Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Assoc.
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law
News Update
In This Issue . . .


1. USCIS Creates "Parole in Place"

2. BOILA, Guests at Egyptian American Federation

3. Recent Grants & Successes

4. The Asylum Clock Class Action Settlement

5. TPS For the Philippines

6. Track One Visa System

7. ICE Proposes Changes to SEVP for International Students

8. Consular Processing Updates

9. Immigrants Closely Tied to Military Get Reprieve

10. Section 287g: Authorization of Unqualified Officers to Enforce Immigration

Quick Links
Join Our List

Join Our Mailing List

AILA 2013

 Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

View our profile on LinkedIn

View our videos on YouTube

Visit our blog


clients choice award

 

USCIS Creates "Parole in Place"

statue-liberty-flag.jpg
USCIS creates "Parole in Place" for certain family members of Active Duty and Veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces
The grounds of U.S. "Parole in Place" will allow family members not otherwise eligible to remain legally in the U.S. to have their status regularized for the duration of the parole in place. This was a result of a USCIS and Department of Defense collaboration to assist military members who were anxious and worried about their family member's lack of any immigration status.
In particular, the applicant cannot have any 'serious' criminal conviction or other adverse factors. Family members who entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) will be most helped by their immediate relative who can now file a petition and obtain 'parole in place' while awaiting adjustment.

BOILA, Guests at Egyptian American Federation
On November 9, 2013, Terese Tadros Ibarra and Danielle Beach-Oswald attended the Egyptian American Federation First Annual Washington Fundraising Dinner at the Hilton Mark Center Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia.

    The Egyptian Federation is seeking to raise money to assist a new children's Cancer Hospital in Egypt. Among the notable guests in attendance was the Egyptian Ambassador in D.C., Mr. Yasser Elnaggar. The evening included Egyptian music and singing as well as several speakers.

    BOILA is pleased to announce that we are handling several new Egyptian cases both for Christians and Muslims.

Issue: #10December 2013
Washington DC Capitol in winter snow

Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC are Washington, DC immigration attorneys. Our law firm is devoted exclusively to immigration law. We have an AV rating (highest possible rating for lawyers for legal acumen and ethical standards). Practicing law since 1981.

 

For a second year in a row, Danielle Beach-Oswald has been nominated as a SuperLawyer by The Washington Post! Thank you to all of our supporters! 

 

We ask that you complete a Client Data Form prior to your consultation. We have forms in English, French, Spanish, Korean, Arabic and Russian. If you require a form in another language, please call us at  (202) 331-3074.

 

 Read on!

Recent Grants & Successes by BOILA
success
Grants by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

Mr D, BOILA is pleased to share that Mr. D, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  Mr. D suffered past persecution in his country as a result of his human rights activities and political affiliation with the UDC, an opposition political party.   In addition, BOILA assisted Mr. D in establishing that the recent harm to his family members subsequent to his flight from Cameroon established his well-founded fear of future persecution.

Ms. N, a citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court.  Ms. N was arbitrarily arrested on two occasions by the Cameroonian government as a result of her political opposition activities.  In addition to her political persecution, Ms. N fled her native country because she was being forced into a marriage against her will.  She will now be able to rebuild her life in the United States, free from the harm she would have suffered if she had been forced to return to Cameroon.

Mr. Ernest  L, a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court.  While represented by a prior attorney, Mr. L had a previous asylum application denied and he was ordered deported in 2003. After coming to BOILA several years ago, BOILA assisted Mr. L in getting his order of removal reopened based on changed circumstances in his country-namely, the recent harm to his immediate family members as a result of his and his wife's political activities in the United States. Mr. L is a member of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), which is seeking independence for Southern Cameroons from the Republic of Cameroon.  As a result of his and his wife's high profile political activism in the U.S., and the resultant persecution of his father and brother in Cameroon, BOILA assisted him in proving that he possessed a well-founded fear of future persecution. Roughly 10 years after his prior asylum application was denied, Mr. L has now finally been recognized as a refugee and is no longer at risk of being deported.   

Mr. L, also a native of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court.  Mr. L was a member of the UDC, an opposition political party in Cameroon.  As a result of his political affiliation, he was arrested and detained on three separate occasions.  BOILA was also pleased to assist in getting Mr. L's case expedited before the Court.

