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 August 2012 e-newsletter edition!
|
|
|
Successes include waivers, BIA appeals, asylum grants, naturalization appeals, and a grant of oral argument for 4th Circuit
Mr. TN, a native citizen of Cameroon, had his case remanded to the Baltimore Immigration Court after BOILA successfully appealed his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with BOILA's legal argument that the Immigration Judge erred when failing to consider significant evidence and testimony offered in his case. Mr. TN will now have another opportunity to present his eligibility for asylum in the United States.
Mr. TC, a Francophone native citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court, along with his wife and three children who were derivatives on his application. Mr. TC came to BOILA many years after he was ordered deported and through BOILA's help, his case was reopened by the BIA. During his new asylum proceedings, Mr. TC presented compelling medical and psychological evidence of past persecution, along with substantial evidence of changed circumstances in his country of removal. Despite many problematic issues in his case, including having lived in Europe for many years before coming to the US, Mr. TC and his family were granted political asylum.
Ms. A, a Francophone native of Cameroon, had her order of removal reopened by the Board of Immigration Appeals, allowing her another chance to pursue asylum in this country. Although Ms. A was previously denied asylum and ordered deported, BOILA successfully argued that evidence of changed circumstances in Ms. A's country of removal warranted reopening of her case and established her eligibility for asylum. Ms. A will now get another chance to pursue political asylum in the US.
BOILA is very happy to announce that Ms. N, a native citizen of Cameroon, was granted adjustment of status and a waiver by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Ms. N entered the US roughly ten years and in 2009, BOILA succeeded in reopening her prior order of removal based on her marriage to her US citizen husband. With BOILA's help, Ms. N established that because her removal would result in extreme hardship to her US citizen husband and 2 young US citizen children, her case warranted a favorable exercise of discretion to excuse her fraudulent entry into the US. Ms. N deserved to move forward with her life and BOILA wishes Ms. N and her family the best.
Mr. K, a native of Uganda, had his appeal granted by the Board of Immigration Appeals. USCIS had moved to revoke the approval of his immediate relative petition, filed on his behalf by his US citizen spouse, alleging that Mr. K was in fact married in his native country and ineligible for a visa. The Board agreed with BOILA's legal and factual arguments that USCIS failed to meet its burden of proof for revocation and insufficient evidence supported USCIS' belief that Mr. K was married when he applied for a nonimmigrant visa.
Ms. G, a citizen of Zimbabwe, had her case remanded to the Immigration Court after BOILA's successfully appealed the Judge's denial of asylum. Ms. G came to BOILA after her prior attorney did not properly file her appeal and BOILA thereafter filed a supplemental appeal of Ms. G's behalf. The Board agreed with BOILA's arguments that the immigration judge did not provide sound reasoning for his adverse credibility finding and failed to consider important evidence in Ms. G's case.
Mr. NC, a native citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. Mr. NC was a member of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), a movement seeking independence from the Republic of Cameroon. Mr. NC presented substantial evidence and a credible account of being victim to three separate arrests and detentions, during which he was brutally beaten and tortured.
Mr. F's case was remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals to the Baltimore Immigration Court. Mr. F hired BOILA while his case was on appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. BOILA had successfully negotiated with Department of Justice attorneys that his case warranted remand to the Immigration Court in light of numerous legal errors committed by the immigration judge. Mr. F will now have another opportunity to seek political asylum.
Mr. L's case was remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals to the Arlington Immigration Court. Mr. L was previously granted withholding of removal based on his past persecution in his home country. BOILA recently submitted a motion to remand his case to the Court for consideration of his eligibility for a green card based on his marriage to his US citizen wife. Hopefully, Mr. L will soon be able to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
Ms. N's immigration court proceedings were terminated by the Buffalo, New York Immigration Court. Despite a very complicated procedural history and many legal hurdles, Ms. N will now be able to seek her permanent residency before USCIS based on her marriage to her US citizen husband.
