Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center's experienced legal staff can speak about the legal ramifications of immigration laws, provide analysis of how immigration policies play out in immigrant communities, and help put reporters in touch with immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers who can provide a human face to stories about the U.S. immigration system.
Matthew submitted a pro se appeal to the Court arguing that his removal order was improper and that his detention violated his due process rights. The Court dismissed the issues relating to his detention stating that a PFR was not the proper vehicle for raising a first instance challenge to detention. Additionally, the Court found that Aruban criminal records certified by the Apostle were properly authenticated and that the plain language of the stature under which Matthew contained the elements required for finding that the crime was a CIMT.
In denying a PFR raising due process violations about VTC hearing, the Court found that the BIA correctly “ruled that it is well settled that IJs may conduct video conferences to the same extent they conduct hearings with witnesses present. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.25(c).” Furthermore, the Court found that the IJ had diligently reviewed the information presented and had not been unfair in requiring that the Respondent testify in a chronological fashion.
NIJC's Asylum Documentation Project collects and disseminates evidence to support cases of refugees seeking protection from human rights violations based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status.
The Asylum Documentation Project:
Researches, monitors and collects data and documentation regarding country conditions related to persecution against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and HIV-positive individuals.
Disseminates country conditions information internationally to support applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection for LGBT and HIV-positive immigrants.
Provides Know Your Rights manuals, pro bono attorney referral lists, and consultation to LGBT and HIV-positive immigrants who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Monitors human rights conditions in immigrant detention facilities that hold LGBT and HIV-positive immigrants.
Tracks statistics about the LGBT and HIV-positive detention population.
The Asylum Documentation Project is based in San Francisco, California. For more information or to request country conditions information, contact project coordinator Dusty Aráujo.
The Petitioner was (allegedly) not really the child of the woman who successfully petitioned for her, and under whom she obtained adjustment of status. After she applied for naturalization, the Govt put her into removal proceedings, charging her with removability under 237(a)(1)(A), inadmissibility at time of admission.
The 3d cir's prior decision in Bamidele v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 99 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 1996) supported Petitioner's position - that case held that the 5 year statute of limitations on rescission under INA 246 also applies to removal proceedings. The Govt argued that statutory revisions to INA 246 had undercut Bamidele, a position which the 4th Cir adopted in Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2004). The 3d Cir found the amendment (which expressly stated that nothing in 246 required rescission prior to institution of removal) had no effect on its position, since it did not abolish or change the statute of limitations.
Note: the 9th Cir disagrees with the 3d cir., as does the AG and BIA. Biggs v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 55 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.1995); Choe v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 11 F.3d 925 (9th Cir.1993); Monet v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 791 F.2d 752 (9th Cir.1986); Oloteo v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 643 F.2d 679 (9th Cir.1981); In re Belenzo, 17 I. & N. Dec. 374 (A.G.1981); In re S--, 9 I. & N. Dec. 548 (A.G.1962)
[It does seem that the 3d Cir has the better of the argument. If Congress wanted to abolish the statute of limitations in 1996, why didn't it simply do so? The amendment seems a very inefficient way of overturning Bamidele. Conversely, why would Congress have a SoL which gives literally no protection to anyone, ever, since the Govt can simply institute removal proceedings and obtain the same result that 246's SoL seems to bar? The decision feels odd because of a policy question: why is there no SoL or statutes of repose in other area of immigration law? There should be a broader SoL; so many sad cases arise when someone is discovered to be removable, without relief, years after the youthful crime, the abandonment of LPR status, etc. But then the question is whether it makes sense for a CtApp to interpret 246 consistently with the rest of immigration law policy, or in the most textual way; the 3d cir's analysis shows more fidelity to the text of the statute. - CR]
General Immigration 