Ms Natasha M-a native of Cameroon after being deported 7 years ago, Ms M is now finally able to breathe again.  She was denied based on SDF.   BOILA then was able to get case remanded after 6 years from the BIA to IJ.  She was granted asylum by the Immigration Court in Baltimore.  Her asylum was granted based on Particular Social Group based on humanitarian reasons and Changed Circumstances   

Grants by USCIS

Mr S  -After roughly a decade of appeals and legal arguments with USCIS and being put in removal proceedings  Mr. S, a native of Pakistan, was finally granted adjustment of status and is now a lawful permanent resident in the United States.  USCIS had repeatedly denied Mr. S's prior I-130 and I-485 petitions because they incorrectly alleged that he had entered into a prior marriage for fraudulent reasons.   He was also repeatedly refused for not being able to show physical presence under 245(i)   After numerous successful appeals filed by BOILA, Mr. S's legal battles with USCIS are finally over.  BOILA considers this a huge success and is pleased that Mr. S and his US citizen wife are now able to move forward with their lives.   

Ms. Maria G, a native of Argentina, received the approval of her I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her U.S. citizen husband.  BOILA is now working with Ms. G in the hopes she will be able to obtain lawful permanent residency, despite significant legal complexities in her case regarding section 236

Ms. A, a native of Cameroon, received the approval of her I-130 petition, filed on her behalf by her US citizen husband.  BOILA had previously successfully assisted Ms. A in getting her prior order of removal reopened by the Board of Immigration Appeals through a showing of changed circumstances in Ms. A's native country.   Based on the I-130 approval, BOILA is looking forward to assisting Ms. A in being granted lawful permanent residency before the Baltimore Immigration Court so that she may remain in the U.S. with her US citizen husband and two US citizen children.

Ms. K, a native of Pakistan, who had previously been awarded derivative asylum, had her I-485 application approved and was granted permanent residency in the United States after her husband was removed from Trig List

Ms C-A  a lawful permanent resident in the United States and native citizen of Guatemala, had her I-130 petition approved. Ms. C filed the I-130 petition on behalf of her husband and her child  who is also a native of Guatemala and both reside there.  Upon the availability of an immediate relative visa, BOILA hopes to assist Mrs. C's husband is obtaining permanent residency.   

Ms. D, a native of Liberia, had her I-130 petition approved, which was filed on her behalf by her US citizen son.  BOILA is hopeful to soon receive her grant of adjustment of status based on the approval of the I-130 petition.    USCIS had previously denied the case based on other issues including 245(I) in eligibility.

BOILA is pleased to have had the opportunity to help them in their immigration matters.
The Asylum Clock Class Action Settlement
On November 4, 2013 the Honorable Judge Jones with the U.S. District Court, in Seattle, Washington approved a class action settlement agreement. This agreement arose out of nationwide class action filed by the Legal Action Center (LAC) of the American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigration Rights Project (NWIRP), Gibbs Houston Pauw and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. It was originally filed in December 2011. B.H., et. al. v. USCIS, et al. (originally filed as A.B.T., et al. v. USCIS, et al.) and challenged how USCIS and EOIR determine an asylum applicant's eligibility for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) (work authorization).

Normally, an asylum applicant is eligible to apply for an EAD only after they have filed their asylum application with an Immigration Judge at a hearing and have satisfied the 180- day waiting period for EAD eligibility. In this system, asylum applicants often have to wait for extended periods of time to 'file' their asylum applications with an Immigration Judge and encounter unreasonable obstacles that 'stop' their clock.

This Agreement helps remedy a complex problem that often Immigration Judges themselves contribute to. It will bring transparency and accountability for denials of work authority. Furthermore, it will bring greater ease and clarity to the eligibility and application process for asylum seekers.

The Settlement addresses 5 core problems with the current system and creates 5 resolutions to remedy the problems. These resolutions are effective December 3, 2013.

1.  Delay in starting the asylum EAD clock caused by an arbitrary rule that asylum applicants can only be filed at a hearing before an Immigration Judge.

~  Resolution:  An applicant can now 'lodge' an asylum application with an immigration court clerk at a time other than a hearing. A 'lodged' application will be considered 'filed' for purposes of the asylum EAD clock, and the 'lodged' date will start the asylum EAD clock. The application will still need to be 'filed' in a hearing before an Immigration Judge. During this time, the clock will be running and an individual who has 150 days accumulated after the 'lodged' date will be eligible to submit an application for work authorization.

2.  Insufficient time allowed to prepare an expedited asylum case.

~  Resolution: An Immigration Judge must offer a non-detained applicant (whose case is on the expedited docket) an initial individual merits hearing date that is at least 45 days out to have sufficient time to prepare the case. If the applicant accepts that hearing date, the asylum EAD clock will continue to run.

3.  EAD clock stopped after denial of asylum application by an Immigration Judge and not restarted even after successful appeal and remand.

~  Resolution: The asylum EAD clock will restart on the date that the BIA remanded a case to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the asylum decision (including cases in which the remand originated in the court of appeals).

4.  Insufficient notice provided of the right to reschedule a missed asylum interview with USCIS, with the result that asylum EAD clock is often permanently stopped.

~  Resolution: USCIS will now mail a letter to asylum applicants who miss an asylum interview informing them of how missing an interview affects work authorization eligibility; the applicant will have 45 days from the date of the interview to show good cause for having missed the interview and will have an opportunity to meet an expanded interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances' for missing the interview after that.

5.  Insufficient notice of asylum EAD clock decisions and procedures given to applicants, including insufficient notice regarding the impact of an adjournment on the EAD clock.

~  Resolution: The Immigration Court will provide a written notice to asylum seekers and their counsel about the asylum EAD clock, including the impact of the different hearing and adjournment codes on employment authorization. The Immigration Judge will be instructed to state clearly on the record the reason for adjournment. USCIS will change its notices denying EAD applications so that they are clearer.

 

TPS For the Philippines
Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is an available form of temporary, humanitarian relief for those who are in the United States from countries that the currently facing ongoing armed conflict or an environmental emergency. According to USCIS, "The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.  USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States.  Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS."

Given the recent devastation in the Philippines from Typhoon Haiyan, the Philippines appear to be an eligible candidate for TPS designation. While there has not been an official designation yet, many organizations and individuals are calling upon the Department of Homeland Security and President Barak Obama to make the necessary designation. Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Migration calls for TPS for people from the Philippines. His request for TPS centers on the fact that the Philippines currently cannot assist or accommodate deportees from the United States. Furthermore he argues, "It would ensure that nationals of the country currently residing in the U.S. are able to work and to send remittances back to their families, thus helping aid the recovery."

Additionally, the Migration Heritage Commission, based in Washington, DC is also calling for TPS in the wake of the tragedy in the Philippines. "Attorney Arnedo Valera of the Migrant Heritage Commission said undocumented immigrants should also get TPS, and should also get work and travel permits. Not only will this "strengthen foreign relations between the U.S. and the Philippines," Valera said, "It will allow Filipino nationals in the U.S. to keep the Philippine economy afloat by continuing to send dollar remittances. This can help the Philippines in the recovery efforts after Typhoon Yolana."

It is clear that allowing Filipinos to remain in the USA, protected by TPS, would ensure that they can continue to work and hopefully send aid money and remittances to their home country, aiding the reconstruction process. It would also reduce any pressure on the Filipino government to absorb deportees when their priorities should be on rebuilding the country post-disaster.

Countries that currently have TPS designations include: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Syria.
On the Right Track? Exploring the Adverse Effects of the proposed Track One Visa System
By Danielle Beach-Oswald

Visa-application  

As most of us involved in the immigration field are aptly aware, the new immigration reform bill was recently approved by the Senate and on October 2nd, and the bill was finally introduced in the House of Representatives.  If passed, the immigration reform bill will make a climatic and transformative impact on U.S. immigration law which will include the elimination of backlogs for immigrants who meet specific criteria, the elimination of certain family visa categories, and the creation of a merit-based point system for visas.

One of the various point systems contemplated in this bill is the "Track One" visa. Eligibility for the Track-One visa is premised on various "merit"-based factors such as level of education, employment experience, age, and the number of U.S citizen relatives. This article briefly dissects the proposed "Track One" visa system before analyzing some of the adverse effects that might be promulgated under this new system; mainly its proclivity to discriminate against women. I propose what methods this system can implement to account for females who have been denied education and employment in other countries in addition to still placing value on the educated and employed.

