Tweet
Originally posted by crholguin:
The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.
The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:
1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.
8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:
• Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.
• Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.
• Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.
This list is not exclusive.
2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.
8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.
Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.
Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín,
The Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law serves as class counsel for persons who apply for legalization or “late amnesty” under the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements.
The Center is concerned that CIS adjudicators may be violating the CSS and LULAC/Newman settlements in the following ways:
1) Misapplication of the preponderance of the evidence standard.
8 C.F.R. § 245a.12(e) requires CIS to adjudicate legalization applications using the familiar “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Class counsel have received reports that CIS adjudicators and the Administrative Appeals Office may be misapplying the preponderance of the evidence standard in the following ways:
• Finding or inventing some weakness in individual items of documentary evidence of unlawful residence and thereupon declaring such evidence wholly lacking in probative weight.
• Refusing to give declarations any probative weight because the declarant failed to attach documentary evidence of his or her U.S. residence during the period the declarant confirms a legalization applicant’s residence or presence in the U.S.
• Declaring declarations devoid of probative weight because the declarant failed to provide non-essential details about the applicant’s employment, physical address, or daily activities.
This list is not exclusive.
2) Evading regulatory procedures for termination of temporary resident status.
8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(u) prescribes the procedure CIS must follow to terminate temporary resident status.
Class counsel have received reports that rather than follow § 245a.2(u), CIS is, without notice, revisiting CSS and Newman class members’ basic eligibility for lawful temporary residence at the time they appear for interview on applications to adjust from temporary to permanent resident status, finding that temporary residence was improvidently granted, rescinding lawful temporary residence, and denying adjustment to permanent residence.
Lawyers, advocates and class members are encouraged to report examples of these possible violations off-list to Carlos Holguín,
Comment