I am no Terrorist, any advice?
- Thread starter saxo
- Start date
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
UPDATE - So far we have 5 candidates on board: JosephEsf, hecate, Deep Trigger, Noetic & Mouf Liassou.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
UPDATE-2 - So far we have 7 candidates on board: JosephEsf, hecate, Deep Trigger, Noetic , Mouf Liassou, Sayed Ahmed & Mfak1.
Folks here is the reponse from Anwen Hughes for all:!
+++++++++++++++++++
I am so sorry, I am going to have to move this to Friday at the same time (8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time), due to a scheduling conflict that has arisen and that I can’t control.
Call-in info will be as follows:
Number to call: +1 (646) 396-0444
Participants will then need to enter the following codes in this order, when prompted for each:
- Call ID: 81545625#
- Passcode: 1597#
I hope to talk to you all on Friday and apologize for the inconvenience of rescheduling.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please dial the number provided above and the call is on Friday at 8:30PM Eastern Time.
Hope you all can join! (including those who didn't respond to this at all)!
Show unity to this matter!
+++++++++++++++++++
I am so sorry, I am going to have to move this to Friday at the same time (8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time), due to a scheduling conflict that has arisen and that I can’t control.
Call-in info will be as follows:
Number to call: +1 (646) 396-0444
Participants will then need to enter the following codes in this order, when prompted for each:
- Call ID: 81545625#
- Passcode: 1597#
I hope to talk to you all on Friday and apologize for the inconvenience of rescheduling.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please dial the number provided above and the call is on Friday at 8:30PM Eastern Time.
Hope you all can join! (including those who didn't respond to this at all)!
Show unity to this matter!
Hi mfak,
Thank you for the information. I believe everyone received the same e-mail.
I also believe the codes sent are extremely private and should be removed from this domain. Please kindly remove it as soon as possible. It has been intended for us only and everyone armed with these codes can join the conference call.
Thank you.
Thank you for the information. I believe everyone received the same e-mail.
I also believe the codes sent are extremely private and should be removed from this domain. Please kindly remove it as soon as possible. It has been intended for us only and everyone armed with these codes can join the conference call.
Thank you.
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
I deleted Update-2
Deep Trigger
Registered Users (C)
I think once you posted a message and logged out, it becomes a permanent post. I tried all options but in vain.
I would like to share some very recent developments about my pending application for adjustment of status to PR. Two weeks ago I got a notice from the service asking me to go to the local INS support center for fingerprints and I will go there this coming Friday. This is going to be the second fingerprints that I am submitting for my application. I was fingerprinted almost 6 months ago when I applied for refugee travel document. I have also received a separate notice asking to submit another medical
examination report. I am not sure what to expect at this stage.
examination report. I am not sure what to expect at this stage.
So far I have given 3 medical examination, first with my application in 1999, second in 2004, third in 2009, still waiting.
The case involving an Iranian lady. I believe the rit of madamos was filed in Arizona, if I'm not mistaking. It was brought up during your conversation with Anwen. It was you talking, wasn't it?!
JosephEsf
Are you talking about this ? http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-refugee-sues-get-green-card-after-wait.html
Hi Joseph!
Sorry for the delay in reply- I am not at home, but will get back to you as soon as I get a chance.
I got a little confused with you initial message as I was thinking of MEK as something else (or rather someone else)-
I think I know what you are talking about but perhaps we still are mixing up two different cases. The case that TJ presented (the link from AZ case is a different case). But yes, I may have referred Ms. Hughes about this case during the conversation.
Now there is a separate case that Ms. Hughes was referring to, and again, once I get home and get a chance, I will look into it and will send you the information.
Thank you!
Sorry for the delay in reply- I am not at home, but will get back to you as soon as I get a chance.
I got a little confused with you initial message as I was thinking of MEK as something else (or rather someone else)-
I think I know what you are talking about but perhaps we still are mixing up two different cases. The case that TJ presented (the link from AZ case is a different case). But yes, I may have referred Ms. Hughes about this case during the conversation.
Now there is a separate case that Ms. Hughes was referring to, and again, once I get home and get a chance, I will look into it and will send you the information.
Thank you!
Joseph, following is the MEK case that Ms. Hughes and I, were discussing- This case was litigated in San Antonio, TX. the case is called: Tom Amrollah VS Janet Napolitano (March 04-2013)
Please see the following complete case:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
710 F.3d 568 (2013)
Tom AMROLLAH, also known as Mohammad Hassan Amrollah-Majdabadi, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Gerard Heinauer, Director of the Nebraska Service Center for Citizenship and Immigration Services; Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-50357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 4, 2013.
Lance Edward Curtright, De Mott McChesney Curtright & Armendariz, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
Tom Amrollah fled Iran in 1998 for the United States with his wife and two children. After receiving a grant of asylum, Amrollah and his family filed an application to obtain lawful permanent residence status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Ten years later, USCIS deniedAmrollah's application. Amrollah filed suit in the Western District of Texas seeking relief under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court granted judgment in favor of the government. For the following reasons, we REVERSE.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Tom Amrollah (formerly known as Mohammad Hassan Amrollah-Majdabadi) is a citizen and national of Iran. In 1979, Amrollah was working as a pharmacist in Iran when he began providing medical assistance in the form of prescription medications and bandages to the mujahedeen movement.
