Victim of Gang Violence Granted Withholding of Removal

The Arlington Immigration Court granted withholding of removal to a young man from El Salvador who had been a victim of gang violence. 

About three years ago, the young man was shot and left for dead when he was unable to pay the quota that members of MS-13 demanded from him for the privilege of living in their territory. The man testified that he was a target for extortion because his father was a former member of the El Salvadoran military. 

U.S. law provides that an alien must be granted withholding of removal if an Immigration Judge finds that it is more probable than not that the alien's life and liberty will be in jeopardy because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group if returned to his or her home country. I this case, the Immigration Judge found that the young man had suffered past persecution because of being an immediate family member of a former military member. 

The young man had presented evidence that the gangs in El Salvador act like a quasi-government, often controlling territory and demanding rent, or a quota, from the people who live there. The gangs have become so dominant, that the El Salvadoran police are unable to provide protection to residents. 

As recipient of withholding of removal, the young man may live and work in the United States.  But withholding of removal does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832

Se habla español: (571) 551-6069 

Immigration Judge Finds Theft of Food and Livestock Does Not Trigger Material Support Bar

 

 

In a case that had been pending almost twenty-five years, Arlington Immigration Judge Paul W. Schmidt found that the theft of food and livestock by the FMLN (Farabundo Marti Nation Liberation Front) from the Respondent’s home did not constitute material support of terrorism.  The ruling paved the way for an El Salvadoran man, who had escaped his country’s civil war, to receive permanent residency in the United States.

The Respondent, who fled El Salvador in 1988 when he found a bomb in front of his house, had been attempting to obtain some form of immigration relief since 1990, when he filed his first asylum application.  His most recent attempt was through an application through the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (known as NACARA), which permits, among other things, certain Central Americans who have been present in the United States since the early 1990s to adjust to permanent residency, provided they can show good moral character and extreme hardship if returned to their home country.

Eligibility for immigration relief, however, is often not enough.  Rather, those who meet the eligibility requirements must still show that they are admissible under U.S. Immigration law.  One ground of inadmissibility applies to those who have provided material support to a terrorist organization.  This is called the material support bar.

U.S. courts have upheld a broad interpretation of the material support bar made by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  The material support bar can be triggered, for example, merely by providing food and directions to a group that the U.S. Government labels as a terrorist organization.  The text of the statute itself provides for no exception to the material support bar even if the support was given under duress.  Thus, a credible threat of immediate death may not excuse someone who has given food to a group labeled as terrorist.

In the Respondent’s case, he testified that twice the FMLN came to his home and took food and livestock.  The first time, they took about twenty tortillas.  The second time, they took one of his animals.  The Respondent did not stop the FMLN because he feared that he would be killed.  Because the U.S. Government labeled the FMLN a terrorist organization, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement argued that this triggered the material support bar in the Respondent’s case.

In a written opinion, Judge Schmidt ruled that it did not.  Citing an unpublished Board of Immigration Appeals case, the Immigration Judge found that in order to be material the support has to be active.  The fact that the FMLN stole food and livestock from the Respondent, therefore, did not constitute material support.  The Judge granted the Respondent his NACARA application, paving the way for him and his minor daughter to become permanent residents.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Call now for an appointment:
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Federal Judge Violates Separation of Powers to Issue an Opinion on Separation of Powers

From The New York Times to The Washington Times to CNN, headlines about the case of United States v. Juarez-Escobar all emphasized that a federal judge had found President Obama's immigration program unconstitutional.  Upon reading the articles, none of the major news outlets asked the question, how could a program that was announced less than a month ago and that not yet been implemented ever come to a point this quickly where a federal judge is issuing an opinion on it?

Keep in mind that Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.  That is, unlike some other countries, the U.S. federal courts cannot issue an opinion on a law or police ad hoc.  There must be an actual case or controversy before them; a party must actually be aggrieved by some action.

So what is the case or controversy involved in Juarez-Escobar?  The case involved a man who was ordered deported in 2005.  He left the United States, but returned without obtaining a visa to work with his brother, who is a U.S. citizen.  The man has a U.S. citizen child.  He was pulled over in Western Pennsylvania for driving under the influence.  While in state custody, the Federal Government was informed of his incarceration.  He was criminally charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania with re-entering the United States after having been deported without a proper visa.  After first pleading not guilty, the defendant changed his plea to guilty and was in the process of being sentenced by the court.  The court was about to follow its own practice of sentencing the defendant to time served plus one year of supervised probation with an order that the defendant obtain a proper visa before re-entering the United States.  The change of plea hearing took place in October of 2014.  Before the court passed sentence, President Obama made his announcement of the deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens.  A few days later, on its own motion, the court requested briefing on how the President's program would affect the defendant's case.

