The Dysfunctional Immigration System breaking families apart.

.

La nicaragüense Maricela Soza pidió el miércoles al presidente Barack Obama que ayude a resolver la situación de miles inmigrantes cuyos hijos estadounidenses quedan solos cuando sus padres son deportados por estar en condición migratoria irregular, como le ocurrió el miércoles a ella.

Los hijos de Maricela realizaron una huelga de hambre para intentar frenar la deportación.

Al llegar a la capital nicaragüense, Soza formuló un pedido al presidente de Estados Unidos de que "revise mi caso para que pueda regresar a terminar de criar a mis hijos".

"No solo pido que (Obama) me ayude en mi caso sino en el de miles de madres que deben estar en la misma situación", agregó.

El abogado Alfonso Oviedo Reyes explicó en Miami que la junta de apelaciones de inmigración rechazó una moción para reabrir el caso y se negó así a detener la deportación de Soza, de 32 años.

"Vamos a pedir la reapertura del caso ante la Corte Federal de Apelaciones de Atlanta porque el esposo está aquí todavía, y el caso tiene vigencia", expresó el letrado, y explicó que mientras el caso no se resuelva en ese tribunal, la mujer deberá permanecer en Nicaragua. Podría llevar meses antes de que la corte tome una resolución, indicó.

Soza fue detenida en diciembre en su casa por permanecer en Estados Unidos sin documentos.

Horas después arribó al aeropuerto nicaragüense Augusto C. Sandino junto con un grupo de compatriotas suyos deportados, informó el Canal 2 de la televisión local. La familia de la mujer se encuentra en Ciudad Darío, a 67 kilómetros al norte de Managua.

"Yo me fui del país en busca del sueño americano. Vivíamos bien, honestamente, no somos delincuentes. Pagábamos impuestos, contribuíamos con nuestro trabajo y queremos a Estados Unidos", manifestó.

Su esposo y padre de los niños, Ronald Soza, de 42 años y también nicaragüense, permanecía en contacto telefónico con sus hijos, pero escondido en el sur de la Florida por temor a ser arrestado por las autoridades de inmigración, ya que también está indocumentado en Estados Unidos.

"Mis niños nacieron en los Estados Unidos, son americanos y humanamente no pueden ser privados de sus padres", expresó la mujer deportada.

Cecia y Ronald Soza, de 12 y 9 años respectivamente, comenzaron el lunes con el ayuno y lo continuaron hasta la tarde del miércoles, cuando Oviedo les informó que su madre había sido deportada.

Estuvieron acompañados por su tío Fausto Soza, que es ciudadano estadounidense, y su guardiana legal, Nora Sándigo.

The Widow Penalty.

This video show a segment on a quirk in US immigration law which at the moment is the subject of a class action. Legal immigrant spouses of US citizens whose immigration paperwork is still being processed, or who haven’t been married at least two years to their husband or wife, face deportation due to what some call ‘The Widow Penalty’

Everybody loves a love story - everybody it seems, except the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. In our post-9/11 world, immigration has become increasingly tough on, of all groups, widows.

A foreigner who marries a U.S. citizen is entitled to become a U.S. resident. But as correspondent Bob Simon reports, immigration wants to deport several hundred widows-and a few widowers-foreigners who had been married to American citizens when the Americans died.

Immigration claims basically that a widow is not a wife, and that if the widow did not complete the process to become a U.S. resident while her husband was alive, she cannot remain in the country.
If that sounds a little strange, wait till you hear what happened to Raquel Williams when she met up with immigration.

It was once an honored rule that a foreign born immigrant who marries a U.S. citizen was entitled to become a U.S. resident. That concept is is not as straight forward as it once was. The Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS), under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), says that if an immigrant spouse doesn’t complete their application while the citizen spouse is alive, they cannot remain in the country.

Listening to the stories of the widows, it becomes apparent that it is often not possible for a spouse to complete an application while their wife or husband are still alive. And, though they may have been in the process already, many widows who have lost their spouse are still facing deportation.

