AILA

RECENT POSTS

November 28, 2011 | 10:21 AM | By

Why it’s so difficult to legalize through marriage – as explained by cuddly creatures (Video)

Thanks to immigration attorney Jonathan Montag for supplying this bizarre little video that explains the immigration dilemma faced by mixed-status couples – in this case a U.S. citizen hoping to legalize his wife – via cuddly creatures with oddly robotic voices.

Montag posted the video in the comments section beneath a Q&A from Friday. In that post, former American Immigration Lawyers Association president David Leopold debunked the myth that having a U.S. citizen spouse (or immediate relatives, even) equals a path to legal status.

Especially for many people who entered the U.S. illegally, it’s next to impossible to adjust one’s status, even through marriage. The Q&A followed a series of first-person stories from people in families with mixed immigration status.

If the cuddly U.S. citizen bear telling his story in the video appears somewhat clueless about the rules, he’s not alone. The rules are vague for most of the general public and myths abound, especially when it concerns marriage to a citizen or having U.S.-born children.

The video was made using Xtranormal Movie Maker, a program that allows users to produce videos using a choice of animated characters. Check out this one from August in which the same adorable critters – one with a British accent this time – discuss the Obama administration’s new deportation policy.

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, AILA, David Leopold, Jonathan Montag, Mixed immigration status, Mixed status, Mixed-status families, Xtranormal
November 25, 2011 | 12:24 PM | By

Why it’s so hard to obtain legal status, even through marriage and family

Photo by scribbletaylor/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A recent series of posts explored the immigration limbo lived by families of mixed status, families in which some members are U.S. citizens and/or legal residents while others remain undocumented, unable to adjust their immigration status in spite of family and marriage ties to the United States.

Mixed-status families are surprisingly common. In 2009, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated there were 8.8 million people living in families of mixed immigration status in the United States. This makes for a conservative estimate, as Pew’s definition was limited to families with unauthorized immigrants and their U.S. citizen children. Even more common are mixed-status extended families, one example being the Kenyan-born family of President Obama, whose undocumented half-uncle was arrested in August, and whose aunt was up for deportation until being granted asylum.

The Multi-American series on mixed-status families featured the first-person stories of U.S. citizens and legal residents who are the spouses, children and siblings of undocumented immigrants. Many had tried to adjust their status and failed. One U.S. citizen woman whose husband had been unable to adjust, and now faces deportation, wrote: “People who don’t have undocumented family members don’t believe me when I tell them he can’t get papers.”

It’s commonly believed that marriage to a U.S. citizen is an immigration cure-all, as is having U.S.-born children. Not so. In fact, for people who entered illegally, current laws make it next to impossible to obtain legal status. Legal expert David Wolfe Leopold, an immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, explains why.

M-A: Why is it so difficult to adjust immigration status for those who lack legal status, even through family or marriage?

Leopold: The law limits adjustment to non-immigrants who have maintained status, not worked without authorization, etc. There are few exceptions to this general rule.

In the family based context, a person may adjust if they were lawfully admitted or paroled into the U.S., and they are married to a U.S. citizen or the parent of a U.S. citizen who has reached the age of 21. In the employer sponsorship context, a person may adjust if they were lawfully admitted (not paroled) into the U.S. and their failure to maintain status has been for no longer than six months. Asylees and refugees may adjust regardless of lawful admission.

M-A: What if someone entered illegally without a visa, as opposed to someone who entered lawfully and overstayed? Is it possible to obtain legal status?

Leopold: For most people, no. There are two exceptions to this, commonly known as 245(i): 1) if the person could have adjusted by an immigration process started before January 18, 1998, or; 2) if the person could have adjusted based on an immigration process started before April 30, 2001 and they can prove they were present in the U.S on December 21, 2000.

Practically speaking, this means that some petition or labor certification process must have been filed on their behalf or on behalf of their parent or spouse before these dates. The rules are pretty liberal as to who can benefit. But, as you might imagine, the pool of people who qualify diminishes as the years and days go by.

M-A: Is there a way for people who entered without a visa to adjust status through marriage?

Leopold: No. The law does not permit adjustment even if the green card is based on marriage to a U.S. citizen and there is extreme hardship to the family. If a person entered without an inspection and doesn’t qualify for 245(i) exceptions, they must leave the U.S. in order to apply for their immigrant visa.

M-A: What happens when people are told to go back to their native country, such as to Ciudad Juarez in Mexico to process paperwork at the consulate there? What are the penalties?

Leopold: Anyone who has been in the U.S. for more than six months after entering illegally, or overstaying their authorized period of stay, faces a three or 10 year bar to readmission once they leave. If a person overstays for six months, they will be barred for three years; if they overstay for one year or more, they will be barred for 10 years.

If they reenter illegally after having been removed or after having been in the U.S. unlawfully for more than a year, they will be barred permanently.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, AILA, Mixed immigration status, Mixed status, Mixed-status families, Obama's uncle
November 14, 2011 | 11:01 AM | By

Obama administration’s new deportation policy being applied unevenly

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

A man is prepared for a deportation flight bound for San Salvador in Mesa, Arizona, December 2010

A series of recent posts on Multi-American highlighted how a new deportation policy announced in August by the Obama administration, which promised to potentially spare thousands from deportation, was being applied unevenly.

Homeland Security officials announced that they would review the deportation cases of some 300,000 immigrants deemed a low priority for removal, among them young people who arrived here as minors and had no criminal record. But people who meet the criteria for leniency have continued moving through the deportation pipeline. One prominent recent example was Matias Ramos, a UCLA graduate and student activist who in September suddenly found himself wearing an electronic shackle and informed that he was to be deported to Argentina, where he was born.

Ramos was granted a last-minute temporary reprieve, as have other potential young deportees who have been the focus of social media campaigns by student activists and advocacy groups. But while some like these have been spared, others who meet the criteria and have similar backgrounds and similarly clean records continue to be deported.

The New York Times examined the problem in a story this weekend, citing from a new report from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council. The report collected data from 252 cases handled by attorneys who had asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to exercise prosecutorial discretion for their clients. From the story:

“The overwhelming conclusion is that most ICE offices have not changed their practices since the issuance of these new directives,” the report found.

“This is a classic example of leadership saying one thing and the rank and file doing another,” said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the lawyers association. The report found that training for immigration officers on the new guidelines had been lacking.

Officials at the Homeland Security Department acknowledge the policy’s slow start. Mr. Morton’s June guidelines were followed by a three-month lull, when resistance grew among agents in the field. In late September, Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Morton went on the offensive to press the policy, and since then Mr. Morton has been on the road inaugurating training programs.

“Like any major change in enforcement policy, this is a work in progress,” Mr. Morton said by telephone from Miami, where he was joining in a training session. “I have been handling much of the initial explanation myself, because I feel so strongly about it.”

Some of the immigrants whose cases were documented in the report experienced vastly different outcomes, despite similar legal backgrounds. Included in the story are cases like that of Rubén Quinteros, a 43-year-old undocumented immigrant from Uruguay who was arrested by immigration officials eight days before his planned wedding and deported in late October. The end result of his case was a far cry from that of Manuel Bartsch, an 24-year-old undocumented man brought to the U.S. from Germany when he was 10. After fighting deportation for years, his deportation case was terminated earlier this month, and he will now be able to apply for a work permit.

Last month, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano announced that a pilot program to begin reviewing the cases of immigrants deemed a low deportation priority would begin “in a few weeks.”

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, AILA, Deportation, Deportation policy, Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Matias Ramos, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement