AUGUST 2011 VISA BULLETIN
DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. THE OFFICE OF NORKA M. SCHELL, LLC AND/OR ITS MEMBERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES MAKE NO WARRANTY REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS INFORMATION. WHILE SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
August 2, 2011
July 31, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: EXPLORING THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: EXPLORING THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION: "Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq. In the United States, the economic consequences of immigration have been fiercely debated since the ninet..."
EXPLORING THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION
Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq.
In the United States, the economic consequences of immigration have been fiercely debated since the nineteenth century. Some of the debate has centered on fiscal questions, such as the amounts immigrants contribute in taxes and the amounts they receive in public welfare benefits. But most the animated debate has concerned the impact of immigrants on the labor market. Do they siphon jobs away form Americans? Do they, by consuming goods and services and by sustaining otherwise marginal companies or industries, create jobs for Americans.
Most economists today recognize the positive effects that immigration has in our economy.
Research shows that immigrants are more likely than U.S. born workers to start new businesses and are among the most prolific inventors in the American economy, generating ideas that lead to new products and more jobs in many sectors including pharmaceuticals and information technology, It is in our national interest to encourage people with great ideas to create new business, industries, and quality jobs in the United States.
Recent research highlights that in the 1990s alone, skilled immigrants helped boost GDP per capita by between 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent. Currently, immigrants represent 24 percent of U.S. scientists and 47 percent of U.S. engineers with bachelor or doctorate degrees. Moreover, foreign-born students studying in our universities have the potential to make significant contributions to our future economic growth if they could stay and work in the United States after they graduate. Exporting this talent to other countries is not in our economic interest.
Immigrants help address other fiscal challenges by paying their fair share of taxes. Studies consistently suggest that immigrants contribute more in taxes revenue than they use in services.
Texts extract from Building a 21st Century Immigration System: www.whitehouse.gov/immigrationaction.
Immigration And Refugee Law And Policy, Second Edition.
July 19, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Justice Department Files a Lawsuit Alleging Employ...
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: PROTECTED CLASSES: "The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 had as one of its principal purposes stemming the tide of illegal immigration. To accomplish ..."
Justice Department Files a Lawsuit Alleging Employment Discrimination
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 had as one of its principal purposes stemming the tide of illegal immigration. To accomplish this goal, the Act imposes penalties on employers who hire undocumented aliens. This proscription produced a fear that employer would react to the treat of penalties by refusing to hire all noncitizens (which, given the restrictive construction given to Title VII by the Court, would be permissible) and discriminating generally against "foreign looking" individuals. Consequently, the Act makes it an "unfair immigration-related practice to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien)
(A) because of such individual's national origin, or
(B) in the case of a citizen or an intending citizen because of such individual's citizenship status.
The proscriptions against national origin discrimination are a direct overlap with the proscriptions of national origin discrimination in Title VII. To avoid the problem of overlapping enforcement, the Immigration Reform and Control Act provides coverage to all employers of three or more employees, and exempts an entity's discrimination because of national origin discrimination if the entity is covered by Title VII. Thus, the Immigration Act proscribes national origin discrimination for all employers having between three and fifteen employees.
In prohibiting all employers from discriminating because of citizenship, the Immigration Act extended protections against alienage discrimination well beyond that provided in Title VII, and in so doing protected American citizens against discrimination which favored aliens.
These protections were not accomplished, however, by amending Title VII, and thus do not allow the enforcement actions of that statute to be invoked by a victim of citizenship discrimination. Rather, the Immigration Act established entirely new enforcement mechanisms and procedure within the Department of Justice.
On July 14, 2011 the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., a poultry processing plant in Gainesville, Ga., alleging that Mar-Jacrequires all newly hired non-U.S. citizens to produce specific documents during the Form I-9 process in order to secure their jobs, but the company does not require U.S. citizens to produce any specific documentation. The non-U.S. citizens subjected to the practice were determined to be work authorized by E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security's Internet-based employment eligibility verification system.
It appears that the Mar-Jac Poultry Inc.'s actions violate the Immigration Act and Title VII by preferring aliens from one nation or area over aliens of a different origin, and a form of citizenship discrimination.
For more information about protection against employment discrimination under the federal immigration law, contact the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
(A) because of such individual's national origin, or
(B) in the case of a citizen or an intending citizen because of such individual's citizenship status.
The proscriptions against national origin discrimination are a direct overlap with the proscriptions of national origin discrimination in Title VII. To avoid the problem of overlapping enforcement, the Immigration Reform and Control Act provides coverage to all employers of three or more employees, and exempts an entity's discrimination because of national origin discrimination if the entity is covered by Title VII. Thus, the Immigration Act proscribes national origin discrimination for all employers having between three and fifteen employees.
In prohibiting all employers from discriminating because of citizenship, the Immigration Act extended protections against alienage discrimination well beyond that provided in Title VII, and in so doing protected American citizens against discrimination which favored aliens.
These protections were not accomplished, however, by amending Title VII, and thus do not allow the enforcement actions of that statute to be invoked by a victim of citizenship discrimination. Rather, the Immigration Act established entirely new enforcement mechanisms and procedure within the Department of Justice.
On July 14, 2011 the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., a poultry processing plant in Gainesville, Ga., alleging that Mar-Jacrequires all newly hired non-U.S. citizens to produce specific documents during the Form I-9 process in order to secure their jobs, but the company does not require U.S. citizens to produce any specific documentation. The non-U.S. citizens subjected to the practice were determined to be work authorized by E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security's Internet-based employment eligibility verification system.
It appears that the Mar-Jac Poultry Inc.'s actions violate the Immigration Act and Title VII by preferring aliens from one nation or area over aliens of a different origin, and a form of citizenship discrimination.
For more information about protection against employment discrimination under the federal immigration law, contact the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
July 13, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: THE FIANCE(E) VISA K-1
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: THE FIANCE(E) VISA K-1: "The K- 1 nonimmigrant visa category permits the fiance(e) of a United States Citizen petitioner to enter the United States for a 90-day peri..."
THE FIANCE(E) VISA K-1
The K-1 nonimmigrant visa category permits the fiance(e) of a United States Citizen petitioner to enter the United States for a 90-day period to marry the petitioner and apply permanent residence.
This is the best visa for a U.S. Citizen considering marriage to a foreigner. The fiance(e) visa is a temporary visa that permits a fiance(e) to travel to the United States and getting married, the fiance(e) can apply for the green card.
1. A fiance(e) visa holder can only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiance(e) petitioner.
2. A fiance(e) visa holder whose bona fide marriage to the fiance(e) visa petitioner is more than 2 years old at the time of the adjustment application is adjudicated is not subject to the provisions for conditional resident status under the section 216 of the Act.
3. A fiance(e) visa holder satisfies the visa eligibility and visa availability requirements of section 245(a) of the Act on the date he or she is admitted to the United States as a K-1 nonimmigrant, provided that the fiance(e) enters into a bona fide marriage with the fiance(e) petitioner within 90 days.
Matter of SESAY, 25 I&N Dec. (BIA 2011).
For more information about fiance(e) visas, contact the Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
This is the best visa for a U.S. Citizen considering marriage to a foreigner. The fiance(e) visa is a temporary visa that permits a fiance(e) to travel to the United States and getting married, the fiance(e) can apply for the green card.
1. A fiance(e) visa holder can only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiance(e) petitioner.
2. A fiance(e) visa holder whose bona fide marriage to the fiance(e) visa petitioner is more than 2 years old at the time of the adjustment application is adjudicated is not subject to the provisions for conditional resident status under the section 216 of the Act.
3. A fiance(e) visa holder satisfies the visa eligibility and visa availability requirements of section 245(a) of the Act on the date he or she is admitted to the United States as a K-1 nonimmigrant, provided that the fiance(e) enters into a bona fide marriage with the fiance(e) petitioner within 90 days.
Matter of SESAY, 25 I&N Dec. (BIA 2011).
For more information about fiance(e) visas, contact the Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Inadmissibility v. Deportability
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: Inadmissibility v. Deportability: "There is often a great deal of confusion between inadmissibility and deportability. Current law provides for the removal of a wide range of ..."
Inadmissibility v. Deportability
There is often a great deal of confusion between inadmissibility and deportability. Current law provides for the removal of a wide range of individuals. In this context, removal means the ejection of a person from the United. Included in the Immigration and Nationality Act is a long list of "inadmissibility" and "deportability" provisions. The deportability provisions are applied to a person who has been formally admitted to the United States and the inadmissibility grounds are applied to those who have not been legally admitted tothe country. The procedure for ejecting or removing any person, irrespective of whether they have been legally admitted is termed a "removal" hearing. Prior to 1996, the immigration statute provided that questions involving the application of the inadmissibility and deportability provisions were, as general rule, governed by whether a person had gained entry into the United States. The proceedings for those seeking admission were called "exclusion hearings," and for those who had managed to enter, "deportation hearings." In the exclusion hearings, the Immigration Judge determine the applicability of the inadmissibility provisions. In deportation hearings, the Immigration Judge would determine the application of the deportability provisions. In 1996 the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immmigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRAIRA") was enacted. Since then, there have been more efforts at restricting immigrants' access to the courts and expanding the power to remove them.
For more information about Inadmissibility and Deportation, contact the the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell.
For more information about Inadmissibility and Deportation, contact the the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell.
July 6, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: REVERIFYING AND UPDATING EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: REVERIFYING AND UPDATING EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION: "USCIS and ICE are entities within Department of Homeland Security. Once again, auditors at the ICE are cracking down on Employers that are i..."
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: REVERIFYING AND UPDATING EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: REVERIFYING AND UPDATING EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION: "USCIS and ICE are entities within Department of Homeland Security. Once again, auditors at the ICE are cracking down on Employers that are i..."
REVERIFYING AND UPDATING EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
USCIS and ICE are entities within Department of Homeland Security. Once again, auditors at the ICE are cracking down on Employers that are in violation of section 274A " It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowingly the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment..."
Generally, ICE can audit any employer who has three or more employees. This is a random selection. However, sometimes ICE will target specifics companies that traditionally hire undocumented worker and employers whose employees are privy to sensitive government information.
The purpose of the audits is to determine whether employees are properly authorized to work in the United States. Once ICE selected an employer to audit, the agency sends a notice of inspection requesting Form I-9 documentation, payroll records, copies of immigration filings, copies of SSA communications, information about independent contractors, and related employment information. The timeline for response is short, as ICE mandate that all documentation must be produced within three business days.
Employers that are found in violation of the section 274A of the Act can be subjected to civil and criminal penalties and injunctions for pattern or practice violations. Therefore, employers are encouraged to periodically review their Form I-9 for updated information.
If you think you or your company may be selected for an Audit, you should seek the advice of an immigration attorney immediately on what to do if you or your company is audited and you are questioned by an ICE officer.
If you are not sure whether you or your company is compliance with workplace eligibility laws, contact our law office for more information.
Generally, ICE can audit any employer who has three or more employees. This is a random selection. However, sometimes ICE will target specifics companies that traditionally hire undocumented worker and employers whose employees are privy to sensitive government information.
The purpose of the audits is to determine whether employees are properly authorized to work in the United States. Once ICE selected an employer to audit, the agency sends a notice of inspection requesting Form I-9 documentation, payroll records, copies of immigration filings, copies of SSA communications, information about independent contractors, and related employment information. The timeline for response is short, as ICE mandate that all documentation must be produced within three business days.
Employers that are found in violation of the section 274A of the Act can be subjected to civil and criminal penalties and injunctions for pattern or practice violations. Therefore, employers are encouraged to periodically review their Form I-9 for updated information.
If you think you or your company may be selected for an Audit, you should seek the advice of an immigration attorney immediately on what to do if you or your company is audited and you are questioned by an ICE officer.
If you are not sure whether you or your company is compliance with workplace eligibility laws, contact our law office for more information.
June 26, 2011
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2011
BREAKING NEWS
On Wednesday, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced the "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2011.
The bill proposes a balance of solutions to fix the U.S. immigration system, such as enhanced measures and a mandatory E-Verify Program, along with strategies to address the current population of undocumented workers, improvement to regulating future flows of legal immigration, a commission to study and regulate temporary worker programs, as well as efforts to support the integration of immigrants into America,
On Wednesday, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced the "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2011.
The bill proposes a balance of solutions to fix the U.S. immigration system, such as enhanced measures and a mandatory E-Verify Program, along with strategies to address the current population of undocumented workers, improvement to regulating future flows of legal immigration, a commission to study and regulate temporary worker programs, as well as efforts to support the integration of immigrants into America,
June 24, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: POST CONVICTIONS RELIEF
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: POST CONVICTIONS RELIEF: "Posted by Norka M. Schell The process of the U.S. Government to remove aliens that are viewed as having no right to remain in the United S..."
POST CONVICTIONS RELIEF
Posted by Norka M. Schell
The process of the U.S. Government to remove aliens that are viewed as having no right to remain in the United States is in a state of flux.
