|
Beach-Oswald is a full-service law firm, concentrating on
immigration law. We have special expertise in work visas, family
based visas, visa waivers, green cards through family and employment
and asylum. We have staff members who speak many different languages
to assist you. Our firm is A-V rated, and we have 27 years of
experience.
We succeed when others don't!
|
|
In This Issue …
|
|
The
Refugee Protection Act Of 2010
|
|
Court Hearing Dates - Why The Long Wait?
|
|
Successes Of Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Assoc.
This Month
|
|
To Deport Or Not To Deport: The Pros And Cons
|
|
Broken Asylum Clock Causing Delays In Work
Authorization
|
|
Burmese Refugees Starving In Bangladesh
|
|
Quote Of The Month
|
|
USCIS E-Notifications
|
|
Ninth Circuit Credibility
|
|
March 2010 Immigration Rally
|
|
AILA Suggestions For Reform
|
|
New CBP Commissioner
|
|
The Refugee
Protection Act Of 2010
|
|
 The
first Refugee Act was passed in the United States in 1980.
Since then, immigration laws were modified in 1996 and in 2001,
making it more difficult for refugees and asylees
to obtain legal status in the US. These harsh policies will
soon change, however. This March 15, the Refugee Protection Act
of 2010 was introduced by Senators Leahy (Democrat - VT) and Levin
(Democrat - MI), and co-sponsored by Senator Durbin (Democrat -
IL). As Senator Lehay stated, this
act is meant to "repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act
of 1996," and to "correct [. . .] agency and court
misinterpretations of law that limit access to safety in the United
States for asylum seekers."
The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 is
designed to do the following:
1. Eliminate
the one year deadline of filing for asylum from date of arrival into
the US.
2. Protect
those immigrants whose asylum claims are based on persecution that
was not socially visible.
3. Require
immigration judges to notify the asylum applicant when more
corroborating evidence is needed for the asylum claim, and give the
applicant an opportunity to respond.
4. Give the asylum applicant a chance to
explain any inconsistency in his or her claim.
5. Establish a new "alternatives to
detention" (ATD) program all across the United States.
6. Make changes in the current detention
system to guarantee asylum applicants access to an attorney, medical
care and family visits, and allow them to carry out their usual
religious practices.
7. Remove the currently required one year
wait for asylees and refugees before they
can apply for a green card.
8. Allow for possible derivative
refugee status for certain family members of
refugees.
The lawyers at BOILA PC are very excited to see these changes come
into effect for so many of our clients. We will continue to
keep you updated on the progress of this Act. To read the full
article, please visit http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/03/16/senators-introduce-the-refugee-protection-act-of-2010/
|
|
Court Hearing Dates -
Why The Long Wait?
|
|
Have you been scheduled for a hearing that was
many months, or even years in advance? Have you been frustrated
with the long wait and wondered why it has to take so long? The
answer is quite simple: there are now more people than ever going
through the Immigration Courts in addition to a record number of
vacancies in judge  positions.
In January, an average of every one out of six
judge positions was vacant. The Obama administration has failed
to fill these vacancies, even though Congress has provided the money
for this process. Because president Obama has not taken
the time to appoint new judges, your wait for a hearing will be
approximately 478 days if you live in Virginia and approximately 430
days if you live in Maryland.
There is a 23% backlog since September 30, 2009,
and an 82% backlog since 2000.
The average wait time for a hearing is OVER ONE
YEAR.
To read the full article, please visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031201776.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz
|
|
Successes This
Month At Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Assoc.
|
|
Mr. O. was
granted a J-1 waiver.
Mr.
S., a native of Pakistan, was finally granted I-130
approval after revocation of the same marriage. His case had
unjustly undergone numerous delays and investigations by USCIS.
Mrs. Augustina. was granted adjustment of status through her
US citizen husband. Her case was frustrated by an unjustified
former denial by USCIS of her marriage petition. However, BOILA
succeeded in winning her case on appeal and causing USCIS to reverse
their former decision. She was granted her green card by a very
understanding judge at the Dallas Immigration Court.
