A Convention Against Torture Case

The Marianas Office recently won a case for a Burmese national. For purposes of this article I will call her Sharon. 

Sharon was a young woman who had been politically active in Burma, her home country, protesting against the ruling military junta, which has been accused of many humanitarian abuses and violent practices over the years.  Sharon had been a resident of the CNMI in the late 1990's and early 2000's, but then had moved to Japan to work.  In Japan, she edited a political journal in the Burmese language that published counter-regime essays and called for pro-democracy reform in Burma.

Sharon learned that her father was dying, and in early 2009 she left Japan and snuck into Burma.  She convinced some airport officials in Rangoon to not notify the military that she had entered the country. Prior to leaving Japan, she applied for and received a CNMI tourist visa from the CNMI government.  At the time, the CNMI still controlled its immigration.

Once Sharon entered Burma, she was tailed by Burmese military agents who identified themselves to her family and indicated that they wanted to detain her for questioning.  Sharon had several friends and members of her own family who had been killed by the regime and she feared torture or death.

photo by racole of NY

With these threats hanging over her head, she left Burma, and using her tourist visa, entered the CNMI. It was still  early 2009.

Sharon sought MLSC help.  Dimitri Varmazis, as staff attorney in the Marianas Office, prepared an application for Protection from Refoulement, filed with the CNMI. This was the CNMI's version of asylum protection at the time.  However, before the case was definitively adjudicated by CNMI authorities, the transition to federal immigration control occurred (November 28, 2009) and the CNMI lost the ability to decide Sharon's non-refoulement case.

Sharon's status remained in limbo. Dimitri next assisted Sharon to seek humanitarian parole from USCIS.  Unfortunately for Sharon, USCIS denied her parole application and instead forwarded Sharon's name to ICE for processing and initiation of removal proceedings.

Dimitri then undertook to represent her in the removal proceedings.  At the master calendar hearing, the immigration judge found her removable based on presence in the US without admission and inspection by US immigration officials.  Dimitri then helped her file an I-589 application where she indicated that she wished to apply for withholding of removal and withholding of removal under the UN Convention Against Torture, due to her political opinion and membership in the pro-democracy group in Burma. Sharon could not request asylum because the protections of asylum are not available in the CNMI until 2015, pursuant to the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 that extended US immigration here.

Dimitri prepared Sharon's corroborating documents for the individual merits hearing, scheduled for February 2013.  He secured four witnesses from Japan who agreed to testify that she had worked on a pro-democracy publication with them in Japan that advocated the end of military rule in Burma. 

photo by Jan van Raay

He also compiled documentation on the country conditions in Burma and the Burmese military regime's harsh treatment of political dissidents.  He found a translator on the mainland US who was able to translate excerpts from several of the pro-democracy journals that Sharon had edited.  Those excerpts included articles using incendiary language against the Burmese regime and tables of contents that clearly listed Sharon by name as an editor and financial contributor to the journal.  An immigration judge granted us permission to have the Japanese witnesses testify by telephone, and Dimitri made sure Sharon had a pre-paid phone card at the hearing for the call.

Dimitri had other obligations in February, and handed off the case to another Marianas staff attorney, Linda Wingenbach.  Linda reviewed all the work that Dimitri had done, did her own research to catch up, and met with Sharon to prepare her for the hearing.  At the hearing, Judge Wagner found the client had provided evidence sufficient to show a clear probability that there was a well-founded fear of future persecution if Sharon was removed to Burma.

This is an office victory that could not have happened without the hard work and dedication and coordination by staff in the Marianas.  The standard of proof for withholding of removal is substantially higher than if we had been able to seek asylum for Sharon.

It is not just a legal victory, either.  Sharon feels this relief has saved her life.

Alien Registration

The Federal Ombudsman's Office is conducting an "alien registration."

Why? The purpose of the registration is to get numbers and information about aliens here, so the U.S. Department of Interior can report to the U.S. Congress as required by P.L. 110-229 (the Consolidated Natural Resources Act).

Who counts? The registration counts all people who do not have a U.S. passport or a U.S. permanent residency card, and couldn't get one by applying--including citizens of the freely associated states--Palau, FSM, and the Marshall Islands.

How? There is a simple form.


All non-U.S. citizens fill one out, and turn it in to the Ombudsman's Office (Suite 203, Marina Heights II, Puerto Rico, Saipan). When you turn it in, you need photo identification (passport or other similar document).

When? NOW!!! Data is being gathered between December 14 and December 30, 2009. The time is short.

For more information, call the Ombudsman's Office at 322-8030.

If you want legal advice about your individual situation, talk to a lawyer.

Fees & Costs Updated: Family-Based Green Cards

I published a post almost a year ago regarding family-based green card fees and costs in the CNMI. A few things have happened since then, and so I’ve decided to slightly update the numbers.