Generally, a lawful permanent resident ( "LPR") is placed in removal proceedings when he is convicted of a theft offense or is convicted of a crime of violence where the sentence imposed was at least 1 year of imprisonment aggravated felony. When this is case, an immigration judge ("IJ") will first determined whether the LPR now referred to as "Respondent" is subject to removal on the ground of the criminal conviction. Assuming that Respondent's conviction has been vacated or his sentence has been reduced to less than 1 year, now the IJ will find that Respondent is not removable and the proceedings will be terminated, and the Respondent will retain his or her LPR status.
If Respondent were removed from the United States prior to vacate his underlying conviction, he would have been prevented from presenting new evidence in his removal case - evidence that potentially could change the outcome - because he were outside of the United States.
In Reyes-Torres v. Holder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the BIA decision and granted Mr. Reyes-Torres the right to reopen his case from outside of the United States.
This is the case of Reyes-Torres. Reyes-Torres is a native and citizen of Mexico who obtained lawful permanent residence status (LPR) in 1964. Since then he has been convicted of two crimes. In 1984, Reyes-Torres was convicted of transporting aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 2324(a)(2). In 2007, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a).
The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") served Reyes-Torres with a Notice to Appear ("NTA") in 2008, charging him with being removable pursuant to: (1) 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony; and (2) 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien who has been convicted of a law relating to a controlled substance. At a hearing before an immigration judge ("IJ"), Reyes-Torres admitted the factual allegations in the NTA, contested removability on the basis of the aggravated felony charge, and conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance violation. He also stated his intention to seek relief from deportation in the form of cancellation of removal. Howeverf, cancellation of removal relief is unavailable to permanent residents who have been convicted of any aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a)(3).
The IJ issued a written decision finding that because Reyes-Torres's alien transportation conviction constituted an aggravated felony, he was ineligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal. IJ also ordered him removed to Mexico. Reyes-Torres appealed to the BIA but and the the IJ's decision on September 26, 2008 was upheld.
Reyes-Torres was removed from the United States on October 3, 2008. On October 22, 2008, a California Superior Court judge granted Reyes-Torres's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the controlled substance charge resulting in his 2007 controlled substance conviction. The judge granted the motion on the ground that Reyes-Torres was not adequately informed of the immigration consequences of the plea. Reyes-Torres now has a clean criminal record, not only under the state law but for immigration purpose as well. However, vacate of the conviction would have no immediate effect on his immigration status. Reyes-Torres is still a former permanent resident who has been removed as an "aggravated felon." He no longer has a green card, or any other status that would permit him to return to the United States.
Procedurally, the only way to turn back the clock and restore Reyes-Torres's LPR would be to seek reopening of the removal proceeding from the IJ who ordered him removed or from BIA if it affirmed the removal order. However, federal appellant court have prevented non citizens from presenting new evidence in their cases because they were outside the United States.
On October 27, 2008, Reyes-Torres filed with the BIA a motion to reconsider and reopen proceedings based on the new evidence of the vacated conviction.
On December 22, 2008, the BIA dismissed Reyes-Torres's motion to reopen and reconsider, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Reyes-Torres has been removed from the United States prior to its filing. The BIA cited the "departure bar" in 8 C.F. R. Section 1003.2(d) for this proposition.
Reyes-Torres timely petitioned for review of both the BIA's September 26, 2008 decision dismissing his appeal and the BIA's December 22, 2008 decision dismissing his motion to reconsider and reopen.
In its review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not find necessary to decide whether Reyes-Torres's 1984 conviction constituted an aggravated felony for removal purposes because the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ("ADAA") which created the category of crimes denominated "aggravated felonies" and provided that aliens convicted of such "aggravated felonies" were subjected to deportation - was enacted November 18, 1988. Since, Reyes-Torres's conviction for alien transportation occurred prior to November 18, 1988, it cannot constitute a removable aggravated felony.
The 2007 guilty pleas has since been vacated and can no longer serve as a basis for removability.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Reyes-Torres the petition for review and recommend this case to the BIA for further action consistent with its opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Northeastern University - School of Law-
American Immigration Council - Court Protects Immigrant's Rights to Reopen Cases from the Outside the US
Ruben Reyes-Torres, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
The process of the U.S. Government to remove aliens that are viewed as having no right to remain in the United States is in a state of flux.
Generally, a lawful permanent resident ( "LPR") is placed in removal proceedings when he is convicted of a theft offense or is convicted of a crime of violence where the sentence imposed was at least 1 year of imprisonment aggravated felony. When this is case, an immigration judge ("IJ") will first determined whether the LPR now referred to as "Respondent" is subject to removal on the ground of the criminal conviction. Assuming that Respondent's conviction has been vacated or his sentence has been reduced to less than 1 year, now the IJ will find that Respondent is not removable and the proceedings will be terminated, and the Respondent will retain his or her LPR status.
If Respondent were removed from the United States prior to vacate his underlying conviction, he would have been prevented from presenting new evidence in his removal case - evidence that potentially could change the outcome - because he were outside of the United States.
In Reyes-Torres v. Holder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the BIA decision and granted Mr. Reyes-Torres the right to reopen his case from outside of the United States.
This is the case of Reyes-Torres. Reyes-Torres is a native and citizen of Mexico who obtained lawful permanent residence status (LPR) in 1964. Since then he has been convicted of two crimes. In 1984, Reyes-Torres was convicted of transporting aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 2324(a)(2). In 2007, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a).
The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") served Reyes-Torres with a Notice to Appear ("NTA") in 2008, charging him with being removable pursuant to: (1) 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony; and (2) 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien who has been convicted of a law relating to a controlled substance. At a hearing before an immigration judge ("IJ"), Reyes-Torres admitted the factual allegations in the NTA, contested removability on the basis of the aggravated felony charge, and conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance violation. He also stated his intention to seek relief from deportation in the form of cancellation of removal. Howeverf, cancellation of removal relief is unavailable to permanent residents who have been convicted of any aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a)(3).
The IJ issued a written decision finding that because Reyes-Torres's alien transportation conviction constituted an aggravated felony, he was ineligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal. IJ also ordered him removed to Mexico. Reyes-Torres appealed to the BIA but and the the IJ's decision on September 26, 2008 was upheld.
Reyes-Torres was removed from the United States on October 3, 2008. On October 22, 2008, a California Superior Court judge granted Reyes-Torres's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the controlled substance charge resulting in his 2007 controlled substance conviction. The judge granted the motion on the ground that Reyes-Torres was not adequately informed of the immigration consequences of the plea. Reyes-Torres now has a clean criminal record, not only under the state law but for immigration purpose as well. However, vacate of the conviction would have no immediate effect on his immigration status. Reyes-Torres is still a former permanent resident who has been removed as an "aggravated felon." He no longer has a green card, or any other status that would permit him to return to the United States.
