• DEPORTING FAMILIES, PROMISES AND JOBS
    Written by Glen Raj

    In 2008, Dr. P.K. Singh arrived in this country with his wife and their daughter in pursuit of a better life. He is the proud owner of the Super Budget Inn on East 40 US Highway in Kansas City, Missouri. Four years ago, Dr. Singh bought the then dilapidated hotel, renovating the lodging facility up to par. The hotel takes in weary travelers by offering discount prices with three-star amenities. He lives peacefully in Kansas City with his wife, their daughter, and their newborn son.

    However, Dr. Singh and his family now find themselves facing removal proceedings (deportation), and the Super Budget Inn employees find themselves facing unemployment, if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not act soon.

    Dr. Singh arrived in this country on an employment visa. Dr. Singh and his family quickly fell in love with Kansas City and its community, and they decided to pursue a future in Kansas City. In December of 2008 they purchased the hotel based on the counsel of an immigration attorney. The attorney assured them that their purchase would secure legal permanent residency for the entire family within the year.

    But after that year passed, Dr. Singh found himself with an expired employment visa and his family found themselves without status, primarily because the attorney had failed to file the appropriate visa for the family.

    In fact, had the attorney filed the correct petition, through the EB-5 program, Dr. Singh and his family might have even received legal permanent residency within that year. The EB-5 program provides a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest money in the United States. To obtain the visa, individuals must invest $1,000,000 and create at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers. The program was organized to encourage job creation.

    But since coming to the United States, Dr. Singh has consistently been fed misinformation from numerous immigration attorneys from a system that is already complicated, costly and inequitable. Dr. Singh arrived legally on a work visa. While trying to renew his visa, a second immigration attorney filed the wrong form which resulted in Dr. Singh not receiving an extension. His third attorney suggested that he go back to school to pursue a student visa.

    $20,000 in legal fees later, having spent on counsel from so called legal professionals, Dr. Singh and his family now find themselves in danger of being deported and they face a 10-year ban from re-entering the United States. Consequently, everyone employed in the hotel find themselves in danger of being unemployed. That is, if the local office of the Department of Homeland Security fails to step in.

    Even someone as educated as Dr. Singh can fall victim to the vagaries of the system.

    In 2000, Dr. Singh received his PhD in Hematology and Transfusiology from the Kursk State Medical University, one of Russia’s leading medical universities. During his time at the University, Dr. Singh co-founded their English medical course program, and the institution became the first university in Russia to begin undergraduate and graduate programs in English. Also with the University, Dr. Singh helped in enrolling Indian students interested in the medical field. Many developing countries such as India suffer from a chronic shortage of medical personnel, particularly doctors and physicians.

    India’s infant mortality rate is 39 per 1,000 live births which means that 400,000 babies die within 24 hours. In a country with such an abysmal infant mortality rate, the need for skilled medical personnel is essential, and Dr. Singh continues to help to alleviate this.

    On June 17, 2011, John Morton of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) issued a memo, now referred to the Morton Memo1 urging ICE personnel to use their resources more wisely by exercising prosecutorial discretion on deportation cases by focusing their attention on deporting those immigrants who are a risk to society and have “an egregious record of immigration violations”. According to the Memo, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should defer removal proceedings against those who have a good record, those who provide a special interest, those who contribute to society, and those who are an advantage to the community for policy sake.

    On August 18, 2011, President Obama made a public statement asking Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security to suspend deportations of those who do not pose a threat to national security.

    These are all applicable to Dr. Singh and his family.

    If the DHS does not review his case more closely, they will be hurting not only Dr. Singh’s family, they will also contribute to the loss of jobs to those employed directly and indirectly through Dr. Singh’s hotel; from back office, maids, catering companies,and surrounding businesses that rely on the Hotel’s traffic. In short, Kansas City as a whole will be affected.

    Requests to the DHS local offices were made but to no avail. A blanket statement was provided that all cases before them are always reviewed. However, this is yet another example highlighting how the DHS has not prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States—they are removing upstanding community members and entrepreneurs who are contributing towards the economy of the United States.

    Since the DHS is supposed to review these on a case-by-case basis, we urge them to review Dr. Singh’s case more closely. We urge anyone outraged by this inaction to contact your local representative and senator to persuade DHS to review Dr. Singh’s case. If DHS terminates its proceedings against the Singhs, they would be able to pursue the EB-5 visa and pursue a path to legal permanent resident status. Additionally, jobs will be saved, and Kansas City as a whole will benefit.

     

    Written on Monday, 09 January 2012 16:34 in Deportation Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Asylum: The Defensive Process (Immigration Court)
    Written by Glen Raj

    In the defensive process, an individual requests asylum as a defense or as a form of relief against removal from the U.S. For defensive processing, an individual must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
    Defensive asylums are generally presented to the court in one of two ways:

    1.) USCIS refers the individual to an Immigration Judge after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or

    2.) The individual was placed in removal proceedings because they were: caught in the United States without papers (status), or the individual was attempting to enter the United States without adequate documentation, were placed in the expedited removal procedure, and were found to have a “credible fear of persecution” or torture by an Officer.

    Read: Affirmative Asylum Process

    Asylum is a form of relief and protection granted by a country to an individual who has left their native country as a political refugee. In the United States, there are two ways an individual may seek asylum. An individual may seek asylum either through affirmative means, through USCIS or may seek asylum through defensive means, when in removal proceedings.

    Written on Monday, 19 September 2011 02:36 in Deportation Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Asylum: The Affirmative Process (USCIS)
    Written by Glen Raj

    Asylum: The Affirmative Process (USCIS)


    To pursue asylum affirmatively, an individual must be physically present in the United States. An individual may pursue asylum status regardless of how they arrived in the United States or regardless of their immigration status. However, the individual must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless:

    1) There are changed circumstances materially affecting their eligibility for asylum or there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing;

    2) The individual filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.

    Read: Defensive Asylum Process

    Asylum is a form of relief and protection granted by a country to an individual who has left their native country as a political refugee. In the United States, there are two ways an individual may seek asylum. An individual may seek asylum either through affirmative means, through USCIS or may seek asylum through defensive means, when in removal proceedings.

    Written on Monday, 19 September 2011 02:35 in Deportation Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • The U.S. Asylum Process
    Written by Glen Raj

    Asylum is a form of relief and protection granted by a country to an individual who has left their native country as a political refugee. In the United States, there are two ways an individual may seek asylum. An individual may seek asylum either through affirmative means, through USCIS or may seek asylum through defensive means, when in removal proceedings. Below are links explaining each process in detail

    Read: Affirmative Asylum Process

    Read: Defensive Asylum Process

     

     

    Written on Monday, 19 September 2011 02:31 in Deportation Be the first to comment! Read more...
  • Obama administration drops deportation case of Venezuelan man married to U.S. citizen
    Written by Glen Raj

    The Obama administration withdrew deportation proceedings against a Venezuelan man who is married to an American citizen. Apparently, this is the second time the American government has used discretionary power to avoid separating a same-sex married couple. The full article can be found here

    Written on Monday, 22 August 2011 20:19 in Deportation Be the first to comment! Read more...