GREEN CARD FEES & COSTS
Form		Required with Form	Fee/Cost
I-130	Petition for Alien Relative	• Evidence of relationship (e.g., marriage certificate, joint account information, etc.) • If previously married, evidence of termination of marriage • 1 passport photo • G-325A biographical info	$355
I-485	Adjustment to Permanent Status Application	• G-325A biographical info • Copy of passport • Copy of CNMI immigration permit • Birth certificate • 2 passport photos • Police clearance or, if criminal history, provide evidence • I-693 Medical report • fingerprinting fee	$930 $80
I-864	Affidavit of Support for Immediate Relative	• Most recent tax filing (w/ W2 form)	--
Total USCIS Fees			$1,365
Costs
Medical exam for I-693 report		Estimate only. Prices range based on what tests are needed for the applicant.	$600
Attorney		Estimate only. Fees vary.	$1,000
Total Est. Costs			$1,600
GRANT TOTAL (USCIS FEES & COSTS)			$2,965

A major change is the removal of airfare (for two) to Guam. Family-based green card applicants can now have their interviews conducted in Saipan at the recently-opened Application Support Center in the TSL Plaza, Beach Road in Garapan. USCIS has already scheduled numerous appointments, and I have already attended two green card interviews for my clients.

More attorneys are gearing up for the increase in immigration clients. See the previous post on the recent immigration workshop. While I kept the estimated attorney fees the same at $1,000, there seems to be a wider range of prices, and those too seem to be constantly changing.

I have heard medical exam fees decreasing a bit, which is why I lowered the estimated costs. You can run a search of authorized health care providers on the USCIS website here, by zip code. Here is the current list that is generated when typing 96950 for the CNMI:

Dr. Ahmad Al-Alou, Pacific Medical Center P.O. Box 501908 CK, Saipan, MP 96950 (670) 233-8100

Dr. Anthony R. Stearns, Marianas Medical Center PO Box 506 CHRB, Saipan, MP 96950 (670) 234-3925

Dr. Christine Brown, Island Medical Center P.O. Box 504669, Saipan, MP 96950 (670) 235-8880

Dr. Richard Brostrom, Commonwealth Health Center P.O. Box 409 CK, Saipan, MP 96950 (670) 234-8950

Dr. Tiffany L. Willis, Marianas Medical Center P.O. Box 5006, CHRB, Saipan, MP 96950 (670) 234-3925

Top image entitled “Liberty for immigrants' rights” by philocrites and published under an Attribution NonCommercial Creative Commons license.

What's Happening Again? Federalization and Aliens Living in the CNMI.

Part II

This year, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will be replacing all CNMI laws and regulations that govern the admission and removal of aliens (except for local laws governing asylum protection, which will last through the transition period). As of now, the switchover is slated for June 1 but can be delayed for up to 180 days.

For aliens living in the CNMI solely based on a CNMI immigration permit, such status will end on the switchover date. Enforcement of the INA in the CNMI will be exclusively handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In my last post, I used a recently-issued CNMI Immigration public service announcement as a departure point to outline the near-term effects of the switchover on aliens living here. I’ll now flesh out the outline a bit further, again based on the provisions under Pub. L. 110-229, Title VII, Sections 701 and 702.

Prohibition Against Removal from the CNMI
Aliens lawfully present in the CNMI solely on account of their CNMI status will be considered undocumented aliens beginning June 1 because, technically speaking, they have never been properly admitted into the U.S. This would seem a bit strange and unfair, as if the rug were being pulled from under their feet. Congress perhaps felt that way too and so expressly prohibited DHS from deporting them for the time being. In effect, DHS will honor valid CNMI permits for those aliens present here, at least until the permit expires or after 2 years passes from the effective date of the law, whichever happens first. This does not seem like much time but, at the very least, aliens who were legally present prior to the switchover date will not face an immediate threat of deportation. The window of protection may also provide additional time for these aliens to segue to the CNMI-only worker transition program or apply for the usual federal immigration opportunities (e.g., H visas) if they are eligible.

The Necessary Bureaucracy
The law provides for a registration system for aliens who formerly had CNMI status. This bureaucracy has not been set up yet. Presumably, the system will come with its own set of protocols, policies, forms, permits, procedures, etc., that will be used to track alien presence and provide some form of proof of lawful presence.

Segueing to the Segue
We’re all waiting with bated breath for the regulations that will define the transition program, especially with respect to who may qualify as a nonimmigrant worker under the program. Some aspects of the program are spelled out in the law. The transition period lasts through 2014 but may be extended indefinitely by the U.S. Dept. of Labor in increments of up to 5 years. Unlike the CNMI guest worker program, workers under the transition program will not have their status tied to one employer. The program, however, does not provide for admission to the rest of the United States.

