Obama's New Waiver Procedure for Immigrant Visas

  There is much excitement and confusion about the Obama administrations proposed new rule on how waivers for unlawful presence, filed by immigrant visa applicants, are processed by the U.S. CIS. This will discuss the change in what are hopefully clear terms, to help readers make decisions about whether to pursue such a waiver.

  First, it's important to understand how the law is structured to give the reader a context into which this new proposed rule can be sorted. Federal laws are made by Congress, and signed into law by the President. The federal immigration law is called the Immigration & Nationality Act ("INA"), and can be found here. It is a God-awful mess of a law, because it is a hodgepodge of at least 10 different pieces of legislation, through 10 different Congresses. Picture a once nicely patterned quilt (the 1952 Act); now picture that same beautiful quilt cut-up, reassembled, with different colors, shapes and sizes of quilt added - that picture is what we have to work with in our current immigration law in formulating a policy that works. Which is one reason why it doesn't. It has been said that the only more difficult piece of legislation to understand in American law is the tax code. I would argue that the tax code is second to the immigration law, and many, including some federal judges, would agree. The Executive, through its delegates, makes rules to implement how the federal law will be carried out by the various U.S. agencies. In this case, the U.S. CIS proposes the rules, and the rules are called Federal Regulations ("CFR"). They are subservient to the federal statutes. What has happened with the Obama proposal is that the U.S. CIS actually proposed (at the urging of the White House) a new CFR changing the way a certain part of the INA will be administered. This change carries significant impact for spouses and children of U.S. citizens for the following reasons.

  Editorializing aside,  the 1996 immigration legislation, known as IIRIRA, added certain ground of inadmissibility to the existing INA, under the now-existing Sec. 212 of the INA. These grounds of inadmissibility are also known as 'bars', because they essentially define groups of people, who even if otherwise eligible to immigration (with a green card), cannot, because of their past criminal or immigration violations. Two of the added grounds are for potential immigrants who accrued 'unlawful presence' in the U.S. for certain lengths of time, and left the U.S. Here is where it gets complicated: for the spouse of a U.S. citizen, applying for a green card, these bars don't matter if the foreign national is eligible for adjustment of status - that is, applying for their green card while remaining in the U.S. But not everyone is eligible to adjust status, including a large group of people who entered the U.S. without inspection (illegally). Those folks, no matter whether they are married to a U.S. citizen, can only get their green card by leaving the U.S. and engaging in what is called consular processing in their homeland. To do so, they must first leave the U.S., and if they've been in the U.S. unlawfully for more than 6 months, they will need a waiver to re-enter. Those waivers are tough to get, because they require a showing of extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen spouse if the waiver is denied.

  Waiver applications are a bit of an art form. They require a sound strategy of understanding what the law requires through analyzing existing precedential decisions, as well as helping an applicant assemble the necessary evidence to support the claim.  The quality of the lawyer completing the waiver is directly proportional to the chances of success. The waiver has to stand out from the thousands of others the immigration officers see. There has to be a legitimate theme, supported by the evidence, and argued within the existing law.

  Under the existing regulations, which the Obama White House and the U.S. CIS has proposed to change (the proposed regulation is here) the way waivers are processed. Instead of having to travel to one's homeland, apply for the visa, and then apply for the waiver separately - a process that leaves families separate for months at a time, even when the waiver is granted - the applicant will seek the waiver in the U.S. before leaving to have the green card granted in their homeland. In other words, they will leave the U.S. with the waiver in hand, and with a certainty of returning. The DHS's own summary can be found here.

In summary, the new rule will accomplish the following:

1. Waivers of inadmissibility, including those for the three and ten-year bars, will be applied for by the foreign national in the United States, before having to leave for the visa issuance;

2. The new rule does not change the permanent bars for recidivist immigration violators;

3. The new rule is not an amnesty of any stripe; it simply changes the procedure by rule, which is done with regard to every federal law by the U.S. CIS. It is not a departure from procedure as alleged by Republicans and restrictionists, in any way.