Taking their case against before the courts, a group of widows being denied citizenship won. In fact, four courts ruled in favor of the widows, however, the Department of Homeland Security continues to appeal the cases at taxpayer expense.

Why CIS making this such an issue? They argue that although a foreign born spouse is eligible for citizenship, they don't consider a widow a spouse. They cite Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines spouse as "a married person”. However, as the 60 Minutes report points out, the court sided on behalf of the widows because same law dictionary defines a surviving spouse as "one who outlives the other".

The Department of Homeland Security refused a request for an interview from CBS News, leaving the public to speculate why these widowed spouses and their families are left in limbo.
Continue reading here:

I apply legally but I have been unfairly denied.!!!!

In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication - and an attempt to collect higher filing fees - from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.

On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because "the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month." USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government's instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.

In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.

Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. "These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules," explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. "They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless."

The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.

"I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America," said Ptasinska. "Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word."

Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government's recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795

My Green Card got lost in a pile. A Broken Immigration System

"Immigration says my application for citizenship is being held up by the FBI pending a name search but I had an interview 18 months ago and was issued a conditional green card," says Fahd Mohiuebin.

"I think the FBI is holding my file because my first name is Arabic"

Fahd's wife is a U.S. citizen and a Caucasian, and Fahd is Indian. They did everything according to the book, went through all the right channels. There is no plausible reason why, since he was issued a conditional green card in February 2005, that his citizenship application would require a further name search.

"My wife and I had a 15 minute interview with an immigration officer and we supplied supporting documentation and proof that we were married - our certificate, photos, etc. He said there would be no problem and I would get my permanent green card in 60-90 days.

After 90 days, I went back to the immigration office in Spokane. They said my file was pending an FBI name check and I asked them how long it would take. The immigration officer said that he had no idea because Immigration is not a part of the FBI; they are an independent body. There was nothing I could do. The only thing Immigration told me was that the FBI conduct name checks weekly but I didn't know how far I was up on the list.
I phoned the FBI three times but my call just went to voice mail and I never received a call back. I had to renew my work authorization permit so I could continue to work - it was good for a year and I applied for a renewal two months before it expired. My work permit expired October 23rd and now I am worried. The people I worked with treated me like a family but I had to give up my job.

I went to immigration and they said I could legally work when I get my renewal card. Immigration is now working on issuing renewals dating back to July 25th so I'm expecting a long wait - at least a few months.

Immigration said that technically I should have a temporary green card but in order for me to get a permanent card, it has to be within two years of my wedding date. I was married May 15th, 2004. Now that the FBI has taken so long, I don't fall under this category.

My wife is frustrated. If I can't get my green card we might have to split up - her family is here and her mother needs looking after as she is diabetic. I am 28 and my wife is 29. Both our families are pressuring us to have a family but everything is on hold. I don't know what the future holds.

I don't know if my file is sitting on a pile with the FBI or if they are going to do anything at all. My wife and I need to know if I have a future life in America. I don't know what to do or where to turn."

Utica, NY: Hatem F. is an Iranian citizen, born in Kuwait. He is a permanent resident with a green card and applied for U.S. citizenship in 2002. Hatem waited until July 2005 to get an interview to be granted citizenship, only to be told that his application would be rejected.

"But I was given the option to withdraw my application and apply again," says Hatem. "These were my choices given: if I didn't withdraw my application, it would be rejected and the procedure would take longer than if I withdraw right away - it doesn't make any sense."

Talk about a Catch-22!

"The immigration officer said that I was all done with the background check (which took since 2002) and if it was rejected I would have to go through another background check. But another check would be unnecessary if I just reapply.

No reason was given to me about having to file another application, but she promised that, if I applied again, by December 2005 I would be granted another interview. This was July.

So I withdrew my application and that same day I filled out another application form and sent it overnight express to the Vermont immigration center.

December came and went. I am still waiting. My green card has now expired and I applied to renew it. Here is the real kicker: because I have a citizenship in process, they won't renew my green card so now I am in limbo. Immigration gave me a stamp on my passport saying that I was lawfully admitted to the U.S. and I am allowed to work but they told me not to travel because there might be some delays getting in and out of the country.