The purpose of the program is also clear: to wean the CNMI from its guest worker program in a way that minimizes the inevitable economic disruption. Foreign workers not otherwise eligible for a federal visa or green card are expressly targeted under Pub. L. 110-229 for the transition program.

It does not take much thought to see that the primary candidates to assist in addressing the CNMI’s near-term labor needs are those already legally present here. At the same time, the federalization law is a solid reproach against the CNMI's self-imposed dependence on aliens from developing countries for its labor supply. We will see, hopefully very soon, how DHS will attempt to balance these concerns.

Applying for a Family-Based Green Card in the CNMI: Fees, Costs, Time

Family-Based Green Cards in the CNMI
Generally, aliens can be present in the US with either non-immigrant (temporary) status or a green card (permanent resident status). Permanent residency is primarily obtained through a family member or employment. Many aliens in the CNMI have gotten their green card through a sponsoring immediate relative, like a U.S. citizen spouse. This is because the Covenant, despite broadly excluding the CNMI from federal immigration law, has always recognized the CNMI to be a part of the US when considering aliens who are immediate relatives of US citizens living here. With the enactment of Public Law 110-229 on May 8, 2008, the Covenant will be amended to recognize the CNMI as part of the US for all immigration purposes. As mentioned in our previous post, this will have a direct impact on a variety of aliens who do not have federal immigration status, including those with CNMI IR status but who do not have green cards.

This post covers some of the practical issues with applying for a family-based green card. For an overview of the process and eligibility requirements, go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) webpage here.

Fees & Costs
USCIS fees associated with a green card application can be quite expensive. In July 2007, the USCIS revised its fee schedule, which resulted in many filing fees doubling and even tripling. USCIS does allow for some fee waivers based on an inability to pay. However, proving an inability to pay might run you the risk of being denied admissibility based on being considered a public charge, which means being dependent on public benefits like Medicaid or food stamps. Being a public charge is one ground for a green card denial.

Besides the USCIS fees, there are at least two substantial costs: the medical exam and the airfare to Guam for the green card interview. An I-693 medical report form needs to be completed by an authorized health care provider. The examination required for this report is different from the check-up for the CNMI work permit. There are at least two authorized health care providers for the I-693 medical exam in the CNMI: Pacific Medical Center and Marianas Medical Center. Both are located in Saipan. Contact the health provider directly to verify the current fee range.

Another cost may be for an attorney if you choose to have one assist you with the process.

The following table breaks down what might come out of your pocket for a green card:

Processing Time
It can take several months or up to a year to process a green card application. You can track general processing times for each USCIS center/office on the USCIS website here. The time it takes depends in large part on the backload of applications at any given USCIS center/office, and whether there are any special issues presented by an applicant’s situation. Before, the average range of time to process a green card was 6-8 months. USCIS is now saying to expect a much longer time frame. This is because of the surge in applications that were submitted last year to avoid the scheduled fee increases.

It usually has taken a month or so to receive the USCIS notice of receipt of the initial application package. If there are no initial problems with the application, USCIS next schedules a green card interview in Guam. This may happen around 2-3 months later. Again, this could take longer now due to an unusually large backload of applications. You and your sponsor will need to attend the interview together. USCIS does not cover the airfare to Guam. After the interview, USCIS may have additional requests for evidence. If an approval is granted, you will receive a notice and your permanent resident card by mail.



Top image entitled “Liberty for immigrants' rights” by philocrites . Middle image entitled “Got this in the mail today” by lacylouwho . Bottom image entitled “Permanent resident card” by nh7a . Top and middle images published under an Attribution NonCommercial Creative Commons license. Bottom image published under an Attribution NonCommercial Share Alike Creative Commons license.

Help for Alien Victims of Crime

There has been a lot of discussion in the newspapers lately about victims of trafficking. Father Bilotti has written informative columns in the North Star to help describe these victims, distinguish them from victims of domestic violence, and promote their rights and entitlements to help through legal means.

But there are other victims of crime in the CNMI who may also have rights that they don't know about. In particular, when aliens are victims of certain serious crimes, they may have the right to get a "U Visa," which authorizes them to live in the U.S., and get an employment authorization to work there. U Visa holders may stay in the CNMI with the U Visa, or they may choose to relocate to Guam, Hawaii or the U.S. mainland. They may renew their U Visas on an annual basis, and eventually may qualify for U.S. citizenship.



In order to get a U Visa, a victim must have suffered from a serious crime on this list:

rape,
torture,
trafficking,
incest,
domestic violence,
sexual assault,
abusive sexual contact,
prostitution,
sexual exploitation,
female genital mutilitation,
being held hostage, peonage,
involuntary servitude,
slave trade,
abduction,
unlawful criminal restraint,
false imprisonment,
blackmail,
extortion,
manslaughter,
murder,
felonious assault,
witness tampering,
obstruction of justice,
perjury,
or attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the above.

