http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_7896827?nclick_check=1

Abuse victims advised to not seek residency
# Law meant to help sufferers of domestic violence gain citizenship being ignored, resulting in deportations, critics say
By Javier Erik Olvera

MEDIANEWS STAFF
Article Launched: 01/06/2008 03:20:40 AM PST

By Javier Erik Olvera

MEDIANEWS STAFF

More than a decade ago, Congress passed a law providing a path to citizenship for certain married immigrants who were victims of domestic violence. The hope was to keep them from suffering in silence, too afraid to report the crime because they might risk being forced from their new home.

But now, immigration attorneys are advising clients who entered the United States illegally not to seek the full benefits of the law, amid growing concerns that the government's new interpretation of which immigrants are eligible will instead put them on a path out of the country.

Those concerns have taken on new urgency in recent months -- and lawmakers are calling for answers -- as immigration officials have either rejected or indefinitely put on hold several applications for permanent residency.

One San Jose woman who accused her husband of beating and sexually assaulting her was among those denied, and she now fears she'll have to return to Mexico.

"I did everything I was told to do to become a citizen," the 26-year-old, who is working with Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, said. "They now say it's not enough. I'm scared."

Immigration officials last week maintained that nothing had changed in their approach to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which allows qualifying immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents to begin the lengthy process of obtaining citizenship without the
Advertisement
help of their spouses.

The law and several revisions were created so victims could report crimes without fear that their abusers would hold their immigration status against them and silence them with threats of deportation. There is no dispute on how the law applies to legal immigrants.

However, an issue has arisen over whether the law was meant to create a special process for illegal immigrants, since those immigrants would normally have to leave the country first in order to become eligible for permanent residency. Lawmakers such as Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who have written to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking answers, say that penalty should not apply in the case of domestic violence victims.

But federal immigration officials are arguing that the Violence Against Women Act and its revisions don't include special provisions for illegal immigrants. They note that illegal immigrants should be required to return to their home countries to get a visa, with the added restriction that if they have lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, they cannot return for 10 years.

That would apply to the San Jose woman. The woman, whose name is being withheld because MediaNews doesn't identify victims of sex crimes, sneaked into the country in 2003 to join her siblings.

Soon after, she met her husband, a Mexican native living in the United States legally. Almost immediately after their marriage, she said, he began coming home drunk and abusing her. She and their daughter, now 3, left him about a year ago.

The woman then took the first step toward citizenship, which includes getting federal approval to apply for residency as a domestic violence victim. The approval -- which hinges on a detailed account of the abuse, which would include police reports and court documents -- allows victims to continue to work in the country and to obtain a driver's license.

It was only when she was interviewed a few months ago for the next step in the process, the application for permanent residency, that her illegal entry into the county was found out and her request denied. Her attorney is now appealing the decision.

"I think this interpretation flies in the face of congressional intent," said her attorney, Mary Dutcher of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. "It's hard to think what is reason and logic, and cause and effect in this world of immigration."

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Chris Bentley said director Emilio Gonzalez would respond to lawmakers' concerns directly, but he provided no timetable.

While immigration officials say they have been consistent in their interpretation of the domestic violence law, immigration-rights advocates say that illegal immigrants were treated more leniently under its provisions until August, when an e-mail reportedly went out to immigration officials around the country advising them to turn down applications for anyone who entered the country illegally, regardless of whether they were victims of domestic violence.

The e-mail came just as the Bush administration was announcing a renewed push to enforce immigration laws. Susan Bowyer, the managing attorney for the Oakland-based International Institute of the East Bay, said United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officials who process applications read excerpts of the e-mail to members of her staff.

Bentley, however, said he was unaware of any e-mail and added that there are several reasons to deny a residency application, including misdemeanor convictions for crimes such as petty theft. He added that he couldn't comment specifically on any of the denied cases.

It's unknown exactly how many applicants have so far been denied or held across the country, but based on anecdotal evidence, advocates and attorneys say they've seen dozens during the past few months.

In her letter, Rep. Lofgren wrote that Congress made an exception for domestic violence victims in one of its immigration revisions, and that any other interpretations of the law "flies in the face" of plain language.

Advocates and attorneys are hoping the matter is resolved soon, but in the meantime, they're suggesting their clients take only the first step -- getting federal approval to apply for permanent residency as a domestic violence victim -- so they can continue to work in the United States legally.

Attorneys say they will suggest that their clients renew their work permits as often as they can until the issue is cleared up.

Added the International Institute's Bowyer: "What really scares me is there are a lot of people unknowingly blundering into this situation."

No sympathy from here. This provision of the VWA was never intended to help illegal immigrants anyway. It was intended to help immigrants who immigrate legally and find themselves in a domestic violence situation, after doing everything properly,then have a means and a process to stay here in the US if they choose to do that.

I hate to hear that anyone is treated this way, but illegal immigrants need to take note: Eventually, one by one, none of the usual bleeding heart liberal causes are going to be applied that give you special status. The days when illegal immigrants enjoy the same protection, benefits, and privaleges of legal immigrants are ENDIND. Go back to your home country, and immigrate legally, or run the risk of being packed up, sent home, and banned from returning. Immigrate illegally and get beat up? Tough. Hopefully this becomes part of the chances you take when you choose to break the rules.

The ONLY amnesty that I would support for illegal immigrants, is a clean slate once they self-deport. I do not have any malice towards illegals who wake up, smell the coffee, go home, and start the legal process. Illegal immigrants who are picked up and sent home should and deserve to be banned from returning to this country.

This may not be popular in this forum, but it reflect the feelings of the majority of the country. Enjoying the benefits of a better life requires that the laws and rules be followed and equally applied to everyone. A society of law has both benefits AND responsibilities. What has made illegal immigration so beneficial is that these people enjoy one with no feeling of responsibility towards the other.

I saw a thread on another board about how to misuse this, so open to abuse, glad it is being interpretated sensibly.

Quite frankly, I hadn't even realized that illegal immigrants could file under VAWA.

I thought they couldn't adjust status, period

Saludos,
Caro

Open this link and scroll about halfway down the page till you find "BCIS Published VAWA training materials" Click on that link for an excellent basic explanation of VAWA.

http://www.immigration.com/newsletter/october03.html

There is always a loop hole from someone to jump through

Is it worth remembering that the USC spouse (batterer or not) is probably AWARE of their spouses illegal status, and as such maybe they are a bit implicit here too? Or was it simply WRONG for USC's to meet and fall in love with them?

Is there ever the most remote possibility that "illegals" are human beings? Or are they just a reason for people to become enraged when they see the term?

Hmmm...good point rebeccajo...the abusive USC/LPR would most likely take advantage of their spouse being illegal. Right now, there is another thread on the board where someone is asking about helping a person who appears to be in an abusive marriage after paying for a fraudulent marriage - I seriously have a big problem with that. http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103806

Here's my line of thinking - if illegal, married in good faith, and then abused - VAWA as a remedy is a good thing. BUT, if fraud marriage in the first place, then abused, should VAWA be a remedy - I don't believe so... Besides, in VAWA cases, one of the things you have to prove is that you entered the marriage in good faith, that it was not to circumvent immigration laws. On the other hand, abuse is abuse, and having suffered at the hands of my ex-husband, I empathize with anyone who has ever had to go through it, and I encourage anyone going through it, to get out of the relationship.

I didn't necessarily draw the conclusion that the alien, in the thread you pasted, paid for the marriage. She did give money to the USC, but where in what was written, did it suggest that this money was payment for benefit?

I don't think VAWA should be a remedy because the problem of their immigration status existed before the marraige took place, whether in good faith or not. The abuse is wrong, but if you had an immigration problem because your status was illegal, creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships (they are easy to find) to get "amnesty" for your illegal entry is not a good idea. The issue of having entered the country illegally is being blurred by the domestic violence crime. Poor, starving people still go to jail if they steal. Because we feel sorry for them because they were poor and starving, do we change the laws that allow those people to steal?




