20-21 June 2005
Well, hello, everybody. I'm back and functional. I am engaged in more than a few little exercises in my life that are on the verge of changing pretty much everything. Yesterday was Father's Day in the USA, and it was a nice weekend overall. Not a lot in the way of excitement, my eldest daughter and son-in-law in town from the OC, went down to the Gaslamp to have a really nice dinner at one of the neat restaurants here. If you haven't been to San Diego, the Gaslamp is the transformed downtown area, which was turned from a low-light dive for prostitutes and drug dealers into one of the most popular areas in North America for tourists, and especially during baseball season, with the new Petco Park for baseball. Friday and Saturday nights are especially crowded.
Well, I decided to share with everybody a clarifying statement made by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service (CIS) about the state of affairs on people who are possibly eligible for what is called "adjustment of status" to legal residency (green card) who may have come into the USA during the 1990s and up to April 30, 2001 under another person's (usually a parent or spouse) permanent visa. These people who came on someone else's 'green card' or a similar application before that date are able to apply for legal residency on their own, which especially helps people who came as children to the USA. The announcement by CIS also makes it clear that while these people who are "grandfathered" into eligibility by the law, which is Section 245i of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, cannot similarly pull in close family members, such as spouses, who were not in that relationship prior to the cut-off date of 30 April 2001. Such a state of the law for would-be immigrants is especially applicable for many illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but it's not just limited to them.
There have been three interesting case rulings on the rights of immigrants both coming into the USA, and those who have resided for a while, but have run afoul of the law on the issue of supporting groups that have been designated as terrorist organizations. In one, an immigrant from Senegal, whose tourist visa had run out, but who was legitimately married to an American citizen and had been given legal parole to stay by the CIS, was detained illegally for 3 months because of rank incompetence on the part of a Customs official. The good news is not only that he was released and granted legal status by an immigration judge not long after, but he was able to win a lawsuit against the U.S. government and the Customs official who made the colossal screwup. Well, there the rule of law is working properly. The name of the case is Sissoko v. USA, out of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles.
The second is the case of Nanyange v. USA, out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Chicago. There the court ruled that immigration judges and immigration lawyers cannot use flimsy and petty reasons to rule that a woman seeking asylum had testified falsely, which, in her case, would have meant that she would have been deported, and that, would have been tantamount to a death sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed the immigration judge, and lectured him that trivial and easily explained flaws in her testimony were unacceptable reasons for her, or any other judge to deny asylum under such circumstances.
In the third case, Rahmani v. USA, out of the 9th Circuit, also out of LA, the court held that Iranian expatriates, living in the U.S., could not challenge the legality, under the U.S. Constitution of a law which forbids anyone from sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to support an Iranian anti-government organization which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. Apparently the U.S. Congress had given another Court of Appeals, out of Washington, D.C., the power to decide if an organization should be considered terrorists or a legal organization, not the Court in Los Angeles. While the determination was correct under the strict law, the Court did understand that there was a problem continuing to designate the organization, MEK, as terrorist now. It was a terrorist organization in the late 1970s, when it opposed the Shah of Iran, but 30 years later it is a lead organization in the movement to bring democracy to Iran. Unfortunately, it was also supported for many years by Saddam Hussein, and MEK was based in Iraq. However, these men gave money to MEK only a few years ago, long after MEK broke off with Saddam and moved to France. It is a case where following the law may not match the demands of justice. This case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we'll see how this case goes. Telling people that they can't challenge the constitutionality of a law when it's the very law under which they are prosecuted seems neither fair or just.
If you know someone who is interested in immigrating to the USA, or in coming to study or work for a shorter amount of time, and has a legal question, tell them they can contact me either here in the comment line, or they can e-mail me at FJ.Fernandez@gmail.com . Well, I'll see you all tomorrow. Adios/Au revoir/Ciao/Sayanora/Wao An/Anyo/Salaam/Bye and God bless.
Well, I decided to share with everybody a clarifying statement made by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service (CIS) about the state of affairs on people who are possibly eligible for what is called "adjustment of status" to legal residency (green card) who may have come into the USA during the 1990s and up to April 30, 2001 under another person's (usually a parent or spouse) permanent visa. These people who came on someone else's 'green card' or a similar application before that date are able to apply for legal residency on their own, which especially helps people who came as children to the USA. The announcement by CIS also makes it clear that while these people who are "grandfathered" into eligibility by the law, which is Section 245i of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, cannot similarly pull in close family members, such as spouses, who were not in that relationship prior to the cut-off date of 30 April 2001. Such a state of the law for would-be immigrants is especially applicable for many illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but it's not just limited to them.
There have been three interesting case rulings on the rights of immigrants both coming into the USA, and those who have resided for a while, but have run afoul of the law on the issue of supporting groups that have been designated as terrorist organizations. In one, an immigrant from Senegal, whose tourist visa had run out, but who was legitimately married to an American citizen and had been given legal parole to stay by the CIS, was detained illegally for 3 months because of rank incompetence on the part of a Customs official. The good news is not only that he was released and granted legal status by an immigration judge not long after, but he was able to win a lawsuit against the U.S. government and the Customs official who made the colossal screwup. Well, there the rule of law is working properly. The name of the case is Sissoko v. USA, out of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles.
The second is the case of Nanyange v. USA, out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Chicago. There the court ruled that immigration judges and immigration lawyers cannot use flimsy and petty reasons to rule that a woman seeking asylum had testified falsely, which, in her case, would have meant that she would have been deported, and that, would have been tantamount to a death sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed the immigration judge, and lectured him that trivial and easily explained flaws in her testimony were unacceptable reasons for her, or any other judge to deny asylum under such circumstances.
In the third case, Rahmani v. USA, out of the 9th Circuit, also out of LA, the court held that Iranian expatriates, living in the U.S., could not challenge the legality, under the U.S. Constitution of a law which forbids anyone from sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to support an Iranian anti-government organization which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. Apparently the U.S. Congress had given another Court of Appeals, out of Washington, D.C., the power to decide if an organization should be considered terrorists or a legal organization, not the Court in Los Angeles. While the determination was correct under the strict law, the Court did understand that there was a problem continuing to designate the organization, MEK, as terrorist now. It was a terrorist organization in the late 1970s, when it opposed the Shah of Iran, but 30 years later it is a lead organization in the movement to bring democracy to Iran. Unfortunately, it was also supported for many years by Saddam Hussein, and MEK was based in Iraq. However, these men gave money to MEK only a few years ago, long after MEK broke off with Saddam and moved to France. It is a case where following the law may not match the demands of justice. This case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we'll see how this case goes. Telling people that they can't challenge the constitutionality of a law when it's the very law under which they are prosecuted seems neither fair or just.
If you know someone who is interested in immigrating to the USA, or in coming to study or work for a shorter amount of time, and has a legal question, tell them they can contact me either here in the comment line, or they can e-mail me at FJ.Fernandez@gmail.com . Well, I'll see you all tomorrow. Adios/Au revoir/Ciao/Sayanora/Wao An/Anyo/Salaam/Bye and God bless.