 

One of the main prefaces of the new Track-One visa program is the allocation of points based on the individual applicant's level of education. For example, five points will be allocated for applicants who have already obtained a Bachelor's Degree at the time of submitting their application. Additionally, applicants who have obtained a Master's degree will receive ten points, and fifteen points will be awarded to applicants who possess a Doctorate.

 

The government perhaps decided to put an emphasis on educational achievement to increase "brain drain," or the emigration of educated and talented people, into the American work force. This would potentially weed out unskilled or inexperienced immigrants in favor of a more industrious addition to the American working class. Points will also be allocated based on years of employment in the United States, how relevant the job is to the education obtained, entrepreneurship and investments in the U.S. market, and whether or not one's occupation is in high demand. Additionally, the point system will take into consideration an individual's age, civic involvement, proficiency in English, and country of origin. Thus, visa allocations under this system will heavily favor applicants who are highly educated and experienced in their field of employment.

 

Before arguing how this visa point system discriminates against women residing in other countries, it is important to note the "Track One" point system's advantages, such as placing value on learning and employment. For example, this system will concentrate the percentage of immigrants in the U.S who are able to offer us their obtained education and work experience. This could potentially decrease the immigrant unemployment rate as well as promote immigrants to obtain higher degrees of education or more work experience in their country prior to applying for a U.S visa.

However, in most places, opportunity for education and learning unfortunately depend on socio-economic status.  For example, according to the United Nations Statistics Division, in other countries, "analysis shows that school attendance declines as the number of hours spent on household chores increases - and declines more steeply for girls than for boys" (The World's Women 2010, unstats.un.org). There is nothing wrong with valuing those who are educated and have work experience, however the merit-based point system for this bill barely accounts for those who may thrive economically in the U.S if given the opportunity, but have been restricted in their home countries from obtaining higher education, and therefore jobs.

 

Women especially are restricted from gaining education and employment. Many women live in oppressive countries that force women to be caregivers for the rest of their lives, or restrict women from accessing opportunities to progress educationally or in the work force.  According to Gender Discrimination in Education: The Violation of Rights of Women and Girls, "two thirds of the world's non-literate adults are women" and "in the Central African Republic , Niger, Chad, and Malawi, for example, 1 in 200 girls go to university."  Many countries require that women do not show their faces in public or make laws that prohibit women from obtaining jobs other than caregiving for cultural or religious reasons.

 

In many countries such as India, Sharia law, the Islam moral code and religious law, is enforced to prevent females from going to school or working.  For example, according to an article in the Herald, a female student named "Malala Yousafzai was shot for going to school in Pakistan. Women fear the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the loss of their freedom. A female student was horribly raped and murdered in India. Islamic fundamentalists are imposing Sharia law on women in northern Mali" ("Let Our Girls Enjoy Their Childhood Without Fear").  Due to these sorts of conditions, many women would be barred from visa eligibility based on their inability to acquire sufficient points in the education and employment categories in their home countries.

 

The main point of the "Track One" visa should not be solely to allow entry those who are highly educated and experienced in their field, which would only promote a population of wealthy males. The "Track One" visa system should absolutely maintain its current values and point system for encouraging the educated and the employed.  However, this point system should also give opportunity to those who show promise but were denied education in their home countries for no legitimate reason.  

 

One way to implement the consideration of female immigrants who have been prevented from gaining education or work experience would be to add categories such as number of years caregiving or previous attempts at gaining education or employment. Another option would be to give female applicants the option to submit a statement discussing how they were prevented from access to education and jobs in their native country, and an organized plan indicating what steps they plan to take in America toward gaining education and work now that they have that opportunity. Requiring oppressed applicants to make and commit to a two or four year plan, for example, specifying how they will gain education or training for a desired occupation, would value education and employment while additionally considering those who have not been given the option in their countries to further their professional standing.

 

This "Track One" visa program as it stands does not acknowledge women who, despite restricted access to education and jobs due to sexual discrimination in their home countries, may very well show potential for growth and prosperity in America. In sum, I propose maintaining the "Track One" visa point system's admirable emphasis on education and employment. This system needs to also provide options to females who have been denied educational or employment opportunities in their home countries, which I propose can be achieved by giving the applicant the option to submit a statement of their individual oppression, or to submit a detailed plan indicating how the applicant will gain education and employment as a potential resident in America.  

ICE Proposes Changes to SEVP for International Students
ICE badge
On November 20, 2013, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a News Release announcing proposed changes to international student programs. According to ICE's website, "ICE is proposing changes to the requirements governing its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) that are intended to improve management of international student programs and increase opportunities for study by spouses and children of nonimmigrant students."

The ultimate goal of these changes is to increase the competiveness of the United States in the fields of economics, science and technology by encouraging top international students to study in the U.S. ICE ensures that this goal is to encourage top international students to study in the U.S. while simultaneously maintaining the highest national security standards. The proposed change would allow the spouses and dependents of international students on F-1 or M-1 status to study at a SEVP-certified school as long as it is less than full-time. 

The major change with this propose would be to "Provide school officials more flexibility in determining the number of designated school officials to nominate for oversight of campuses by eliminating the limit of 10 DSOs in favor of a more flexible approach." The creation of greater flexibility will better assist students and their families with the process of filling out necessary forms and obtaining certain benefits in the U.S.

According to the news release, "The proposed rule was submitted for publication to the Federal Register and is open for public comment until Jan. 21, 2014. Ice encourages the public to submit formal input on the proposed rule through www.regulations.gov during the open comment period."
Consular Processing Updates
Green Card
Consular Processing is one of the two 'paths' an immigrant may take to obtain a green card. According to USCIS, "an individual who is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition and has an immigrant visa number immediately available may apply at a U.S. Department of State consulate abroad for an immigrant visa in order to come to the United States and be admitted as a permanent resident."

On September 1, 2013 administrative changes were made to the necessary paperwork to successfully complete a consular processing petition. Starting from this date forward, all immigrant visa applicants must apply online using Form DS-260 (Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration). The DS-260 replaces the paper DS-230. Additionally the new process will instruct applicants to choose their agent online using form DS-261 (Choice of Address and Agent), replacing the previous DS-3032.

Depending on the filing date, the National Visa Center may instruct some applicants who had previously filed a DS-230 to electronically submit a DS-260 in addition to their previously submitted application. Both the DS-230 and DS-261 can be found online at https://ceac.state.gov/ceac/. Having all applications online will hopefully streamline the visa process and reduce inefficiency and error in international mailing and correspondence.
Immigrants Closely Tied to Military Get Reprieve

"The Obama administration issued a new policy on Friday that will allow immigrants in the United States illegally who are close relatives of active military troops and veterans to stay and move toward becoming permanent residents. 

The long-awaited memorandum, coming after three years of deliberations by Department of Homeland Security officials, was an effort to untangle knots in immigration law that left many soldiers worried that their immigrant family members could be deported while they were deployed.  The administration applied the policy broadly, extending it to all active-duty members of the armed forces, to reservists including the National Guard, and to all veterans. Their spouses, children and parents will be eligible for a "parole in place," a term that means they will be authorized to remain in the United States and many can proceed with applications for legal residency. 

"This is an enormous step forward for military families and military readiness," said Margaret D. Stock, a lawyer at Cascadia Cross-Border Law in Anchorage, who is a retired Army Reserve lieutenant colonel." - New York Times, Nov. 15, 2013.
Section 287g: Authorization of Unqualified Officers to Enforce Immigration
prison Due to a violation of human rights in 2008, a female immigrant has received a settlement of $490,000. After being detained, Ms. Villegas' hands and feet were shackled to her hospital bed while giving birth.  Six days prior to her hospitalization, a state police officer realized Villegas was illegally residing in the country when he pulled her over at a routine traffic stop.  The state officer was able to detain her using section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an agreement written between certain states and the Attorney General, which gives certain state officers training, certification, and permission to enforce immigration state-wide as opposed to federally.  Villegas had been deported once and has been living in the U.S since 1996.  After she gave birth, her baby was taken from her.  She later developed a painful breast infection in jail because she was not allowed to take a breast pump back with her.  In 2011, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled that Villegas receive monetary compensation for her suffering and additionally that she obtain a visa normally given to crime victims.  This article argues that section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act should never have been implemented because state officers should not be enforcing this federal law, as the act does not specify how they will give state officers the proper training, knowledge, or oversight to conduct this process properly.  Therefore, this act's failure to specify the extent to which state officers will be prepared for enforcing immigration law, as well as the act's potential misuse, entitled Ms. Villegas to the compensation she received for her violation of human rights.  In addition, I propose the abolishment or modification of section 287g of the INA.

