TuffEnuff

Hi everyone
I just want to you all know what happen at my deportation court hearing in buffalo, NY. me and Emily got there at 8:00 am, my appointment was for 9:00am. we went in at 8:30am and signed in at 9:00am. my lawyer didn't get there until 9:10am but luckily i was not called yet. me and Emily was sitting down until my name was called at 10:30am. me and Emily amd my lawyer went in the court room. there was the judge and man sitting on the left hand side. i ask my lawyer who is the person that is sitting on the left hand side? my lawyer answer (that is the I.N.S lawyer that gives the judge a reason to kick you out the country). my lawyer explain my story to the judge, and that i am seeking cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. when the judge was reading my file he's eyes open up when he seen the i have been here for 18 years, and that i qualify for both parts of Cancellation of Removal under the INA. then the judge said i have never seen a case like this and that i will be fine and not to worry you are not deportable. then the judge ask the I.N.S lawyer do you have any thing to say about this. he said judge i have nothing to say. the judge ask my lawyer did you try to file anything, my lawyer answer was that he file the (I-130,I-485,I-765,I-864,2 g-325a) but it was return back to me.the judge said the reason why it was return because you cant file the I485 because Jerome cant adjust because he is an illegal alien, but he can only file the I-130 by it self. then my lawyer said i know that why we are here because there is no other way but to but him is deportation and try to get cancellation of removal. then the judge said (that right) but before i do anything, i want you to file the I-130 by it self and come back in Sep 9 2003 when it is file, then i will deal with it then.

factorus

So what does this mean, your gonna get deported anyways???

Dekka's Angel

I doubt that an administrative law judge/ILJ said to you from the bench that you are not deportable in such a flat out way yet still still insist on keeping jurisdiction over your case. There would be no reason to not approve the cancellation of removal, dismiss the government's case against you, and send you on your free way right then and there if things were as absolute as you say, particularly over what you describe as no objection from the government. So I suspect you misunderstood some of what was said that was encouraging, perhaps that you had lots of equities or defenses in your favor, and concluded that the matter had been finally decided. Again, if you were truly not at least theoretically deportable, it would make no sense to keep jurisdiction over the matter at all.

That being said, it sounds like you are catching the break you wanted from the system (no surprise from what I read on these boards). So, given that you are being done a favor, try to keep the entitlement and "we illegals are taking over and there is nothign you can do about it" attitude that you've displayed on other forums in check now, and be truly thankful if indeed you've been blessed with freedom from deportation, OK?

lairdside

I haven't read the posts personally that DA speaks of but I do not discount them in anyway.

I believe in thinking positively in these matters and consider the fact that recent times must have been very trying for you and your loved ones. You are undoubtedly more "American" that I ever shall be being raised here since a very small child and a victim of circumstance to a large degree.

For people like us, legal and illegal immigrants alike, being granted the right to reside in the US IMHO is a privilege not to be taken lightly. More to the point I do not believe that the attitudes displayed in the previous posts mentioned are of benefit to anyone, least of all yourself and your loved ones.

I also hope that you will be able to put past traumas and negative attitudes behind you and live a happy and productive life for the sake of all involved.

We cannot change the past and blaming others for events that we cannot change, or for seeking to do according to their own free will does not solve problems it only compounds them.

You have my best wishes for a happy future and hopes that you will be able to contribute to society and your family in the way in which you seek.

As for the court opting to retain jurisdiction over the case my guess, and it is only this, may be that the case would have to amongst other things have to be examined to make sure that there are no substantial negative equities present which would preclude AOS and so the filing procedure and relevant checks would have to be completed before the IJ could even grant permission to apply for an adjustment as a mater of discretion?

I believe that I have heard of an I-485 being filed in court after an I-130 approval but imagine that the IJ would want to keep a close eye on things throughout before granting any sort of dispensation as an exercise of caution due for the potential that previously unknown complicating factors regarding the case could potentially come to light further down the road.

Seeing as the fact that if any previously undisclosed negative factors where intoduced that this could cause the court to view the matter from a very different aspect I could see why this would be IMHO entirely reasonable.

I do not know the rules of procedure on this and am not implying that there are any undisclosed negative equities in your case, just that the court does not know this and so I would not imagine that any final decision could be made until it had satisfied itself of this fact.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Immigration Court is much more formal than the "interviews" with BCIS/INS or Consular Officers. In many ways its like the scenes you may see of court proceedings in the movies or on TV ["Law & Order" comes to mind].

The Immigration Judge ["IJ"] will be sitting behind a slightly raised dias, "the bench" with two tables before her -- one table is for the attorney from the DHS [called "Assistant District Counsel" -- often called "T.A.'s" back from the days in ancient history when they were called "Trial Attorneys"]. The other table is for the alien "respondent" and his attorney, if any. There will also be a chair off to the side of the bench for the witnesses. [In many cases, the only witness will be the alien respondent and tesitmony will be given with the respondent remaining seated at his table].

There will be a low gated wooden fence separating the court area from the audience area. [BTW, when old English courts would hold local "assize" sessions, a wooden bar would be placed on two sawhorses to separate the two areas. Only the parties, court staff, and the lawyers would be in front of this "bar." Now you know why lawyers are "addmitted to the bar."].

Immigration Court has two types of hearings -- "master" and "individual." The master calendar hearings are in the nature of administrative housekeeping. Many master calendar hearings are the only hearing if there are no issues to be resolved requiring an individual hearing. That is apparently what happened in your case.

A removal proceeding has two parts -- determination of removability, and then relief from removability. Most often, removability is not in issue [and when it is, those cases can be fun -- most TA's don't know how to prove a case when the burden of proof is on them.]

Most people in the NG are here for "obtaining a green card" -- and when the person is in the United States, all the applications are filed with the BCIS. However, the I-130 remains a seperate adjudication from the I-485. Also, [with limited exceptions], an I-130 is always adjudicated by BCIS [that is the reason why the I-130 is adjudicated BEFORE an immigrant visa abroad can be issued. In the context of adjustment of status, the IJ has jurisidction over the I-485, but does NOT have jurisdiction over I-130's. [Yes, I know this is stupid and makes no sense -- but thats the way it is].

Remember that the IJ does NOT work for the DHS, she works for the Department of Justice. She will have no idea whatsoever what has happened before INS/BCIS other than what the lawyers tell her.

Notionally speaking, the IJ does not need the I-130. But I can see that she may want it in order to put the DHS fully on record on the "qualifying relative" component of cancellation relief.

I'm sure your attorney will talk to you at length on the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the citizen spouse/children component of cancellation relief -- that is, by far, the toughest hurdle you have to climb.

Good luck.

lairdside

Thanks Mr F. I haven't dealt with the US system yet personally and the UK system is a little different, seeing as it is an oral tradition still.

The setting sounds similar though except in the UK the "bench" is generally further away by the sounds of it from the petitioner, respondent and any counsel.

Some of the older courtrooms I have been in (pre-Victorian) have almost ampitheatre like seating with a "floor" and a very elevated bench and witness box etc. and a public gallery.

As I said, thank you for explaning. It was interesting.

Sleuth

Chuckling at the 'political correctness' of it all.....

Uh, Folinskyinla? Are *all* Immigration Judges female, or was that just an oversight with respect to gender neutrality? LOL

K

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I've found that higher percentage of the immigration bar and bench are female than is a rule with the general bench and bar.

My writing style is to mix up gender usage when making general references. Sometimes I will use he or him and other use she or her.

The message was posted while I was in New Orleans for the recently concluded AILA National Convention. I attended a small reception/dinner [about 35 people] where there were two Federal District Court Judges present from the Eastern District of Louisiana -- one male, one female.

The host of the reception introdroduced me to one of the judges because he has to give a talk at judicial seminar on the "Patriot" Act. And he knew nothing about the immigration provisions. Joseph felt I would be a good person for him to talk to. It was interesting as we were both drinking beer to discuss the matter. I noted that I find myself going back to "The Japanese Immigrant Case" [aka Yamata v. Fisher] which was issued by the Supremes in 1903 which held that arriving aliens were entitled to some due process -- the question being how much process is "due." Hizzoner noted that the IJ's and the BIA never address those issues -- and I replied that was because, as administrative law judges, they can't -- that was HIS job as a district court judge.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Courtrooms vary in the US. If you ever go into a Federal Courthouse, those courtrooms are designed to put one in awe of the United States.

The Immigration Court is not a "real" court under Article III of the Constitution, but is a rather, an administrative court -- e.g. -- they work for George W. Bush. But they are given SOME judicial trappings.

Dekka's Angel

The first time I appeared before Judge Orrick of the Northern District, I left with a crick in my neck

There is a story (totally unconfirmable scuttlebutt, but harmless fun) that a judge's social once, an attorney who had appeared in a federal judge's courtroom asked His Honor why he'd chosen to design his courtroom to place his bench SO high up off the ground. Rumor has it that the judge asked the attorney if he felt this was intimidating to lawyers. The attorney hemmed and hawed, knowing that he had to go back into that courtroom some day on behalf of clients and that he could not afford to even backhandedly insult the judge. Before he could stammer out an answer, the judge apparently said "Good! I warned the Court Administrator that I would accept nothing less than a bench that put the Fear of God into anyone actually daring to enter my courtroom", smiled, and walked away to the next conversation.

lairdside

They vary in the UK too. Even the older Magistrate's Courts are pretty formal though. The only ones I've been in that are less formal are those specifically for Family Law cases only.

The Crown and High courtrooms are pretty ostere.

Easy to feel initimidated, I was just glad that I wasn't on trial