Adam Walsh Act - BIA Decisions May 20, 2014

[eagerly 2]

Remember the Haverly Case Amicus Curiae...well here is the decision from the BIA http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3800.pdf

Those whose conviction is before the AWA...here is the decision ...http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3802.pdf

[Uhoh 10]

Ugh. Does not bode well for current AWA cases unless the conviction is pre 2006.

[paustin 1]

Remember the Haverly Case Amicus Curiae...well here is the decision from the BIA http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3800.pdf

Those whose conviction is before the AWA...here is the decision ...http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3802.pdf

What does this mean? Does that mean any AWA that happened before 1976, USCIS should not deny anymore?

[zuluweta 250]

It appears to me that a USC with a criminal conviction covered by AWA (however far back in time it may be) will be unable to sponsor a spouse or fiance for immigration if the petition is filed after the enactment of AWA (2006).

[A and T 82]

It seems this guys conviction was for someone under the age of 12. That might be why they really wanted to deny him . But who knows? Notice how they claim that he did not meet the burdern of proof to show he is "rehabilitated" problem is they always say that, they won't list any guidelines and therefore no matter what you submit, they will always claim you did not reach the burdern of proof. Furthermore, the people at USCIS reviewing this are ignoring licenced, educated and accredited psychologist findings. How they can legally do that, i have no idea.

[eagerly 2]

How about this phrase...."deport a noncitizen for a crime committed by someone else" Link provides The BIA's Adam Walsh Act Trilogy: Seems they are preparing for another amicus...wonder why this cant be brought to Congress if there are plans of reforming the immigration laws.

http://crimmigration.com/2014/05/29/the-bias-adam-walsh-act-trilogy.aspx?ref=rss

Edited June 6, 2014 by eagerly

[kazuava 4]

Ugh. Does not bode well for current AWA cases unless the conviction is pre 2006.

Unfortunately, it does not look good to anyone. If to read carefully toward the argument leads to:

"... We therefore conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in

terminating the removal proceedings. Accordingly, the DHS’s appeal will

be sustained, and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.

ORDER: The appeal of the Department of Homeland Security is

sustained, the decision of the Immigration Judge is vacated, and the

removal proceedings against the respondents are reinstated.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration

Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for

the entry of a new decision."

So, the Judge terminated removal based on retroactive application, but it was later reactivated.

[kazuava 4]

Remember the Haverly Case Amicus Curiae...well here is the decision from the BIA http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3800.pdf

Those whose conviction is before the AWA...here is the decision ...http://www.justice.g.../vol26/3802.pdf

So, in the first one BIA argues that the decision of the adjudicators in the USCIS is final and was meant as to be final by the Congress to eliminate Judicial review, like in terrorist cases? So, how then to argue the denial because of not meeting the standard of proof? That sounds like a vicious circle when for the Utilitarian interests (interests of the greater number of people) the AWA petition are presumed to be denied and there is no one who can look the decision over and see if it had a chance, so the decision is final???

[zuluweta 250]

Convicted sex offenders are not qualified to file family petitions

By Lourdes Santos Tancinco

Link here: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/106872/convicted-sex-offenders-are-not-qualified-to-file-family-petitions