Procedurally, the only way to turn back the clock and restore Reyes-Torres's LPR would be to seek reopening of the removal proceeding from the IJ who ordered him removed or from BIA if it affirmed the removal order. However, federal appellant court have prevented non citizens from presenting new evidence in their cases because they were outside the United States.
On October 27, 2008, Reyes-Torres filed with the BIA a motion to reconsider and reopen proceedings based on the new evidence of the vacated conviction.
On December 22, 2008, the BIA dismissed Reyes-Torres's motion to reopen and reconsider, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Reyes-Torres has been removed from the United States prior to its filing. The BIA cited the "departure bar" in 8 C.F. R. Section 1003.2(d) for this proposition.
Reyes-Torres timely petitioned for review of both the BIA's September 26, 2008 decision dismissing his appeal and the BIA's December 22, 2008 decision dismissing his motion to reconsider and reopen.
In its review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not find necessary to decide whether Reyes-Torres's 1984 conviction constituted an aggravated felony for removal purposes because the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ("ADAA") which created the category of crimes denominated "aggravated felonies" and provided that aliens convicted of such "aggravated felonies" were subjected to deportation - was enacted November 18, 1988. Since, Reyes-Torres's conviction for alien transportation occurred prior to November 18, 1988, it cannot constitute a removable aggravated felony.
The 2007 guilty pleas has since been vacated and can no longer serve as a basis for removability.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Reyes-Torres the petition for review and recommend this case to the BIA for further action consistent with its opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Northeastern University - School of Law-
American Immigration Council - Court Protects Immigrant's Rights to Reopen Cases from the Outside the US
Ruben Reyes-Torres, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
June 7, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: PREEMPTION ISSUES
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: PREEMPTION ISSUES: "Posted by Norka M. Schell In the last few years we have seen an intensified public debate over the issue of undocumented immigrants in the..."
PREEMPTION ISSUES
Posted by Norka M. Schell
In the last few years we have seen an intensified public debate over the issue of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Despite Congress determination to address undocumented immigration, it failed to pass comprehensive legislation. Inertia on the part of the federal government is to blame for the frustration at the local level. Since then, a number of states are venting their frustation with the current immigration system. California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oregon, South Caroline, Texas, Utah, Alabama, Virginia, and Arizona decided to do something about the immigration problem and have already passed states laws to get tough on immigration and to send a message to the the federal government that something needed to be done now.
States and local ordinances is problematic because it is unnecessarily confusing and blurs the roles and boundaries of the state and local government and federal goverment.
PREEMPTION ISSUES
In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America vs. Whiting, No. 09-115, 2011 WL 2039365 (S. Ct. May 26, 2011) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) which provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be suspended or revoked and requires all Arizona employers to use the E-Verify system to confirm that their employees are authorized to work in the United States, is not preempted by federal law.
IRCA AND IIRIRA
Justice Roberts began by saying, "Federal immigration law expressly preempts "any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ... unauthorized aliens. A recent enacted Arizona statute -- the Legal Arizona Worker Act -- provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State's licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute's saving clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with the federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted."
"Our task then is to make our national laws actually work - to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together." President Obama, January 25, 2011
In the last few years we have seen an intensified public debate over the issue of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Despite Congress determination to address undocumented immigration, it failed to pass comprehensive legislation. Inertia on the part of the federal government is to blame for the frustration at the local level. Since then, a number of states are venting their frustation with the current immigration system. California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oregon, South Caroline, Texas, Utah, Alabama, Virginia, and Arizona decided to do something about the immigration problem and have already passed states laws to get tough on immigration and to send a message to the the federal government that something needed to be done now.
States and local ordinances is problematic because it is unnecessarily confusing and blurs the roles and boundaries of the state and local government and federal goverment.
PREEMPTION ISSUES
The determination that a state law or a local ordinance is preempted by federal law originates in the "Supreme Clause" (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) of the United States Constitution. Preemption may be express or implied. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 517-29 (M. D. Pa. 2007) [striking down local ordinance that prohibits hiring undocumented persons because it is expressly preempted by IRCA, and striking down the city's tenant registration provisions because they impliedly conflict with federal law]; same as to ordinance requiring tenants to present evidence citizenhip or eligible immigration status. Implied preemption arises where Congress has occupied to subject area to the preclusion of state or local laws because of the nature of the federal interest or the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme or because the state or lacal law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Congress or if it is impossible for a party to comply with both state and federal law. Lazano, supra at 525-29. Where sate does not actually conflict with federal immigration law and where area of alw is not traditionally occupied by federal law, state law will be respected. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976). In De Canas the Court adopted three tests to determine whether a state law relating to immigration is preempted by federal law. A state statute will be deemed preempted if (1) the state law is a regulation of immigration; (2) Congress intended to completely oust state power; (3) the state law stands as "obstacle" to the accomplishment of congressional objectives or conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both state and federal impossible.
In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America vs. Whiting, No. 09-115, 2011 WL 2039365 (S. Ct. May 26, 2011) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) which provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be suspended or revoked and requires all Arizona employers to use the E-Verify system to confirm that their employees are authorized to work in the United States, is not preempted by federal law.
IRCA AND IIRIRA
Justice Roberts began by saying, "Federal immigration law expressly preempts "any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ... unauthorized aliens. A recent enacted Arizona statute -- the Legal Arizona Worker Act -- provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State's licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute's saving clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with the federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted."
"Our task then is to make our national laws actually work - to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together." President Obama, January 25, 2011
May 11, 2011
WAIVER OF MISREPRESENTATION OR FRAUD
Posted by: NORKA M. SCHELL
Under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, and alien who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, seeks to procure, has sought to procure, or has procured a visa, other documentation, or admission into he United States or other benefit provided under the Act, is inadmissible. However, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that refusal of admission to the United States of the alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen of lawful resident spouse or parent of the alien. INA 212(i).
" M is a native of Peru who first entered the United States in October of 1996 as a visitor using her Peruvian passport which indicated that she was married and listed her married name. The stamps in her passport indicated that she departed and returned to the United States several times between 1996 and 1999.
M was married to Joe in 1976 in Peru and together the couple had four children. Joe filed paper to end their marriage in February 1197 and appeared in court in May 1997 to sign additional papers. Unfortunately to M, her divorce did not become final in May 1997, but in fact became final on October 29, 1998.