Mr. C, a native citizen of Kenya, had his removal proceedings terminated by the Baltimore Immigration Court. Mr. C had previously been ordered removed and had his green card application denied by USCIS. Despite having hired BOILA just weeks before his individual hearing, BOILA submitted sufficient evidence to convince the Court that Mr. C should be permitted to seek permanent residency before USCIS based on his marriage to his US citizen spouse.
Mrs. A. a native of Nigeria, is now the beneficiary of an approved R-1 Religious Worker Visa, thereby allowing her and her family to remain living and working in the United States in furtherance of her religious faith.
Ms. Y, a native of Cameroon, was granted her green card in July, following many years of struggling to achieve lawful immigration status. Earlier this year, BOILA had filed a successful motion to reopen and terminate her prior order of deportation based on an approved asylee relative petition, filed on her behalf by her husband. While one year ago, she had no status in this country and was under a longstanding order of deportation, she now has her green card and is lawful.
Mrs. K., a native citizen of Tajikistan, was granted permanent residency through her marriage to her US citizen husband.
Mrs. L, a native citizen of Nigeria, was granted conditional permanent residency following an interview at the Fairfax, Virginia USCIS Office through her bona fide marriage to her US citizen husband.
Ms. N is now the beneficiary of an approved I-130 relative petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen daughter. Ms. N will now begin the process of consular processing to come into the United States as an immediate relative.
Ms. A, a native of Cameroon who entered the US in 1988, is finally a lawful permanent resident, nearly 25 years after first coming to this country. Earlier this year, BOILA successfully got her deportation proceedings reopened and terminated based on status as a derivative asylee. Ms. A was recently afforded her green card, putting an end to her two and a half decade long struggle to attain legal status in the United States.
Mrs. N, a native of Nigeria, was granted her green card by the USCIS Baltimore District Office based on her bona fide marriage to her US citizen husband.
Mr. S, a native of Cape Verde, was granted his green card by the USCIS Fairfax, Virginia Field Office based on his bona fide marriage to his US citizen wife.
Mrs. E is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen husband. Mrs. E and her husband retained BOILA after their marriage-based petition was previously denied by USCIS and Mrs. E was placed into removal proceedings. BOILA is pleased to now be able to assist Mrs. E in seeking her permanent residency before the Baltimore Immigration Court.
BOILA congratulates eight of our clients who were recently granted the privilege of becoming United States citizens. The clients, some of whom BOILA represented throughout their immigration history since their entry into the United States, were citizens of Pakistan, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast, Congo and Cameroon. |
|
.
SUGGESTED DOCUMENTS TO START GATHERING FOR OBAMA'S 2 YEAR DEFERRED ACTION PROGRAM
The U.S. Citizenship Services has not yet published definite guidelines for Obama's 2 year deferred action program. However, judging by the vague requirements President Obama mentioned in his statement, it is most likely that the following documents will be required. We recommend that people who are likely to qualify for this program begin gathering these documents so as to be prepared to file for relief immediately after the guidelines come out.
Prosecutorial Discretion / Deferred Action for 15-30
year-olds
Application's Accepted: August 15, 2012
q Photo Identification
q 3 passport photos
PROOF OF AGE
q Birth Certificate
q Passport
q Matricula Consular
- If under the age of 15, must be subject to a final order of removal.
PROOF OF EDUCATION/MILITARY STATUS
q Sufficient documentation demonstrating fulfillment of education requirement OR armed forces requirement
¨ In school/has graduated from high school/GED certificate documentation:
r High School Diploma, OR
r General Education Development Certificate (GED), OR
r Report Cards/School Transcripts (if currently in school)
¨ Honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States documentation:
r Report of Separation Forms
r Military personnel records
r Military health records
PROOF OF IMMIGRATION UNDER AGE OF 16
q Sufficient documentation demonstrating immigration (legal or illegal) before the age of 16 including, but not limited to:
¨ Financial records
¨ Medical records
¨ School records
¨ Employment records
¨ Military records
PROOF OF JUNE 15, 2012 PRESENCE IN U.S.
