ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


中文移民日报




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: No Waiver Available

  1. #1

    Lightbulb No Waiver Available

    I am new to the forum and have been trying to find other cases related to my husbandís 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 husbandís 2001 ďDEJĒ conviction should be eliminated for immigration purposes.

    Simple drug charges which occurred prior to July 14th, 2011, should not be used to determine an alienís 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 ď[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 Courtís 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 itís 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 itís 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 chancesÖ

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 Check the other published and unpublished cases under lexis nexis system.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

    Quote 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…

  3. #3
    Someone12
    Guest
    Once a dirtbag, always a dirtbag.

Similar Threads

  1. I-601 waiver and I-212 waiver
    By vhp123 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 01:48 AM
  2. Do I need a waiver?
    By saile leo in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-2006, 07:11 AM
  3. Which waiver?
    By rama33 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 12:18 PM
  4. Waiver
    By Shan in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 02:02 PM
  5. Do we need a waiver?
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-06-2003, 03:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: