Category Archives: deportability

IMMIGRATION COURTS AND USCIS CASES BACKLOG

Posted on by

The backlog in the Immigration Courts and in the United States Citizenship Services (USCIS) is a growing concern for many immigrants and their families. The backlog has created long wait times for individuals seeking resolution to their immigration cases, leading to uncertainty and anxiety about their status in the United States.

The Immigration Courts, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, are responsible for adjudicating immigration cases, including removal proceedings (deportation), and asylum claims. In recent years, the backlog of cases in these courts has reached unprecedented levels, with over 1.3 million cases pending as of 2021. This backlog means that individuals may have to wait years for their cases to be heard, leaving them in limbo and ensure of their future in the United States.

The USCIS, the agency responsible for processing immigration applications and petitions, has also been plagued by a significant backlog. As of 2021, the agency has over 6.3 million applications pending, including naturalization, green card applications, visa applications, and employment authorizations. This backlog has resulted in lengthy processing times, with some individuals waiting years for their applications to be adjudicated.

The backlog in both the Immigration Courts and the USCIS has far-reaching consequences for immigrants and their families. It can result in prolonged separation from loved ones, uncertainty about employment and housing, and a constant state of limbo and anxiety. Additionally, the backlog hinders the efficient and fair administration of the immigration system, leading to delays in resolution of cases and preventing individuals from moving forward with their lives in the United States.

There are various factors that have contributed to the backlog in the Immigration Courts and USCIS. The complexity of immigration laws and regulations, increased enforcement actions, and lack of resources and staffing have all played a role in creating this backlog. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the situation, leading to court closures and processing delays.

Efforts are being made to address the backlog in both Immigration Courts and USCIS. The Biden administration has proposed more judges and staff, improved technology and infrastructure, and streamline processes. Additionally, there have been calls for legislative reforms to the immigration system to address the root causes for the backlog and ensure a more efficient and fain adjudication of cases.

In conclusion, the backlog in the Immigration Courts and USCIS is a pressing issue that has significant implications for immigrants and their families. It is essential for efforts to be made to address this backlog, to ensure timely and fair resolution for immigration cases, and to provide individuals with the certainty and stability the need to build their lives in the United States.

THE WHITE HOUSE’S POTENTIAL OVERHAUL OF AMERICAN’S ASYLUM SYSTEM: A LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO SECURE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR THE SPENDING BILL

Posted on by

> The White House’s consideration of significant changes to America’s Asylum System and nationwide expansion of authority to expeditiously remove people from the interior represents a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy. The proposed changes are being viewed as a last-gasp effort to garner Republican support for a necessary supplemental spending bill. However, the potential consequences of these changes raise serious concerns and should be carefully considered.

One major consequence of these proposed changes is the potential violation of international human rights enshrined in international law, and any attempt to drastically alter the asylum system could be seen as violation of these standards. The expansion of authority to expedite removals from the interior could also lead to issues of due process and the risk of departing individuals who genuinely fear persecution in their home countries.

Furthermore, the changes could lead to an increase in the number of individuals being deported, including those who have established lives in the United States. This could have devasting consequences for families and communities, tearing apart the fabric of society and causing immense human suffering. Additionally, a rapid expansion of deportations could strain resources and infrastructure, leading to logistic challenges and potential human rights abuses in detention facilities.

In addition the proposed changes could engender a climate of fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities. The threat of expedited removals and significant changes to the asylum system could deter individuals from seeking protection and accessing necessary services. This could lead to further marginalization and vulnerability for already vulnerable population.

From a political perspective, the proposed changes could further polarize an already deeply divided issue. While the White House may hope to gain Republican support for Supplemental Spending Bill, the potential impact of these changes on immigrant communities and human rights could result in backlash and further alienation.

In conclusion, the consequences of the proposed changes to America’s Asylum System and the nationwide expansion of authority to expeditiously remove people from the interior are deeply concerning. The potential violations of international human rights standards, the impact on families and communities, the climate of fear among immigrant populations, and the potential for further political polarization all points to the need for careful consideration and deliberation. The implications of these changes go beyond political expediency and require a thoughtful and through examination of their impact on vulnerable populations and the foundational principles of international human rights.

REFUGEE STATUS

Posted on by

Refugee law may be the world’s most powerful international human rights mechanism. Not only do millions of people invoke its protections every year in countries spanning globe, but they do so on the basis of a self-actuating mechanism of international law that, quite literally, allows at-risk persons to vote with their feet. This is because, as the United Nations High Commissioners of Refugees (“UNHR”) has insisted, refugee status is not a status that is granted by states; it is rather simply recognized by them:
“A person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfills the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition but is recognized because he a refugee.” See UNHCR, Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.3 (2011).