It wasn't clear. I thought she gave him the money to hold because they were about to freeze her accounts in the deportation proceedings. But it wasn't made clear what was happening and if she even got the money back when she returned to the US, so who knows.

You've got a point, but usually, if a poor starving person steals (and he can prove he was starving and it's a first offense) he's gonna get to plea and won't do jail time.

Remember - the punishment should always equal the crime.

You don't have a point about 'creating the ability to purposely go into abusive relationships to get amnesty'. That's a stretch by anybody's definition.

If the punishment should "always" equal the crime (which it doesn't in the US, but off off topic), the punishment in the case of the crime of illegal immigration should not be amnesty because of an unfortunate situation in their personal lives.

And I'll add that when I was an advocate in NYC, I had a client whose husband had to do 60 days in jail for stealing meat, potatoes and tomato sauce from a grocery store on the east side. First offense but he still did time. And lost his job in the process. Thus she ended up with me trying find a way to feed her and 4 kids while waiting for some type of emergency assistance from the city. My boss spoke on behalf of her husband before the judge and he got no leniency. So, you can roll the dice.

Fair enough.

All I'm asking for is perspective with these situations. It's true that illegal entrants have violated our laws. But as an advocate I'm sure you can relate to the ideological concept of our judicial system punishing those entrants with something other than a paint-brush approach.

It would be more likely for both parties to the marriage to be undocumented.

I have seen posts elsewhere suggesting that in this case one undocuented could get Residency and then Citizenship through VAWA, and having 'reconciled' would be able to get status for the other.

My opinion: In the other thread, I believe that the woman's intent was implied...she gave the guy the money just before her deportation procedures. He convinced them (immigration) to let her back in. Her intent (to me) seems to be clear - she wanted to migrate to the US - she came back and they were married in Vegas. Again (to me) it would appear that this woman entered into a fraudulent marriage. Unless the OP of that thread returns and lets us know more about the facts of that case, we will spend a lot of time going around in circles. My reaction when I read that thread was that it raised serious flags for me. And, if it did that for me, imagine what immigration will think.

It really is imperative that anyone who goes through domestic violence, illegal or not, thinks about their safety first and gets out from under the control of their abusive spouse or boyfriend. However, I don't think that anyone who enters into a fraud marriage (illegal immigrant or not), and is subsequently abused, should benefit from VAWA. One of the basic requirements for VAWA applicants IS to demonstrate that their marriage was entered into in good faith.

The OP for the other thread just replied...and well...it definitely was a paid for "marriage."

D&N for PRESIDENT! RIGHT ON! You said a mouth full that was so right and true.

RebeccaJo:

IT is also worth remembering that

A) illegal means illegal, which means the illegal broke the law in the first place which had they followed the law in first place they would not be in the USA illegally.

love or no love, illegal is illegal

C) human being or not they are an illegal and lawbreaker, and for example some of the world's worst lawbreakers against humanity for example are Osama Bin Laden, Sadaam Hussien, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, etc and guess what each one of them is a human being as you say. That is beside the point whether they are a human being or not, they broke the law and are illegal.

D) Engraged you say, the only engraged people are those that suggest it is somehow wrong to be engraged when someone willfully and adamantly breaks the laws of the United States of America.

In conclusion, stop trying to justify unjustifiable lawbreaking behavior. And do you think a USC would be treated as kindly or humanly in another country if the USC were to enter another country illegally and to break that country's laws? Hello I think not, well I know not, other countries do not tolerate this nonsense like the USA has now for so long, which as D&N has said those days are over and coming to a close fast. The mass majority of USC are sick and tired of illegal immigration and want it stopped once and for all, which it will be.

