New Logo
cherry blossoms
Greetings! Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates is committed to providing you with this newsletter to keep you up to date with information regarding immigration law and other issues that affect you! Read on for our March 2012 e-newsletter edition!  
In This Issue
1. RECENT SUCCESSES
2. ICE Could Learn From Solomon's Choice
3. Pondering the Decision of Moral Turpitude
4. TPS Registration Deadline for Syrian Nationals
5. Cherry Blossom Festival Dates
6. Celebrating Women's History Month
7. Halt on Child Adoptions from Vietnam
RECENT SUCCESSES
 

 

Through BOILA's help, Ms. A, a native of Afghanistan, was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. Ms. A, who is just 20 years old, suffered past persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group, comprised of young Afghani women who are sold into marriage and have resisted men's 'right' to buy and sell them by leaving that marriage.   Ms. A suffered persecution in the form of a forced marriage to a man nearly three times her age, who repeatedly subjected her to sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BIOLA also presented evidence that Ms. A possessed a well-founded fear of political opinion. BOILA is very happy that she will be able to move forward with her life.  

 

Ms. S, a native citizen of Zambia, was granted her lawful permanent residency through an approved I-360 Widow Petition, despite many legal hurdles and opposition by DHS. BOILA successfully appealed a denial of her prior I-130 petition and argued that USCIS erred as a matter of law when it failed to automatically convert her I-130 petition to an I-360 widow petition upon the death of her US citizen husband. BOILA established that she entered into her marriage in good faith and that she was entitled to permanent residency despite the untimely death of her husband.  

 

Ms. A, a native of Cameroon, was granted her lawful permanent residency by the Baltimore Immigration Court, after previously being ordered deported several years ago. BOILA had previously filed a motion to reopen on Ms. A's behalf with the Board of Immigration Appeals based on the approval of an I-130 petition filed by her US citizen husband. Despite the Court's prior decision and Ms. A's continued residence in the U.S. after her prior order of removal, she was granted her green card and is now able to remain in the U.S. with her US citizen husband and two US citizen children.  

 

Ms. F., a native of Cameroon, was granted political asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court. Ms. F is a member of the Union of the Democratic Forces of Cameroon (UFDC), an opposition party in Cameroon. With BOILA's assistance, Ms. F established her eligibility for asylum by presenting compelling testimony and supporting evidence to demonstrate that she was arrested on three separate occasions by the Cameroonian government on account of her activism with the UFDC.    

 

Ms. D, a native of Cameroon, will now have another chance to present her eligibility for political asylum before the Baltimore Immigration Court. Although Ms. D was previously represented by another attorney, she came to BOILA to assist her in filing an appeal of the immigration judge's denial of her application for asylum. BOILA presented convincing legal arguments to the Board of Immigration Appeals and established that the judge erred as a matter of law when failing to consider significant corroboratory evidence when issuing his decision. BOILA is hopeful that upon remand, Ms. D will be able to establish her eligibility for political asylum.    

 

Ms. B, a citizen of Guinea, was deemed to be prima facie eligible for benefits as an Abused Spouse under the Violence Against Women's Act. BOILA presented substantial documentation establishing that Ms. B was a victim of domestic physical and psychological abuse at the hands of her US citizen husband.  

 

BOILA is happy to announce that we successfully assisted Mr. A, a citizen of Ethiopia, in get released from ICE custody. Mr. A was arrested by ICE in December 2011 for having remained in the U.S. after he was ordered deported in 1996. BOILA assisted Mr. A's US citizen wife in filing an I-130 petition on his behalf and engaged in numerous negotiations with ICE to stay his removal and release him from custody. After a great deal of effort and time spent, BOILA successfully persuaded ICE attorneys to join in a motion to reopen his prior order of deportation and terminate his proceedings, which will allow Mr. A to seek his green card before USCIS.    

 

Mr. K, a citizen of Cameroon, had his removal proceedings terminated through a joint motion filed by BOILA and the USICE Office of Chief Counsel. Mr. K is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition, which BOILA filed on his behalf for his lawful permanent resident wife. Although his wife is not yet a US citizen, BOILA established that based on his wife's pending naturalization and the established bona fides of his marriage, he warranted a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

 

BOILA is pleased to share that Ms. D was granted her lawful permanent residency by the Washington District Office through the approval of her I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen husband. Ms. D and her husband had received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) the I-130 petition, as USCIS had believed they had not entered their marriage in good faith. BOILA filed a detailed response to the NOID as well as substantial additional documentation in support of their marriage, and convinced USCIS of the validity of the couple's union and Ms. D's eligibility for permanent residence.  