Translations

O direito dos refugiados pode ser o mecanismo internacional de direitos humanos mais poderoso do mundo. Não só milhões de pessoas invocam as suas protecções todos os anos em países do mundo, como o fazem com base num mecanismo de auto-actuação do direito internacional que, literalmente, permite que pessoas em risco votem com os pés. Isso porque, como insistiu o Alto Comissariado das Nações Unidas para os Refugiados (“UNHR”), o status de refugiado não é um status concedido pelos Estados; é simplesmente reconhecido por eles:

“Uma pessoa é refugiada na acepção da Convenção de 1951 logo que preencha os critérios contidos na definição. Isso ocorreria necessariamente antes do momento em que seu status de refugiado é formalmente determinado. O reconhecimento do seu estatuto de refugiado não o torna portanto um refugiado, mas declara-o como tal. Ele não se torna refugiado por reconhecimento, mas é reconhecido porque é refugiado.” Ver ACNUR, Estatuto dos Refugiados ao abrigo da Convenção de 1951 e do Protocolo de 1967 relativo ao Estatuto dos Refugiados, Documento das Nações Unidas”

El derecho de los refugiados puede ser el mecanismo internacional de derechos humanos más poderoso del mundo. Millones de personas no solo invocan sus protecciones cada año en países de todo el mundo, sino que lo hacen sobre la base de un mecanismo de derecho internacional que, literalmente, permite a las personas en riesgo votar con los pies. Esto se debe a que, como ha insistido el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (“ACNUR”), la condición de refugiado no es una condición otorgada por los Estados; Es más bien simplemente reconocido por ellos: “Una persona es refugiada en el sentido de la Convención de 1951 tan pronto como cumple los criterios contenidos en la definición. Esto ocurriría necesariamente antes del momento en que se determine formalmente su condición de refugiado. Por lo tanto, el reconocimiento de su condición de refugiado no lo convierte en refugiado, sino que lo declara como tal. No se convierte en refugiado por el reconocimiento, sino que es reconocido por ser refugiado”. Véase ACNUR.

难民法可能是世界上最强大的国际人权机制。不仅每年在世界各国有数百万人援引其保护，而且他们这样做的基础是国际法的自我驱动机制，从字面上看，允许处于危险之中的人用脚投票。这是因为，正如联合国难民事务高级专员（“UNHR”）所坚持的那样，难民地位不是国家授予的身份;他们相当简单地认识到： “一个人只要符合1951年《公约》的定义所载标准，即为该公约所指的难民。这必然发生在正式确定他的难民地位之前。因此，承认他的难民地位并不使他成为难民，而是宣布他为难民。他不是因为被承认而成为难民，而是因为他是难民而被承认。见难民署，《1951年公约》和1967年《关于难民地位的议定书》规定的难民地位，联合国文件HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.3（2011年）。

শরণার্থী আইন বিশ্বের সবচেয়ে শক্তিশালী আন্তর্জাতিক মানবাধিকার ব্যবস্থা হতে পারে। বিশ্বজুড়ে ছড়িয়ে থাকা দেশগুলিতে প্রতি বছর লক্ষ লক্ষ মানুষ কেবল এর সুরক্ষাই প্রয়োগ করে না, তবে তারা আন্তর্জাতিক আইনের একটি স্ব-কার্যকর প্রক্রিয়ার ভিত্তিতে এটি করে যা আক্ষরিক অর্থে ঝুঁকিপূর্ণ ব্যক্তিদের তাদের পা দিয়ে ভোট দেওয়ার অনুমতি দেয়। এর কারণ, জাতিসংঘের শরণার্থী বিষয়ক হাইকমিশনাররা (“ইউএনএইচআর”) যেমন জোর দিয়ে বলেছেন, শরণার্থী মর্যাদা এমন একটি মর্যাদা নয় যা রাষ্ট্রগুলি দ্বারা প্রদত্ত হয়; এটি বরং তাদের দ্বারা স্বীকৃত: “একজন ব্যক্তি ১৯৫১ সালের কনভেনশনের অর্থের মধ্যে শরণার্থী হন যখনই তিনি সংজ্ঞায় অন্তর্ভুক্ত মানদণ্ডগুলি পূরণ করেন। এটি অবশ্যই তার শরণার্থী অবস্থা আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে নির্ধারিত সময়ের আগে ঘটবে। তার শরণার্থী মর্যাদার স্বীকৃতি তাই তাকে শরণার্থী করে তোলে না বরং তাকে একজন হিসাবে ঘোষণা করে। স্বীকৃতির কারণে তিনি শরণার্থী হন না, বরং শরণার্থী হওয়ার কারণে তিনি স্বীকৃতি পান। দেখুন ইউএনএইচসিআর, ১৯৫১ সালের কনভেনশনের অধীনে শরণার্থী অবস্থা এবং শরণার্থীদের অবস্থা সম্পর্কিত ১৯৬৭ সালের প্রোটোকল, ইউএন ডক এইচসিআর / আইপি / ৪ / ইং / আরইভি .৩ (২০১১)