Amrollah never formally joined the mujahedeen, but he was arrested for his support of the movement in 1982, and sentenced to a year in prison and 30 lashes. Upon his release from prison, Amrollah continued to support the movement by providing prescriptions as well as money for printing pamphlets. In 1996, Amrollah was arrested a second time and sentenced to six months in prison. He claims that this was the last time he provided any support to the mujahedeen movement.
Two years after his 1996 arrest, Amrollah once again received a subpoena to appear before an Iranian religious court. In response, Amrollah, his wife, and their two children decided to flee Iran for the United States, entering near Eagle Pass, Texas on July 8, 1998. Amrollah admitted to entering the country illegally, but sought asylum on the basis of his persecution in Iran. Amrollah acknowledged his support of the mujahedeen movement in his petition and in an asylum hearing before the Immigration Judge ("IJ"). The IJ granted Amrollah and his family asylum, noting that he found Amrollah to be generally credible and that "[a]lthough the Service attorney hints, or hinted that Respondent's support of the Mujahedeen indicated violent activity which might disqualify the Respondent from being eligible for asylum," the IJ "conclude[d] that Respondent's testimony showed he did not commit any violent act," and that he was therefore eligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158. The government did not appeal this decision.
One year later, Amrollah and his family applied for lawful permanent residence status. His children's applications were approved in 2004 and 2005, but Amrollahand his wife's applications remained pending until 2009. Amrollah filed his original complaint on December 1, 2009, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel agency action on his and his wife's applications. The government proceeded to grantAmrollah's wife's application, but denied Amrollah's application without a hearing, based on the support he had provided to the mujahedeen movement.
Amrollah filed an amended complaint, arguing that the government wrongly denied his application for permanent residence status and requesting relief under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 704 and 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The district court found that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that collateral estoppel did not bar USCIS from denyingAmrollah's application. Amrollah timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Amrollah received his grant of asylum in 1999 under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, which permits refugees to seek asylum when "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). This statute also prohibits the government from granting asylum to aliens who participate in terrorist activity as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) or 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B), including aliens who provide material support to any individual, organization, or government conducting terrorist activity. Id. at § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v) (1999); see also id. at § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(III) (1999) (discussing the prohibition against material support).
An alien who has been granted asylum is eligible for an adjustment in status to that of permanent resident if, after being physically present in the United States for at least one year, he is otherwise "admissible... as an immigrant under this chapter at the time of examination for adjustment." Id. at § 1159(a)(2)(b). Aliens who engage in terrorist activities, as defined under the same statute used in asylum proceedings, are not admissible. See id. at § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I). In other words, both 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the statute governing petitions for asylum) and 8 U.S.C. § 1159 (the statute governing petitions for permanent resident status), look to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (the statute governing inadmissible aliens) to determine whether an alien is eligible for relief.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants, RENDER summary judgment for Amrollah, and REMAND this case to the agency for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[1] The government contends that the mujahedeen movement is indistinguishable from Mojahedin-e-Khalq ("MeK"), a revolutionary Iranian organization. The United States Department of State designated MeK a Tier I Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, but this designation was lifted on September 28, 2012, after multiple appeals from MeK that it had disarmed and been non-violent since at least 2003. The government argues that regardless of this de-designation, the mujahedeen movement qualified as a Tier III terrorist organization during the time that Amrollah provided support. As discussed below, we need not reach this question.
[2] Although this statute was passed after Amrollah filed his petition for permanent resident status, it is retroactive to "actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date." Pub.L. No. 107-56, § 411(c)(1). Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) looks to whether an alien is admissible "at the time of examination for adjustment" of status, which in this case was in 2010.
[3] Although it would not significantly alter the analysis, we note that the government does not argue, nor does the record support, that Amrollah qualified for asylum because he did not know or have reason to believe that the organization he supported had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please see the following complete case:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
710 F.3d 568 (2013)
Tom AMROLLAH, also known as Mohammad Hassan Amrollah-Majdabadi, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Gerard Heinauer, Director of the Nebraska Service Center for Citizenship and Immigration Services; Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-50357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 4, 2013.
Lance Edward Curtright, De Mott McChesney Curtright & Armendariz, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
Tom Amrollah fled Iran in 1998 for the United States with his wife and two children. After receiving a grant of asylum, Amrollah and his family filed an application to obtain lawful permanent residence status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Ten years later, USCIS deniedAmrollah's application. Amrollah filed suit in the Western District of Texas seeking relief under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court granted judgment in favor of the government. For the following reasons, we REVERSE.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Tom Amrollah (formerly known as Mohammad Hassan Amrollah-Majdabadi) is a citizen and national of Iran. In 1979, Amrollah was working as a pharmacist in Iran when he began providing medical assistance in the form of prescription medications and bandages to the mujahedeen movement.