 

Ms. R, a citizen of Mexico, had her I-130 petition approved by USCIS. Ms. R was previously granted withholding of removal and based on the approved I-130 petition, BOILA will be able to file a motion to reopen her removal proceedings so that she may seek lawful permanent residency.  

 

Ms. K, who BOILA had successfully represented before the Board of Immigration Appeals and Baltimore Immigration Court in her efforts to obtain political asylum, was awarded her green card by USCIS.  

 

Mrs. B, a native of Cameroon, had her removal proceedings reopened and terminated. Mrs. B, who was deported many years ago, is now able to pursue her permanent residence based on an approved petition filed by her US citizen husband. BOILA successfully negotiated with DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion in her case, allowing her to pursue lawful immigration status.

 

Mr. T and his wife and their children can now move forward with their lives, as Mrs. T was granted her permanent residency by the USCIS Baltimore District Office. Despite the fact that Mrs. T entered the US through the visa waiver program from Belgium several years ago, the couple's I-130 petition was approved and Mrs. T was granted her permanent residency based on the clear and convincing evidence of their shared life as husband and wife.  

Mr. Ta, who BOILA had also assisted in his efforts to gain political asylum last year before the Baltimore Immigration Court, had all seven I-730 applications approved, thereby allowing his wife and six children to join him as derivative asylees in the United States.  

 

Mr. S, a native of the Ivory Coast, who has been in the United States since 1995, had his I-130 petition approved by USCIS, based on his bona fide marriage to his US citizen wife. Mr. S is now able to pursue his application for adjustment of status.

 

Mr. C, a native of Ghana, was granted his lawful permanent residency through the approval of an I-130 petition, filed on his behalf by his US citizen wife.  

 

Ms. Ba, who BOILA successfully assisted in being granted political asylum, had her I-730 petition approved, allowing her husband to join her in the U.S. as a derivative asylee.  

 

Ms. O, who BOILA has successfully represented before the Baltimore Immigration Court in her efforts to obtain political asylum, was granted her lawful permanent residency by USCIS.

 

Mr. N, a native of Cameroon, had his I-130 approved by USCIS in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. BOILA had previously assisted Mr. N in having his removal proceedings administratively closed and travelled to Philadelphia for his and his wife's recent I-130 interview. He and his US citizen wife will now be able to pursue efforts to secure his green card before the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  

 

Mr. C, a native of Sierra Leone who has been living in the US cine 1992, was granted his permanent residence through approval of a hardship waiver. With BOILA's help, he established that his removal to Sierra Leone would result in extreme hardship to his US citizen wife.  

 

Me. S, a native of Ghana, was finally accorded lawful permanent residence after nearly seven years of struggling with USCIS to acknowledge the bona fides of his marriage to his US citizen wife. Due to the misconduct of a prior attorney, Mr. S's case faced numerous obstacles. BOILA is very pleased that Mr. S can now put his struggles with the immigration authorities in the past.  

 

Ms. L, a native of South Africa, was naturalized and became a US citizen.  

 

Mr. D, a native of Pakistan, was finally sworn in at a recent naturalization oath ceremony in Baltimore, Maryland. For roughly two years, USCIS failed to issue a decision on his application. After much effort, BOILA established that he was entitled to naturalization despite USCIS' concerns regarding his return trips to his native country and good moral character.  

 
Mr. T from DRC was able to to overcome problematic criminal hisotry and get his green card from USCIS Baltimore.

 

Mrs. N from Cameroon had several minor criminal convictions but was able to obtain citizenship after over 10 years as an LPR.

 

ICE Could Learn From Solomon's Choice 

  
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) claims it does not intend to split apart families. Yet, it continues to deny deported parents custody of their children or the right to even make decisions for their children. ICE does not have the proper policies or systems in place to handle cases regarding children and their illegal parents. Although ICE is aware of children being involved, they state that it is not their responsibility to call child welfare agencies after a parent has been deported. According to the 2011 report from the Applied Research Center, approximately 5,100 children in 22 states were in foster care after their parents had been detained and deported. The majority of illegal parents lose custody of their children because they are deemed to be unfit parents due to their immigration status. Other factors are normally not taken into consideration.
 