q Sufficient documentation demonstrating physical presence in United States on June 15, 2012 including, but not limited to:
¨ Financial records
¨ Medical records
¨ School records
¨ Employment records
¨ Military records
PROOF OF 5 YEAR RESIDENCE
q Sufficient documentation (including, but not limited to financial, medical, school, employment, or military records) proving continuous five year residency preceding June 15, 2012
¨ June 15, 2007 or earlier
¨ 2008
¨ 2009
¨ 2010
¨ 2011
¨ 2012
r Documents accepted under NACARA, HRIFA, and the TPS program include, but are not limited to:
¡ Immigration court records
¡ Application for immigration benefits
¡ Correspondence with immigration agencies
¡ I-94 cards
¡ Driver's licenses
¡ Birth certificates of children born in the United States
¡ Marriage certificates
¡ Hospital records
¡ School records
¡ Utility bills
¡ Tax returns
¡ Rental receipts
¡ Other dated receipts
¡ Bank statements
¡ Personal checks bearing a dated bank cancellation stamp
¡ Employment records
¡ Credit card statements
q Felony Offense
¨ A federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
q Significant Misdemeanor Offense
¨ A federal, state, or local criminal offense punishable by no more than one year of imprisonment or even no imprisonment that involves:
r Violence, threats, or assault, including domestic violence
r Sexual abuse or exploitation
r Burglary, larceny, or fraud
r Driving under the influence or alcohol or drugs
r Obstruction of justice or bribery
r Unlawful flight from arrest, prosecution, or the scene of an accident
r Unlawful possession or use of a firearm
r Drug distribution or trafficking
r Unlawful possession of drugs
q Multiple Misdemeanors
¨ Three or more non-significant misdemeanors not occurring on the same day and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of misconduct
q Otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
¨ Indicia that an individual poses such a threat include, but are not limited to:
r Gang membership
r Participation in criminal activities
r Participation in activities that threaten the United States
- An applicant with a potentially disqualifying criminal offense, but with mitigating factors and other significant equities, might still have an application favorably considered
DOCUMENTATION FOR CRIMINAL RECORD
q All arrest records
q All criminal dispositions |
|
SB 1070 DECISION MAKES WAY FOR CONTINUING LEGAL DISPUTES
In 2010, not long after Arizona approved SB 1070, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona joined with other civil rights organizations and filed a suit on behalf of twenty four individuals who believed the law to be unconstitutional. The ACLU argued that the law would lead to racial profiling and that the state of Arizona did not have the authority to make or to enforce immigration policy. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Opening arguments began on April 25, 2012.
On June 25th, Supreme Court issued its decision on SB 1070. It struck down three of the law's four provisions, but upheld the provision that "requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally" (NY Times, 6/26/12). The "if" and "might" provisions are unclear, and extremely speculative as well as totally subjective. However, the Court also ruled that it does not foreclose other "constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," as stated by Justice Kennedy.
Both the opponents and proponents of the SB 1070 ruling are now preparing for a long legal battle in the wake of the Court's decision. The opponents will attack the methodology - such factors as accent, the color of a person's skin, the ability to speak English - used to determine what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that a certain person is an illegal immigrant. Such a methodology is considered racial profiling and is unconstitutional.
Proponents of the law, on the other hand, will fight using a little-known provision of SB 1070 that grants individual taxpayers the right to sue law enforcement agencies they suspect of failing to rigorously enforce the law" (Huffington Post, 6/28/12). At present, proponents are happy with the outcome of the Court's decision. Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer (R) proclaimed the ruling a "victory for the rule of law" and for "the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens."
As the ACLU prepares to gather stories of people who are stopped and quizzed about their immigration status by law enforcement officials, we can be assured of many heated disputes in the months to come. Once first hand accounts of the victims of SB 1070 are made public, the whole of the United States will be able to see the injustice in this law. It is, without a doubt, a law that regresses back to a time when racial profiling was Constitutional, and such a law is inhumane and exceedingly out of date.