Notwithstanding, M married Paul on August 21 1997. Paul filed alien relative petition on M's behalf in September 1997.
In the petition, Paul listed M's name as married name and indicated that she entered the United States on an uncertain date without having been inspected or admitted. The petition claimed that M was married to Paul and had never been previously married or divorced. The petition only listed M as having one child.
In support of her petition, M listed no former husbands in the biographic information sheet. In further support of the petition, M provided a Peruvian passport issued by the Peruvian Consulate Office in New Jersey in July 1997. The passport listed her name as M and indicated that she was unmarried. The alien relative petition was approved in 1998.
In July 2000, M filed a petition to adjust her status to a lawful permanent resident based upon her marriage to Paul. In her application, again, M claimed that she entered in the United States without inspection and listed only the two children she had with Paul.
Because M sought her adjustment status on a basis of having entered the United States without inspection, she was required to file a waiver request with the Attorney General which she did in September 2001. Ultimately, her application was granted and her status was adjusted to a lawful permanent resident on 2002. Notably M readily acknowledges that she made misrepresentations in obtaining legal permanent residence.
M alleges that the cause of her misrepresentations (omitting her four children and failing to acknowledge her last marriage) was physical and mental abuse by Paul who she divorced in February 2003.
On October 26, 2006, M married Sam. Shortly after M filed an application for naturalization. In this application, M did not review her prior married names, nor did she acknowledge her prior marriages (Joe and Paul); but for the first time, she revealed all six of her children.
In her application, M also answer "NO" question 22, which asked whether she had ever been married to two persons at the same time. Further M answered "NO" to question 23, which asked if she had ever given false misleading information to any U. S. Government official while applying for any immigration benefits.
Finally, M answered "NO" to question 24, which asked if she had lied to any U.S. Government official to gain entry or admission to the United States.
As to question regarding previous marriages, M listed Joe e Paul. M provided documentation showing that she had been married to Paul when she was married to Joe.
United States Citizenship and Services (USCIS) denied M's naturalization application because it found that she lacked " good moral character" and because she was not lawfully admitted as permanent resident. Specially, the decision noted that M canceled her other children and her prior marriage in the past filings, she lied under oath regarding her prior marriage to Joe, she failed to reveal her married name and she had a bigamous relationship with Paul.
In December 2007, M sougth administrative review of her naturalization application request. The USCIS affirmed the denial and M filed the Petition for Review of Naturalization, pro se, on 2009. Respondents moved to dismissed and /or summary judgement on August 2009.
The Court granted Respondents' motion to summary judgement."
______________________________________________________________________________
See Leonarda Moore v. John E. Thompson, Janet Napolitano.
Civil No. 09-1747.
Under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA, and alien who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, seeks to procure, has sought to procure, or has procured a visa, other documentation, or admission into he United States or other benefit provided under the Act, is inadmissible. However, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that refusal of admission to the United States of the alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen of lawful resident spouse or parent of the alien. INA 212(i).
" M is a native of Peru who first entered the United States in October of 1996 as a visitor using her Peruvian passport which indicated that she was married and listed her married name. The stamps in her passport indicated that she departed and returned to the United States several times between 1996 and 1999.
M was married to Joe in 1976 in Peru and together the couple had four children. Joe filed paper to end their marriage in February 1197 and appeared in court in May 1997 to sign additional papers. Unfortunately to M, her divorce did not become final in May 1997, but in fact became final on October 29, 1998.
Notwithstanding, M married Paul on August 21 1997. Paul filed alien relative petition on M's behalf in September 1997.
In the petition, Paul listed M's name as married name and indicated that she entered the United States on an uncertain date without having been inspected or admitted. The petition claimed that M was married to Paul and had never been previously married or divorced. The petition only listed M as having one child.
In support of her petition, M listed no former husbands in the biographic information sheet. In further support of the petition, M provided a Peruvian passport issued by the Peruvian Consulate Office in New Jersey in July 1997. The passport listed her name as M and indicated that she was unmarried. The alien relative petition was approved in 1998.
In July 2000, M filed a petition to adjust her status to a lawful permanent resident based upon her marriage to Paul. In her application, again, M claimed that she entered in the United States without inspection and listed only the two children she had with Paul.
Because M sought her adjustment status on a basis of having entered the United States without inspection, she was required to file a waiver request with the Attorney General which she did in September 2001. Ultimately, her application was granted and her status was adjusted to a lawful permanent resident on 2002. Notably M readily acknowledges that she made misrepresentations in obtaining legal permanent residence.
M alleges that the cause of her misrepresentations (omitting her four children and failing to acknowledge her last marriage) was physical and mental abuse by Paul who she divorced in February 2003.
On October 26, 2006, M married Sam. Shortly after M filed an application for naturalization. In this application, M did not review her prior married names, nor did she acknowledge her prior marriages (Joe and Paul); but for the first time, she revealed all six of her children.
In her application, M also answer "NO" question 22, which asked whether she had ever been married to two persons at the same time. Further M answered "NO" to question 23, which asked if she had ever given false misleading information to any U. S. Government official while applying for any immigration benefits.
Finally, M answered "NO" to question 24, which asked if she had lied to any U.S. Government official to gain entry or admission to the United States.
As to question regarding previous marriages, M listed Joe e Paul. M provided documentation showing that she had been married to Paul when she was married to Joe.
United States Citizenship and Services (USCIS) denied M's naturalization application because it found that she lacked " good moral character" and because she was not lawfully admitted as permanent resident. Specially, the decision noted that M canceled her other children and her prior marriage in the past filings, she lied under oath regarding her prior marriage to Joe, she failed to reveal her married name and she had a bigamous relationship with Paul.
In December 2007, M sougth administrative review of her naturalization application request. The USCIS affirmed the denial and M filed the Petition for Review of Naturalization, pro se, on 2009. Respondents moved to dismissed and /or summary judgement on August 2009.
The Court granted Respondents' motion to summary judgement."
______________________________________________________________________________
See Leonarda Moore v. John E. Thompson, Janet Napolitano.
Civil No. 09-1747.
January 31, 2011
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: TRAVEL WARNING
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: TRAVEL WARNING: "'The U.S. Department of State recommends that U.S. citizens avoid travel to Egypt due to ongoing political and social unrest. On January 30,..."