It was in this posture that the court issued its opinion that the President's program was unconstitutional because it violated separation of powers.

The problem here is that issues of whether a particular defendant would be deported or whether they qualify for some form of immigration relief never go before a U.S. District Court.  Almost all immigration matters are appealed to the U.S. Circuit Courts directly from the administrative agency in charge of making the decision.  The only exceptions are cases where the Government denies a petition for naturalization (citizenship) or when the Government has taken so long to issue its decision that a party finds it necessary to seek a Writ of Mandamus.  U.S District Courts, in the context of a criminal sentencing, just do not have jurisdiction to consider immigration relief.  Indeed, in this very opinion the judge recognizes that he would have no jurisdiction to pass on issues of whether a defendant would qualify for some sort of immigration relief.

More troubling is that deferred action is a matter of pure discretion by the Executive Branch.  That is, no one has a right to receive deferred action.  It can be denied by the Executive Branch for any reason.  Thus, because no one has a right to deferred action, no one can sue the Government if deferred action is denied.

The fact that President Obama had announced his intention to grant deferred action to a number of parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, therefore, had no relevance to the sentencing of the defendant in Juarez-Escobar.  It is not an issue that a U.S. District Judge would have any jurisdiction to address.  Accordingly, the U.S. District Judge in this case, Arthur J. Schwab simply had no power or authority to issue this opinion.  Indeed, the opinion itself will have no legal effect beyond the case before the court.  Indeed, inexplicably, after writing an elaborate opinion finding the deferred action program unconstitutional, Judge Schwab then gives the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty pea in order to consider if he would want to apply for the very program the judge found unconstitutional.

Why them would Judge Schwab, a Bush appointee, issue such an opinion?  The ultimate action by the court could have been accomplished very simply.  The court could simply have ordered that in light of the pending Executive action, the defendant could consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea and leave it at that.  The fourteen pages of the opinion which analyze the President's action in light of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers simply had no bearing on the court's ultimate action.  This leads to the inescapable conclusion that Judge Schwab issued this opinion for purely political reasons.

And thus, we are left with the ultimate irony in this case.  In order to find that the President violated Separation of Powers, the judge himself had to violate Separation of Powers and issue an opinion on a topic over which he had no jurisdiction. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

A Salute to the Bravery of Escaping Domestic Violence

I want to salute the bravery it takes for a woman to take the affirmative steps necessary to escape domestic violence. 

You'll pardon me if I'm a little emotional as I write this today.  I just spent two days helping women who escaped from domestic abuse in Central America present their stories to Asylum Officers in the hope that they can gain the protection of U.S. law.  The stories have gotten me angry, and I need a constructive way to express that anger.

Sure, there's the obvious targets of my anger:  The SOBs who thinks nothing of treating their women like punching bags, or worse yet, like punching bags who had better have food on the table when I walk into the house drunk or stoned at 3:00am.  The men who feel it necessary to hold a machete tho their woman's throat to show them who's boss.  Who feel it necessary to use the most vile and foul language to constantly terrorize and tear down their women.  Who do all of this without regard to the fact that their children are in the room, watching and learning.

I'm also angry at the machismo culture that pervades much of Central America.  The culture that says a woman's identity is tied to that of her man, that says she is nothing without her man, that treats her as nothing more than property.  It's a culture where girls are trapped by decisions they make at 15 or 16, when they choose a man to be with, only later to find out his violent side when it's too late.  Of course, that's assuming the teenage girl hasn't been abducted by some SOB who thinks nothing of stalking and kidnapping in order to find a woman to tend to his needs.  It's a culture where families won't intervene in a "domestic dispute," because, well, this is the man you chose to be with.  It's a culture that adopts laws that say the right things, after all, we don't want to run afoul of the United Nations.  But, when it comes time to enforce those laws, the police are nowhere to be found.  Or, the police listen to a report of domestic abuse, only to do nothing.  Or maybe, they will arrest the guy, only to release him the next morning, angry enough to go back to his woman to teach her a lesson for making him spend a night in jail.  A culture that traps a woman, making it next to impossible for her to strike it out on her own, to make her own living without being dependent on a man.

