Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Waiver Available

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No Waiver Available

    I am new to the forum and have been trying to find other cases related to my husband’s case.

    My husband had his Visa Interview in CDJ earlier this year and was found ineligible for a Waiver under Section 212 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The interviewer based herself on my husbands Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) case from 2001 (Case from over 12-years-ago). He has no other convictions/arrests, etc.

    Based on Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F. 3d 728 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000, my husband’s 2001 “DEJ” conviction should be eliminated for immigration purposes.

    Simple drug charges which occurred prior to July 14th, 2011, should not be used to determine an alien’s eligibility for immigration purposes. Aliens who were convicted before July 14, 2011 need to be treated under Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F. 3d 728 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000. Alien needs to receive the benefit of state rehabilitative laws and have their conviction eliminated for the immigration purposes.

    On July 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, withdrew from the Lujan-Armendariz decision and held that "rehabilitative relief" will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession drug offense (Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 7/14/11). Under Nunez, aliens with first simple possession drug convictions that were expunged under state rehabilitative statutes will be ineligible for adjustment of status and will be deportable.

    The Court held that “[f]or those aliens convicted before the publication date of this decision, Lujan-Armendariz applies. For those aliens convicted after the publication date of this decision, Lujan-Armendariz is overruled."

    Therefore, according to the Court’s ruling in Nunez, aliens who were convicted before July 14, 2011 will be treated under Lujan, will receive the benefit of state rehabilitative laws and will have their conviction eliminated for the immigration purposes. Aliens convicted after July 14, 2011, will not receive these benefits.

    I am guessing my husband should have received the benefits of Lujan-Armendariz v INS (2000) as his case occurred before July 14th, 2011. I also understand no court or judge can order an immigration case be re-opened. I contacted my congress office and was informed they cannot assist me with this type of case (must be taking their precaution because it’s a drug related case).

    I also sent a letter to the CDJ Consulate and the Department of State asking for clarification of their Unclassified Memo which was disbursed in 2002, if the memo is being followed by their office (CDJ), if it is, if it is being followed consistently, has it been overturned or superseded by another, if it’s a policy that CDJ Consulate does not have to follow the memo.

    I just need clarification for this issue that is breaking our family and our American dream into pieces. I believe in our system and in our great nation. We make simple mistakes and deserve second chances…

  • #2
    You are wrong on this one. Check the other published and unpublished cases under lexis nexis system. you will get the answer.

    Originally posted by Fleur de Lis View Post
    I am new to the forum and have been trying to find other cases related to my husband’s case.

    My husband had his Visa Interview in CDJ earlier this year and was found ineligible for a Waiver under Section 212 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The interviewer based herself on my husbands Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) case from 2001 (Case from over 12-years-ago). He has no other convictions/arrests, etc.

    Based on Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F. 3d 728 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000, my husband’s 2001 “DEJ” conviction should be eliminated for immigration purposes.

    Simple drug charges which occurred prior to July 14th, 2011, should not be used to determine an alien’s eligibility for immigration purposes. Aliens who were convicted before July 14, 2011 need to be treated under Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F. 3d 728 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000. Alien needs to receive the benefit of state rehabilitative laws and have their conviction eliminated for the immigration purposes.

    On July 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, withdrew from the Lujan-Armendariz decision and held that "rehabilitative relief" will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession drug offense (Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 7/14/11). Under Nunez, aliens with first simple possession drug convictions that were expunged under state rehabilitative statutes will be ineligible for adjustment of status and will be deportable.

    The Court held that “[f]or those aliens convicted before the publication date of this decision, Lujan-Armendariz applies. For those aliens convicted after the publication date of this decision, Lujan-Armendariz is overruled."

    Therefore, according to the Court’s ruling in Nunez, aliens who were convicted before July 14, 2011 will be treated under Lujan, will receive the benefit of state rehabilitative laws and will have their conviction eliminated for the immigration purposes. Aliens convicted after July 14, 2011, will not receive these benefits.

    I am guessing my husband should have received the benefits of Lujan-Armendariz v INS (2000) as his case occurred before July 14th, 2011. I also understand no court or judge can order an immigration case be re-opened. I contacted my congress office and was informed they cannot assist me with this type of case (must be taking their precaution because it’s a drug related case).

    I also sent a letter to the CDJ Consulate and the Department of State asking for clarification of their Unclassified Memo which was disbursed in 2002, if the memo is being followed by their office (CDJ), if it is, if it is being followed consistently, has it been overturned or superseded by another, if it’s a policy that CDJ Consulate does not have to follow the memo.

    I just need clarification for this issue that is breaking our family and our American dream into pieces. I believe in our system and in our great nation. We make simple mistakes and deserve second chances…

    Comment


    • #3
      Once a dirtbag, always a dirtbag.

      Comment



      Working...
      X