TRAVEL WARNING
"The U.S. Department of State recommends that U.S. citizens avoid travel to Egypt due to ongoing political and social unrest. On January 30, the Department of State authorized the voluntary departure of dependents and non-emergency employees. Violent demonstrations have occurred in several areas of Cairo, Alexandria and other part of the country, disrupting road travel between centers and airports. U.S. citizens currently in Egypt should consider leaving as soon as they can safety do so. Travelers should remain in contact with their airlines or tour operators concerning fight schedules and arrange to arrive at the airport well before the curfew hours from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
U.S. citizens in Egypt who require assistance, or those who are concerned that their U.S. citizen loved one in Egypt may require assistance, should contact the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo at
EgypEmergencyUS@state.gov or call 1-202-501-4444." For more information go to htt://travel.state.gov
U.S. citizens in Egypt who require assistance, or those who are concerned that their U.S. citizen loved one in Egypt may require assistance, should contact the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo at
EgypEmergencyUS@state.gov or call 1-202-501-4444." For more information go to htt://travel.state.gov
January 21, 2011
U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro, Braziil
The U.S. Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro has decided to ease the visa application process for Brazilians who want to visit the United States. The following programs are now in place.
1. Renewing Visas Program
Applicants who are renewing U.S. visas that are still valid or have expired within the last year will receive expedited appointments and may be able to complete their visa processes without having to be interviewed by a consular officer.
2. Business Program
A Business Program has been created to expedite appointments for certain companies with strong U.S. connections.
3. Minor Program
This is program for parents who already have current U.S. visas. These parents can submit a visa application material for their child under age 14 in one of the following ways by: (a) dropping off all required documents at the Consulate General or (b) sending the application through registered mail.
The Consulate General does not require interview for this child. To participate in the program, parents must hold valid, full-time tourist visas or business visas (five-years or ten-years B2 or B1/B2.)
Likewise, applicants over 80 years of age for a B1/B2 do not need schedule an appointment and are generally not required to come to the Embassy or any Consulates for an interview or fingerprints, through the consular section reserves the right to call applicants if necessary.
4. Sport Program
Sport Program is also now in place for Brazilian athletes, teams and groups associated with Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB), Confederation of Brazilian Football (CBF) and Brazilian Paralympics Committee (CBP). Likewise for professional artists and entertainers who needs "O" and "P" visas for temporary work in the United States.
5. Entertainers and Artist Program
Under this program Entertainers and Artist may obtain their visas through a more expeditiously arrange appointments.
Go to link http://brazil.usembassy.gov
1. Renewing Visas Program
Applicants who are renewing U.S. visas that are still valid or have expired within the last year will receive expedited appointments and may be able to complete their visa processes without having to be interviewed by a consular officer.
2. Business Program
A Business Program has been created to expedite appointments for certain companies with strong U.S. connections.
3. Minor Program
This is program for parents who already have current U.S. visas. These parents can submit a visa application material for their child under age 14 in one of the following ways by: (a) dropping off all required documents at the Consulate General or (b) sending the application through registered mail.
The Consulate General does not require interview for this child. To participate in the program, parents must hold valid, full-time tourist visas or business visas (five-years or ten-years B2 or B1/B2.)
Likewise, applicants over 80 years of age for a B1/B2 do not need schedule an appointment and are generally not required to come to the Embassy or any Consulates for an interview or fingerprints, through the consular section reserves the right to call applicants if necessary.
4. Sport Program
Sport Program is also now in place for Brazilian athletes, teams and groups associated with Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB), Confederation of Brazilian Football (CBF) and Brazilian Paralympics Committee (CBP). Likewise for professional artists and entertainers who needs "O" and "P" visas for temporary work in the United States.
5. Entertainers and Artist Program
Under this program Entertainers and Artist may obtain their visas through a more expeditiously arrange appointments.
Go to link http://brazil.usembassy.gov
December 30, 2010
REFLECTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES ON IMMIGRATION
Today I would like to reflect on the amazing year 2010 turned out to be in shaping American immigration law and policy and the perspective on immigration for 2011 with a new Republican controlled House of Representatives.
In 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law;
Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act during the passage of the post-election lame duck session; Congress failed to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform; the Obama Administration deported 392,862 people; Birthright citizenship were attacked;
Third Circuit held Hazleton Ordinance preempted; victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, Padilla v. Kentucky; foreign-born population grew in the United States; Immigrant Visa Retrogression continued;
Congress approved a measure to increase immigration enforcement;
Employers were audited to limit the hiring of illegal immigrants...
In a matter of weeks, Republicans are expected to take control of the House of Representatives and to lead the main subcommittee on immigration in the 2011.
So, I suppose the natural follow-up question is, "Will the 112th Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform ?" The general consensus is the 112th Congress will not be friendly to pro-immigrant advocates. Republican Steve King of Iowa, a Tea Party conservative, who opposes to any path to legalization for illegal immigrants, could become the new chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Despite certain patterns are becoming evident, pro-immigrant advocates can not bring themselves to walking away from long pending comprehensive immigration reform.
I hope 2011 proves to be your best year yet!
In 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law;
Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act during the passage of the post-election lame duck session; Congress failed to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform; the Obama Administration deported 392,862 people; Birthright citizenship were attacked;
Third Circuit held Hazleton Ordinance preempted; victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, Padilla v. Kentucky; foreign-born population grew in the United States; Immigrant Visa Retrogression continued;
Congress approved a measure to increase immigration enforcement;
Employers were audited to limit the hiring of illegal immigrants...
In a matter of weeks, Republicans are expected to take control of the House of Representatives and to lead the main subcommittee on immigration in the 2011.
So, I suppose the natural follow-up question is, "Will the 112th Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform ?" The general consensus is the 112th Congress will not be friendly to pro-immigrant advocates. Republican Steve King of Iowa, a Tea Party conservative, who opposes to any path to legalization for illegal immigrants, could become the new chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Despite certain patterns are becoming evident, pro-immigrant advocates can not bring themselves to walking away from long pending comprehensive immigration reform.
I hope 2011 proves to be your best year yet!
December 14, 2010
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: THE DREAM LIVES ON
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: THE DREAM LIVES ON: "Senate Kennedy said ' The Dream lives on.' It is time to press on with our full support for the DREAM Act, so the dreams of the young peopl..."
THE DREAM LIVES ON
Senate Kennedy said " The Dream lives on."
It is time to press on with our full support for the DREAM Act, so the dreams of the young people will live on.
The House of Representative passed their version on the DREAM Act on Wednesday.
In the coming days, the Senate will have the opportunity to open the door to the American dreams of college for these bright, talented youth people who live out values that we cherish - a strong work ethic, service to others, and a deep loyalthy to this country.
"The students of the DREAM ACT are some of the country's best and brightest. They are the exactly type of young people America should be embrancing." Arme Ducan, Edu. Secretary.