Mr. A-S., a citizen of
Gambia, also finally obtained his green card at the Baltimore
Immigration Court. This victory was a true miracle, as Mr. A-S
had previously been ordered removed from the United States.
BOILA was able to get his case reopened and through USCIS
cooperation, his proceedings were terminated to allow him to use a
previously denied petition and substitute a recently approved
petition to gain permanent residency under the CSPA.
Ms. S. was a long standing
permanent resident who was forced to abandon her permanent resident
status. After being parolled back
into the US, BOILA submitted a legal memorandum on her behalf,
allowing the Immigration Court to terminate her removal proceedings
and allow her to regain her permanent residency at the Fairfax USCIS
office.
Mr. Gilles was
granted asylum at the Baltimore Immigration court. He was a
member of the UDC, and was arrested and detained by the Cameroonian
government as a result of his political activism. This was
a big win by associate Maureen Johnson.
Mr. Martin, a citizen of
Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court, as
he suffered past persecution on account of his political opinion and membership
with the SCNC.
Ms. Grace was also granted
asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court, through stipulation
(consent) by the government. She was arrested, detained and
tortured on multiple occasions by the Cameroonian government on
account of her membership with the SCNC.
Ms. Viviane was also
granted asylum at the Arlington Immigration Court. A true
believer of the Southern Cameroons independence movement, Ms. N. was
arrested and detained and endured gross physical abuse and
torture.
Ms. Ruth was granted
asylum at the Arlington Immigration Court based on her membership and
involvement with the UDC in Cameroon.
Mr. Adams was finally
granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court, after many years
of argument regarding the government's investigation into his
case.
Ms. Ann's case was
remanded by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to the Immigration
Court, allowing her another case at seeking asylum. The BIA
agreed with BOILA's legal and factual arguments on appeal, and found
that the Immigration Judge abused her discretion when finding Ms. K
was not credible during her prior proceedings.
Ms. Grace's case was
reopened by the BIA, following a final order of removal, allowing her
to seek adjustment of status at the Immigration Court based on her
marriage to a US citizen. BOILA filed a motion to reopen her
case with the BIA, citing exceptional circumstances and extreme
hardship considerations and BOILA is hopeful she will soon receive
her green card in removal proceedings.
|
|
To Deport Or Not To Deport:
The Pros And Cons
|
|
To date, our broken immigration system calls for
the deportation of approximately 11 million illegal
immigrants. There are currently two ways of removing illegal
immigrants from the United States.
One way is to make living conditions in the US so
unbearable for them that they would eventually have to return to
their country of origin.
The other is to directly deport them.
But how much would deporting these immigrants
cost? According to the Center for American Progress, it
would cost $200 billion to deport all the illegal immigrants
currently in the US and an additional $85 billion to enforce this
policy for the next five years. In total, the
cost of deporting illegal immigrants back to their countries would
cost the United States tax payers $285 billion. This will mean
that every single person in the US will have to pay an additional
$922 in taxes every year.
But will this strategy be beneficial in the long
run? It is estimated that, on top of the $285 billion, the
deportation of illegal immigrants from the US will result in a $2.5
trillion loss in Gross Domestic Product over the
course of the next ten years. Allowing the
illegal immigrants to stay in the US, however, will result in a $1.5 trillion
growth in Gross Domestic Product over the next ten years.
So what are the cons of deporting illegal
immigrants? An outrages increase in taxes and a severe Gross Domestic
Product loss. What are the pros of deporting illegal
immigrants? There are none. This brings us back to the
question: "To deport or not to deport?", and the answer is
obvious. We at BOILA make it our mission to help those
deserving immigrants become part of the American fabric and
citizenship.
To read the full Center for American Progress
report, please go to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/pdf/cost_of_deportation.pdf
|
|
Broken Asylum Clock Causing
Delays In Work Authorization
|
|
If you are an applicant for asylum, then you
probably already know that you have to wait until you have 150 days
before you can apply for employment authorization. Often,
however, that number of days can stretch out into a much longer
waiting period. The reason for that being that the asylum clock
system is inefficient and allows for many errors.