Ligji për refugjatët mund të jetë mekanizmi më i fuqishëm ndërkombëtar i të drejtave të njeriut në botë. Jo vetëm që miliona njerëz i përdorin mbrojtjet e saj çdo vit në vendet që shtrihen në glob, por e bëjnë këtë në bazë të një mekanizmi vetë-aktivizues të së drejtës ndërkombëtare që, fjalë për fjalë, lejon personat në rrezik të votojnë me këmbët e tyre. Kjo sepse, siç kanë këmbëngulur Komisionerët e Lartë të Kombeve të Bashkuara për Refugjatët (“UNHR”), statusi i refugjatit nuk është një status që jepet nga shtetet; Ajo është mjaft thjesht e njohur prej tyre: “Një person është refugjat në kuptimin e Konventës së vitit 1951 sapo plotëson kriteret e përmbajtura në përkufizim. Kjo do të ndodhte domosdoshmërisht përpara kohës në të cilën statusi i tij i refugjatit përcaktohet zyrtarisht. Njohja e statusit të tij të refugjatit nuk e bën atë një refugjat, por e deklaron atë të jetë një. Ai nuk bëhet refugjat për shkak të

Das Flüchtlingsrecht ist vielleicht der mächtigste internationale Menschenrechtsmechanismus der Welt. Nicht nur, dass sich jedes Jahr Millionen von Menschen in Ländern auf der ganzen Welt auf ihren Schutz berufen, sie tun dies auch auf der Grundlage eines selbsttätigen Mechanismus des Völkerrechts, der es gefährdeten Personen buchstäblich erlaubt, mit den Füßen abzustimmen. Dies liegt daran, dass, wie der Hohe Flüchtlingskommissar der Vereinten Nationen (“UNHR”) betont hat, der Flüchtlingsstatus kein Status ist, der von Staaten gewährt wird; Es wird von ihnen eher einfach erkannt: “Flüchtling im Sinne der Konvention von 1951 ist, wer die in der Definition enthaltenen Kriterien erfüllt. Dies würde notwendigerweise vor dem Zeitpunkt.‘
Le droit des réfugiés est peut-être le mécanisme international des droits de l’homme le plus puissant au monde. Non seulement des millions de personnes invoquent ses protections chaque année dans des pays du monde entier, mais elles le font sur la base d’un mécanisme de droit international qui s’active automatiquement et qui, littéralement, permet aux personnes à risque de voter avec leurs pieds. En effet, comme l’a insisté le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (UNHR), le statut de réfugié n’est pas un statut accordé par les États ; c’est plutôt simplement reconnu par eux : « Une personne est considérée comme réfugiée au sens de la Convention de 1951 dès lors qu’elle remplit les critères contenus dans la définition. Cela se.

MATRIMONIAL FRAUD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Posted on by

“Marriage fraud,” that is to enter into or endeavor to enter into a marriage for the sole purpose of procuring immigration benefits, is a very serious charge in the immigration context.

Attempting to procure or procuring immigration benefits through a sham marriage can lead to inadmissibility and/or deportation, depending on the alien’s situation.

In the case of Salas-Velazquez, the Petitioner who was a native and citizen of Mexico entered the United States as a visitor for pleasure. He purported to marry a citizen of the United States, and, on the basis of that alleged marriage, filed a petition to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident alien. That petition was denied in 1989 on the ground that the marriage was fraudulent, entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Almost two years later, in 1991, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served petitioner with an order to show cause, charging him with deportability.

A hearing was held before an immigration judge, during which petitioner made a motion for adjustment of status based on a second marriage, also to a United States citizen. There was no dispute as to the genuineness of the second marriage. The immigration judge denied this motion. Later, the judge found that petitioner’s first marriage was fraudulent, that petitioner and his first wife never lived together, and that petitioner contracted the marriage for the purpose of immigrating to the United States. On the basis of this evidence, the judge sustained the charges of deportability. Salas-Velazquez v. INS. 34 F. 3d 705 – Court of Appeals. 8th Circuit 1994.

Beside of the severity immigration consequences, a person who enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the INA can be prosecuted and if convicted, faces term of imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000.00, or both imprisonment and a fine. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).