  The new process will also not make obtaining the waivers any different in terms of the level of hardship necessary, because that threshold is established by federal law. It will still undoubtedly be difficult, and competent legal representation will continue to be essential to maximize your chances of success.

  Carpenter & Capt, Chtd. has will provide waiver services to residents of all fifty states, and plans to maintain new offices for intakes in California (San Diego) Texas (San Antonio and Harlingen), Florida (Miami and Orlando), Michigan (New Buffalo and St. Joseph) and Illinois (Chicago) by the time the new rule is implemented. Stay tuned for details!





 

Viewing OWS Through a Different Lens

This a bit off-topic, but what use is discussing immigration if there is only a shell of a country left to which people immigrate? The Occupy Wall Street movement suggests that is what we face. Like many folks in the U.S. - and now around the world - I've watched the Occupy Wall Street movement with a combination of interest, optimism (it's good to speak out), pessimism (a waste of time, particularly because the message is so unfocused), and ultimately, confusion. The image above brought it into focus for me, bad pun intended.

The image above is from Universal Studios Orlando, on a bridge in the Universal Studios section of the Park, looking at the Islands of Adventure section of the Park, where the Harry Potter theme park resides. The bridge is perhaps 30 feet long, concrete, and otherwise not noteworthy. The .50 cent trinket above was noteworthy because it begged the question of why, in a park that charges hundreds of dollars for one day for a family of four (with express passes), does it have a .50 cent lens to look through on a bridge?! The answer: because they can, and will, make money over time on that slab of concrete in a way that they otherwise wouldn't without it. One quarter at a time, they will do everything possible to empty your pockets of all currency. As they should. That is, and always has been, the foundation of capitalism.

The message being portrayed by the media is that OWS is about Corporate Greed. Corporate greed is a redundancy, by definition. It's like calling rain wet or snow cold. Corporations are supposed to be greedy. The people who run and manage corporations have a legal duty to make shareholders money. If they don't try to make as much money as possible, they are subject to legal action by the shareholders. Really. They are supposed to be greedy, so please stop with the corporate greed tag. It's naive. The real issue that OWS should focus on -because someone better, and soon - is limiting the amount of money corporations can infuse into political campaigns.


A long time ago - longer ago than I can believe - my first year Constitutional Law Professor - identified campaign finance reform as one of the most pressing issues facing our country. I heard that as my eyes involuntarily closed. It was boring stuff in my mind. How could that be the most important issue we face? As it turns out, she was a visionary.

Corporations have learned that they can increase profits by buying influence in politics by donating large amounts of money to campaigns. And both Democrats and Republicans engage in this war-chest building. Most corporations even hedge their bets on the winner, by contributing to multiple candidates. Candidates can't win large-scale elections without huge sums of money, so they need those contributions to get into office, and reciprocate the favor by protecting large corporate donor's interests. The Presidential campaign of 2012 may feature the first billion dollar campaign by both parties, taking contributions to a entirely new level.


The brilliance of our country lies in its three branches, and the separation of powers between the three: The legislative is supposed to convey the will of the majority by virtue of being elected by the majority; the judicial is supposed to protect the rights of the minority by virtue of interpreting the Constitutional rights afforded to all persons. The executive, meanwhile, runs the show. 
 
Capitalism and our democracy used to exist in harmony. Corporate contributions, on a billion dollar scale, have changed that now by rendering elected candidates beholden to the corporations who finance their candidacy rather than the very people who cast the votes. The legislature no longer represents the majority - it often represents the corporations that finance the members' campaigns. This impacts us all - no matter your politics. Herein lies a very grave problem indeed, mostly because it is no longer a problem that can be easily fixed.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in the Citizens United decision that  the government cannot ban
political spending by corporations in candidate elections, because such a ban violates the First Amendment, which extends to corporations. This has opened the door to nearly unlimited spending in elections, resulting in a slide that threatens our very democracy, as the four dissenters in Citizens United warned. While this is perhaps an over-simplification of the 180+ page holding, the decision leaves little room to legislate campaign contribution reform. Unless the Constitution itself is amended.

