|
Arizona Sheriff Faces His Own Words in Civil Lawsuit
The Associated Press reports that Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, faces his own words in a discrimination lawsuit. Arpaio testified in a lawsuit that accuses his office of racially profiling Hispanics and the sheriff sought to clarify his public statements, which were being used in the lawsuit to prove systematic racial profiling. The case represents the first time the sheriff's office has been accused of systematic racial profiling and it will serve as a precursor to the federal government's civil rights lawsuit. If the plaintiffs, a group of Latinos, win, Arpaio's office would have to make policy changes. If the sheriff wins, then the U.S. Government will have a harder time proving similar claims in a separate Justice Department lawsuit against him.
The plaintiffs are accusing Arpaio of launching some sweeps based on emails and letters from residents who complained that "dark-skinned people" were congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish. The group says deputies in the sweeps pulled over Hispanics without probable cause, making the stops only to inquire about the immigration status of people in the vehicles. When Arpaio was asked whether a white person was ever arrested on an immigration violation during the first two years of sweeps, he replied, "I can't recall."
http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-sheriff-faces-own-words-civil-lawsuit-072941518.html
*****
Judge Overrules Immigration Authorities, Orders Virginia Muslim be Naturalized
The Associated Press reports that Falls Church resident Jamal Abusamhadaneh took the oath of citizenship after a federal judge overruled USCIS' denial of Abusamhadaneh's application. Abusamhadaneh first applied for U.S. citizenship in February 2008; however, USCIS denied the application, expressing concerns about Abudsamhadaneh's association with a prominent Virginia mosque and a purported link to the Muslim Brotherhood. U.S. District Judge James Cacheris said that USCIS' concerns on all counts were either unfounded or overblown.
USCIS contended that the former IT worker with the Fairfax County Police Department fell short of good moral character, stating that Abusamhadaneh lied by denying to interviewers his associations with the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginia and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that is banned in some countries. Judge Cacheris, however, found that Abusamhadaneh was truthful about his associations, stating that in his initial interview, Abudsamhadaneh followed the advice from his first attorney that he shouldn't discuss religious affiliations. However, when it was clear that his interviewers had questions about his religious affiliations, Abudsamhadaneh told USCIS that he is not an official member of Dar al-Hijrah but worships there regularly because he lives nearby. The supposed links to the Muslim Brotherhood were even more questionable. Abusamhadaneh said he has never been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Abudsamhadaneh did not respond to an interview but, through his lawyers, he provided a statement: "I am thankful that Judge Cacheris vindicated me in this long and heart-wrenching process. For me, citizenship is not just a process but a concept of justice, freedom, and happiness."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judge-overrules-immigration-authorities-orders-va-muslim-be-naturalized/2012/07/25/gJQAlsh68W_story.htm
*****
Perceived Social Status Not Grounds for Asylum
The Courthouse News Service reports the 8th Circuit upheld the denial of asylum to an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who claimed he risked being targeted for violence and kidnapping due to his perceived wealthy status. Julio Matul-Hernandez has been fighting his deportation since 2005, pointing to a history of forced military service and violence perpetrated against his family. Matul-Hernandez was forced into the Guatemalan army as a teenager and later deserted the service at 17, making his way to Mexico, where he worked in a fruit market for five years before illegally entering the United States in 1993. Between then and his coming into the attention of U.S. immigration officials, Matul-Hernandez returned to Guatemala several times to visit his family and was, on one occasion, threatened by three armed men in his father's grocery store.
Both his uncle and brother were victims of violent crime. His brother was beaten by several men targeting the family and his uncle was kidnapped and killed after the family was able to only pay half of a $125,000 ransom. Matul-Hernandez applied for asylum and while it was found that his testimony was credible, he was not granted asylum. Both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the 8th Circuit denied Matul-Hernandez's request for asylum on the grounds that he "did not meet the burden of showing past persecution or a reasonable probability of future prosecution, he did not show that the government of Guatemala was unable or unwilling to control alleged persecutors and there was little evidence that his social group would be perceived as a group by society or subject to a higher incidence of crime than the rest of the population."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/48615.htm
*****
Lawsuit Filed Over Death of Woman Awaiting Deportation
The Boston Globe reports that a man from Lynn, Massachusetts is suing county officials in New York over the death of his wife, who died one year ago in a New York jail while awaiting deportation to France. Irene Bamenga, then 29, died in her cell at the Albany County Correctional Facility in Colonie, NY. Her husband, Yodi Zikianda claimed that his wife's death was the result of failure to give her the medication she needed to manage chronic congestive heart failure. The lawsuit targets Allegany and Albany counties, the sheriffs in each county, and the medical staffs at the facilities in which Bamenga died.
On July 15, 2011, Bamenga was scheduled to fly from Toronto to her native France. As Bamenga, Zikianda, and a third person attempted to cross the border near Buffalo, Bamenga was turned away by Canandian customs officials on the basis of concern that she did not closely resemble her passport photograph. After being denied by Canadian officials, Bamenga was detained by US customs officials because her visa had expired. When Bamenga was taken into custody, she told officials that she suffered from a heart condition that needed an extensive regimen to prevent serious illness and death. While medication was administered, it was inconsistent and incomplete and two days before her death, Bamenga wrote that she was not receiving the medications she needed. Bamenga died the day before her deportation.