Well, there are a few exceptions. For example, a child that was brought to the USA, as a minor, by his or her parents and is, therefore, an undocumented alien now, is here illegally by virtue of the choices his or her parent(s) made.

zqt,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Clearly you disagree with Rjo and that is OK. We can all disagree however I hope that we can present our disagreements in a rational way without attacking or inflaming each other. Thank you for considering this in the future.

I agree, because if they entered into a fraudulent marraige then I believe they entered into the country illegally.

Until they reach the age of 18.

We had an incident here in Buffalo last year where the kids were 17 and 18 on a senior trip and didn't even know they were illegal. They crossed into Canada at the falls and couldn't get back in. It was their parents' decision that caused their legal status and it's heartbreaking for them cause what they know as their life was in serious jeopardy. I wonder what happened to them?

There is no doubt in my mind that some undocumented aliens could be subjected to abuse by their legal spouse in the manner of using the illegal status as a means of control. We see cases of this with aliens that aren't even illegal, but simply uninformed and unable to secure PR without the cooperation of the USC spouse. Why would it be any less so with an alien over whom a spouse has even more control? I am quite sure this situation exists more than we may know!

It is a moral issue, that, in my opinion can be resolved.
As I see it, it is not that the abused alien should be found ineligible for relief under VAWA (in other words, the alien would not have to remain with an abuser in order to gain PR) but rather whether such alien might have to return to his or her country in order to receive such relief and what options will be available to such alien when he or she attempts to correct the illegal status?

Aliens that are EWI, and marry a USC are indeed required to return to their home country first, before adjustment of status is possible once in the USA. Of course in doing so, if the EWI alien is subject to a bar, the USC spouse can petition to have that bar waived, by demonstrating hardship upon the US partner. For an alien that is being victimised by a USC that they have married in good faith, who is an EWI, if the alien to leave the country in order to rectify the EWI, what USC abuser would petition on their behalf? And if the USC abuser would, could we sanction that an alien be forced to return to his or her abuser in order to find legal status in the USA? In that case, the alien remains subject to a bar, with no possibility of securing re-admission. But what if remaining in their homeland causes yet more hardship? I believe they should be given opportunity to correct their illegal status, and utilise VAWA where possible. If returning to their homeland in order to be eligible for adjustment causes extreme hardship, and VAWA provides additional exceptions to remedy this, I see no reason for VAWA not to include such remedies for battered EWIs.

I saw a similar case, in this case Mexican, he was checked by Canadian Immigration, who refused him entry, sent back to the US side and held, I guess he was not deported as he was never admitted to the US, but whatever he was sent home.

I do not know the numbers but the more common situation would be where both the absued and the abuser are illegals.

And as you say hardhip has to be shown to a USC or PR, not an illegal.It ca be another USC/PR, it does not have to be the abuser.

Herein lies the concern. Chances are, a battered illegal is unlikely to have such a support sytem or individual to turn to and yet he or she (more likely she, unfortunately) might be better suited in the USA than the homeland.

Many people might consider themselves better suited in the USA rather than their homeland. Whatever their current circumstances are.

Not sure why that should be the basis of a immigration policy.

That wouldn't be the basis of a policy. The alien, in this hypothetical case, despite having an illegal status at the time, entered into a bona fide marriage with a USC and was abused. The INA recognizes that battered aliens should not be forced to remain with an abuser through the adjusment of status process. Absent a viable marriage, and with VAWA in place, battered aliens are not automatically shunted out of the country and back to their origins. Why place an EWI battered alien in a position where that may be the only recourse?

You are assuming a USC spouse, that maybe the case, but this applies to a more common position where no USC is involved.

More importantly:

An Illegal without this has no ability to adjust inside the USA, so this is giving them a benefit a non VAWA applicant would not have, an obvious inducement to fraud and there is no jusification.

Posts have been removed that were off topic. Any questions, please PM me, thanks!

What benefit does the illegal have that the non-VAWA applicant doesn't? Any illegal that marries a USC that is not abusive, has no need to exit the marriage or leave the petitioner prior to adjustment occuring.

The ability to adjust.

Possibly in country.

