I am no Terrorist, any advice?
- Thread starter saxo
- Start date
We will have to simply give our full name, address, phone number, Social Security number, case number and Alien number, authorizing an attorney to proceed, just like we did last time in 2009, we need to see who is the attorney ready to help us, deep trigger is contacting Anwen and Hughes see how it goes, if she agrees all of us will have to fax it to her with our authorization.
Good luck all and I pray she will be willing to help us.
June 15,2014
PM-602-0100
SUBJECT: Implementation of New Discretionary Exemption under INA Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)
For Activities and Associations Relating to the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Exercise of Authority under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DHS
ACTION: Notice of detennination
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(d)(3)(B)(i).
Following consultations with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, I hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted to me by section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs (i)(VIII), (iv)(IV), (iv)(V), and (iv)(VI) of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(a)(3)(B), shall not apply, with respect to an alien, for solicitation of funds or other things of value for; solicitation of any individual for membership; the provision of material support to; who received military type training from or on behalf of the Ethiopia People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP), provided that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been detennined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, to the best of his or her knowledge, in all relevant applications and interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of each instance of military-type training, solicitation, and material support, and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(a)(3)(B);
(d) has not participated in, or knowingly provided material support to, terrorist activities that targeted noncombatant persons or U.S. interests;
(e) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(t) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to
their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular applicant meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time, with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection application, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182( d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by
the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
PM-602-0100
SUBJECT: Implementation of New Discretionary Exemption under INA Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i)
For Activities and Associations Relating to the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Exercise of Authority under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DHS
ACTION: Notice of detennination
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(d)(3)(B)(i).
Following consultations with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, I hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted to me by section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs (i)(VIII), (iv)(IV), (iv)(V), and (iv)(VI) of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(a)(3)(B), shall not apply, with respect to an alien, for solicitation of funds or other things of value for; solicitation of any individual for membership; the provision of material support to; who received military type training from or on behalf of the Ethiopia People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP), provided that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:
(a) is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been detennined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;
(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;
(c) has fully disclosed, to the best of his or her knowledge, in all relevant applications and interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of each instance of military-type training, solicitation, and material support, and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1 1 82(a)(3)(B);
(d) has not participated in, or knowingly provided material support to, terrorist activities that targeted noncombatant persons or U.S. interests;
(e) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and
(t) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to
their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular applicant meets each of the criteria set forth above.
This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time, with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection application, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182( d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by
the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
[ Lack of commitment is the only reason I can think of ].
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
I was contacted by phone, by one the forum member who appeared to be very serious, and for that purpose he stated his willingness to travel to D.C area to meet with Anwen Hughes, Melanie Nezer and Thomas Ragland (material support bar Lawyer) to inquire about our final outcome of our situation, and how we can move from here instead of waiting endlessly.
In my mind that would be good to have several other volunteers, to do the trip with him, especially those living in the East Coast area. The bigger the group is the better it will be for us.
He wanted me to stand-by on that project for at least a few days, prior to making any announcement to ANY forum member.
I am taking it upon myself and by anticipation to announce it, in order to give each one of us, enough time to think about making the trip.
Any other volunteers, who are interested in making the trip with him, contact me directly at Deep.Trigger@yahoo.com.
In my mind that would be good to have several other volunteers, to do the trip with him, especially those living in the East Coast area. The bigger the group is the better it will be for us.
He wanted me to stand-by on that project for at least a few days, prior to making any announcement to ANY forum member.
I am taking it upon myself and by anticipation to announce it, in order to give each one of us, enough time to think about making the trip.
Any other volunteers, who are interested in making the trip with him, contact me directly at Deep.Trigger@yahoo.com.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
Deep Trigger - I would love to make the trip to add to the number. I am already a LPR. But I was in the same boat with everyone before that. My experience has been that after you get the GC, they only backdate it one year, leaving you with 4 years on your path to citizenship with no regard to the x number of years they made you wait for the GC in the first place. Also the GC has a mention of category AS1 (Asylum). Which in my opinion makes one uncomfortable to travel to their home country (which after 15-20 years I am sure there is no more fear to go back to, with all the administration changes that might have occurred), nothing prevents the immigration officer at the border, upon return, to give one grief!
I would like to add the voice of one that has crossed the line and is already making sure that everyone's transition to LPR status is greeted with the good news of reduced wait time to citizenship.
So, let me know if that is something you guys would like to add to the conversation, and I can commit to represent that category of "material support alums".
I would like to add the voice of one that has crossed the line and is already making sure that everyone's transition to LPR status is greeted with the good news of reduced wait time to citizenship.
So, let me know if that is something you guys would like to add to the conversation, and I can commit to represent that category of "material support alums".
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
Babel02 - Thanks for your interest in joining in. But keep in mind that things have a tendency to fall through the cracks about this forum, no commitment, no serious follow up; with the class action suit and others, just to mention a few; therefore we would like this time to be better organized and to make one fight at a time. The 4 years wait / citizenship is something that we could decide the next time around. It makes only sense in my narrow mind to try to get people approved first, and citizenship right comes second. As you may know many among us, the big bulk are still pending. We should get those pending including myself off the hook first, we will try other things.
Unfortunately no one has sued USCIS for this unfair retroactive date of only one year, I can not understand why are people so unconcerned about this unfair approval, and to let guys know as we discussed earlier over the phone, asylees who went to cop did get hard time at immigration based on AS6 on greencards.
You know two cases and I know one case where there was an issue traveling back from cop.
My attorney told me it a stupid chance an asylee can take no matter if it has been 1 year or 25 years, or the conditions of the cop has changed or not, he is the best attorney and comes on TV and his interviews are popularly heard by good amount of asylees.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
Brother hecate;
You made again great points although I strongly believe that we should focus 100 percent on the topic of having USCIS implements the exemptions first and foremost; that way those currently on hold, get approved, and then would have a case on the citizen rights or privilege; which I also think is extremely important too.
Our situations may not be quite as complicated, but still there are mistakes that would split our coordination and forum unity, destroy our chances.
Keep in mind that No one can demand for justice that he or she is not entitled to. Unless you are a permanent resident in most cases, you have no right to demand for citizenship, because of technicality of ineligibility, because simply we have not had yet the LPR, at least most of us.
Let us get the LPR first, then we will be legally entitled to file a class action suit, we will successfully proceed to that. Let us do one step at a time.
You made again great points although I strongly believe that we should focus 100 percent on the topic of having USCIS implements the exemptions first and foremost; that way those currently on hold, get approved, and then would have a case on the citizen rights or privilege; which I also think is extremely important too.
Our situations may not be quite as complicated, but still there are mistakes that would split our coordination and forum unity, destroy our chances.
Keep in mind that No one can demand for justice that he or she is not entitled to. Unless you are a permanent resident in most cases, you have no right to demand for citizenship, because of technicality of ineligibility, because simply we have not had yet the LPR, at least most of us.
Let us get the LPR first, then we will be legally entitled to file a class action suit, we will successfully proceed to that. Let us do one step at a time.
I thank you guys for responding. You may be right about adjusting your status to LPR first before anything. I, luckily, am not in the same predicament as you are. I visit this site once in a while to see if there are any developments to inform someone I know who is in the same situation.
I admire your persistence in keeping this forum going.
Good luck to all!
I admire your persistence in keeping this forum going.
Good luck to all!
Hey guys any update on Material Support cases to TierIII organizations??
Any updates or news from Anwen Hughes and or Melanie Nezer regarding the quarterly meetings any more? I have come to know that USCIS-DHS has stopped providing information in the quarterly meetings (general information) regarding any group based exemptions anymore. I have also being informed that the USCIS-DHS are requiring folks who are being stuck on this Material Support hold, to contact them directly via emailing to TRIG email box...........
Btw: if you guys have emailed TRIG Inquiry email regarding your particular cases, have you gotten any responses back?
I found out about one more email address that is somehow related to TRIG processing unit, it is as follows:
USCIS Service Center Operations' inquiry mailbox, "SCOPSSCATA"SCOPSSCATA@uscis.dhs.gov
and as you already know about Terrorist Related Inadmissibility Ground (TRIG) Processing workgroup at USCIS-DHS:TRIGQuery@uscis.dhs.gov
If you email them and kind of force them to start processing your individual cases based on LGE and the latest general exemption released as of (February -05-2014) on the federal registrar, then see what they say?
Please share your experiences and or any updates on the pending cases / inquiries....?!
Thank you and May God Bless!
Any updates or news from Anwen Hughes and or Melanie Nezer regarding the quarterly meetings any more? I have come to know that USCIS-DHS has stopped providing information in the quarterly meetings (general information) regarding any group based exemptions anymore. I have also being informed that the USCIS-DHS are requiring folks who are being stuck on this Material Support hold, to contact them directly via emailing to TRIG email box...........
Btw: if you guys have emailed TRIG Inquiry email regarding your particular cases, have you gotten any responses back?
I found out about one more email address that is somehow related to TRIG processing unit, it is as follows:
USCIS Service Center Operations' inquiry mailbox, "SCOPSSCATA"SCOPSSCATA@uscis.dhs.gov
and as you already know about Terrorist Related Inadmissibility Ground (TRIG) Processing workgroup at USCIS-DHS:TRIGQuery@uscis.dhs.gov
If you email them and kind of force them to start processing your individual cases based on LGE and the latest general exemption released as of (February -05-2014) on the federal registrar, then see what they say?
Please share your experiences and or any updates on the pending cases / inquiries....?!
Thank you and May God Bless!
Hi all
I came across this article today while searching for information. Even though the story is a bit old, it made me very sad, frustrated and happy at the same time. A lady who was in the same boat like most people in this forum, sued USCIS and got her GC approved. On the top of that, she was told that since she has lived in the country for so long she could apply for citizenship after 3 months. Even though I am happy for this person, it’s unfair to see others treated differently.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-refugee-sues-get-green-card-after-wait.html
I came across this article today while searching for information. Even though the story is a bit old, it made me very sad, frustrated and happy at the same time. A lady who was in the same boat like most people in this forum, sued USCIS and got her GC approved. On the top of that, she was told that since she has lived in the country for so long she could apply for citizenship after 3 months. Even though I am happy for this person, it’s unfair to see others treated differently.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-refugee-sues-get-green-card-after-wait.html
Thanks for sharing the information. My application for adjustment to PR is also on hold for almost 10 years. And in every 6 months I do request information about the current status of my pending application. Recently I received the following e mail in response to my request:
From: SCOPSSCATA (SCOPSSCATA@uscis.dhs.gov)
Thank you for your inquiry regarding your case. Adjudication of cases under the new exemptions for certain limited material support and insignificant material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III)of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), available at http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-02353_PI.pdf and http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-02357_PI.pdf, will begin as soon as possible. At this time, USCIS cannot give an estimate as to how long it will take for a decision to be rendered in a specific case. Each case is different and may present unique issues for resolution.
In the meantime, please rest assured that USCIS is committed to ensuring that all cases that are eligible for exemptions in accordance with the exercises of authority under INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, are given due consideration based on the facts and circumstances presented. We thank you for your patience.
This is perhaps the most important post I ever came across, by law all asylum hold can persue in affirmative action and get approval based on this judgement, however they will have to go out of processing hold and proceed with law suit to get this judgement.
We should bring this decision to the attention of Anwen and Melanie to see what can be done, again a little twist here is if USCIS approved her as per court decision and if USCIS further appealed or approved accordingly.
This could have been an interesting decision, had it been adjudicated by the court. Ms. Asadi’s application was approved by the service before the court could render its decision. We do not know why the service had a sudden change of mind. However, it seems that the service was not prepared for the court ruling in favor of the applicant. And of course that the court’s decision for the applicant could have established a binding precedent to be applied in similar cases- a situation the service wanted to avoid.