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/07/26/lynn-man-files-suit-against-officials-over-wife-death-while-she-was-awaiting-deportation/QfpQyp0RMbOQenymQgKIoK/story.html
*****
Deportation Case Closures Rise, But Backlog Continues
The Los Angeles Times reports that more than 7,180 deportation cases have been closed under an Obama administration program aimed at focusing immigration enforcement on convicted criminals. However, the court backlog continues to swell. Since the program's initiation last year, about 111,000 new cases have been filed in addition to the original 300,000 cases pending before the nation's immigration courts for possible closure. Individuals whose cases are closed avoid deportation but are not granted visas. However, some are able to obtain work permits.
The court's review was meant to address the larger pool of potential deportees, including the elderly and pregnant women. Officials were instructed to consider a variety of discretionary factors, including whether a person has longstanding ties with the community, suffers from an illness or has a U.S. citizen spouse or child. Advocates have criticized the program as largely ineffective. Immigration officials say several factors, including background checks, can delay the process. Thousands who were offered discretion under the review also have chosen not to accept it, often because they have better chances of a long-term solution if the case goes to court, experts say.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/deportation-cases-closed.html
*****
Second Lawsuit Alleges India's Infosys Misuses US Work Visas
The Associated Press reports that an Indian outsourcing company Infosys Technologies is facing a second case in court over harassment stemming from alleged abuses of U.S. work visas. Former Infosys account manager, Satya Dev Tripuraneni, filed a lawsuit on August 2, claiming that he was harassed after notifying authorities on the company's misuse of U.S. visas. Tripuraneni's charges follow those of employee Jack Palmer, who filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging he was harassed after alerting Infosys managers to abuses. Palmer reported that Infosys repeatedly used temporary B-1 visitor visas - designed to allow foreigners to come to the U.S. for meetings or conferences - to bring over full-time workers from India, avoiding longer term H-1B work visas, which cost more and are harder to get. Palmer also said Infosys kept those employees on their low Indian salaries, failed to withhold U.S. taxes and overbilled customers for labor costs.
However, an Alabama judge dismissed Palmer's harassment case despite ongoing investigations. Judge Myron Thompson said that while the threatening phone calls and anti-American statements directed at Palmer were deeply disturbing, they did not rise to the level of harassment as defined by Alabama state law. The judge's ruling only addressed Palmer's allegations of harassment and not those of visa fraud. The charges of visa fraud are being investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and a federal grand jury.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/news-summary-2nd-lawsuit-alleges-indias-infosys-misuses-us-work-visas/2012/08/09/9622b208-e249-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKPsvYduQ3PuVkVr-WroEOIvIdfg?docId=e79a08933924474a88221c569fcff3b0
*****
Dayo, et. Al. v. Napolitano
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has issued a notice for individuals who may benefit from the recent Dayo settlement involving the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against USCIS in January 2011, challenging the decision-making process for employment authorization applications. Applicants included in the case are individuals who, as of January 25, 2011, meet all of the following definitions:
- Filed an I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
- Had their I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, denied;
- Were issued a Notice to Appear by the Department of Homeland Security;
- Are in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California;
- Renewed, will renew or will file a motion to review their I-485 application in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California;
- Filed an I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with USCIS, in order to seek employment authorization during the pendency of their removal proceedings;
- Had their I-765, Application for Employment Authority, denied by USCIS on the basis that they did not have evidence of a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, before the Immigration Court, Los Angeles, California
According to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, if you fit all of the above requirements, and have filed an individual action in federal court seeking review over USCIS's denial of your employment authorization application, USCIS cannot decide on your application under the settlement agreement. In order to benefit from the settlement, you must voluntarily dismiss your action. The effective result of the agreement is that the Los Angeles Immigration Court will be able to provide you with proof of renewed filing of an adjustment application in order to support any I-765 application that is properly filed with USCIS in the future. If your future application filed under the settlement agreement is denied, you should be able to re-file your individual action against USCIS. However, you are not prohibited from bringing a case against USCIS. The decision to dismiss your individual case is left to you.
*****
ACLU Challenges Arizona's Executive Order on Federal Immigration Program
The Wisconsin Gazette reports that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer over her executive order which prevents undocumented immigrants who qualify for temporary legal status from receiving state or local public benefits. Brewer issued the order in response to the Obama administration's implementation of the deferred action policy for young undocumented immigrants. The order denies state or local benefits to immigrants applying under the new federal immigration policy and prevents them from obtaining an Arizona driver's license or a state issued identification card. Alessandra Soler, the executive director of ACLU of Arizona, stated, "The order conflicts with state and federal law as people who are granted deferred action have authorized presence in the United States and under Arizona law people who have authorized presence are eligible to apply for Arizona state identification."
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/aclu-challenges-arizonas-executive-order-on-federal-immigration-program.html
***** |