0
Case Stories
⏳ EB-3 Family-Based I-485 2nd Interview Scheduled - Derivative Beneficiary PD 2018
E
· 1 views
⏳ **Case Status: Pending**
---
A derivative beneficiary who entered the US in 2018 as a minor under their mother's family-based petition faced an I-485 denial after 8 years due to an attorney error omitting a 245(i) filing. After retaining new counsel, filing a I-290B motion to reopen, and submitting the 245(i), the case was reopened and a second interview was scheduled within days.
This case involves a derivative beneficiary who entered the US in 2018 at age 11 under a parent's family-based (citizen grandparent) I-130/I-485 petition. The original attorney failed to include a 245(i) filing for the minor child, though it was included for the principal applicant. After completing all standard steps — biometrics, interview, RFEs, EADs — the derivative's I-485 was denied approximately 8 years after entry, while the principal applicant was approved simultaneously. New counsel filed an I-290B motion to reopen and included the 245(i) documentation. The case was reopened within roughly 2 months of filing, an outstanding RFE was cancelled the same day, and a second interview was scheduled 7 days later for a date approximately 5 weeks out.
---
**[📎 View Original Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/comments/1ufj8qg/2nd_interview_scheduled/)**
*Source: Reddit I-485 EB*
---
*This post was automatically curated from online sources to share real case experiences with the community.*
This case highlights a critical attorney error pattern: failing to file 245(i) for derivative minor beneficiaries when the principal applicant qualifies. The 245(i) grandfathering provision requires separate inclusion for each beneficiary — minority status does not automatically extend eligibility. Notable processing signals here: the I-290B motion to reopen was granted quickly, the pending RFE was cancelled upon reopening (suggesting the officer reviewed the full record), and a second interview was scheduled within one week of reopening. Cases reopened via I-290B with corrected 245(i) documentation that were previously denied on procedural rather than merit grounds have a reasonable path to approval, particularly when the applicant can now demonstrate eligibility as an adult. Applicants in similar situations should ensure their attorney explicitly documents 245(i) coverage for each family member individually.