Asylees v.s. INS

T

Tim Zheng

Registered Users (C)
Finally received an email from AILF answering my questions about the lawsuit.

Message was from Nadine Wettstein as follows:

Sorry for the delay in responding. We will be filing the lawsuit next week.
Yes, we are including the low number of visas in the lawsuit. Thanks for
your interest. If we need you as a plaintiff later we\'ll let you know.
 
Recyclying of unused numbers

Do judges have the power to order INS to recycle the unused numbers of the yearly cap as part of the remedy?
 
Who Knows

None of us is trained in law so we cannot be sure. It could be one of the possibilities if the court found gross incompetence on the part of the INS, I guess.

It probably depends on circumstances and perhaps even judges disagree.

I suggested earlier that perhaps Congress should act to recapture the wasted numbers.
 
No Title

It\'s much more work for Congress to do anything. You know the vote, the compromise, the negotiation, etc..

I hope judges will do it.
 
No Title

However, just days ago INS Commissioner went to the Congress to explain why they are not reaching the quota for refugees.

INS Commissioner Discusses INS and U.S. Refugee Resettlement Processing
In recent Senate testimony, INS Commissioner Ziglar discussed FY 2002 refugee admissions processing and INS plans to help meet this year\'s ceiling. In a recent speech, Commissioner Ziglar discussed several other key immigration issues, including security and INS enforcement, and children
 
No Title

I noticed that one. To be frank, In certain way I can understand why the issue of asylee adjustment doesn\'t draw much attention from Congress, media or the general public. I think our situation is not that bad considering asylees can live their daily life as free as citizens in this country. It\'s totally different for refugee admission. Those people are waiting to come in.
 
It is also difficult for the court

I understand that it takes a logn time for Congress to do anything, especially now. But neither is the court an efficient setting. The hearing into the merits can drag on forever (I mean years, like the 1986 amnesty litigation) and even if the judge rules in our favor, you can almost certain that the Government will appeal and further prolong the process.

So Congressional action is the faster route for relief.
 
No Title

I agree that the lawsuit can drag on forever. I still think it a more simple job to sue than to lobby Congress.

I don\'t understand why you are sure that the government will appeal when asylees win this case. I don\'t know the detail of this case but I don\'t think asylees are suing for anything other than making the INS do their work properly. The plaintiffs are not suing for damage or anything like that. I don\'t know why INS will oppose to recapture the unused numbers. They don\'t have real interests in delaying the process except that they don\'t want to do their job.
 
Look at Their History

If you or I were in charge of the Justice Department, it would take a more compassionate attitude toward immigrant applicants. But other people hold the power.

Look at the 1986 amnesty legislation. The INS made a serious mistake and caused thousands and thousands of people to miss the application deadline. A number of religious groups sued the INS in an attempt to force it to do the right thing. They won at the trial level. Again, if you or I were the Attorney General, we would go ahead and process the applications in accordance with the decisions. But the government, which is the world\'s largest law firm, fought tooth and nail. That was the position of three successive administrations. The fourteen year legal saga came to an end in 2000 when Congress amended the law to make most of the affected people eligible for permanent residence. Such applications are being reviewed now.

I am completely supportive of legal action. But I also understand that this will be very time-consuming and defeat is a very good possibility.
 
No Title

http://www.ailf.org/lac/2002/030402a.htm

American Immigration Law Foundation

For immediate release:
Monday, March 4, 2002
    Contact:
Supriya Satpathy, (202) 742-5608
Nadine Wettstein, (202) 742-5611

Government Bungling Denies Asylees Basic Rights;
Victims File Suit

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Immigrant advocates filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service\'s (INS) misadministration of a law that provides persons granted asylum the right to live and work in the United States permanently. The suit, filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, seeks to compel the INS to issue all allotted "green cards" fairly on a first-come, first-served basis.

Some 50 named plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of asylees throughout the country. The plaintiffs are all refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and were granted asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, they may apply to become permanent residents, or so-called green card holders, of the United States. Congress has imposed a cap of 10,000 on the number of asylees who can attain permanent resident status each year.

The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to distribute more than 18,000 green cards in the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees wait in legal limbo; failed to process applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by law; and kept thousands of asylees on the wait list who are exempt from the cap. The lawsuit also challenges the government\'s practice of requiring asylees to obtain a new employment authorization card each year-at a cost that presents a hardship for many families-while they wait for their permanent status.

As a consequence of the delays, asylees are unable to reunite with their families, secure long-term jobs, and travel outside the United States. They must pay expensive out-of-state college tuition rates even though they are in-state residents.

"This is not a case of benign neglect," stated Richard Rulon, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Law Foundation. "These individuals are suffering. They are forced, unnecessarily, to wait for years to obtain the permanent status that is provided under our laws. The delay prevents them from becoming full, participating members of our society."

The suit is seeking a number of remedies. It calls on the court to order the INS to administer the wait list on a first-come, first served basis; distribute the unused green cards; and find an alternative to the expensive work authorization renewal requirements.

"There is no reason to delay adjustment of status for people who have fled persecution abroad and have already been granted asylum. They have satisfied all security checks and are now living and working here lawfully. We should grant these people permanent resident status and allow them to fully rebuild their shattered lives, " stated Nadine Wettstein, an attorney at the American Immigration Law Foundation.

###
The American Immigration Law Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of immigration law and policy and the value of immigration to American society; to promoting public service and excellence in the practice of immigration law; and to advancing fundamental fairness and due process under the law for immigrants.

Copyright © 2002
American Immigration Law Foundation
www.ailf.org
 
No Title

The suit is seeking a number of remedies. It calls on the court to order the INS to administer the wait list on a first-come, first served basis; distribute the unused green cards; and find an alternative to the expensive work authorization renewal requirements.

Yes in this lawsuit they are requesting the court to order INS to "distribute the unused green cards".
 
they do have a chance.

ins falls under the purview of administrative law where they usually let the precedents stand (stare decisis). one such precedent has already been established by bill clinton when he signed ac21 into law in 10/00. im surprised the attorneys in this case did not mention this in their briefs :)
 
No Title

You seem to know this very well. Why don\'t you contact AILF about this so they may raise this in court? At least you can email them.
 
i\'d rather not talk to them.

but wot i say is VERY valid, as the legal precedent has already been established. any 2nd year law school student should be able to write a brief that would convince a judge to use the past precedent as a standard. ac21 allowed reclaiming unused EB IV\'s from past years, so asa logical extension this would apply to asylee IV\'s as well.
 
How long can it take?

How long can it take to see results in this type of legal matters?
Is it going to hel us?
 
No Title

I guess nobody knows the answer. They can reach a settlement in a few months. Or each party keeps on appealing and it can drag on for a decade.
 
No Title

I am sorry that I do not agree with your assessment. ACT 21 does not help at all. It is a legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President to address specific issues. If the legalization of Mexicans does become law, can people from other places run to the courts and ask to be included as well? Of course not. A more concrete example. There is a precedent of Cubans becoming LPRs after one year in the US. This is a special benefit bestowed upon them by Congress. Other peoples cannot sue for their green cards after one year.

What ACT21 does actually strengthens the Government\'s position in court. It can argue that Congress by passing ACT21, recognized that only it can recapture unused numbers. The INS has no authority to do anything in the absence of new legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top