Donna Edwards and John Conyers have proposed doing exactly that. Their proposed Constitutional Amendment would read as follows: 

“Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.
“Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

The problem with passing such an Amendment? Congress has to vote for it, and most of its members won't because their largest donors are the corporations whose influence such an amendment seeks to limit. It's a vexing, and seemingly circular, problem.

The solution lies with the people. One of the great attributes we have as a people is that we have always galvanized ourselves against threats to our Country. This threat comes from within, but can be conquered. So, OWS, focus and consolidate your messages, because they all coalesce in the same place: We won't vote for anyone who bows to their corporate donors, and better yet, we demand a Constitutional Amendment assuring that Congress represents the people, not corporations. It can happen, and maybe OWS is the start. But please, stop with the message of corporations making too much money. That's not the problem; it is simply the inevitable result of no longer having a legislature that looks out for our interests.

Roll Call

A recent caller, who wished to hire me, did the right thing first: He called friends in his ethnic community to get other referrals for a second opinion after eliciting mine. He told me this during a call, after we met, when he was explaining why he wished to retain me.

He asked me, "hey, I didn't know you were such a prominent guy in my community". I explained that I wasn't. I'm not prominent within any particular ethnic community. He explained that my name had come up as a suggested lawyer from several people he asked for a referral from, in order to get a second opinion. I told him it is always flattering to have my name suggested, much less on multiple occasions, when a client is looking for an immigration lawyer.

I also explained to him that we don't focus on any one or two communities, like many lawyers do. We focus on cases, period. The more difficult, the better. The more a person has been wronged, the better, because we have the tools to right those wrongs, and enjoy doing so.

He then asked, "What countries have you had clients from?" I told him, at last count, we had handled cases from 110+ countries. Thinking that over, I realized I had not added to the list I keep in some time. Here is an updated list:

Afganistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Balarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Brazil
British Virgin Islands
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Columbia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Nepal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Serbia & Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

So, what's a list like this mean? Not much probably, except that I've been very fortunate with the outcome of trying to start a practice 17 years ago, in large part because of great employees and an unbelievably supportive Partner. I've also managed to consistently find very kind and appreciative clients who pass my name to many others, in and outside of, their own ethnic communities.

Turnover

As the Greatest Generation passes on - hopefully to a more peaceful existence, free of the wounds from their collective past, I think it's worth considering who and what we have replaced, and will continue to replace, that legacy with.

Oliver Eli Carpenter, my father's brother, passed away yesterday. It was for the best - he was in his 90s and in ill health. He served in WWII, as did my mother's brother, Jim Rourke, who recently passed away as well. My father, who was a B-24 pilot, has been gone for 12 years, though it seems as if he is still here in many ways. They all served - not just my relatives, but everyone of that time - and seldom talked about it. My guess is that they just wanted to leave it behind. Some things are too hard to keep with you in your every day consciousness.

Discovering the frailties of human nature - the thinness of the membrane that separates our brilliance (love) from our nemesis (hate and fear) - takes a toll on one's ability to remain optimistic and to enjoy all that life has to offer. That generation sacrificed everything in this way when they chose to literally save our world from Hitler. They sacrificed their lives, sometimes by dying terrible deaths, and more often by losing the core of human happiness - optimism - while spending the rest of their lives trying to find it in other places. That optimism was snatched away in places called Omaha Beach, Sicily, the Ardennes and Berlin. Saying thank you is so completely insufficient. It is one of the few situations where words fail, and deeds must instead adopt that role.

Several generations have lived since that time, but as that Generation passes on, memories of it will ebb away. Our world has changed radically. We still fight, we still lose too many young men and women. But domestically, here in the U.S., we have changed as well. We are all busier than we'd like to be. We all think life is terribly difficult, and it is, but not relative to what our society has weathered in the recent past. What will the legacy of the existing generations be? I have no idea, but I hope it includes finding a solution to the vexing problem of immigration, and that the solution includes healthy doses of common sense, sympathy tempered by realism, and a perspective that welcomes a new generation of foreign nationals who want to contribute with their unmatchable optimism, even in the face of the horrors so many grew up with in their homelands.