It is time to press on.
It is time to press on with our full support for the DREAM Act, so the dreams of the young people will live on.
The House of Representative passed their version on the DREAM Act on Wednesday.
In the coming days, the Senate will have the opportunity to open the door to the American dreams of college for these bright, talented youth people who live out values that we cherish - a strong work ethic, service to others, and a deep loyalthy to this country.
"The students of the DREAM ACT are some of the country's best and brightest. They are the exactly type of young people America should be embrancing." Arme Ducan, Edu. Secretary.
It is time to press on.
December 8, 2010
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: PASSPORT
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: PASSPORT: "Definition of Passport A passport is a document that identifies a citizen, in effect rquesting foreign power to allow the bearer to enter a..."
PASSPORT
Definition of Passport
A passport is a document that identifies a citizen, in effect rquesting foreign power to allow the bearer to enter and to pass freely and safely, recognizing the right of the bearer to the protection and good offices of American diplomatic and consular offices. A passport is evidence of permission from sovereign to its citizen to travel to foreign countries and to return to land of this allegiance, as well as request to foreign powers that such citizen be allowed to pass freely and safely.
Any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the entry of the bearer into a foreign country.
A visa is a machine-readable stamp in a your passport issued by an United States consul abroad. It authorizes you to apply for admission into the United States at a port of entry. Your visa specifies the type of immigration status you will hold, the date until which you may enter the United States, and the number of entries you may make before you must apply for a new entry visa. The length of validity of each visa type is determined by an agreement between your home country and the United States government and is not necessarily tied to the length of your staying.
The validity period of your enty visa does not determine the length of time you remain in the United States after you enter. Your length of stay is determined by the competion date on your Form I-94 Card expiration date, whichever is earlier.
Form I-94 Card is a record of your nonimmigrant status and permission to stay in the United States. It is a small white card, known as the I-94 card.
Reinstament of Revoked Passport
On January 21, 1987, P applied for a passport at the United States Embassy in Madrid. P's U.S. passport had been revoked in 1979 on the basis that his "activities abroa were causing or likely to casue serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States," 22 C.F.R. 51.70(b)(4) and 51.71(a) (2002). P, a former CIA employee, had engaged in a campaign to expose the identity of CIA agents, and was allegedly involved with Iranian captors of U.S. Embassy employees in Iran. The passport revocation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Haig v. Agge, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).
On June 29, 1987, P received a letter from the Department of State denying his request for a passport on the basis of 22 C.F.R. 51.70(b)(5) (2002), which permits the Secretary to deny a passport where "[t]he applicant has been the subject of a prior adverse action... under [22 C.F.R. 51.70 or 51.71 (2002)] and has not shown that a change in circumstances since the adverse action warrants issuance of a passport."
The decision took into account submissions made by P in April 1987 through counsel addressing the changed circumstances requirement and requesting a hearing if his application were denied. The decision also relied on a leter of June 30, 1987, from the Director of Central Intelligence, asserting that P had assisted various hostile intelligence services and had violated an injunction to observe a secrecy agreement with the CIA. The Director's letter set forth twelve specific charges against P.
On October 15, 1987, the State Departmnent held a hearing at which P appeared with his counsel. The hearing officer recommended affirmation of the passport denial. The recommnedation was accepted by the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs on February 10, 1988.
P appealed to the Department of State's Board of Appellate Review, which remanded the case because the administrative record was incomplete. The board noted its concern that P had requested and been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Director concerning the twelve charges included in his letter. Accordingly, in May 1989 the Department provided P with two declaration from the CIA, affirming that the information upon which its assertations were based was obtained in the normal course of CIA business, and that the sources were genuine and the translations accurate. The Department refused a request for a hearing , on the ground that it had fully met the requirements of the remand. The Department offered to entertain written interrogatoriies, but P submitted none.
On June 8, 1990, P filed suit in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of State seeking a passport and asserting that the procedures followed by the Department in denying his passport application violated the Constitution, federal statutes and regulations.
Both parties moved for summary judgement. The U.S. brief in the case emphasized that, "[u]nder applicable law, it is [P] already adjudicated as a threat to national security and not entitled to an American passport, who bears the burden of showing that those circumstances have changed." Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement.
The brief stated that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof, noting that P, in fact, had not even challenged the adverse material placed in the record by the Department. Addressing the constitutional issue of the right to travel, the U.S. brief stated:
"Plaintiff has no constitutional right to travel on an American passport....Contrary to plaintiff's arguments ...there is no "proposed deprivation" of plaitiff's rights, only a question of whether an existing, and lawful deprivation should continue."
The brief pointed out that, under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S. C. 706, the Department of State's decision had to be upheld as long as it was not arbitrary and capricious, and was rationally based on the record.
As to P's procedural assertations, the U.S. government took the view that the Department's regulations were properly applied, and that P was not denied any constitutional right to cross-examination because he refused to submit written interrogatories when given the opportunity.
On October 30, 1990, the district court granted the U.S. motion for summary judgement and dismissed P's complaint.
Undoubtedly, the Court would normally have an obligation to test the government's passport procedures provided to ensure consitency with the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. International travel, while not an unqualified right, is a liberty interest which the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from taking away from a citizen without procedural due process. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
Today the Department's passport regulatory authority can no longer be exercised by fiat, as it appears to have been in the past. The Department must have meaningul procedures adequate to resolve both passport issuance and passport revocation promptly and fairly.
___________________________________________________________________
22 CFR 51.70(b)(4) and 51.71(a) 2002
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
http://travel.state.gov/
International Students and Scholars Office, Columbia University
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.
______________________________________________________
A passport is a document that identifies a citizen, in effect rquesting foreign power to allow the bearer to enter and to pass freely and safely, recognizing the right of the bearer to the protection and good offices of American diplomatic and consular offices. A passport is evidence of permission from sovereign to its citizen to travel to foreign countries and to return to land of this allegiance, as well as request to foreign powers that such citizen be allowed to pass freely and safely.
Any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the entry of the bearer into a foreign country.
A visa is a machine-readable stamp in a your passport issued by an United States consul abroad. It authorizes you to apply for admission into the United States at a port of entry. Your visa specifies the type of immigration status you will hold, the date until which you may enter the United States, and the number of entries you may make before you must apply for a new entry visa. The length of validity of each visa type is determined by an agreement between your home country and the United States government and is not necessarily tied to the length of your staying.
The validity period of your enty visa does not determine the length of time you remain in the United States after you enter. Your length of stay is determined by the competion date on your Form I-94 Card expiration date, whichever is earlier.