Fraud scenario number one.

Jane and Billy are in love and want to live together in the US. They decide they'll each find USC fiance's, get K1 visas, come to the US, marry and file AOS. Once the green cards are in hand, they'll leave their respective spouses and begin their lives together in the USA.

Don't kid yourself. This and similar scenarios are quite common.

Fraud scenario number two.

Jaime is here illegally want a green card. He seduces Mary, a USC and marries her. When the honeymoon is over, he gives himself a bruise or two with a big skillet, then calls the cops and claims Mary took some swings at him during an argument. Jaime gets a green card.

Fraud scenario three:

Same as scenario two except both Sally and Joe are here illegally.

I doubt the lawmakers had scenario two or three in mind when they wrote the law.

Wow...this thread has certainly brought up some interesting and some valid points. As a VAWA beneficiary, I can understand the concerns about fraud, but I believe (because of my personal experience) that it is more likely that the USC spouse would try to keep their perceived "control" that they have over their immigrant spouse. My ex tried every trick in the book he could think of after he was arrested for attacking me. In my case, there were witnesses - my neighbors - he jumped off of me when they yelled at him. They also called the police. Plus I had bruises on my body. He tried to get me evicted, he prolonged the criminal case until the last day he could take the plea deal. He filed for an annulment claiming marriage fraud, etc. (he was literally claiming ALL of the legal points which are required to obtain an annulment). He wanted me out of his life AND out of the country. Oh, and in the annulment papers, was claiming that I was illegal when I met him - this was completely FALSE and he knew it. He knew that everything that he claimed was false. He also knew what he did to me on the day that he had attacked me but, of course, was telling his family and friends otherwise.

I went into marriage believing that in 50 years, I would be with that man, with our kids and grandkids around us. He attacked me one month before the AOS interview. I had no job, no money, no work permit. I got the permit two days after the assault. I was physically and mentally bruised and battered, and in shock. I did not know what to do, I called the domestic violence hotline and they put me through to agencies in my area. Safety first - I did not want him to get access to me again because I was afraid of what he might do to me...I got a temp order of protection from family court, and one from criminal court. All my bruises had been documented by the police and by the court. The numerous 911 calls made that day by several neighbors were also in evidence, as well as testimony from the neighbors who saw him on top of me in the hallway after he successfully threw me out of the apartment.

Because he is a USC, he thought that he could "throw me away" and the law would be on his side. He thought he could cry "marriage fraud" and I would be deported. He did not plead guilty until the last day before the trial would start - I know he did it because he didn't want a trial because he knew he wouldn't win. There was too much evidence against him. Eventually we went before the same judge (integrated domestic violence court) to dissolve our marriage. He was still fighting for an annulment. He finally hired an attorney and he withdrew his annulment, again, because he would not have won. And my divorce was granted. If not for VAWA and the other laws of the land, he probably would have won. VAWA protected me. I have never been illegal in this country. I filed a VAWA petition and it was approved. I had proof that I married my ex with the expectation of a long and happy marriage. One instance of physical violence shattered that dream. One instance was enough for me to get out with my life. He even lied to the assistant district attorney - he told her that he hadn't filed for me (one of his sisters who is an attorney was the co-sponsor for the affidavit of support) - I had all the receipts.

IF I had been illegal, VAWA would have protected me. Thankfully, I took care of safety first. I didn't have an immigration attorney until a few months after the incident. I had to deal with the following courts in this process: housing, family, criminal, and divorce. Soon, I hope, I will receive my interview notice to adjust status. And that is when I will finally feel as if my life is beginning again.

You never know what people go through behind closed doors. VAWA protects people who have been abused regardless of status, as long as they entered into the relationship in good faith. Yes, there may be fraud in some cases, but I am sure there are also many fraudulent cases in which VAWA never comes into play. What would be the remedy then? To abolish all immigration based on marriage? VAWA is not an easy process, and there are many things that you have to provide and address in the application. First and foremost, if you can't prove that your marriage was real, you will have a problem.