Hardship indeed breeds character, and that is why immigration is so important. We are soft. Most immigrants are not. They'll pick grapes in 105 degree heat, 6 days a week, for $60 a day, and not complain. They'll start businesses because they can, and work themselves silly to succeed. Not all, mind you, and those that don't respect the opportunities and laws we offer, should go home or not come at all. But understand this: Most immigrants have a mindset very similar to the Greatest Generation. They believe they have been called to do something better. They believe the hardship from which they come, to find a better life, is a lifelong journey that starts with hard work and ends with hard work. They have learned firsthand that unfairness, horror, fear and hate never leave your soul, but can be suppressed by building new memories and legacies.

In the spirit of replacing Robert and Oliver Carpenter, and Jim Rourke, and all of the rest of that generation, here's a roll call of the fabulous additions to our generations that have been added recently with our office's help:

D., and Indian national U.S. citizen, recently had her petition for her husband approved. He lives in India apart from his wife and U.S. children. The U.S. CIS misread the law and denied her petition, despite the couple having children together. The Detroit Field Office of the U.S. CIS not only botched the law, but secretly taped a conversation between Patricia Capt Carpenter and her client at their offices, and cited that conversation in the erroneous denial. We did not take kindly to either the misapplication of the law, or the abrogation of lawyer-client confidentiality. Two U.S. citizen's Fifth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches (secret taping) had been abridged. We told them, as well as others, loudly and persistently. They apologized and approved the petition. We have requested a Congressional hearing on the practice of taping lawyer-client conversations secretly, and Senator Levin's office has opened an investigation.

Family-based permanent residence was granted to nationals of Trinidad, Ireland, the UK, India, Pakistan, Niger and Mexico.

Three difficult waivers of inadmissibility were granted, and three fathers were re-united with their families by having the U.S. Consulate in Mexico grant permanent resident status. Contrary to popular opinion, marrying a U.S. citizen and/or having children in the U.S., gives you absolutely nothing. Any person who entered the U.S. without inspection forfeits the right to stay in the U.S. and acquire permanent residency or any other status. For those that entered without inspection, their road to permanent residency is as arduous as it is uncertain. A Mexican national must first have a petition approved for the benefit, but then visit the U.S. Consulate in Juarez, Mexico (currently the most dangerous city in the world), to apply for the issuance of the green card. This, in turn, can only be accomplished by applying for a waiver of inadmissibility, because Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act poses a ten-year bar to re-entry for anyone unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than one-year who has left the U.S. The waiver requires a showing of extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse. Waivers are hard to come by - Brian Sather procured one by offering two Licensed Clinic Social Worker reports and thoroughly briefing the law. Two of the three waivers were granted in less than four months.

Thanks for reading. RIP Oliver.

Common Sense

The following is a mostly true account of a recent case handled by Robert Carpenter and Brian Sather, both of Carpenter & Capt, Chtd.

M grew up in a poor Mexican town. It was the kind of place people fled for a better tomorrow when they could; for themselves, but especially for their kids.

He became a permanent resident in 1993. M married a woman he loved deeply ten years later, but only after he had a good job and house in the United States. He wanted to provide for her, and prepare for raising a family.

He remembered where he came from, including his arduous journey to the United States, in search of a father who'd abandoned him at a young age. His journey left him in south Texas in a place called the Rio Grande Valley. The locals call it The Valley.

The Valley is hot. It is surrounded by desert. The inhabitants are nearly all of Mexican descent, which becomes important to M's story.

M's life in the U.S. Was good. He worked long hours, sometimes 16 a day. But he didn't mind because he was giving his family a miraculously better life than he had known as a child.