Two years ago, Felipe Montes was deported to Mexico, and now may lose the right to see his three children. Montes was married to a U.S. citizen and North Carolina native, so he could have been eligible to obtain legal immigration status, but he could not afford the lengthy and expensive process. Montes was the primary provider for his family, since his wife could not work due to a mental illness. He was abruptly separated from his family and does not have the right to have his children live with him in Mexico. ICE assumed that his wife would be able to care for the children, and was not aware of her mental illness. Montes' three children are currently in foster care, since his wife cannot take care of them due to illness and lack of income.

Even though Montes could come back to the United States for humanitarian reasons, because he is the primary provider for his children, ICE refused to reconsider his circumstances and admit him. Montes is trying a different approach and asking the North Carolina courts to let his children live with him in Mexico. Donna Shumate, Montes' lawyer, will be representing him in a family court hearing on April 5, 2012.  The Alleghany County Department of Social Services refuses to send the Montes children to their father in Mexico because they are concerned that Montes' home in Mexico does not have running water. Alleghany County is taking the position that authorities should not exile children to a foreign county when they can stay in the United States.

The director of Social Services said that the Department's mission is to protect children from abuse, and its next priority is to reunite families. Montes does not have any criminal history, nor is there any indication that he would abuse his children if they lived with him. The Department of Social Services should adhere to its mission and allow children of deported immigrants to reunite with their parents, as long as the parents are fit to raise their children. Social workers in Mexico determined that Montes' home is acceptable for the children to live in and there is no evidence that he is an unfit parent. He should not be punished as a result of his immigration status and prevented from seeing his children.

Legal experts say that the child welfare system often refuses to send U.S-born children to live with their deported parents. For Felipe Montes it does not matter where he is, as long as his children are by his side.  Children should not be separated from their parents.  The Biblical King Solomon knew this thousands of years ago when he prevented a mother being separated from her child.  Perhaps ICE will do well to follow the example of the wisest man who ever lived.

 

Pondering the Decision of Moral Turpitude
 
gavel 

Because some criminal activities and convictions can result in adverse immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens, a number of recent cases in federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Department of Justice's immigration court) have questioned which crimes may result in deportation or inadmissibility. The U.S. Attorney General advised courts on how to determine whether a particular crime involved moral turpitude in his 2008 decision, Matter of Silva-Trevino. Provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act make individuals who commit crimes of moral turpitude ineligible to enter the U.S. or deportable if they are already present in the U.S. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Attorney General's standard in the case of Prudencio v. Holder earlier this year.

 

The Attorney General's test was established to create a uniform standard for assessing moral turpitude. One approach involves comparing the statutory definition of a crime with the definition of moral turpitude. The Attorney General defines moral turpitude to encompass more than illegality or criminality, and requires the perpetrator to commit a reprehensible act with some form of intent or knowledge that what they did was wrong. Another approach, if the criminal statute includes conduct that involves moral turpitude and conduct that does not, is to examine the documents pertaining to the conviction of the accused to determine whether the specific crime committed was one that involved moral turpitude. If judges cannot determine whether criminal conduct involves moral turpitude by using the first two steps, the Attorney General's decision permits them to "consider any additional evidence or fact finding" that is "necessary or appropriate to resolve the moral turpitude question."

 

Unfortunately, the test does not clarify the inquiry that courts should use when they are deciding whether a crime involves moral turpitude. The Fourth Circuit rejected the test because it did not provide a clear statement regarding what additional evidence may be considered under the new, third step of the Attorney General's test. Rather than making it easier to know when a crime involves moral turpitude and when it does not, the test creates more uncertainty by giving judges the discretion to take into account any facts from a case that they wish to. It also creates evidentiary problems by allowing judges to consider facts that are alleged in the immigrant's criminal history, but not proven. Under the Attorney General's standard, a judge could potentially consider a police officer's initial impression of a crime as it was documented in an arrest warrant, even if the records of the police officer are later amended or corrected to reflect new information.

 

The Attorney General's moral turpitude decision created a divide between courts that follow his test, and the Fourth, Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts, all of which rejected the Attorney General's third prong for finding moral turpitude. The differing standards applied by the courts result in confusion among immigrants who cannot be sure that their offenses will not have consequences for their immigration statuses, and headaches for immigration lawyers who do not have a clear test to apply to the facts of their clients' cases when they represent them in court.

The Fourth Circuit was correct in joining its fellow courts and rejecting the Attorney General's standard. While there is no specific statutory definition of moral turpitude for courts to apply, prior case law provides a guide for determining when a criminal offense will qualify as a crime of moral turpitude. The attorney general should have provided a standard that sharpened the definition of moral turpitude and make it more workable, rather than one that made it more ambiguous.