There are actually two asylum clocks - the
Employment Authorization Document (EAD) asylum clock and the asylum
adjudication clock. The EAD asylum clock was issued to count the
number of days that have passed since an individual has submitted his
or her asylum application. The purpose of the asylum
adjudication clock is to put a 180-day time limit for the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Office of
Immigration Review (EOIR) to entirely process the individual's asylum
application. The EAD asylum clock is supposed to have a 180-day
limit as well, as the applicant has to wait 150 days before
filing, and then another 30 days before receiving the EAD.
Because both of these clocks have 180-day deadlines, USCIS and EOIR
tend to combine them into one asylum clock, and this creates
problems. For example, when the asylum adjudication clock is
stopped because the applicant asks for a continuance on the interview
date, the EAD clock gets stopped as well, though it shouldn't.
As a result, many individuals are left with no choice but to wait for
lengthy periods of time until their next interview or hearing when
they can get their clock restarted.
Currently, both the Immigration Judges (IJ) and
Asylum Officers (AO) can stop an asylum applicant's clock if
they feel that the applicant has requested or caused a delay in their
case. The problem with that is that both the IJ
and AO, but especially the AO, often stop the clocks improperly, and
sometimes even indefinitely. Once this occurs, it is difficult
to fix the clock and get it to restart again because there is very
little transparency in this process, and often attorneys are not able
to figure out why the clock was stopped. Thus, in order to fix
this problem, the EOIR needs implement the following five steps:
1. The
asylum adjudication clock and the EAD asylum clock must be treated as
two separate clocks, independent of one another.
2.
Delays that are requested or caused by the asylum applicant
must be correctly interpreted.
3. When
a decision is made the stop the EAD clock, it must be made on the
record, so that one will have a way of finding out the reasons behind
the EAD clock being stopped.
4. Clear
guidelines must be established that explain the cases in which an
Immigration Judge should stop and restart the EAD asylum clock.
5.
A clear and consistent process must be established in order
for applicants and their attorneys to be able to challenge or appeal
an Immigration Judge's decision on the EAD asylum clock.
If all of the above-mentioned steps are implemented, applying for
employment authorization will be become much less stressful. We
can only hope that these changes will come soon. In the meantime, we
at BOILA do everything in our power to get EAD asylum clocks
restarted, and, to date, have had many successes.
|
|
Burmese Refugees Starving In Bangladesh
|
|
 Thousands
of Burmese refugees in Bangladesh, who have fled their country
due to religious persecution, are being arbitrarily arrested,
illegally removed, and starved to death. All this is being done
in an attempt to prevent the Burmese refugee population in Bangladesh
from increasing. The current number of Burmese refugees living
in Bangladesh is between 200,000 and 400,000, and only 28, 000 of
them are registered refugees. Only those 28,000 refugees
are protected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), since they came to Bangladesh before 1993.
In 1993, the Bangladesh government ceased to grant
refuge to people fleeing Burma, as the population of refugees in
Bangladesh was becoming too high. This leaves the remaining
Burmese population of approximately 172,000 to 372,000 subject to
removal from Bangladesh. The Bangladesh police are now rounding
up the unregistered Burmese refugees and either deporting them back
to their home country or jailing them. This has left the unregistered
refugees terrified - too terrified of leaving the refugee camps in
order to go to work and make money to buy food. This, combined
with the Bangladeshi government refusing to provide unregistered
refugees with food aid, is leaving the refugees to die of starvation.
Families often have to go for days without any food. Most
of the children in these camps are suffering from malnutrition, and
many will die as a result.
To help put an end to the violation of the Burmese
unregistered refugees' human rights, donate to the Physicians for
Human Rights. If you know anyone who has fled Burma and
come to the United States, please let them know that the lawyers at
BOILA are here to help them obtain asylum. No one should ever
have to suffer from the lack of human rights, and you can do your
part to help.
To read the full article, please visit http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library
/documents/reports/stateless-and-starving.pdf.
|
|
|
|
The
information contained on this email is for informational purposes
only and does not constitute legal advice. The transmission of
information to or from this email does not create an attorney-client
relationship between the sender and receiver. We take our privacy
policy seriously and will never sell, rent or share our email list.
View our Privacy
Policy here. To schedule a consultation with one of our
immigration lawyers, please click
here.
|
|
|
|
|
April 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote of the Month
|
|
|
Dost thou love life?
Then do not squander time,
for that is the stuff life is made of.
~
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Happy Easter!
|
|
|
USCIS
E-Notifications
Would you like to be
electronically notified by USCIS when your application is
accepted? All you have to do is attach Form G-1145 to the top
of your application (or ask your BOILA legal assistant to do it for
you). This form can only be used for applications being sent to
the Chicago Lockbox Facility, Phoenix Lockbox Facility, and
Lewisville, TX Lockbox Facility.
The email/text message from
USCIS will include your receipt number and inform you of the date the
application was accepted. Also please note that these text
messages from the USCIS will be at your cost.
To fill out and print Form
G-1145, go to http://www.uscis.gov/files/formg-1145.pdf .
|
|
Ninth
Circuit Credibility Decision
|
|
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an
adverse credibility finding by the immigration judge in an asylum
case: "The IJ articulated six reasons for finding Chawla not credible, and the BIA independently
articulated a seventh reason. None of the reasons articulated by the
IJ or BIA, considered either separately or
in combination, provide a legitimate basis to question Chawla's credibility. Therefore, we hold that the
adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial
evidence." While some might not find this surprising -- it
is the Ninth Circuit, I was surprised that the opinion was written by
Judge Stephen Trott, not known to
frequently reverse decisions of the immigration agencies, and joined
by Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain
and Paez.
|
|
March 2010
Immigration Rally
You
have probably seen on TV, or even participated in, the Immigration Rally
which took place on March 21, 2010. Tens of thousands of people
turned up for this peaceful rally, and have certainly captured the White
House's attention. President Obama spoke at the rally and stated
that: "I have always pledged to be your partner as we work to fix
our broken immigration system, and that's a commitment that I reaffirm
today." We are very optimistic about the reforms that will
take place. With everybody's best efforts, our immigration system
is bound to improve very soon.
The
same day the House passed the health care reform bill, tens of thousands
of people gathered on the Washington Mall hoping for immigration
reform. Most of the supporters were Hispanic/Latino immigrants who
came from 30 different states and on 700 buses, waving American flags and
chanting "Yes we can!" President Obama taped a
video message for the occasion to reach over 11 million illegal
immigrants.
AILA Suggestions for Reform
The Policy Manual explains how
any effective, long-term solution to the immigration problem must:
1) require the unauthorized
population to come out of the shadows, register their presence with the
government, and give them the opportunity to earn legal
status;
2) provide fair and lawful ways
for American businesses to hire much-needed immigrant workers who help
grow our economy while protecting U.S. workers from unfair competition
and all workers from exploitation;
3) reduce the unreasonable
and counterproductive backlogs in family-based and employment-based
immigration;
4) ensure the permanent
immigration system provides adequate visas to meet the needs of American
families, businesses, and communities; and
5) preserve
and restore the fundamental principles of due process and equal
protection while protecting our national security.
AILA's newest advocacy resource,
Solutions That Work: A Policy Manual for Immigration Reform is available
to review and download at www.aila.org/solutions. An AILA Solutions
companion website and video component are coming soon!
New CBP
Commissioner
President Obama has just appointed Alan Bersin to the position of US Customs and Border
Protection Commissioner. Mr. Bersin was a
federal prosecutor and supported Operation Gatekeeper, a program for
keeping Mexican citizens from crossing the border. Unfortunately, this
does not look like promising news for immigrants.
|