Yes it has, and your points are just as valid. I was simply giving examples of motivation present when such a benefit is allowed to accrue to an illegal. Evidently, the plain language in the statute doesn't provide such a benefit to someone who doesn't have legal status, at least as USCIS is interpreting the law. Of course, we have a whole criminal and civil justice system consumed with argument over the interpretation of laws.

Thank you pushbrk. Your examples are very relevant because (unfortunately) I am certain those scenarios do exist. Wherever there are laws, there will always be persons who try to circumvent those laws. What is the solution? Too big a question for me.

But, if an illegal gets married in good faith, and then becomes abused, then I strongly believe that that person should be able to benefit under VAWA - and in fact, they can, and do. The article that I posted talks about what is occurring now after the VAWA petition is approved, when an illegal files to adjust status. I am glad I am not in that position, that I have to worry about deportation when I am finally called in for the interview. I am not saying, that I am "guaranteed" to get the green card. I really don't have any idea what to expect when I do have my interview. My attorney has told me what to expect, but, you never know, but I am not going to worry about it.

Since you weren't illegal, I certainly would have no objection in your case. Reasonable minds can disagree on the statute's interpretation with regard to an illegal alien. Fortunately we have a justic system to sort that out whether we agree or not. I've given my reason for my view. I didn't read the whole thread, so perhaps I missed your reason but that's how the system works. The lawyers make their opposing arguments and the judge makes the decision, then they argue on appeal and a higher court rules, etc. etc.

In my mind the difference is that you came here legally with legal intent and are in legal status and are seeking to remain so.

The other person did not, there is nothing to stop that person leaving an abusive situation, and remain in the same status, or lack of it as they have always had.

The question is whether they should benefit from an immigration perspective in moving from illegal to legal, because of abuse, alleged or real.

I really can not think of any good reason why.

Yep, no matter which side of the fence you are on, it is a loooooooooooooong drawn out process. I wish that more VAWA beneficiaries, illegal or not, would participate in this thread. As the OP, it really is very interesting to hear the different opinions from people from other countries, and differing experiences.

When my immigration journey is finally over, I will start a new thread in which I will provide more details about how I came to be a VAWA self-petitioner in the first place. A lot of immigration forums exist on the internet but because of the "stigma" of domestic violence, a lot of survivors are very hesitant about putting their story out there. My ex-therapist once asked me, "How is it that you are so convinced that it was not your fault?" Why she asked me this was because most of the people that she talked with, were in some way convinced that what happened to them was their fault. I, on the other hand, have never been ashamed of what my ex did to me - disappointed, hurt, disillusioned, but, never ashamed. I talk about it freely and I think that has helped me to heal. I knew I did nothing to deserve being attacked, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. I have always believed that it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, AND for a woman to hit a man. If it reaches that point in a relationship, then one should just walk away. My ex and I had even had this discussion. BUT, he chose to act the way that he did. I know he blames me for his problems, I know he doesn't take responsibility - he says it's all MY fault. I reject that hypothesis completely. My reaction: I don't subscribe to that line of thinking, and no one will ever convince me that what happened to me at the hands of my ex is my fault. Maybe that is why I had to strength to say NO.

I know what you are talking about - the other thread which I had linked to before. That person is clearly trying to circumvent the immigration process by paying for a marriage. I agree, she should not gain any benefits - she did not enter the marriage in good faith. Her first concern should be her safety. And it is clearly not.

So, it's your opinion that aliens that have "unlawful" status and aliens that have "illegal" status should receive different benefits under VAWA?

My two cents.

If illegal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.
If legal, enter marriage with intent to bypass immigration law (no good faith marriage), then abused = should NOT be able to benefit under VAWA.
If illegal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.
If legal, enter marriage in good faith, then abused = should be able to benefit under VAWA.

If you add why, it looks more like a discussion than a vote.

Feel free to answer or just consider my questions rhetorical.

What you wrote boils down to an illegal alien who is otherwise subject to deportation is entitled to the benefit of LPR status because they entered into a marriage in good faith and were abused but an illegal alien subject to deportation who enters into a marriage in good faith and isn't abused, is not entitled to the same benefit. Why? Why should the US grant them LPR status instead of simply rescue, treat if needed, and send them home, then punish the abuser. The non-abused only get sent home because they don't need rescue or treatment or any perpetrator punished. What is it about the abuse that entitles one LPR status?

Is your opinion thought through or more of an emotional response?

The opposing arguments answering these questions and more are what a group of judges will eventually base a ruling on and the rest of us will live with that decision, regardless of our own opinions on the matter.

Pushbrk, , I just covered cases of DV...of course each case is more complicated than my two-cent versions... And, by the way, love the discussion.

If there is no DV, then there is no need for remedy under VAWA. If there is no abuse, chances are that an AOS may have been filed already and if the immigrant can prove that there was a good faith marriage, then they can apply for a waiver to remove the conditions of their conditional status, if they already have a conditional green card (married under 2 years). If no paperwork was already filed, in the case of no abuse, I have absolutely no idea what the remedies would be under the law (if any exist). I have no experience in that area and would rather not guess.

Emotions, of course will play a part in my answer , but, think of this: if a USC/LPR marries an illegal with no intention of filing papers for their spouse to make them legal. And then, goes further to abuse the illegal, why shouldn't there be some recourse for that illegal to remain in the US? This is, of course, provided that the illegal married in good faith in the first place. If they hadn't been abused, their marriage would have remained viable and they would have adjusted their status to LPR. In the case of the abused, a crime was committed against them by a USC/LPR who wants their spouse to be deported. The attitude of the abusive USC/LPR is usually that they "won" if they get their immigrant spouse deported.

On the other hand, the non-abused, illegal, married to a USC/LPR (in good faith) whose marriage ends just because, had no crime committed against them - if they are then deported, I have no clue. Would love to hear from someone on the board with knowledge in this area. I think it would be fair if a non-abused illegal's marriage in good faith was to dissolve just because...that they would be able to adjust status (maybe not quickly, and through payment of fines, etc, etc) and remain in the US. Their marriage would also have remained viable if it hadn't ended (too many marriages end in divorce now). They wouldn't be able to benefit from VAWA because that covers abuse. Another law would have to be put in place, if none exists.

I think the fundamental difference between the two sets of illegals: abused and not-abused, is this, one group had a crime committed against them, and the other had no crime committed against them. When married in good faith, both groups are treated differently if their marriages end through DV or otherwise.

Yes, Pushbrk...the courts will decide what they think is best and we will have to live with it.

Please correct me if I am wrong: an illegal alien cannot adjust status from within the US to become a LPR. Even if the illegal alien marries a USC/LPR the alien would need to return to their own country while the petition is being filed (at least for the medical and interview) and the visa process would include the need to file a waiver to get past any ban put in place by an overstay.

Domestic abuse or not, the process for an illegal to become a legal is the same (in that the illegal must leave the US to become legal).

I have to agree with the person who said that if the illegal alien had not been subject to domestic abuse, then they would have continued to remain illegal (after all, there was no intent to return to their home country to do things the correct way).

I am of the opinion, that domestic abuse or no, an illegal alien should not be allowed to become legal unless they follow the correct avenues.

You are incorrect.

My spouse overstayed his visa by four years, along with countless other on these boards, and as long as intent when entering the country was not to marry and adjust status, then the I-130 filed concurrently with I-485 will allow the alien to adjust status given they have not committed any crimes of moral turpitude and everything else is in line with their application. My husband and I did so, and had not one kink during the entire process. Overstay and unauthorized work is automatically forgiven at AOS based on the marriage to a USC.

I'm of the opinion that we need to find a new term other than "illegal" - people use illegal to encompass an entire spectrum of situations, where an EWI is far different from an overstay, is far different from someone who enters the country and files AOS after marrying spur of the moment while in status.