The victim must have suffered substantial physical, emotional or psychological abuse as a result of the crime.

The victim must possess information about the crime and be willing to help or have helped the government in its criminal investigation or prosecution.

The government (CNMI or U.S.) must certify that the victim was or is helpful.

And the crime must have violated some U.S. law, occuring in the U.S. (including the CNMI).

MLSC has already helped some aliens apply for U Visas. The process can take time.

Information about petitions for U Nonimmigrant status can be found on-line here.

If you've been a victim of a serious crime in the CNMI, or know someone who has, and you are not a U.S. citizen, you may want to consider whether you qualify for a U Visa. This is an important remedy that offers significant potential benefits to any non-U.S. citizen victim. Because of the complexity of the forms and the importance of the various procedures, I would recommend any victim who thinks they may qualify for a U Visa to seek legal help.

Legal Aid for All Micronesians

The numbers of those leaving the CNMI due to the economic downfall is growing. Their absence is palpable. Many are leaving their family, making the hard decision to sacrifice pride of home and culture. This reluctant portion of the exodus is headed primarily to the US, in search of better days.

I can imagine the same for those leaving Palau, Chuuk, Kosrae, the Marshall Islands, Phonpei or Yap. I do not know how they are faring overseas, but at least I know that they will not be denied legal aid for merely being Micronesian. If they are in financial straits and are facing legal problems, they may be able to obtain the services of an attorney for free, whether it be for debt relief, child support, consumer protection, fair housing, prevention of domestic violence or a host of other civil matters.

But this only happened last week.

On September 14, 2007, a decade-long restriction on free civil legal services to indigent Micronesians residing in the US was lifted. Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a quasi-federal agency serving as the main source of funding for nonprofit legal aid organizations, amended its regulations on alien representation for citizens from the Freely Associated States (FAS) of Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. Before the change, FAS citizens could only be eligible for legal aid in the West Pacific (through Micronesian Legal Services). In the US, however, FAS citizens were deemed ineligible aliens unless they fell under one of the general exempt categories of documented aliens. This barrier to legal aid cannot be simply written off as the fallout of the relationship between the US and the former Trust Territories. A brief political history is in order.

In the 1960s, legal aid programs began flourishing in the US through funding by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the agency administering the social agenda of Pres. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Micronesian Legal Services began in 1971 through the efforts of individuals such as former CNMI Senator Herman R. Guerrero and Marshall Islands Senator Tony de Brum with the assistance of the OEO.

As with many Great Society programs, legal aid has always had its share of detractors. In 1983, the US Congress barred representation of aliens as a condition for LSC funding. This was done in the midst of the Reagan administration’s push to curtail if not abolish legal aid. Certain types of documented aliens were not subject to the restriction, such as permanent residents, refugees and political asylees. Also exempt from the restriction were citizens of the US Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands (what is now the FAS and the CNMI). The exemption carried on after the termination of Trust Territory status in 1986, insofar as the Compact of Free Association Act governing the relationship between the US and the FAS extended LSC-funded services to all FAS citizens.

Legal aid to FAS citizens in the US ended in 1996. Along with a massive budget cut, wide-ranging restrictions were imposed on LSC under the Republican-controlled Congress during Pres. Clinton’s administration. One of the changes involved a reinterpretation of the Compact of Free Association. Legal aid could only be available to FAS citizens within the confines of their home countries. Micronesians abroad were demoted.

The impact was deeply felt. At the time the Compact was signed, there were most likely less than 10,000 Micronesians in the US, mostly in Hawaii and Guam. Today, there are over 40,000 FAS citizens residing in the US, with over 15,000 living in Hawaii and up to 10,000 Marshallese living in Northeast Arkansas alone. Legal aid organizations in those states, along with organizations representing Micronesians and others within the legal community, pushed for a removal of the legal aid embargo. US Senate legislation was passed in September 2006 clarifying that the bar on alien representation was not intended to apply to FAS citizens. David Cohen, head of the Office of Insular Affairs, US Dept. of the Interior, verified that the Compact and federal law and policy allow FAS citizens in the US to receive LSC-funded legal aid.

Without a sense of history, what was done last week might be seen as a mere correction. For those who supported the change, they see it as the strengthening of the rule of law by ensuring equal access to justice.

These are heady times in the CNMI. A sea change is in the works, given the imminent federal overhaul of local immigration law, the casino industry initiative in Saipan, and the local labor reform bill. Many cannot remain steadfast as the tourist and garment industries collapse; they are leaving for the States. For those choosing to remain here, perhaps what happened last week will help them bear in mind that the looming sea change in the CNMI should not compromise the ability of anyone, wherever they live, from being able to exercise their rights.