Want some idea why many gays are pissed at Obama, read this

[dsc]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x148571

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/26/16021


Administration Refuses to Help Gay Asylum Seaker
Timothy Kincaid
October 26th, 2009

Too often both our friends and our opponents fail to understand exactly why it is that gay couples seek to be treated with equality. It is not, as some anti-gay activists claim, to ‘legitimize homosexual conduct’, but rather it is to achieve the goals, rights and benefits that are essential to life.

Laws that protect married couples are designed with specific purposes in mind, and those purposes apply to same-sex couples as well. When gay couples are excluded from equal treatment, it is not just disrespectful of their relationships, it is a declaration that gay people are not deserving of the rights and benefits that heterosexuals take for granted.

And that is what the actions of the Obama Administration have declared yet again this week.

In 2005, Tim Coco and Junior Oliveira legally married in Massachusetts. At the time, Oliveira was seeking asylum in the United States, having been subjected to abuse and rape in his native Brazil. In 2007, when asylum was denied, Oliveira was forced to return to Brazil while the couple fought the legal system to be reunited.

They found a valuable advocate in Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. And, indeed, Coco and Oliveira had good reason to be hopeful that the Administration would intervene.

The judge who denied asylum, Francis Cramer, was a political appointment who had minimal experience with immigration law and was so blatantly unqualified that government watchdog groups were astonished at his selection. It was later discovered that federal judicial candidates had been screened for their views on gay marriage before they were appointed.

But Cramer did not only count Coco and Oliviera’s marriage as irrelevant. In his decision, Cramer made the bizarre declaration that while he didn’t doubt that Oliveira was raped, he “was never physically harmed” by it.

Recognizing the judge’s decision to be crass inhumanity, Kerry wrote to the Attorney General’s office requesting that Oliveira’s case be reviewed. Because asylum is regularly granted for far less cause, surely a friendly administration would intervene.

No. They would not.

On July 27, 2009, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Senator Kerry informing him that the US Attorney General would not be reviewing the Coco/Oliveira case because that “forced sex” is not rape (they were unclear as to whether the Attorney General limits his belief that forced sex isn’t rape to male-on-male forced sex or whether that definition extends to heterosexual people as well).

Kerry was, naturally, incredulous and outraged. He has sought since then to get Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision of his office. He informed the Attorney General that he wasn’t asking Holder to act against DOMA, but to grant asylum on humanitarian grounds, just as the government does for thousands of other immigrants.

Holder chose to ignore Kerry’s efforts. (A/P)


The Massachusetts husband of a gay Brazilian man says his spouse has been denied asylum that would allow them to be reunited in the U.S.

Tim Coco said Monday that the Obama administration did not act on a Friday deadline in the case of Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, effectively denying his request. The Justice Department did not immediately return messages.


Let us be clear. Were Junior Oliveira to have married a woman, he would not have been denied residency in this country. And were his reasons for seeking asylum based on factors other than his orientation, I am convinced that judges and politicians would have found more than adequate compassion to intervene.

I am so very sick of this. I’m disgusted by a legal system that denies equality. And I am furious with an administration that does not seem to care.

end of quote

This isn't some case no one heard of. The fact is this is a legally married couple who are in this situation for one reason only, their legal marriage isn't recognized and the administration refuses to make an exception for them.

[stray cat]

1. I must have missed all the other posts that expressed outrage.....

[dsc]

2. there have been several of the years of this case

given you apparent lack of interest in gay issues it is hardly surprising you didn't see them.

[Zenlitened]

3. What a sad, sick world we live in. And yeah, I'm gonna post this:

Change we can believe in! :sarcasm:

[uponit7771]

4. Knee Jerk Bullshit meter goes to 8.7 after readin this "Holder chose to ignore Kerry’s efforts.(AP)"

I'll wait, this conclusion sounds like it's outside the pattern of the Obama admin

[dsc]

5. The man is the AG, he has had this case for several months, and Kerry directly appealed to him

and he has done not one thing. I don't know what else this behavior can be called.

[vaberella]

60. If post #41 is correct then there was really nothing AG Holder could do.

That's if it relates to marriage to US citizens.

[dsc]

66. He could have let him in on humanitarian grounds

specified in the link which you didn't bother to read. Shock of shocks. On edit it is actually in the OP.

