in effect (or “freezes”) regardless of
the length of time needed to obtain lawful permanent residence.
83 The Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-208) addressed this circumstance for minor children of U.S.
citizens but not for minor children of lawful permanent residents.
84 Petitioners must also incur additional costs to file a new I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (currently $420). As noted
above, visa cut-off dates from the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin do not indicate expected waiting times, but
rather, the filing dates of petitions that are currently being processed for a visa.
Congressional Research Service
22

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

Same-Sex Partners
The question of whether gay and lesbian U.S. citizens should be able to sponsor foreign-born
permanent partners for LPR status has garnered increased attention. While the INA does not
affirmatively define the terms “spouse,”85 “wife,” or “husband,” the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) declares that the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” as used in federal enactments,86
exclude same-sex marriage.87 Advocates of revising the INA to include same-sex permanent
partners contended that current policies were “cruel and unequal.”88 Supporters of the restrictions
countered that expanding immigration law to recognize same-sex partnerships for purposes of
immigration benefits would increase opportunities for fraud because such relationships are not
legally recognized in many jurisdictions.89 Others supporting current restrictions opposed same-
sex partnerships generally and argue against exemptions under immigration law. However, the
issue shifted with the June 26, 2013, Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which
struck down DOMA’s provision defining “marriage” and “spouse” for federal purposes. DHS
subsequently approved the first immigrant visa for the same-sex spouse of a U.S. citizen, and
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano directed USCIS to “review immigration visa
petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an
opposite-sex spouse.”90
Broader Immigration Questions
The following section discusses a set of broad immigration policy questions that have been raised
by both of the congressionally mandated commissions and other observers.
Family Reunification versus Family Reconstitution
As noted above, the INA allows LPRs and U.S. citizens to sponsor spouses and unmarried
children. U.S. citizens, in addition, may sponsor parents, married adult children, and siblings.

85 INA §101(a)(35) provides that for immigration purposes, a person who was married through a ceremony where one
or both parties were not present is not considered a “spouse” until such time as the marriage has been consummated.
86 Federal enactments refer to “any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” P.L. 104-199, §3.
87 P.L. 104-199. For further discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG543, Updated: Treatment of Same-Sex Spouses
under Federal Immigration Law, by Kate M. Manuel and Michael John Garcia.
88 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in
Federal Immigration Law
, Statement of Christopher Nugent on behalf of the American Bar Association, 111th Cong.,
1st sess., June 3, 2009.
89 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in
Federal Immigration Law, Statement of Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
June 3, 2009.
90 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Statement on Implementation of the Supreme Court Ruling on the
Defense of Marriage Act, July 2, 2013. See also Julia Preston, Gay Married Man in Florida Is Approved for Green
Card, N.Y. Times, June 30, 2013; and D'Vera Cohn, Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage will likely impact
immigration, too
, Pew Research Center, June 26, 2013. DHS is accepting petitions from same-sex couples regardless of
whether the state in which they reside recognizes same-sex marriage. See http://www.dhs.gov/topic/implementation-
supreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act. This is arguably in keeping with prior practices by DHS and the former
INS, which have historically looked to the law of the place where the marriage occurred, and not where the couple
currently resides, in determining whether marriages are valid for immigration purposes.
Congressional Research Service
23

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

The INA, however, does not permit either U.S. citizens or LPRs to sponsor other relatives such as
grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles.
Supporters of current law argue that parents and children should be considered immediate family
members regardless of their age or marital status.91 They contend that siblings are considered
immediate relatives in many cultures.92 A central argument for expanding family-based
immigration is to reduce the current visa queue of 4.3 million persons with approved immigration
petitions who must wait years to receive a visa to immigrate. As highlighted by Visa Bulletin
priority dates, family separation can last for years or even decades, which some contend keeps
thousands of families and individual lives and careers suspended and causes emotional and
psychological distress.93
However, advocates of fewer immigrant admissions take issue with the extent of broadening
family reunification.94 They argue that the United States has neither the responsibility nor
obligation to effectively reconstitute immigrants’ families beyond immediate relatives.95 They
assert that U.S. immigration policy is currently among the most generous in the world and would
continue to be so even if legal immigration were substantially curtailed.96 While they accept that
family reunification is an important goal, they argue that the United States has neither the
responsibility nor obligation to accept immigrants’ relatives beyond the nuclear family. Those
favoring limiting family-based preference admissions to just immediate family members (i.e.,
spouses and minor unmarried children) note that such a limitation was recommended by the
Jordan Commission. They contend current polices have resulted in an extensive visa queue that in
many cases places more distant relatives ahead of nuclear family members.97
Family Reunification versus Economic Priorities
Some observers fault U.S. immigration policy for operating largely irrespective of current
economic and labor market conditions.98 Because current family-based immigration provisions do

91 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System,
Testimony of Bill Ong Hing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 23-35.
92 Ibid.
93 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of Mr.
Randall Emery, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013; Daniel Huang, A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the
Immigration Backlogs
, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, 2008; and Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Inc, The Impact of Our Immigration Laws and Policies on U.S. Families, 1999.
94 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, Role of Family-based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System, testimony of
Representative Steve King, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007. See also William Buchanan, Myths of Family
Reunification
, The Social Contract Press, Fall 1996.
95 Ibid.
96 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal
Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration
, testimony of Representatives Robert Goodlatte and
Lamar Smith, 113th Cong., 1st sess., February 5, 2013.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System,
Responses to post-hearing questions from Representative Phil Gingrey, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, p. 133.
98 George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, Princeton University Press, 1999
(hereinafter cited as Borjas, “Heaven’s Door”).
Congressional Research Service
24

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

not require minimum education or skill requirements, they arguably do not yield optimal labor
market benefits for the United States.99 Critics of family-based immigration also contend that
current policies foster relatively greater demand for taxpayer-funded social services100 by
admitting relatively less-educated persons who frequently work in lower-paid occupations or who
have higher unemployment rates.101
Although critics argue that family-based immigration policies do not adjust for changing labor
market requirements in specific industries and for specific occupations, others cite evidence of
their positive impact on long-term employment needs. Studies suggest that while employment-
based immigrants serve short-term labor market needs, family-based immigrants serve such needs
more effectively over the long term.102 A related argument posits that the skill mix of immigrants
entering the United States under the current immigration system matches the skill distribution
required of the future workforce more accurately than some suggest.103 For example, between
2000 and 2010, the foreign-born population contributed almost all the growth in the prime 25 to
55 working age population.104 The foreign born also work in occupations with above-average
expected growth.105 Some cite these trends to argue that current immigration policies admit
people whose occupational and sectoral employment profiles match projected demands of the
U.S. economy.
Proponents of family-based immigration also argue that family reunification in the United States
helps immigrants contribute more to their communities and the U.S. economy through improved
productivity, health, and emotional support.106 Similarly, proponents of the 4th family preference

99 Ibid. Persons without a high school diploma currently make up almost one-third of all foreign born ages 25 and older,
compared to 11% for the native-born of the same age bracket, which critics of current policies cite as evidence of labor
market competition with the least advantaged native workers. See The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, by William A.
Kandel.
100 Borjas, Heaven’s Door, Ch.6. For a review of recent research, see archived CRS Report R42053, Fiscal Impacts of
the Foreign-Born Population
, by William A. Kandel.
101 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2011,”
press release, May 24, 2012.
102 These analyses suggest that while employment-based immigrants experience similar earnings and earnings growth
as native workers, they are relatively less likely to obtain substantial additional training and education, given that they
received visas for skills already acquired. By contrast, family-based immigrants, who are more likely to accommodate
new opportunities by acquiring education and changing occupations, experience greater earnings growth from an
initially lower level. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in
the U.S. Immigration System
, Testimony of Harriet Duleep, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 12-22; and
Guillermina Jasso and Mark R. Rosenzweig, “Do Immigrants Screened for Skills Do Better than Family Reunification
Immigrants?,” International Migration Review, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 85-111; Harriet Orcutt Duleep and
Daniel J. Dowhan, “Insights from Longitudinal Data on the Earnings Growth of U.S. Foreign-born Men,”
Demography, vol. 39, no. 3 (August 2002), pp. 485-506.
103 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration
System
, Testimony of Bill Ong Hing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, pp. 28-32; and B. Lindsay Lowell, Julia
Gelatt, and Jeanne Batalova, Immigrants and Labor Force Trends: The Future, Past, and Present, Migration Policy
Institute, Washington, DC, July 2006.
104 The U.S. Foreign-Born Population, p. 14.
105 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections Overview, Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2012-13 Edition, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
106 U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, p.357; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Hearing on
the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System
, Testimony of Representative John Conyers Jr.,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

siblings category, which the Jordan Commission recommended eliminating, argue that immigrant
siblings are often involved with entrepreneurial enterprises and family businesses, a traditional
immigrant pathway to economic mobility and a source for economic revitalization in
disadvantaged urban and rural areas.107
Chain Migration
“Chain migration” refers to a process by which family-based immigration creates self-
perpetuating and expanding migration flows, as foreign nationals who obtain lawful permanent
resident status and citizenship then sponsor other relatives under the same family-based
immigration provisions under which they themselves were sponsored. As noted, while admissions
under the four family preference categories face numerical limits as well as a per-country ceiling,
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are admitted without numerical restriction of either type.
Some have likened the potential for immigrant population growth under current policy to a
genealogical table, where a new “link” of an immigrant chain is formed each time an admitted
immigrant sponsors a new family-related immigrant who then may do the same for another new
immigrant.108 Critics of family-based immigration policy argue that such processes could
potentially generate hundreds of new immigrants from a single LPR admission.109 Reverend
Hesburgh, chair of the U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, offered the
following illustration in 1981:
Assume one foreign-born married couple, both naturalized, each with two siblings who are
also married and each new nuclear family having three children. The foreign-born married
couple may petition for the admission of their siblings. Each has a spouse and three children
who come with their parents. Each spouse is a potential source for more immigration, and so
it goes. It is possible that no less than 84 persons would become eligible for visas in a
relatively short period of time.110
Although family-based immigration could hypothetically generate sizeable impacts, empirical
studies of actual “immigrant multipliers”111 estimate more modest effects.112 Several factors limit

(...continued)
110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007, p.6-7. For mostly qualitative assessments of the costs and benefits to immigrants of
family separation and family reunification, see Daniel Huang, A Devastating Wait: Family Unity and the Immigration
Backlogs
, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, 2008 and Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, Inc, The Impact of Our Immigration Laws and Policies on U.S. Families, 1999.
107 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, Hearing on the Role of Family-Based Immigration in the U.S. Immigration System,
Testimony of Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2007.
108 Guillermina Jasso and Mark R. Rosenzweig, “Family Reunification and the Immigration Multiplier: U.S.
Immigration Law, Origin-Country Conditions, and the Reproduction of Immigrants,” Demography, vol. 23, no. 3
(August 1986), pp. 291-311 (hereinafter cited as “Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986”).
109 NumbersUSA, Chain Migration Under Current U.S. Law; The Potential Impact of a Single Immigrant Admission,
Arlington, VA, 2009.
110 Theodore M. Hesburgh, Supplemental statement, Final Report: U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest,
U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, Washington, DC, 1981, pp. 335-341.
111 Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986, define the immigration multiplier as “the number of future immigrants who come to
the United States as the result of the admission of one current immigrant,” who “is not him or herself sponsored for a
family reunification visa by a previous immigrant.” See also Bin Yu, Chain Migration Explained: The Power of the
Immigration Multiplier
(New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2008), p. 7 (hereinafter referred to as “Yu, 2008”).
112 Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1986, whose analysis is considered a pioneering theoretical calculation, estimated an
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
26

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

the impact of chain migration. First, with the exception of the 2nd family preference category,
family-sponsored admissions require that sponsoring immigrants possess U.S. citizenship.
However, recent studies indicate that many LPRs who are eligible to become U.S. citizens choose
not to do so.113 Second, not all persons eligible to immigrate to the United States wish to do so.
Both decisions—to naturalize for U.S.-based LPRs and to emigrate for relatives overseas—are
affected by an array of individual characteristics and macro-level conditions in both the United
States and the origin country. Consequently, estimates of multipliers are likely to vary
substantially by country and period considered. Finally, as discussed above, long wait times for
visas pose an impediment for many immigrants sponsoring relatives under the family-preference
categories.114
Conclusion
Family reunification is a fundamental principal underlying U.S. immigration policy. The nation’s
immigration policies are unique in the world with respect to the sheer quantity of persons
admitted for lawful permanent residence, their subsequent eligibility for U.S. citizenship, and the
ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor other family members for lawful permanent residence.115
Family-sponsored immigration currently accounts for two-thirds of all lawful permanent resident
admissions each year. Two-thirds of family-sponsored admissions are made up of the unlimited
category of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.

(...continued)
immigration multiplier ranging between 1.16 and 1.4. See Yu (2008). Others have produced more recent estimates
ranging from 0.5 to 18. See Fred Arnold, Benjamin V. Carino, and James T. Fawcett, et al., “Estimating the
Immigration Multiplier: An Analysis of Recent Korean and Filipino Immigration to the United States,” International
Migration Review
, vol. 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 813-838; D. M. Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World
Comes to America (2nd ed.)
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); and Yu, 2008, p. 223. Recent work by Carr
and Tienda estimate multipliers ranging from 0.96 to 5.31 across all cohorts of immigrants. See Stacie Carr and Marta
Tienda, “Multiplying Diversity: Family Unification Migration and the Reginal Origins of Late Age Migration, 1981-
2009 ,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, LA, April 11,
2013. One example estimated that four decades would transpire between the time a U.S. citizen petitioned for their
married adult Mexican daughter, the daughter successfully emigrated to the United States and naturalized, and the
daughter’s husband’s brother successfully immigrated to the United States. See Stuart Anderson, “The Myth of Chain
Migration,” Forbes, October 16, 2011.
113 DHS estimates that 8.5 million of the estimated 13.1 LPRs living in the United States as of January 1, 2011, were
eligible to naturalize (and had not done so as of that date). Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident
Population in 2011
, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Population Estimates,
Washington, DC, July 2012. For a discussion of naturalization among the Hispanic population, see Paul Taylor, Ana
Gonzalez-Barrera, and Jeffrey S. Passel, et al., An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate Is Likely to Double by
2030
, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, November 14, 2012, p. 10. Naturalization rates are affected
disproportionately by relatively low rates among Mexican immigrants. See Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Mark Hugo Lopez,
and Jeffrey Passel, et al., The Path Not Taken, Pew Research Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
114 Analysts who estimate immigrant multipliers face an array of methodological challenges including how to define
“immigration multiplier.” See J. M. Goering, “The Explosiveness of Chain Migration - Research and Policy Issues:
Introduction and Overview,” International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (1989), pp. 797-812 and Bin Yu, Chain
Migration Explained: The Power of the Immigration Multiplier
(New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2008),
Introduction. For a cautionary note, see Michael S. Teitelbaum, “Skeptical Noises About the Immigration Multiplier,”
International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 893-899.
115 Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III, and Edward Alden, U.S. Immigration Policy, Council on Foreign Relations,
Independent Task Force Report No. 63, New York, NY, 2009, pp.1-12.
Congressional Research Service
27

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy

The increase in lawful permanent admissions since 1980 has produced a sizeable queue of
prospective immigrants sponsored by their U.S.-based citizen and LPR relatives. As of November
2012, that queue, measured by the State Department, amounted to 4.3 million persons with
approved petitions to immigrate under the numerically limited family preference categories who
were waiting for a visa to become available. Most are waiting overseas separated from their U.S.-
based relatives and unable to visit the United States.
The shift in immigrant country-of-origin composition since the Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1965 is reflected in the visa queue. The five countries with the greatest numbers
of persons in the queue—Mexico, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, and China—accounted for
almost 60% of the total (Table 6). The 3rd preference (adult married children of U.S. citizens) and
4th preference (siblings of U.S. citizens) categories accounted for 77% of the total. The former is
dominated by persons from Latin America, while the latter is dominated by persons from Asia.
The extensive queue and associated lengthy wait times to receive a visa and the related family
separation remain among the most prominent and contentious issues within family-based
immigration policy. The monthly Visa Bulletin, produced by the State Department, illustrates how
the visa queue of 4.3 million persons translates into waiting times for immigrants. Each month,
the State Department calculates cut-off dates for different family-sponsored categories. These
dates signify that persons who filed their petitions before those dates are currently being
processed for a visa. Cut-off dates range from 2.5 years for spouses and minor children of LPRs
to over two decades for other family preference category applicants from oversubscribed
countries. As such current U.S. family-based immigration policy has produced a set of
circumstances that some have characterized as promising more than can be expected in a
reasonable period of time.116
Legislative options to address selected stand-alone policy issues—children of LPRs who “age
out” of status, treatment of same-sex partners, inability of foreign nationals to visit the United
States if they have U.S.-based relatives or pending immigration petitions, and family separation
resulting from long visa waits—have been debated by scholars and policy makers.
The broader policy question, in the context of the current immigration reform discussion, may be
whether and how to address overall levels of legal immigration. Options at this level can be
characterized as expanding, contracting, or revising family-based immigration. Such options
revolve around classifying family categories as numerically limited or unlimited; decreasing or
increasing current numerical limits; expanding or reducing the number of family preference
categories; revising priorities among the different family-based categories; and using different
selection procedures and criteria for admitting lawful permanent residents.


116 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, The Separation of Nuclear Families under U.S. Immigration Law, testimony of
Demetrios G. Papademetriou, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
28


Appendix.
Table A-1. Annual Number of Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Immediate












relatives
439,972
483,676 331,286
417,815
436,115
580,348
494,920
488,483
535,554
476,414
453,158
478,780












Spouses
268,294
293,219 183,796
252,193
259,144
339,843
274,358
265,671
317,129
271,909
258,320
273,429












Children
91,275
96,941
77,948
88,088
94,858
120,064
103,828
101,342
98,270
88,297
80,311
81,121












Parents
80,403
93,516
69,542
77,534
82,113
120,441
116,734
121,470
120,155
116,208
114,527
124,230
Family-based












immigrants
231,699
186,880 158,796
214,355
212,970
222,229
194,900
227,761
211,859
214,589
234,931
202,019
Unmarried child., USCs












sons/daughters of USCs
27,003
23,517
21,471
26,380
24,729
25,432
22,858
26,173
23,965
26,998
27,299
20,660
Spouses & unmarried












children of LPRs
112,015
84,785
53,195
93,609
100,139
112,051
86,151
103,456
98,567
92,088
108,618
99,709
Married sons/daughters












of USCs
24,830
21,041
27,287
28,695
22,953
21,491
20,611
29,273
25,930
32,817
27,704
21,752












Siblings of USCs
67,851
57,537
56,843
65,671
65,149
63,255
65,280
68,859
63,397
62,686
71,310
59,898
Non-family-based












immigrants
387,231
388,800 213,460
325,713
473,172
463,552
362,595
390,882
383,405
351,622
373,951
350,832
Employment-based












immigrants
178,702
173,814
81,727
155,330
246,877
159,081
162,176
166,511
144,034
148,343
139,339
143,998
Diversity Visa Lottery












immigrants
41,989
42,820
46,335
50,084
46,234
44,471
42,127
41,761
47,879
49,763
50,103
40,320
CRS-29



FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Refugees, asylees, and












parolees
113,330
131,816
48,960
78,351
150,677
221,023
138,124
167,564
179,753
137,883
169,607
151,372












All other immigrants
53,210
40,350
36,438
41,948
29,384
38,977
20,168
15,046
11,739
15,633
14,902
15,142
Total, all












immigrants
1,058,902 1,059,356 703,542
957,883 1,122,257 1,266,129 1,052,415 1,107,126 1,130,818 1,042,625 1,062,040 1,031,631
Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.
Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in roman type immediately above them. USC signifies U.S. citizen.
CRS-30


Table A-2. Annual Lawful Permanent Admissions by Major Class, FY2001-FY2012
(Percent of total admissions)

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Immediate relatives
42% 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46%
Spouses
25% 28% 26% 26% 23% 27% 26% 24% 28% 26% 24% 27%
Children
9% 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8%
Parents
8% 9% 10% 8% 7% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12%
Family-based
immigrants

22% 18% 23% 22% 19% 18% 19% 21% 19% 21% 22% 20%
Unmarried child., USCs
sons/daughters of USCs

3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2%
Spouses & unmarried
children of LPRs

11% 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10%
Married sons/daughters
2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2%
of USCs
Siblings
of
USCs
6% 5% 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6%
Non-family-based
37% 37% 30% 34% 42% 37% 34% 35% 34% 34% 35% 34%
immigrants
Employment-based
17% 16% 12% 16% 22% 13% 15% 15% 13% 14% 13% 14%
immigrants
Diversity Visa Lottery
4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%
immigrants
Refugees, asylees, and
11% 12% 7% 8% 13% 17% 13% 15% 16% 13% 16% 15%
parolees
All
other
immigrants
5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total, all
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
immigrants
Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.
Notes: Figures in italics sum up to figures in bold immediately above them. Percentages may not sum completely due to rounding. USC signifies U.S. citizen.
CRS-31


Table A-3. Key Proportions for Annual Lawful permanent Admissions, FY2001-FY2012

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Percent of total lawful
permanent admissions
63% 63% 70% 66% 58% 63% 66% 65% 66% 66% 65% 66%
comprised of family-
based admissions
Percent of total lawful
permanent admissions
comprised of
42% 46% 47% 44% 39% 46% 47% 44% 47% 46% 43% 46%
immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens
Percent of total family-
based admissions
comprised of
66% 72% 68% 66% 67% 72% 72% 68% 72% 69% 66% 70%
immediate relatives of
U.S. citizens
Source: CRS presentation of data from 2001 through 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security.

CRS-32

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy


Author Contact Information

William A. Kandel

Analyst in Immigration Policy
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703


Congressional Research Service
33