Form I-94 Card is a record of your nonimmigrant status and permission to stay in the United States. It is a small white card, known as the I-94 card.
Reinstament of Revoked Passport
On January 21, 1987, P applied for a passport at the United States Embassy in Madrid. P's U.S. passport had been revoked in 1979 on the basis that his "activities abroa were causing or likely to casue serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States," 22 C.F.R. 51.70(b)(4) and 51.71(a) (2002). P, a former CIA employee, had engaged in a campaign to expose the identity of CIA agents, and was allegedly involved with Iranian captors of U.S. Embassy employees in Iran. The passport revocation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Haig v. Agge, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).
On June 29, 1987, P received a letter from the Department of State denying his request for a passport on the basis of 22 C.F.R. 51.70(b)(5) (2002), which permits the Secretary to deny a passport where "[t]he applicant has been the subject of a prior adverse action... under [22 C.F.R. 51.70 or 51.71 (2002)] and has not shown that a change in circumstances since the adverse action warrants issuance of a passport."
The decision took into account submissions made by P in April 1987 through counsel addressing the changed circumstances requirement and requesting a hearing if his application were denied. The decision also relied on a leter of June 30, 1987, from the Director of Central Intelligence, asserting that P had assisted various hostile intelligence services and had violated an injunction to observe a secrecy agreement with the CIA. The Director's letter set forth twelve specific charges against P.
On October 15, 1987, the State Departmnent held a hearing at which P appeared with his counsel. The hearing officer recommended affirmation of the passport denial. The recommnedation was accepted by the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs on February 10, 1988.
P appealed to the Department of State's Board of Appellate Review, which remanded the case because the administrative record was incomplete. The board noted its concern that P had requested and been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Director concerning the twelve charges included in his letter. Accordingly, in May 1989 the Department provided P with two declaration from the CIA, affirming that the information upon which its assertations were based was obtained in the normal course of CIA business, and that the sources were genuine and the translations accurate. The Department refused a request for a hearing , on the ground that it had fully met the requirements of the remand. The Department offered to entertain written interrogatoriies, but P submitted none.
On June 8, 1990, P filed suit in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of State seeking a passport and asserting that the procedures followed by the Department in denying his passport application violated the Constitution, federal statutes and regulations.
Both parties moved for summary judgement. The U.S. brief in the case emphasized that, "[u]nder applicable law, it is [P] already adjudicated as a threat to national security and not entitled to an American passport, who bears the burden of showing that those circumstances have changed." Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement.
The brief stated that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof, noting that P, in fact, had not even challenged the adverse material placed in the record by the Department. Addressing the constitutional issue of the right to travel, the U.S. brief stated:
"Plaintiff has no constitutional right to travel on an American passport....Contrary to plaintiff's arguments ...there is no "proposed deprivation" of plaitiff's rights, only a question of whether an existing, and lawful deprivation should continue."
The brief pointed out that, under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S. C. 706, the Department of State's decision had to be upheld as long as it was not arbitrary and capricious, and was rationally based on the record.
As to P's procedural assertations, the U.S. government took the view that the Department's regulations were properly applied, and that P was not denied any constitutional right to cross-examination because he refused to submit written interrogatories when given the opportunity.
On October 30, 1990, the district court granted the U.S. motion for summary judgement and dismissed P's complaint.
Undoubtedly, the Court would normally have an obligation to test the government's passport procedures provided to ensure consitency with the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. International travel, while not an unqualified right, is a liberty interest which the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from taking away from a citizen without procedural due process. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
Today the Department's passport regulatory authority can no longer be exercised by fiat, as it appears to have been in the past. The Department must have meaningul procedures adequate to resolve both passport issuance and passport revocation promptly and fairly.
___________________________________________________________________
22 CFR 51.70(b)(4) and 51.71(a) 2002
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
http://travel.state.gov/
International Students and Scholars Office, Columbia University
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.
______________________________________________________
December 3, 2010
AMNESTY AND THE DREAM Act
Definition of Amnesty:
Amnesty is sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime, or delict, generally political offenses, - treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion,-and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time. In some ways the words amnesty and legalization are imprecise labels for the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) programs which provided amnesty for many undocumented aliens already in the country.
Included in the concept of pardon is "amnesty," which is similar in all respects to a full pardon, insofar, as when it is granted both the crime and punishment are abrogated; however, unlike pardons, an amnesty usually refers to a class of individuals irrespective of individual situated.
The DREAM Act
Undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16 will apply for legal status through the DREAM Act. When the DREAM Act comes under discussion, the precursor that comes to immediately to mind is the general legalization program enacted by Congress as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This is a misconception. All that the DREAM Act will accomplish is that it will correct only one aspect of the shortcomings of immigration laws. It will not fix the highly technical provisions of immigration laws that are often hopelessly intertwined. This is not to say that DREAM Act is not important. It certainly is. But, it is not amnesty by the definition.
Amnesty is sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime, or delict, generally political offenses, - treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion,-and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time. In some ways the words amnesty and legalization are imprecise labels for the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) programs which provided amnesty for many undocumented aliens already in the country.
Included in the concept of pardon is "amnesty," which is similar in all respects to a full pardon, insofar, as when it is granted both the crime and punishment are abrogated; however, unlike pardons, an amnesty usually refers to a class of individuals irrespective of individual situated.
The DREAM Act
Undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16 will apply for legal status through the DREAM Act. When the DREAM Act comes under discussion, the precursor that comes to immediately to mind is the general legalization program enacted by Congress as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This is a misconception. All that the DREAM Act will accomplish is that it will correct only one aspect of the shortcomings of immigration laws. It will not fix the highly technical provisions of immigration laws that are often hopelessly intertwined. This is not to say that DREAM Act is not important. It certainly is. But, it is not amnesty by the definition.
November 19, 2010
A Place of Opportunity - America
A young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers and inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue - the Statue of Liberty - which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.
"Years before the statue was built-years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks sky word at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish -- she imaged what it could mean. She imagined that sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation - but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one's arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom." President Obama.
She wrote,
"A mighty woman with a torch...
From her beaconhand
Glows world-wide welcome...
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!...
"Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free...
Send these, the homeless, tempest - tossed to me,
I will lift my hand beside the golden door!.."
"Years before the statue was built-years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks sky word at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish -- she imaged what it could mean. She imagined that sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation - but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one's arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom." President Obama.
She wrote,
"A mighty woman with a torch...
From her beaconhand
Glows world-wide welcome...
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!...
"Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free...
Send these, the homeless, tempest - tossed to me,
I will lift my hand beside the golden door!.."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)