Kerry was, naturally, incredulous and outraged. He has sought since then to get Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision of his office. He informed the Attorney General that he wasn’t asking Holder to act against DOMA, but to grant asylum on humanitarian grounds, just as the government does for thousands of other immigrants.

but of course you were too busy lecturing me for daring to relate this to something which could happen to you instead of just to us subhumans.

[vaberella]

69. Are we forgetting denied asylum?

The whole point is to allow someone into a country for humanitarian reasons. However, show me a precedent in which this has been done before? When it's not due to asylum.

[struggle4progress]

6. .. Goodling's Partisan Hiring .. (2007)

... The New York Times notes: Some 75 of the 226 immigration judges have been appointed during the Bush administration. Forty-nine of them were appointed during the tenure of Mr. Gonzales, and it was during part of that period that Ms. Goodling was involved ... Unlike federal judges, immigration judges are civil service employees, to be appointed by the attorney general based on professional qualifications, not their politics ... The process for selecting immigration judges is “murky"

... a Legal Times investigation .. found: Among the 19 immigration judges hired since 2004: Francis Cramer, the former campaign treasurer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg ...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/gonzales-goodling-immigration/

The politicization of immigration judge appointments was discussed on DU back then. It has left us with an enduring headache

[dsc]

10. that is certainly problematic and might well have been determantive here

but it might not have been as well. Sadly, the law is currently against the gay men except on humanitarian grounds which I am unsure if the judge would have been able to determine.

[struggle4progress]

14. I don't think any one detail is likely to be determinative. The politicization of

immigration judgeships is a problem; DOMA prevented the folk in this case from seeking ordinary spousal green card opportunities; the US asylum system generally doesn't give a rat's ass about sexual assault victims; there's a piss-poor quota system that mneans applicants from different countries are treated differently; and who knows what else

We won't win these fights by bitching at Obama: we'll win them by constructing broad-based grassroots activist coalitions that work tirelessly with a definite agenda and exert power from the local to the state to the federal level

[struggle4progress]

7. Reunite this family (Boston Globe editorial 2007)

August 27, 2007

... Because Congress passed -- and former President Clinton signed -- the mean-spirited Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, no federal rights extend to the roughly 9,000 married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. There are more than 1,000 different benefits -- from filing joint income taxes to receiving Social Security benefits -- that are denied to same-sex couples everywhere in the country, whether they live in a state that recognizes their marriage or civil union status or not. The ability of a US citizen to sponsor a husband or wife for immigration to the United States, called a form I-130, is just one of them. "Same-sex couples are utterly shut out of that process," says Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who argued the Goodridge case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that led to legalized gay marriage in the state ...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/

[struggle4progress]

8. S.424: Uniting American Families Act of 2009

S.424
Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. (introduced 2/12/2009) Cosponsors (22)
Related Bills: H.R.1024, H.R.2709
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUMMARY AS OF: 2/12/2009--Introduced.

Uniting American Families Act of 2009 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a "permanent partner" within the scope of such Act. Defines a "permanent partner" as an individual 18 or older who: (1) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment; (2) is financially interdependent with the other individual; (3) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, any other individual other than the individual; (4) is unable to contract with the other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and (5) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of the other individual. Defines a "permanent partnership" as the relationship existing between two permanent partners.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdZKCp:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|


<text:> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.424:

[struggle4progress]

9. H.R.1024: Uniting American Families Act of 2009

H.R.1024
Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold (introduced 2/12/2009) Cosponsors (117)
Related Bills: H.R.2709, S.424
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/12/2009--Introduced.

Uniting American Families Act of 2009 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a "permanent partner" within the scope of such Act. Defines a "permanent partner" as an individual 18 or older who: (1) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment; (2) is financially interdependent with the other individual; (3) is not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, any other individual other than the individual; (4) is unable to contract with the other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and (5) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of the other individual. Defines a "permanent partnership" as the relationship existing between two permanent partners.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bd2Elm:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|

<text:> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1024:

[Thrill]

11. Obama is the only President that is expected to review and make an opinion on

all the cases that the Justice Department is involved in.

[dsc]

12. Not all

but when one of his chief Senate allies personally makes the case then yea, I think maybe, just maybe, Obama could make a comment. After all he sure was able to comment about the NCAA basket ball tournament, a black guy who got arrested in Cambridge, and a host of other seemingly more trivial events than this one.