For more information, please visit source 1 and source 2. |
|
OBAMA VS. ROMNEY:
THE IMMIGRATION BATTLE
The November presidential election will have a drastic effect on the lives of immigrants living in the United States. The two candidates' views on immigration are as different as night and day. Consequently, should Romney win, it will become much more difficult for illegal immigrants to secure a foothold in America.
At present, Romney is completely against granting amnesty to those immigrants who have come to the Untied States by unlawful means. Although he supports immigration, he only approves of immigrants coming to the US through lawful channels. He firmly stated that this nation should cease providing incentive for people to cross its borders without obtaining proper documentation first. In fact, Romney did just that when he was governor of Massachusetts - he vetoed legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition. He is also in favor of completing and strengthening the fence on the US-Mexico border and of enhancing employment verification systems.
Obama, on the other hand, is much more lenient towards illegal immigrants. In a July 1, 2011 speech at American University's School of International Service, he stated that, "we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally... They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine and learn English... They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship." Furthermore, he is in favor of granting amnesty to those illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children and are valuable members to society. Mr. Obama believes that what our country needs is immigration reform that will make our borders more secure and that will crack down on those employers who exploit an illegal workforce.
Thereby, Obama wants to create a way for the twelve million illegal immigrants living in the United States to eventually become citizens, whereas Romney opposes this entirely and wants the illegals deported. These two candidates' stances on immigration will play a large role in the election, and we hope that in the end twelve million people will be given the opportunity to live the American dream.
article source | image source |
|
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS ARIZONA "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS" PROVISION, BLOCKS REMAINDER OF STATE'S CONTROVERSIAL LAW
On Monday, June 25, the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Arizona Immigration Law, S.B. 1070, from 2010. The Court unanimously sustained the central "show me your papers" provision that requires state law enforcement to determine the immigration status of individuals they have stopped or arrested, if an illegal status is reasonably suspected. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy highlighted that officials already possessed the discretion to ask one's immigration status, and this law simply makes the inquiry mandatory when suspicion is present. Many, including President Obama, worry that the Arizona Law could lead to racial profiling. "No American should live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," stated Obama.
However, the state law contains safeguards that instruct officials not to consider race or natural origin unless already permitted by law. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer claims that enforcing the law without resorting to ethnic profiling is possible and expected. Her claim will be put to the test when S.B. 1070 is put into action and officers are forced to legitimize their suspicion. The Supreme Court warned that they would be watching the implementation of the law, and their ruling leaves opportunities for future challenges and modifications, including the constitutional concerns with detainment, reasonable suspicion, interpretation and application of the law. These areas involving detainment, suspicion, and application are the primary areas of concern and it seems unlikely that the law can be carried out while remaining racially fair and unbiased.
The Supreme Court parted ways on three provisions of the 2010 Arizona Law that were blocked by the majority. The first made failing to register with the federal government and to carry proper registration documents a crime. Another provision made it a crime for illegal immigrants to work, or even to try to find work. The final blocked provision allowed officials to arrest individuals without a warrant for committing an offense they believed would make them deportable under federal law. While some Justices and legislators believe that States should have the right to make new policy if the government lacks these efforts, the majority blocked the three provisions because the State interfered with the federal government's role in setting immigrations policy. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy says, "the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."
With five other states - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah - having already enacted immigration statutes similar to Arizona, the June 25 ruling most likely will not be the last decision enforcing the role states play in contesting illegal immigration.
source 1 | source 2 | image source |
|
RULE ON PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR SOME DERIVATIVE BENEFICIARIES
In another important decision, the BIA clarified in Matter of Ilic, 25 I.& N. Dec. 717 (BIA 2012) that only the principal beneficiary needs to satisfy the grandfathering rules including physical presence for the purpose of adjustment of status under INA § 245 (i). See INA § 245 (i)(1)(C).
Svetislav Ilic who was the derivative beneficiary in this case) was put in removal proceeding and then granted adjustment of status by IJ under § 245 (i), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) based on an approved I-130 petition for his wife. He qualified for this section based on being the principal beneficiary of the petition filed by sister in 1999. Ilic was also the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition with a priority date in 2004. He admitted that he was not present in the United States as of December 21, 2000. DHS argued that the rules of physical presence should apply to Ilic as well, because he had become "principal" adjustment of status applicant.
The BIA explained that there are two categories of grandfathered aliens - principals and derivatives.
Therefore, different rules on physical presence apply. If Ilic, not his wife, was a principal beneficiary, the regulations would require him to be physically present in the US as of December 21, 2000. Although the BIA referred to 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(ii) and 22 C.F.R. § 40.1 (q) and decided that Ilic was a derivative. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)(1)(ii) states that the physical presence" requirement does not apply with respect to a spouse or child accompanying or following to join a principal alien who is a grandfathered alien."
Consequently, the only applicant whose physical presence as of December 21, 2000 matters, was his wife's. Based on that factual finding the BIA remanded the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We would like to thank everyone who has reached out to us to express their sadness at Mr. Robert Oswald's passing, and everyone who has attended his memorial service and funeral. Thank you for your cards, flowers, and emails. Both ceremonies were beautiful and had large turnouts. It was very touching to see how many of you cared about Mr. Oswald. From the bottom of our hearts, we thank you for all your support through this difficult time. Mr. Oswald has now been placed to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. | |
|
BACKLOGS AND DEPORTATIONS GROWING DESPITE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION | |
A year after the Morton's memo on prosecutorial discretion, which intended to prioritize removal of criminals when deciding which illegal immigrants to deport, the backlog of cases in immigration courts reached new heights. In a recent article published by Texas Tribune, the author Julian Aguilar expresses the Texas immigration lawyers' concern about the government not following its directive to become more efficient with deportations. Though the government argues that the numbers are not telling the whole story.
The statistics indicate the following - the states of California, New York and Texas top the list of the most case-loaded courts. According to TRAC, a data research tool and distribution organization at the University of Syracuse, it is shown that, as of June 2012, more than 314,000 cases nationwide awaited a resolution. The data also shows that only in 7.9% of cases pending before immigration courts, ICE sought removal based on the individuals' criminal activity or activity endangering the national security or aiding terrorism. Thus, the rest of the backlog includes cases where individuals were charged with violations of immigration rules such as entering the US illegally, overstaying a visa, and not complying with other procedural requirements.
Clearly, the backlog problem stands contrary to the incentives of prosecutorial discretion allegedly applied by DHS for about a year. The Morton memo was meant to consider multiple factors when deciding whether to initiate deportation proceedings - level of education, US citizen immediate relatives, conditions in the person's home country, and age when the person entered the US. As several Texas immigration attorneys attest, some of their clients who fall under the criteria designated in the memo, are still placed in deportation proceedings. The memo had little positive effect for the illegal immigrants whom it was intended to help.
On the other hand, ICE argues that, according to its statistics, there is an achievement. In 2011, ICE removed 216,000 convicted criminals, which is twice as many as in 2008. However, we cannot share ICE's enthusiasm due to the lack of details on deportations - DHS privacy policies preclude ICE from disclosing certain information and details on the deportations.
Finally, compared to Texas, the local immigration courts in Arlington, VA, and Baltimore, MD, take9th and 15th place in the number of cases correspondingly. Yet, many court dates, for example in Arlington, are pushed as far as 2015, which means a wait of over three years in limbo for families awaiting relief. | |
|
REACTIONS TO OBAMA'S
2-YEAR REPRIEVE ANNOUNCEMENT | |
| |
President Obama's recent announcement of a two-year reprieve for certain undocumented youths living in the United States has given rise to a number of opposing opinions. Many immigrant parents are preparing to file paperwork so that their children can receive deferred action for two years.
Yet, many others are skeptical. Several days ago, 250 undocumented immigrants, 100 of which would qualify for this deferred action, gathered outside the Capitol to protest this policy. These protesters asked that instead of implementing a short-term relief policy, Obama should instead pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. According to Marisol Conde Hernandez of the New Jersey DREAM Act Coalition, "The only thing that can fix this is national legislation - not temporary stop gap measures. It's really symbolic, and we still don't know how it's going to be implemented."
Still others worry that young people who will apply for this relief will fall victim to fraud schemes. There is worry that some attorneys, or people claiming to be attorneys, will begin to charge fees for legal advice on this matter. There is a good chance that many young people applying for this relief will get bad legal advice and will be charged excessive sums for this advice. In reality, the current guidelines are vague, and no legislation has been passed yet. Thereby, the legal advice to give right now would be that we just "don't know," though many people giving counsel will say otherwise in order to make a profit off of the unsuspecting youths.
It is thus important to remember that no legislation has been passed establishing specific guidelines and details for this deferred action. Consequently, immigrants must proceed with great caution when seeking legal advice.
source 1 | source 2 | source 3 | image source |
|
| |
Family Category Processing Times:
1st: 7/8/05
2A: 2/15/10
2B: 5/1/04
3rd: 4/15/02
4th: 1/22/01
Employment Category Processing Times:
1st: Current
2nd: 1/1/09
3rd: 7/22/06
Unskilled: 7/22/06
4th: Current
Religious: Current
5th: Current
Targetet Employment Areas/Regional Centers: Current
5th Pilot Programs: Current | |
|
BIA PUTS
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PETITIONS ON HOLD | |
| |
The Board of Immigration Appeals is leaning towards setting a precedent in Immigration law that would eventually allow or prevent immigrants from seeking adjustment of status based on same-sex marriage.
Recently, three appeals and a motion to reopen were filed with the BIA on behalf of same-sex married couples that duly registered their relationships under state laws. In all four cases that originated in California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, the BIA remanded the record to the relevant District Director and Immigration judge for further proceedings. In the meantime the BIA refused to take a position on the constitutionality of DOMA due to lack of jurisdiction.
The facts of the cases are identical. The petitioners filed the I-130 visa petitions on behalf of the same-sex spouses. Three marriages were concluded in the states that allow gay marriages, and in one instance, the couple got married in Ontario, Canada, and was subsequently granted domestic partnership (2004) and civil union status (2007) in the state of New Jersey.
As it could be expected, the petitions were denied based on the section3 (a) of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2149(1996) (DOMA).District Directors (in denials) and DHS (in the opposition to the motion to reopen) argued that the marriages and one civil union between the petitioners and beneficiaries were not valid relationships for the purposes of Federal law pursuant to the section 3 (a) of DOMA. The petitioners filed a motion to reopen and appeals with the BIA. The BIA agreed and remanded the records for further proceedings ordering the parties to address the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner and the beneficiary have a valid marriage under the state laws; and
2) Whether, absent the requirement of section 3 of DOMA, the marriage of the petitioner and the beneficiary would qualify the beneficiary to be considered a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Clearly, those remands are uncommon. They are an effort by the BIA indicating responsiveness to the current society demands and changes. Hopefully, they can grow into a landmark decision granting relief to deserving individuals.
Image source |
NON-PROFIT BLAMES MARYLAND'S FISCAL PROBLEMS ON IMMIGRANT CHILDREN | |
| |
In a recent article "Anti-Immigration Group Blames Students for Maryland Budget's Gap" written by Walter Ewingand published on www.immigrationimpact.org web site (one of the American Immigration Council Project), the author sharply criticizes the conclusion made by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR asserts that unauthorized immigrant students or students with unauthorized immigrant parents are the key problem of Maryland's financial woes. Talk about finding a scapegoat of society's woes!
However, to target parents can only result in negative rebounds on the children of our society.
FAIR is a nonprofit organization of "concerned citizens" who declare that their purpose is to "advocate immigration policies that will best serve American . . . interests. " FAIR explains that according to its calculations unauthorized immigrant students cost Maryland taxpayers $1.3 billion, specifically, K-12 education. They disregard the fact that 69% of those students are US citizens, although the children of illegal immigrant parents.
