Abuse victims advised to not seek residency

[N400-2011 24]

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."

[Alt name 1]

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.

[archie07 0]

[Boiler 43,689]

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

[N400-2011 24]

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

[JVKn'CVO 11]

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

I thought they couldn't adjust status, period

Saludos,

Caro

[rebeccajo 14]

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

Edited January 8, 2008 by rebeccajo

[chispas 0]

There is always a loop hole from someone to jump through

[rebeccajo 14]

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?

Edited January 8, 2008 by rebeccajo

[N400-2011 24]

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.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Vawa-2006

[diadromous mermaid 36]

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

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?

[Bassi and Zainab 1]

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 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?

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

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?

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

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?

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.

Edited January 8, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Bassi and Zainab 1]

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?

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

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?

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.