[Thrill]

15. You should be pissed at Holder not the President

Further more you should really be pissed at the Senate for not having Dawn Johnson confirmed. If gay groups really cared about these issues. They would be fighting hard to get her confirmed considering she would be the most important person at the Justice Department. You can't really expect opinions on issues like this, when the friggin head of the OLC is being held up by Harry Reid in the Senate.

Again the person who would advise Holder on this is being held up in the the Senate. Bushes are still at the OLC right now. CALL HARRY REID

[dsc]

16. It doesn't take a ton of advice to figure this out

and Holder is Obama's employee the last I checked. That said gay rights groups have been at the forefront of attempting to get Johnson confirmed.

[ruggerson]

38. *YOU* should be pissed as well

These are your fellow human beings, last I checked.

[struggle4progress]

13. Treatment by the US of asylum seekers has been screwed up for as long as I can remember

If you want some grim schooling, go back and look at the record for Central Americans fleeing death squads in the Reagan era. A couple of recent examples:

US: Protect Women Fleeing Violence
Asylum Rules for Domestic Violence Survivors Have Languished for Eight Years
December 10, 2008
United States asylum policy falls short of protecting women fleeing abusive relationships whose own governments have already failed to protect them, Human Rights Watch said today, on International Human Rights Day. Violence by domestic partners is a leading factor in murder rates against women around the globe. Human Rights Watch urged the incoming administration to quickly propose and finalize new rules that would apply international human rights standards in these asylum cases. This week marks eight years since the US government first proposed rules to clarify that survivors of domestic violence should be eligible for asylum. Since these rules have not been finalized, the United States has no national standard to govern asylum determinations in these cases. As a result, the rulings vary widely, depending on which court hears a case. Some cases have been on hold for years awaiting clarification of national policy ... http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/10/us-protect-women-fleeing-violence

Haiti: U.S. Return of Asylum Seekers Is Illegal
Fleeing Haitians Must Be Given at Least Temporary Protection
February 29, 2004
Related Materials:
U.S.: Don’t Turn Away Haitian Refugees
Haiti: Violent Reprisals Feared
The U.S. government’s return of hundreds of fleeing Haitians to the capital Port-au-Prince violates their right not to be sent back to a place where their lives or freedom are endangered, Human Rights Watch said today. The U.S. Coast Guard already has repatriated at least 867 Haitians, according to news reports. International law prohibits sending fleeing Haitians back to Haiti in the current conditions of instability, which persist despite the arrival of U.S. Marines as part of a planned Multinational Interim Force ... http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/02/29/haiti-us-return-asylum-seekers-illegal

[ruggerson]

17. Another thread where "liberals" are blaming the gay community

instead of fighting WITH them.

[QC]

19. It happens a lot around here. n/t

[ruggerson]

20. Primarily in GD-P

Wonder why that is.

[QC]

30. It must surely be the purest coincidence. n/t

[Zenlitened]

23. Reeks of desperation.

What the point of this pitiful excuse-making might be, I can't really fathom.

[boppers]

37. Who's blaming who?

Another thread where gays are blaming the "liberal" community instead of fighting WITH them?

[dbmk]

77. Excuse me

I might be blind, but where is blame assigned by anyone in this thread? (to anyone but Holder or Obama that is)

[ruggerson]

18. Interesting. The "liberal" bigots are unreccing this.

[CreekDog]

97. there's a cadre of unrecommenders but they don't just target these issues

rather, they seem to go after any liberal post.

[SpartanDem]

21. People get denied asylum all the time

there's no proof that the DoJ said no, becuase it was a gay couple.

[dsc]

22. they wouldn't even have to ask for asylum if they weren't gay

they are legally married and would have a green card via marriage if only it was an opposite sex couple.

[struggle4progress]

26. So how's Nadler's Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 doing?

[dsc]

27. I think we have a better shot at the uniting families act

[struggle4progress]

34. I don't really have a feel for the issue, since I've never been able to understand

the mindset of the opposition. You may be right. Every fight I ever won, my side lost, and lost, and lost, and lost, until one day we looked up through the clearing smoke to find that everyone was on our side -- and was swearing roundly they'd always been on our side, all my contrary memory notwithstanding. The piecemeal attack seems unsatisfactory, but it may be rather like pulling bolts from a scaffold until the whole thing suddenly topples

[mkultra]

44. residency due to marriage is not garunteed nor immediate

it still requires the interview process and can take up to 6 months. All marriage does is remove the numerical quota limitation. Was he subjected to rape by his government?