In 2007, he traveled to Mexico to see an ailing relative. He was pulled out of the immigration line at O'Hare, and detained for a most improbable arrest in 1995, 2 years after he became a permanent resident.

He shook his head in disbelief when he was arrested at O'Hare. He recalled that in 1995, while visiting The Valley, an individual approached him at a gas station and asked for help. The man was haggard, hungry and needed a ride. He was with three other men. M didn't ask their immigration status. He saw them as people in need, just as he was when he arrived in the U.S. several years earlier. A man helped him then by buying him a meal and driving him to the town where L thought he would find his absentee father. M decided to do these strangers the same favor.

45 minutes later, he had been arrested at an immigration checkpoint 60 miles from the border and booked for aiding and abetting illegal aliens. He didn't help anyone across the border, and had even refused the little money the men offered for gas. He didn't think about their immigration status, though if he had, he admitted he figured they had just made the same journey as he had several years before.

He pled guilty and was sentenced to 14 days in jail. His record was spotless since.

Now, the government intended to strip him of his green card and deport him for his crime 12 years earlier.

He cried softly during his bond hearing, where he appeared via video from a maximum security facility. His wife and children were in the gallery during the hearing. I remember because the judge allowed the children to come up to the bench to see their father on the tv monitor after the hearing. They cried openly when they saw him, and he blew them discrete kisses.

Bond was granted, and he was released, much to the relief of his employer, who was losing thousands of dollars a week because of his absence.

I met M in my office after he was released, with his wife. They were a lovely couple. Humble, affectionate, apologetic, responsible and very kind. They wondered how this could be happening to them.

My office set to work on the case. We contested everything we could, but quickly learned that transporting an illegal alien knowingly (even without direct knowledge - that is, if the transporter should have known) is the same as smuggling someone across the border for the purposes of the removal ground at issue. We fought on, arguing the law in motions and in court. We eventually sought, and procured, an agreement from the government that L should at least be able to pursue an old, expired form of relief called 212(c), that essentially could be used to excuse a removable offense.

M's hearing was today. He explained to the judge that he did what he thought was right by helping the men, but wouldn't do so again without finding out if the people he was helping were legal. A sad pause overcame the room when he said this.

Immigration Judge Carlos Cuevas granted the relief, and M's dream of a better life lives on, despite the poor judgment of the DHS officials who tried to remove him from the U.S.

I often wonder what happened to common sense. I believe a shred of it was salvaged today by a judge who was concerned, in equal parts, with common sense and fairness.

What Do You Believe?

The following is a mostly accurate re-enactment of a client interview that is actually a conglomerate of several conversations I've had with clients over the years. It is not a direct reflection of any one client, and gives no information about any case I've handled.


A prospective client recently asked me, "So, are you Italian, English....what"? I thought about the question for a couple of seconds, and I obviously knew "what" he was in terms of ethnicity, so fair is fair. "Irish", I said.

"100%"?, he continued.

"Probably not, since I am American by birth. But 3 of my 4 grandparents were born in Ireland, so I guess that makes me pretty Irish".

He shook his head, pondering whether to hire this Irish immigration lawyer, or to keep shopping. "The Irish are tough", he said. I didn't respond. "You tough"? he asked.

"Look, I'm not sure where this will get you. You want to know that I'll fight for you, and I will". He shook his head some more, not convinced.

"Well, I know a few people high up at DHS, and they say you're a handful. They say you are who they'd hire for themselves in a jam. But now that I'm here, you smile; you're straight-forward and just a normal guy. You don't seem tough".

I thought to myself, maybe I should hit him with a right hook. That might convince him. I decided explaining that to the Bar might prove difficult.

I instead explained that yes, I fight hard for my clients. Hard, but fair. And that I appreciated the referral from ICE, whoever it was. Always good to have the enemy looking out for you.

He wasn't done, unfortunately for me, because three weeks later, I still think about the rest. Good thing for this free therapy.

"Do you believe in God"?

Ugh.

I didn't want to answer the question, and was now getting irritated. Was he going to try to convert me?