 

Photo Credit: Ahluwalia Law

 

 
AILA
AILA Member Since 1992
 
Visit our blog


Like us on Facebook

TPS Registration Deadline for Syrian Nationals

unrest in Syria

Secretary Napolitano has announced that Syrian nationals are now eligible to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This action by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is in response to chaotic and violent upheaval and the current deteriorating situation in Syria.

 

The TPS designation for Syria is effective for eighteen months - from March 29, 2012 to September 30, 2013. Applications for TPS must be submitted by September 25, 2012.

 

In order to be eligible for TPS, Syrian nationals must demonstrate the following:

 

  1. That they are Syrian nationals.
  2. That they have continually resided and have been physically present in the United States since March 29, 2012.
  3. That they do not have a criminal record that would pose a threat to the United States' national security.

For detailed instructions and requirements to apply for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS webpage.

 

photo source

Cherry Blossom Festival Dates
  
cherry blossom festival
 
Be sure not to miss the cherry blossoms in full bloom this year!  The bloom watch predictions are as follows: 
 
Peak Bloom Dates: March 20 - March 23
 
Blooming Period: March 22 - ???
 
According to the 2012 Bloom Watch, peak bloom is defined as the period during which 70% of the cherry blossoms are in bloom.  The blooming period is defined as the time during which 20% of the cherry blossoms are in bloom.
 
For more information, such as festival activities and directions to the Tidal Basin, please visit the Cherry Blossom Festival site.
 
For the image source and for some historical information on the Cherry Blossom Festival, please click here.
 

 

Celebrating Women's History Month - Women in the Arts
frida kahlo

In the 1960s, Wilhelmina Cole Holladay, the founder of the National Museum of Women in the Arts, began collecting art at the same time as art historians were looking at the lack of representation of racial, ethnic groups, and women in museums. Over the next twenty years, Holladay collected many more pieces of artwork to add to her collection, until, in 1981, she founded a non-profit museum to display all of the art she had collected over the years. For the next six years, the museum exhibits were held in temporary locations; and in 1987, the NMWA finally opened its first permanent exhibit, American Women Artists, 1830-1930,at its new location near the White House in Washington, D.C.

 

Since its opening twenty-five years ago, the NMWA aims its exhibitions at the "comprehensive study of women artists." While the museum includes American artists in their exhibitions, the NMWA also displays artwork by immigrant artists as well, such as Louise Bourgeois, a French painter and sculptor who was born in Paris, France, but eventually married the American art historian Robert Goldwater and moved to New York City. During her first decade in the United States, Bourgeois focused on painting and drawing, but eventually began to gravitate toward sculpture. Her art is characterized by the high contrast of its content: male and female, light and dark. Her use of high contrast evokes strong emotions from the viewers. She first received recognition as an artist at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, and since then, she has been featured throughout Europe and the United States.

 

It is no wonder that the NMWA has included Louise Bourgeois in its exhibitions. It is the NMWA's goal to bring attention to the work of women of all nationalities and periods. The NMWA also strives to teach the public about the accomplishments of all of the great women whose work is shown in its galleries, by displaying a permanent exhibitions, showing special exhibitions, retaining a Library and Research Center, organizing educational programs for the community, and by publishing a quarterly magazine and books about female artists. The NMWA also supports a number of international and state committees. By displaying so many great pieces of art from women artists, the NMWA brings attention to the women artists around the world.

 
For more information on this museum, click here.

Halt on Child Adoptions from Vietnam

 

vietnamese child

 

On February 2, 2012, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) declared that it can no longer approve adoption petitions - I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative - that are filed on behalf of Vietnamese children living in Vietnam.

 

This is because Vietnam has failed to meet its obligations under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. This convention seeks to protect the welfare of children, biological parents, and adoptive parents who are participating in intercountry adoptions.

 

Until Vietnam begins meeting the standards of this convention, the Department of State cannot issue any more certificates in Vietnamese adoption cases, without which the USCIS cannot approve any adoption petitions.

 

For more information, please click here. For the image source, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The information contained in this email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The transmission of information to or from this email does not create an attorney-client relationship between the sender and receiver. We take our privacy policy seriously and will never sell, rent, or share our email list. View our Privacy Policy here. To schedule a consultation with one of our immigration lawyers, please click here. � 2012