Two months ago Immigration sent me a letter, informing me that I had an interview, then two weeks later I received another letter stating that "due to unforeseen circumstances" my interview was canceled.

I don't feel the security that I used to. My mother is sick in Kuwait and I can't take the chance to visit her - I am not sure if I will be allowed back into the U.S. Now I feel a captive in this country. To be honest, I don't know what to think. I love this country but I don't know who is benefiting from leaving me in the dark."

Both these stories sound like a scene taken from a Kafka novel! Sounds like both Immigration and the FBI are employing stall tactics.

Not even Hatem's congress representative could help. "My congresswoman finally contacted Immigration, but all she got out of them was that they were waiting for my background check. "

With the advances we have in technology, why would it take years to gather information about someone? "I am disappointed," says Hatem. "The reason I came to this country is because we are supposed to be treated equally.

A Dysfunctional Backtracking Immigration system: Citizenship denied

I'm amazed at the lack of willingness on the part of immigration officers to help people," says Julio Trejo," I didn't think that one question answered incorrectly could deny my citizenship."
"I'm a college graduate so I think I have enough smarts to understand the bureaucracy but I was naive enough to believe that the government is on your side. I thought the process from permanent resident to U.S. citizen would be seamless: I studied the book and the steps are simple; it says that if you have been a lawful resident for five years or more and have never been convicted of any crime, if you meet the basic requirements, you qualify. No problem. I filled out the necessary forms, got fingerprinted and interviewed -- it was San Antonio, Texas, 2004.

After the interview, the immigration officer said everything was fine. He handed me a form that said 'Congratulations, you have everything required to be a U.S. citizen and you will be called to attend the swearing-in ceremony shortly' --or words to that effect. Not long after the interview I was promoted and transferred to a job in Atlanta - I am a dietician at a senior's retirement residence. I notified Homeland Security right away of my change of address, as required by law.

I assumed that I would go to the citizenship ceremony in Atlanta. After two months I got another letter for yet another interview and it said I could have an attorney present. I had no idea what it was about and of course didn't need an attorney to come with me - why would I need one? I hadn't done anything wrong. So I went to the interview and asked the immigration officer why I was having this second interview and not saying the Oath of Allegiance instead. 'Sometimes we let another officer go through the application, it usually has to be checked by two officers,' she explained. Apparently everything was in order, but then she said, 'What happened in 1998?'

Nothing happened. My mind was racing - I automatically thought there was some criminal charge, something I had done wrong. I had done absolutely nothing wrong so when she asked if I was willing to put that in writing, I said sure. I didn't think anything of it but later found out that, because I signed that affidavit, my citizenship was denied.

This is why I was denied my citizenship. When I went through the legal resident process, I signed a form that disclosed how I entered the U.S. I arrived here on my student visa from Mexico in 1990-91. I overstayed my visa for about one year but got my residency status in 1992 through the amnesty program. But I forgot all about it, and she thought I was lying.

In other words, I was denied citizenship because of a form I signed 17 years ago that I don't remember signing. At that time I barely spoke English. The process was through the Catholic Social Services and I didn't understand the questions. Now, this immigration officer didn't elaborate on the question- she only asked me 'what happened'. She could have been more helpful, she could have asked me if I wanted a lawyer before signing. She could have given me a clue. But instead, she set me up to be denied..

After I was denied, I did some research and found out that the officer could have handled this situation a lot differently. I had the right to correct any derogatory information.

The next step I have to do is fill out a form N336 - a denied citizenship appeal. This means that you are allowed to have another interview with another officer - not the one who denied your application. And that officer will look at the facts and can overturn the decision, ask for more information or grant your appeal. According to the law (which I have been reading a lot!) you pay $268 for an appeal and then Homeland Security cannot exceed 180 days from the date when the appeal is sent until the time you are assigned the interview.

That was in 2005. I have now waited 365 days to answer one question. I have had to go through this process for two years, all because I didn't understand, or the immigration officer didn't elaborate on, one question.