But I'm also angry at the snot-nosed kid sitting behind the desk, who can't be more than thirty at the most, making my clients live their stories over and over again.  Worse yet, when human memory isn't perfect (as it rarely is), picking apart miniscule little holes, throwing the woman off their tracks as they try to tell their stories.  Using tiny misstatements as reason to doubt credibility.  Picking on those misstatements instead of taking in the clear emotional pain that is clearly being expressed at the mere mention of their ex-partner's name.  Using the fact that the these women do feel trapped, and for that reason did not come forward earlier, as further reason to doubt their stories.  Failing to realize that just as emotionally painful it is to retell the story in front of a total stranger, it is also painful to share that story with loved ones.  failing to understand that their very attitude is one of the reasons victims of domestic abuse don't come forward or try to escape.

I'm angry because someone has trained this snot-nosed kid to be this way.  Someone has trained him to suspect everyone seeking asylum in this country as just being a liar looking to stay in the United States the easy way.  Someone has trained him to be cold-hearted and skeptical.

I'm angry because just as the Board of Immigration Appeals releases a precedential decision that makes it clear that women who are trapped in abusive relationships that they cannot leave can indeed seek the protection of U.S. asylum law, critics, like those at the Daily Caller and Brietbart, who see it as nothing more than a way to open the flood gates to people who would flout our immigration law for the purpose of obtaining federal benefits.  Critics who would probably think nothing of telling me that all I've done is to assist those illegals in an effort to obtain amnesty.

And yet, it is in the face of all this that women like my clients had the courage to leave and seek protection.  They risked their lives leaving violent men, men who often continue to seek them out and threaten harm.  They risked their lives on the trip north, often knowing that the very Coyotes who are helping get into the promised land are going to rape them before leaving them off at the Rio Grande.  They face their fears over and over, telling their stories to their friends, their families, their lawyers, all before reaching the skeptics in the U.S. Government.

So pardon me if today I am a little angry, angry at a system that requires women to be brave in order to flee domestic violent and seek refuge in a place like the Untied States.  A system that likely exacerbates the emotional and psychological damage that has already been done.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Memorandum Supporting President's Deferred Action Program

The White House released the memorandum written by the Justice Department detailing the legal support for his deferred action program.  Through this memorandum, President Obama's legal counsel provides analysis on whether it is permissions for: (1) the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize its resources to target undocumented aliens who are criminals; (2) the President to issue deferred action to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents; and (3) the President to issue deferred action to parents of DACA recipients.

 

Interestingly, the Justice Department concludes that while it is permissible to issue deferred action to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, it would not be permissible to do so for parents of DACA recipients.  The distinction appears to lie in the fact that U.S. citizens and permanent residents have a legal status, whereas DACA recipients do not.

 

The release of this memorandum would seem to indicate that the President will not expand his deferred action program to cover the parents of DACA recipients later, as some have surmised.  To do so would clearly contradict the advice from his own Justice Department.

 

It is also interesting to note that this memorandum does not cover the spouses of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  This is not to say that such undocumented aliens would be ineligible to receive deferred action, merely that this memorandum, and presumably the President's program, will not cover such aliens at this time.

 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.comn

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Granted to Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone

Almost lost in the media attention given to the President's announcement on immigration yesterday was an announcement by the Department of Homeland Security extending Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, to Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.  The move is meant to permit people who are present in the United States as of November 20, 214 to remain here for eighteen months while the Ebola outbreak continues in their home countries.

Those who qualify for the protection have until May 20, 2015 to apply.

TPS is a status designated by the U.S. Government to countries when it would be inhumane to require nationals from that country to return home.  Is permits people who are present in the United States to remain here without fear of deportation.  Aliens granted TPS may be given work authorization.

TPS does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship.  It is merely a temporary status, that expires once the U.S. Government determines that the conditions in the home country have improved.

TPS has been extended in the past due to such humanitarian reason as war and natural disasters.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Procedures for the President's Immigration Action Not Yet in Place

The President announced that the spouses and parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the United States for five years, pass a background check, and pay their taxes can qualify for deferred action. At this time, USCIS reports that there are no procedures to apply for this program.  We at William J. Kovatch, Jr., Attorney at Law, PLLC expect the application process to be much like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Before the procedures are adopted, we will be accepting consultation appointments where we will take the information we believe will be necessary to apply for this deferred action and discussing whether you should apply.  We will use that information to fill out the forms, once they are adopted.

Call for an appointment: (703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)