FAIR argues that if not for the illegal immigrant parents, those children would not be in the US; and therefore, they would not be an expense to the US taxpayers. Also, if the parents were deported, the children would likely follow their parents. According to FAIR, these kids are only an "expense" and everybody would be relieved if they leave the country. FAIR seriously grieves that "those U.S.-born children are not deportable like their parents."
FAIR also argues that under "Maryland DREAM Act" the unauthorized immigrant students would be a heavier burden to the budget when they grow up and become eligible for in-state tuition rates at Maryland colleges. In order to solve this problem, FAIR suggests "attrition through enforcement" strategy. That means that under some conditions the illegal immigrants will willfully leave the US taking their children with them. Still, the crucial factor is left out by FAIR's blunt narrow-mindedness.
It is important to recognize that most of those students are the future of the United States. They will soon become American workers, consumers, entrepreneurs and, finally, taxpayers; and it is in the best interest of the US economy to educate these children to allow them contribute to this country's future when they grow up.
It is clear that the fiscal effect of unauthorized immigrants is not FAIR's primary worry. FAIR concludes that there is the "the impact on the education of other students if the learning environment is negatively affected by students with limited English language proficiency." FAIR goes on explaining that "social cohesion may be strained by foreign language communications barriers."
These comments are applied to all non-English speaking immigrants. This reveals FAIR's true ideology hidden behind the financial concerns -xenophobia - as the author of the article sums up: "they never met an immigrant they didn't dislike."
source |
BIA MAKES PROCEDURAL EXCEPTION TO THE ONE YEAR, THUS EXPANDING THE MEANING ON CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT | |
| |
In a recent case by BIA, Matter of O. Vazquez, 25 I &N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012) the Board explained the "sought to acquire" provision of section 203(h)(1)(A) of INA, 8U.S.C. § 1153(h)(1)(A) (2006), which is a part of Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208 (Aug.6, 2002).
The provision allows an "aged out" applicant to maintain the status of a "child" for the purpose of adjustment of status. However, the "child" status will be preserved only when the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of. . . availability" of an immigrant visa number. An alien can also show that there were other extraordinary, beyond the alien's control, circumstances that prevented timely filing whereas previously the one year was a bar to eligibility.
The respondent is a 28-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. On September 9, 1996, his father filed I-130 on behalf of respondent's mother and the I-30 got approved. The immigrant visa number became available on March 1, 2004. Over a year later when the respondent was over 21 years of age, he filed I-485 which was denied due to his undisclosed criminal conviction. He sought reopening in2007, but it was denied based on the fact that he "aged out." The respondent was put in removal proceedings. His I-485 filed with Immigration Court was denied, and he was ordered removed to Mexico which he appealed.
The question before the Board is whether the respondent observed the "sought to acquire" provision. First of all, the language at issue is not plain and unambiguous. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337,340 (1997). The respondent argues that the meaning of "sought to acquire" is broader than just filing of an application. The Board agrees. However, the Board offers its own interpretation.
The section 203(h)(1)(A) provides that an alien would have 1year "age-out protection" from the date of visa availability to qualify. Obviously, proper filing of an application for adjustment meets the provision. The provision may also be satisfied by "substantial steps" that fall short of filing" within the one year period.
For example, one may present evidence that he or she submitted an application to the DHS, but it was rejected for a procedural or technical reason (absence of a signature). Another example is when the attorney paid to assist with filing of the application failed to timely file it. Basically the applicant has to establish through persuasive evidence that an application submitted was rejected for a procedural reason or there were other circumstances that caused the failure to timely file due to circumstances beyond the alien's control.
Yet, the respondent in the given case barely sought legal advice and did not file his adjustment application within the year while visa was available. Therefore, he did not satisfy the "sought to acquire" requirement and he was not eligible to adjust his status as a derivative beneficiary. |
|
|