I understand why people are denied citizenship, mainly for a felony or drugs. But my record is clean. I continue to be a legal resident and I am still waiting for my appeal. Ironically, this question isn't about citizenship. If they had asked this question when I applied for legal residency, I would have been denied that. So now I feel that they are backtracking.

Now I have a lawyer. I filed the appeal myself but I am not going to walk into the next interview by myself, no matter how much I have studied the law. I can imagine this happens to thousands of people. After five years, you should be eligible to become a citizen. I have now been a permanent resident of this country for 15 years. I have paid taxes, I have always abided by the law.

If the appeal process doesn't work, I can re-apply again. But this creates a lot of hardship. My daughter lives in Mexico and I can't legally bring her into the U.S until I get my citizenship. I want to have a life in America. I have been offered a transfer and promotion to Texas but will it take another two years to file if I move? Basically, my life is on hold, for one question on a form I signed 17 years ago when I was just 16 years old.

I can understand and agree that many people should be denied citizenship for a host of reasons, but just because this one officer in Atlanta was not in a good mood that day shouldn't mean that it was going to be a bad day for me

Her Shadow become a nightmare do to a Dysfunctional Immigration System

A Newport News woman who faced deportation Thursday for a decade-old crime has received a one-year extension a day after being pardoned by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. Kathryn Anne Ingleson, 31, found out Wednesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had granted a request to postpone her deportation, her attorney said. Earlier Wednesday, a Newport News Circuit Court judge amended Ingleson's conviction for credit card theft to credit card fraud, which is not a deportable offense in Virginia. The action came a day after Kaine gave Ingleson a simple pardon _ or official forgiveness of the crime--and expressed his support for her to remain in the country and in Virginia. "Kathryn's excitement and glee and that of her family over these developments is tempered by the knowledge that she has yet to obtain a dismissal of the deportation order that is still pending against her," said Ingleson's attorney, Joseph Peter Drennan of Alexandria. "However, with these developments one cannot help but be optimistic

Ingleson moved to the United States from England with her parents when she was 7 as a lawful resident but failed to become a naturalized citizen. In 1997 she was convicted of stealing credit cards from customers at the store where she worked to buy a Christmas tree, some ornaments and other items valued at about $340. She paid restitution and completed probation.

When she returned from visiting a relative in England in 2003, Ingleson was arrested and placed in removal proceedings. Her appeals have been denied by immigration officials and the courts and a deportation date set for Aug. 14.

Drennan said U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman's office informed Ingleson on Wednesday that ICE had agreed to stay her deportation for one year. She is expected to meet with department officials Friday to learn the details.

The next step is to take the pardon and the amended conviction to the Board of Immigration Appeals to ask that it reopen Ingleson's case and vacate the removal order, Drennan said.

Ingleson was an 18-year-old single mother when she stole the credit cards in 1996. She confessed when confronted about it, but wasn't prosecuted until the following year after a law took effect that expanded the categories of deportable offenses.

As part of a plea deal, Ingleson pleaded guilty to two counts of credit card theft and two counts of credit card fraud were dropped.

Newport News Circuit Court Judge H. Vincent Conway ruled Wednesday that credit card fraud was a more fitting conviction. In Virginia, credit card fraud is not a so-called "aggravating felony" that triggers deportation.

"Judge Conway's decision today constitutes another step along that long and intricate process that we are pursuing in order to have Kathryn relieved of the specter of deportation so that she can get on with her life," Drennan said.

Since her conviction, Ingleson has worked at a packaging company, kept a clean record and raised her two children, ages 18 and 9, he said.

After-hours messages left for officials with ICE and Wittman's office were not immediately returned.

Drennan said Ingleson would love to become a naturalized citizen, although she fears the conviction that remains on her record may hamper that.

"She earnestly and fervently desires to become an American citizen," he said. "The issue of whether she will be in a position to do that is yet another legal challenge that needs to be met, but again we are cautiously optimistic."

Undocumented Immigrants draining social security system right? Wrong.!!!!!!!

Apparently I guess it's hard to support your family on a meager $6 MILLION a year.



Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports.

"I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."

In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.

Last week, McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace."

B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.

In 2006, McCain's wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million