[dsc]

64. that is just plain false

I know because my cousin married a Brazillian who had actually overstayed her visa. Not only was that swept away by marriage but she was given a green card immediately ( in a matter of weeks).

[mkultra]

80. perhaps you are mistaken

here's a link for you

http://www.shusterman.com/marriage.html

one of the limitations is that if the non resident has been in the country unlawfully for more then 180 days. I'm not sure what happens if that is the case but i would imagine that it means they must return to their country of origin before apply. My daughter is getting married to a non resident. I am familiar with the process but not fully versed. One of his concerns is that he may have to return to his home country before obtaining residency.

Again though i would ask, was the gentleman involved suffering at the hands of his government?

[dsc]

91. the Brazillian was female and to my knowledge no

[mkultra]

103. doesnt asylum only pertain to those under threat by their native government?

[dsc]

105. which is my precise point

the fact is without any threat my straight cousin in his straight marriage was able to get a green card for his wife. These legally married people on the otherhand can't. Gee but that isn't anti gay discrimination, no not at all.

[mkultra]

119. im strill trying to understand your point frankly

something seems odd about this case. specifically the asylum. I know that many people stay in America unlawfully so why this person felt as if they needed to apply for asylum is whats odd. Many people apply for asylum as a defense against deportation. Was the person deported or did they leave voluntarily? Did the deportation occur due to the rejection of asylum?

[dsc]

120. He applied for asylum because he was entitled to it

he stayed here, legally through his hearing and appeals. Then he voluntarily left.

[mkultra]

122. so are you saying the rejection of asylum was based in bigotry?

[dsc]

124. I am saying the fact he had to apply for asylum as opposed to just remaining here as the husband

of an American citizen is rooted in bigotry. I also think that bigotry likely was behind the rejection but that is harder to know for sure (it is possible that judge never grants asylum for example).

[mkultra]

125. Well, i cant disagree that its bigotry but i fail to see how thats obama's fault

If immigration isn't recognizing the marriage it would probably be due to DOMA which is, of course, rooted in bigotry. The part im having trouble getting at is how your OP linking DOMA to Obama is feasible.

[CreekDog]

98. The key issue is that the USA doesn't see it as a legal marriage

doesn't that have to change first?

[vaberella]

24. I have a problem with your post. This is NOT a gay issue--or singularly so.

Why? Because this happens to heterosexual Africans,Brazilian, and any other people except for possible Russian Jews. However many many many others are rejected and it wouldn't matter the sexual orientaton. I think your post, although horribly unfortunate, is disingenuous to the entire situation as a whole.


The unfair treatment of asylum seekers is ridiculous. I'm a bit annoyed that you would make this a homosexual issue. I feel horrible for the people who can't get letters to Senator who have faced similar if not worse problems within their home country. I also realize that he's married to an American, but I'm certain his case is not a precedent. However, I can see it being such a well known issue. Again I am not trying to marginalize the struggle of homosexuals in the nation, I should know from experience, but this is unfair.


Additionally, how is this a President issue?! Holder is making the decisions on this, not the President. Your post just wants to build up faux anger in an issue that is unrelated to the President... I believe the President can review the cases after approval by the AG. However, so many, so many, so many people get denied, even though their case is viable. There are those who seek asylum due to religious reasons, for rape---many women have been rejected after seeking asylum in regards to rape and abuse for just being female in their nation. And I don't want to come across as apologizing for this horrible issue, but it's not a "gay" issue.

[dsc]

25. This is a legally married couple who but for the fact it is a gay couple

wouldn't have to depend upon asylum. You are plain, flat out, gold carat, apology worthy wrong. If this were a man and a woman instead of a man and a man this couple would be celebrating their 7th year in the US.
And it was in the OP

Let us be clear. Were Junior Oliveira to have married a woman, he would not have been denied residency in this country.

[vaberella]

28. I read the article. The OP implies Oliveira was seeking asylum BEFORE he was married.

His marriage to a legal citizen is irrelevant in lieu of the circumstance. Because he was legally married within the United States doesn't hold water in relation to the fact that he applied for asylum before that. Now, I think it would be more of an issue if he married before he seeked asylum, however there's no guarantee on that. Further more as an example. I came to the US when I was 2 years old however it took 5 years for me to processed and get an acceptance letter. So these bureaucratic things happen, but once again I can't see this as a gay issue.

Now when it came to AG Holder a second time, I do think he should probably change his decision. However, the initial decision doesn't seem wrong. And as such the second one doesn't seem that unfair either in relation to so many people who have faced amputation, rape, and other horrible crimes to seek asylum as well who have been rejected in the past.

I don't see this as a singularly gay issue---and I don't think it dictates the reasons for rejection which we are not privy too. In many cases the asylum rejection is valid and in others its not. In the case I don't know the other side to see the true reasons are. Seeking asylum is an extremely strict process.

[dsc]

29. If their marriage were recognized, asylum would be irrelevent period

and their marriage is invalid for one, and only one, reason, the fact it is a same sex marriage. The one, and only reason, he sought asylum before the marriage is because, wait for it, gay people couldn't get married in MA when he sought asylum. The inexcapable fact here is that had this been an opposite sex couple, they would be married and unseperated barring criminal activity by Junior which isn't the case. That makes it a gay issue. Replace same sex with interracial I would bet my next paycheck you wouldn't be making this ludricrious arguement.

[vaberella]

36. This is my last post on the topic because you made this personal.

I don't like wasting my time on when it goes into that direction. People do that often on this board.


If he sought asylum befoe marriage then his argument was in regards to persecution from his home country. Then the response, ie the rejection of asylum, has really nothing to do with his sexual orientation in the sense that he was denied because he was gay. He was denied based on some criteria. Actually I would be making the same argument if it was an interracial couple and I take offense that you assume to know much about me, when in fact you know jackshit. I also dislike the bloody fact you need to go on the personal attack to get your point across which was unnecessary and makes your position petty and childish. I'm not saying you don't have a right to be angry, however if I'm respecting you and your posts even if I don't agree with them, I don't need to be talked down too and comments made about my mind set as though you know me----because you most definitely don't. However, in regards to an interracial couple if let's say the man is white and the woman is seeking asylum due to female circumcision and past rape and beatings, I would think she deserved asylum like I do Oliveira would need it. But I would not be surprised if she was rejected asylum---because women who have faced, I'm sure, such crimes have been rejected, ditto for any men who have been violated/raped (gay or not), and subjected to amputation and what not. Asylum is a very strict criteria as I mentioned and asylum is rarel granted. Once again I think the only people who make it out sweet in regards to asylum seekers are Russian Jews. Everyone else are subjected to a round of rejections.

My point is the entire process needs to be looked at and making this singularly an act of prejudice might be unwarranted. Because I can then say, due to the amount of Africans and South Americans and Muslim people who have been rejected in the past---it's racist as well, which it might very well be. In any event Oliveira's acceptance of asylum was in no way contingent on his marriage. He sought it and was rejected based on his argument. The second issue, I can't explain but once again that deals with the criteria set forth for asylum seekers and also, I believe, how extreme and threatening they find the country for the person at times.

[dsc]

61. If they were an interracial, straight couple, then asylum wouldn't be needed

it doesn't get simpler than that. Oh, and I love your definition of personal. Evidently gay folk aren't permitted to consider this personal but if I dare mention interracial stuff then it is. I get it. My personal traits, irrelevent, yours important.

[ruggerson]

39. I don't think you're getting it

It doesn't matter for what original reasons the gentleman in question asked for asylum.

The fact is that if he had then proceeded to marry a woman, he would be automatically permitted to stay in the country. Case over.

But, he married a man, because he is gay, and in America his Massachussetts marriage is NOT recognized by the Federal govt. Hence, he is NOT permitted to stay in America as his marriage does not carry the same federal rights as a heterosexual marriage.

Straight marriage. Automatic asylum.

Gay marriage. Nada.


It's really pretty simple.

[vaberella]

40. Ahh, understood. That's different from where I was taking the article.

I'm going on the basis of the asylum itself. I wonder if the government administration thought they married so he could stay though. I know a heterosexual couple I was friends faced that and the girl was almost sent back to India----they married for love but the Government didn't consider her request to stay.

[ruggerson]

46. could be

but it sounds like the judge in this particular case had predetermined views.

[vaberella]

58. Is there a case file? Because if AG Holder upheld the reasoning.

Then we are suggesting that AG Holder is also biased. That would question his position as AG. Secondly, I do respect the reasoning in regards to the marriage aspect, again the criteria for asylum make take precedent over the marriage vows. I'd have to see if there is a heterosexual case which is similar. And to be honest, when it comes to Asylum seekers--I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Senator Barack Obama voted with the GOP against

the Uniting Americans Families Act, which would have addressed this and the many other bigoted things the heterosexual majority imposes on the minorities you all have issues with. He took a stand then that he does not think gay couples should have the same rights, he was asked and voted 'NO, in agreement with the Republicans'. So Obama is on record.

