Rig

This article appeared in todays Worcester (MA) Telegram...

Article published Jul 25, 2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Red tape pulls apart a family
Spouse from Panama ordered to leave U.S.

Michael and Brenilda Byrnes appear to have it all - good marriage, lovely
home, rewarding careers, supportive family and a beautiful 2-year-old
daughter.
They married rather late in their lives; he was 35, she was 34. They seem an
odd match on the surface - he's a big, easygoing Irish jock, she's a petite,
gentle transplant from Panama - but their three-year union has thrived and
delighted relatives on both sides.
"My mother didn't think I'd ever get married," Michael said with a grin.
"She always called me a boob with a basketball. But she adores Brenilda and
thinks of her like a daughter."
Next month, though, in a scenario that can best be described as Kafkaesque,
Michael will fly with his wife and daughter to Panama, where he must leave
his family behind while Brenilda fights to someday return to her adopted
country.
After 14 years in the United States, after years of struggling in vain to
navigate the complex maze of immigration law, Brenilda Byrnes has been
deported. And despite the many pleas of politicians, friends, families,
lawyers and supervisors, she seems destined to raise her young daughter
without a father - perhaps for years.
"We've been told it could take anywhere from three to 10 years for me to get
back here, if we're lucky," Brenilda said last week, in the couple's home on
the grounds of The Winchendon School, where Michael teaches and coaches
varsity basketball. "We're trying to be strong for our daughter, but it's
very hard. It's like I'll have to begin a new life all over again."
Brenilda came to the United States from Panama in 1990 with a visitor's visa
and lived in Rhode Island with her sister, who was married to an American
serviceman and was a U.S. citizen. Almost immediately, Brenilda's sister
filed a petition and started the long process of sponsoring her for
residency. In the meantime, Brenilda enrolled in Rhode Island Community
College, earned a degree and became a respiratory therapist.
In 1996 she hired a lawyer who suggested she speed up the residency process
by seeking a suspension of deportation in federal immigration court. She
would deeply regret taking that route, because in 1998 a judge denied the
suspension and ordered she be deported. She would later learn that her
ill-prepared lawyer had given her bad advice, as she met none of the
hardship criteria for suspension under immigration laws.
Brenilda appealed and was told that her chances of remaining here were good.
Two years later, in June 2000, she went on a date to Martha's Vineyard with
a man named Michael Byrnes, who was immediately smitten by the outgoing,
dark-haired woman.
"I came home from our first date and told my father, "If I don't marry this
girl, I'll never get married,'" Michael recalled. "Two weeks later, she met
my mother."
Brenilda was candid about her uncertain immigration status. Three months
after they met, Michael called an immigration officer in Providence, who
assured him that once the couple married, and their union was deemed a
genuine, good-faith marriage, Brenilda would receive a green card.
They wed on St. Patrick's Day in 2001, before 25 guests at the Canton home
of Michael's mom. Michael fired Brenilda's lawyer and filed a residency
petition for his wife. In August of that year, the couple hosted a large
wedding reception at their home in Winchendon. Four months later, Brenilda
was pregnant.
She was two months away from her due date when the appeal of her deportation
order was denied. The couple immediately drove to the U.S. Department of
Citizenship and Immigration Services in Boston, where they were told that
Brenilda had three months to leave the country she has called home for 14
years.
"She was in hysterics," Michael remembered. "We were essentially told that
because she filed the appeal before she got married, the appeal took
priority." Also, Brenilda had mistakenly applied for residency with the
immigration department in Providence rather than with Immigration Court in
Boston, which had jurisdiction over her case.
The couple hired another lawyer and received a stay of the deportation
order. Michael filed another petition, and their lawyer asked the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration Services to reopen Brenilda's case. In July
2002, Elizabeth Monrroy Byrnes was born.
In December 2003, just days before Christmas, the immigration department
refused to reopen Brenilda's case. The desperate couple filed for another
stay of the deportation order. The stay was refused, but the couple claimed
they were never notified.
On July 12 of this year, two immigration officers came to Brenilda's place
of employment at Heywood Hospital in Gardner and placed her under arrest.
She was released that same day after promising to return to immigration
offices in Boston by Aug. 11 - with an airline ticket to Panama.
Last week, the shell-shocked couple was making travel reservations online.
Brenilda will take Elizabeth with her because Michael would be unable to
care for his daughter and work full time to support his wife in Panama. To
date, they've spent about $15,000 and drained their savings in an effort to
keep Brenilda in the United States.
"The person who will suffer the most from this is my daughter," Michael
said, as Elizabeth determinedly dragged a large stuffed monkey across the
living room. "None of this makes sense, because Brenilda's never done
anything wrong. She's never been here illegally and she's done everything
she thought she was supposed to do. She's worked hard since she's been here.
We both pay taxes and we're just trying to be a family."
Their current lawyer, Susan Mills, said Brenilda is a victim of bureaucracy,
bad legal representation and a more restrictive, post 9-11 Immigration
Department.
"There's been a real change of attitude, and Immigration is less likely to
use discretion in someone's favor," Ms. Mills said. "There are things
Immigration could have done and still could do, but I don't think it will
happen. She tried to do everything right, and because of a couple of
mistakes she'll be torn from her family."
Immigration officials are being flooded with letters in support of Brenilda,
from family and friends, from colleagues and supervisors, and from
congressmen and senators, including John F. Kerry.
Last week, immigration officials declined to comment on the case, saying
they considered it to be closed.
In the meantime, Michael is planning his family's trip to Panama, where
he'll make a last-ditch appeal at the American consulate that he would
become "legally insane" without his wife.
Against all odds, the family hasn't given up hope that Elizabeth can be
raised by the parents who love her, in a country that has always encouraged
people such as Brenilda Byrnes to persevere.
"Have we given up hope? No," Michael said. "We try to be strong. But the
hardest thing will be coming back to the United States without my wife and
daughter, and having no idea when I'll be able to see them again."
Dianne Williamson can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Rete

Bottom line:

She was in the US living, working, studying illegally. A visitor's visa does not give you the legal right to study. You need an F-1 student visa. You cannot work if you are not a legal resident without permission from the USCIS which she did not have.

It is truly unfortunate that she received poor legal advice but then it is unfortunate that she decided to remain in a country where she had no legal right to remain.

However, if Mr. Kerry wins the election in November he will probably have a special bill introduced in Congress which will allow her to migrate quickly to the US.

Rete

MissKris81

This article annoys me. I am generally a very sensitive person, but the fact that all these people are rallying together as if she was "done wrong" by the government is just ridiculous.

Yes its unfortunate, but come on they "ripped" their own family apart. Why would you even consider living here, studying here, and working here without any solid information that what you're doing is ok?

It's really sad, and as much as I feel sorry for their child, I have to say in conclusion: tough sh*t.

Kristin

NOLA_Dave

Wow, this group is really jaded. I know what she did was illegal but jeez, you think it's proper to enforce the law in this case? I surely hope none of us ever become immigration officers...

mrseze

Took you only 2 months to figure it out...

Rete

I don't understand where you get the jaded from but both before and after my years dealing with immigration for my husband, I have always had the same opinion. You break the law, you pay the price when caught. The fact that the mother chose to break the law and subsequently marry and bring a child into the world does not mitigate her actions. The issue of her child having to return to Panama with her if she chooses not to leave her USC child with its USC husband falls squarely on her shoulders. If the law is to be fair, it should be applied to all and not just a few who pull your heart strings.

Just Jenney

There are two comments in the article that really bug me:

1) "Brenilda will take Elizabeth with her because Michael would be unable to care for his daughter and work full time to support his wife in Panama."

She apparently has a degree as a respiratory therapist. That means she has higher education, and thus able to earn more than the average Panamanian. Second, the cost of living in Panama is significantly less than living in the US. So with his US income and her Panama income, they should be just fine. And third, there is always the option of him moving to Panama to live with his wife and daughter.

2) "'None of this makes sense, because Brenilda's never done anything wrong. She's never been here illegally and she's done everything she thought she was supposed to do. She's worked hard since she's been here. We both pay taxes and we're just trying to be a family.'" [said Michael Byrnes, husband]

I'm sorry? What was that? She never did anything wrong? She was never here illegally? What a bunch of baloney!

Among other things she 1) overstayed her visitor's visa; 2) enrolled in community college without a student visa; 3) worked without a work visa or work authorization. Just about the only thing she apparently did legally was pay taxes (on illegally-earned income, no less).

Sorry, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this family. It's unfortunate that she received poor advice, but had she not overstayed and abused her visitor's visa to begin with, none of this would've happened. And they have the option of living together in Panama. No, it's not the US, but it's far from being a hellhole, either. I don't understand why he won't go with them.

~ Jenney

Ray

Jaded!!!... Time after time after time ..this forum has said if you lie, break the rules etc it will come back on you as it did here..
So with all the thousands of similar cases ..should they be allowed to stay as well...So somebody only stole a little bit ..
only scammed a few dollars, only drunk driving the once..
Do we not enforce the laws on these people too...

NOLA_Dave

Heh heh, I expected a bit of flaming for that

Here's the deal. She will eventually be allowed into this country. It's not like she has a lifetime ban. She has a bona fide relationship with a USC. If she will eventually be let back into the country, why break up the family now? Why tear them apart? To make a point?

The law is to protect USCs from fraud. She broke the rules, but it could have been worse

MissKris81

Yes and a guy that robbed a bank will eventually get out of jail, so why even put him in there...

Come on...

NOLA_Dave

Victimless crime vs non-victimless crime.

ian-mstm

Hmmm.... Immigration fraud isn't a "non-victimless" crime... just ask those who read this forum. Do you truly believe that the wait for security checks and various other permissions has nothing to do with immigration fraud?

Ian

Buendia

Although working and studying in this country was illegal, she did go to an attorney to straighten things out. Her intent was to do the right thing, but she got bad legal advice.

And in my opinion, the immigration system is difficult and convoluted. My friends thought WE had somehow made things more difficult on ourselves by not just coming into the country on a VWP and staying... they haven't had any experience with US immigration and think this is perfectly legal. I am a stickler for research (like almost everyone on this NG or we wouldn't be here in the first place), but without that research, you might think it was ok to simply come to the US and worry about a greencard later. It is basically this way in Ireland, which was why I was able to move there with David.

So I think the problem is partly with the system itself.

But I have to disagree with the victimless crime thing... when the system is misunderstood and therefore abused, the victims are those of us who are going through the immigration process legally. But, I still think intent is important, and I don't think this woman intended to break the law and was trying to remedy the fact that she'd broken the law when she first arrived...

... and I definitely think that there should be some legal channel to take to allow her to adjust to some legal status. But if that means her husband has to take a leave of absence for a year to live in Panama, he should. I did exactly that to be with my husband, and though it was often difficult, for us it was the right thing to do.

NOLA_Dave

She came in on a 3-month visitor's visa, and didn't ever leave. She went to school for crying out loud, and probably didn't use a fake name. Immigration could have tracked her down by now, they just didn't care. I'm not saying what she did was right, I'm just saying in this particular case it would do more harm than good if they deported her. If immigration really had a problem with it they could have deported her years ago.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing. We're doing the legal thing and complaining about the wait,too. I just would have thought that with all everyone on this board been through, we, as a group, would be a little more sympathetic to that family's plight. Instead, we just say "Serves her right". It's just cold hearted, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Maryanne Kehoe

BUT the post-9/11 immigration controls have been directed at those of us
who ARE "following the rules".....you only have to be on this board for
several weeks to read some of the (very!) sad stories on this board. As
Mrs. Atlanta International 2005, that is one of the reasons why I am
working on my platform of "Immigration Rights for Foreign Spouses of US
Citizens." You can get mad---or get mad, get constructive and try to do
something about it.


Kerry proposed an overhaul of immigration law. One of his proposals is
that if you are here on any kind of visa (student, visitor, H1B. etc)
and you want to stay and get permanent residency, you should be able to
do so without going back to your home country, as long as you are *not*
in an overstay status.

However, the lady was here illegally, but couldn't she have applied for
the amnesty that happened about 5 years ago? I would like to know what
she told her prospective husband about her immigration status. And we
wonder why those of us that are doing things the LEGAL way have long
waits----it's because there are a minority that want to skirt the
system.