Section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act written by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), says that state police officers deemed by the Attorney General  "qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to extent consistent with State and local law" (uscis.gov).  This section of the act does not in any way mention how the Attorney General will determine the capabilities of state officers or deem them qualified to enforce federal law.  The act merely states, "an officer or employee of a state or political subdivision of a state performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge of, and adhere to, federal law relating to the function, and shall contain a written certification that the officers or employees performing the function under the agreement have received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws" (uscis.gov).  It seems as though the act deliberately left out the length of time needed to train officers in immigration law and the extent to which state officers would be trained in enforcing an issue in which they otherwise would have little to no knowledge of how to enforce. 

I firmly believe that the act deliberately neglects to elaborate on how the Attorney General intends to prepare state officers for enforcing federal law.  Both parties of this agreement want the freedom to give state officers the discretion to enforce immigration whenever it is needed, and potentially get away with merely giving state officers the certification in certain areas where the detention of illegal immigrants is most required.  Through the ambiguous language of section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is clear that the federal government wants the power to give authorization to unsupervised state officers based not especially on the officers' knowledge or training, but for the purposes of clearing out illegal immigrant "hot spots."  After the court ruled in favor of Ms. Villegas, the Obama Administration thankfully reduced this section of the act nationwide and has declined to sign new agreements in addition to declining to renew existing ones.  However, the fact that a state officer given "training" and permission to enforce immigration by the Attorney General violated the human rights of a pregnant female proves that section 287g of this act, as it stands, fails to address the method of training and preparation for state officers to deal with illegal immigrants properly.  Ms. Villegas's case is the reason why such elaboration is needed on this act.  The lack of specification in regard to the training and authorization process has the potential to foster too much discretion and corruption in the federal government when assigning state officers the power to enforce federal law.
Ms. Villegas's international human rights were violated when jail officers shackled her hands and feet to the hospital bed while she was giving birth.  It is important to note that I do not agree with the judge that her civil rights were violated, since she was never a legal citizen of the U.S.  However, there is a set of international human rights that every country apart of the United Nations is required to follow, set forth by the United Nation's Human Rights Committee.  The committee made the text for the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which indicates the provisions each country must refer to.  The article established in this document that the jail officials clearly violated is Article 3, or Prohibition of Torture, which states, "no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."  While the act of shackling Ms. Villegas to her hospital bed was arguably not torture, it was certainly "inhuman or degrading treatment."  This section gives the Attorney General too much discretion in authorizing state officers to enforce immigration when unsupervised.  The wording of the agreement does not specify, and therefore does not plan or promote, thorough federal immigration training to state officers.  It is possible that the state officer who detained Ms. Villegas would have had more knowledge as how to handle the situation without violating international human rights had the wording of the agreement been more specific, or had the process of how state officers were to be trained elaborated on, to promote officers' thorough understanding of immigration law and procedure.

Section 287g should either be expunged from the Immigration and Nationality Act altogether, or modified to include more specifically how certain state officers' training will be conducted to ensure more appropriate knowledge of immigration law, and thereby hopefully avoiding violations of international human rights.  Had section 287g of the act promoted immigration knowledge and training by specifying how state officers were to be taught, rather than simply giving the Attorney General the power to authorize certain state officers when needed, Ms. Villegas's human rights may not have been violated.  Section 287g of the act currently does not promote thorough immigration training, and gives the Attorney General too much power in authorizing potentially unqualified state officers to oversee federal law.
FREE
Consult
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates will be happy to answer all of your immigration related questions during a scheduled in-office or telephonic consultation. During your consultation, one of the partners of the firm will review your problem at length, and will explain in detail what resolutions are available to you. Click here now.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.