Amrollah never formally joined the mujahedeen, but he was arrested for his support of the movement in 1982, and sentenced to a year in prison and 30 lashes. Upon his release from prison, Amrollah continued to support the movement by providing prescriptions as well as money for printing pamphlets. In 1996, Amrollah was arrested a second time and sentenced to six months in prison. He claims that this was the last time he provided any support to the mujahedeen movement.
Two years after his 1996 arrest, Amrollah once again received a subpoena to appear before an Iranian religious court. In response, Amrollah, his wife, and their two children decided to flee Iran for the United States, entering near Eagle Pass, Texas on July 8, 1998. Amrollah admitted to entering the country illegally, but sought asylum on the basis of his persecution in Iran. Amrollah acknowledged his support of the mujahedeen movement in his petition and in an asylum hearing before the Immigration Judge ("IJ"). The IJ granted Amrollah and his family asylum, noting that he found Amrollah to be generally credible and that "[a]lthough the Service attorney hints, or hinted that Respondent's support of the Mujahedeen indicated violent activity which might disqualify the Respondent from being eligible for asylum," the IJ "conclude[d] that Respondent's testimony showed he did not commit any violent act," and that he was therefore eligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158. The government did not appeal this decision.
One year later, Amrollah and his family applied for lawful permanent residence status. His children's applications were approved in 2004 and 2005, but Amrollahand his wife's applications remained pending until 2009. Amrollah filed his original complaint on December 1, 2009, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel agency action on his and his wife's applications. The government proceeded to grantAmrollah's wife's application, but denied Amrollah's application without a hearing, based on the support he had provided to the mujahedeen movement.
Amrollah filed an amended complaint, arguing that the government wrongly denied his application for permanent residence status and requesting relief under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 704 and 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The district court found that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that collateral estoppel did not bar USCIS from denyingAmrollah's application. Amrollah timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Amrollah received his grant of asylum in 1999 under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, which permits refugees to seek asylum when "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). This statute also prohibits the government from granting asylum to aliens who participate in terrorist activity as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) or 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B), including aliens who provide material support to any individual, organization, or government conducting terrorist activity. Id. at § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v) (1999); see also id. at § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(III) (1999) (discussing the prohibition against material support).
An alien who has been granted asylum is eligible for an adjustment in status to that of permanent resident if, after being physically present in the United States for at least one year, he is otherwise "admissible... as an immigrant under this chapter at the time of examination for adjustment." Id. at § 1159(a)(2)(b). Aliens who engage in terrorist activities, as defined under the same statute used in asylum proceedings, are not admissible. See id. at § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I). In other words, both 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the statute governing petitions for asylum) and 8 U.S.C. § 1159 (the statute governing petitions for permanent resident status), look to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (the statute governing inadmissible aliens) to determine whether an alien is eligible for relief.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants, RENDER summary judgment for Amrollah, and REMAND this case to the agency for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[1] The government contends that the mujahedeen movement is indistinguishable from Mojahedin-e-Khalq ("MeK"), a revolutionary Iranian organization. The United States Department of State designated MeK a Tier I Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, but this designation was lifted on September 28, 2012, after multiple appeals from MeK that it had disarmed and been non-violent since at least 2003. The government argues that regardless of this de-designation, the mujahedeen movement qualified as a Tier III terrorist organization during the time that Amrollah provided support. As discussed below, we need not reach this question.
[2] Although this statute was passed after Amrollah filed his petition for permanent resident status, it is retroactive to "actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date." Pub.L. No. 107-56, § 411(c)(1). Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) looks to whether an alien is admissible "at the time of examination for adjustment" of status, which in this case was in 2010.
[3] Although it would not significantly alter the analysis, we note that the government does not argue, nor does the record support, that Amrollah qualified for asylum because he did not know or have reason to believe that the organization he supported had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joseph, please note the above case is different from Iranian lady case from AZ -
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-refugee-sues-get-green-card-after-wait.html
This case is about Fatima Asadi's G-Card and citizenship processing case. This is the second case that Ms. Hughes and I briefly discussed. I am not sure that Ms. ASADI was somewhat involved with MEK or not, but herself and her husband, were part of KDPI.
Anyways, the reason to mention this case was to make a point of G-Cards being retroactive (back dated) once approved by the USCIS. (if this makes sense)???
I hope this information helps and clarifies above mentioned two different / distinguished cases, for two different reasons.
I hope you remember why Mr. AMROLLAH (MEK) case was being brought up and discussed by Ms. Hughes and I.
Thank you!
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-refugee-sues-get-green-card-after-wait.html
This case is about Fatima Asadi's G-Card and citizenship processing case. This is the second case that Ms. Hughes and I briefly discussed. I am not sure that Ms. ASADI was somewhat involved with MEK or not, but herself and her husband, were part of KDPI.
Anyways, the reason to mention this case was to make a point of G-Cards being retroactive (back dated) once approved by the USCIS. (if this makes sense)???
I hope this information helps and clarifies above mentioned two different / distinguished cases, for two different reasons.
I hope you remember why Mr. AMROLLAH (MEK) case was being brought up and discussed by Ms. Hughes and I.
Thank you!