What I believe or don't believe was none of this guy's business. Or.......was it? Our views of the world are irretrievably bound to our beliefs, especially whether we believe that our last breaths are really the end of our existence, or just a bridge to a new one. The answer to that one question reveals much about a person, though rarely in the sense of 'good or bad', unless you're the judgmental type. I'm not. He might be on the other hand, I thought, not much caring.

I have plenty of work to do, and don't have to justify my religious beliefs to a prospective client to get new work. I was leaning towards not answering.

I told him it was none of his business.

He persisted, "Of course it is. You are what you believe. If I lose my case, I will be killed. I need to know what you think about dying.

Long pauses before responding to people are often equated with uncertainty. I usually don't pause for long to answer clients' questions. This time, I did.

"That's a cliche, but what I will tell you is that I grew up Catholic. The kind of Catholic I grew up as -and there are many kinds of Catholics- was the social justice kind. My parents were always doing something for someone who was in need. They had 8 kids, and made room for foreign exchange students. They gave what little they had left over at the end of the month to others. My father argued with Senator Dirksen about the poll tax, and how it was simply a way to assure that blacks wouldn't vote. I have those letters, and read them now and again, because that tells me where I get my bend towards fighting for those without a voice".

Surely that would satiate his curiosity.....As if.

"You're a good lawyer. You answered the question without answering the question", he replied, semi-accurately.

I reconsidered a left, right combination. Or maybe a straight jab wouldn't abridge any ethical cannons.

I settled on answering his question the best I could. I told him my beliefs were mine to keep to myself, but that if he had to categorize me, yes, I was Catholic. I told him I believed in God, but not in the sense that my religion, or even my God, is the only correct one. I believe that any religion that has a delusion of exclusivity in their God and system of belief being the one and only was victim of the earliest form of propaganda, and usually that propaganda had very little to do with real beliefs. It was nearly always about power. And that includes the Catholic church.

I wasn't sure if I offended him, or surprised him, and didn't really care. I was annoyed. With him, but mostly for not having the conversation about what I believe, and what I don't, with myself more often. My world view is so much better when I think of myself dead and buried, or as ash, in the near future. I might live a day more, or a decade more, or 4 decades more if I'm lucky. Any way it comes out, it's happening fast. That much is for certain, and the legacy each of us leaves behind becomes much more preeminent in our psyche when we think of that reality. My legacy? Who knows, but part of it will be as a tough sob who fought for immigrants, because no matter what God you pray to, the underdog deserves a chance at getting his or her fair shake. And, perhaps as a bonus, the God I believe in will be pleased by that commitment.

C&C Halts Illegal Deportation with Successful Habeas

Carpenter & Capt recently filed a habeas corpus petition against the United States Department of Homeland Security and U.S. ICE, on behalf of a man the government had scheduled for removal pursuant to a removal order that did not exist.

The man had been told to report for removal on April 6, 2010 pursuant to an old voluntary departure order against him entered in 1999. The man explained he had left, on time, pursuant to that order. The ICE agents refused to honor the evidence of his departure, including a stamped form from the U.S. Embassy in his homeland. They claimed it was fraudulent.

Robert Carpenter filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the case was assigned to the Judge Wayne Anderson.

The habeas petition argued that the court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the REAL ID Act's provisions that stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction in the vast majority of immigration cases. The petition also produced a statement from the client's own Embassy, authenticating his passport that was issued in his homeland within a week of his claimed departure. ICE had maintained the passport could be fake. It was not. The suit also contained copies of his departing airline tickets, with baggage claim receipts, a bus ticket within his country of origin, a baptismal certificate and marriage certificate, all verifying that he left as claimed.

The matter settled shortly after an initial status appearance in front of Judge Anderson in Chicago, with the admirable help of the United States Attorney's Office. The attorney assigned to the case very professionally evaluated the evidence and concluded that the man had in fact left the U.S. and that no removal order existed.

The man, along with his five U.S. Citizen children, are grateful for the outcome.