[struggle4progress]

104. Really? Can you give us a link to a roll-call vote? I don't think there ever was a vote

[mkultra]

109. could you be more specific because im not seeing what your seeing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act

on each occasion the bill was refereed to committee. can you be more specific?

[dbmk]

75. Automatic - really?

It was my impression that a lot of marriages between US citizens and foreign citizens are scrutinized and evaluated to determine whether it is not entered into with the primary purpose of securing the foreign citizens stay in the US.
And that the foreign party being from Brazil more or less automatically raises that flag to the authorities.

And (and this is purely a technical question asked out of curiosity) would such a relation not legally be a separate evaluation from the asylum evaluation?

[HamdenRice]

78. All excellent questions

As I wrote down thread, I know many Brazilians, including some who married for green cards and some who married for love.

Brazilians are scrutinized to a horrible extent. I've heard horror stories about the interviews -- where heterosexual spouses were asked to name the other spouse's favorite color, food, entertainments and even sexual practices.

I hope this couple will use their case as "impact litigation" -- ie creating a precedent for others in their situation -- rather than trying to get a unique one time dispensation.

I think we could build on Hillary Clinton's efforts on rape and the ICE's recent decisions on rape, to get the Board of Immigration Appeals to take a second look at the asylum for rape issue. That would help hundreds of people in this applicants position, rather than just solve the injustice of one case.
And yes, the asylum is separate from the marriage issue.

[Number23]

45. Thank you, vaberella. Very well said.

This type of mess happens all of the time. And it is unfortunate when it happens to ANYONE who is looking for help from our government.

The OPs comment that "Obama had time to talk about some black guy's arrest in Cambridge" tells me everything I need to know.

ETA: Really glad to see this part of the story: "The couple plans to launch a legal challenge against the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of immigration laws."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_asylum

Glad to know that they're taking the necessary legal steps to improve things for themselves and others.

[ruggerson]

47. This isn't about race

It's about institutionalized homophobia. Nothing whatsoever to do with race.

[Number23]

48. Perhaps you should inform the OP of that.

[ruggerson]

49. Perhaps we should focus on the story

and the horrific injustice therein.

[Number23]

50. This happens EVERY DAY in countries all over the world.

And it is horrible in so many instances when it happens, particularly when there are children involved. And yet, this is the ONLY time I've ever seen someone accuse Obama or the leader of any nation instead of the actual persons responsible because someone was denied asylum.

[ruggerson]

52. If this was a straight couple

they would be interviewed to make sure the marriage was legitimate and then the spouse would be allowed to stay here.

These two guys are legally married in Massachusetts. But because DOMA explicitly prevents the feds from recognizing same sex marriage, immigration privileges which normally accrue to married couples are not being afforded these two men.

Yes, asylum routinely is denied for a variety of reasons in many countries, but in THIS case, the couple is being denied what married heterosexual couples routinely receive from US immigration, because this couple is two men and not an opposite sex couple.

[Number23]

53. From reading more than one article on this

It appears that what's causing the denial of asylum is not only because they are a gay couple but because the Brazilian denied that he'd ever been hurt in Brazil. From the Yahoo! article: "But an immigration judge denied his request, and Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter that Oliveira repeatedly remarked at his hearing that he "was never physically harmed" by anyone in Brazil."

So there appears to be at least a couple of issues involved. And your contention that a hetero couple would be granted "routine" or automatic asylum is simply not true.

The fact that their marriage is not recognized should be illegal, but somehow according to this OP, it's OBAMA's fault and this is why "so many" gays are upset with him. Even the couple in this article put the blame where it belongs -- on DOMA a piece of shitty federal legislation passed many moons before this President ever took office.

[ruggerson]

54. As you and I both know

the man in charge of the store routinely gets the blame for things that happen on his watch. Sometimes, it might be fair, sometimes not. But Obama is not the first President and will not be the last on whom citizens will project their frustrations. I assume we can agree that hopefully Holder will reverse himself and grant humanitarian asylum in this particular case.

[Number23]

55. "Sometimes, it might be fair, sometimes not."

In this case, it's not only not fair, it's not even moderately intelligent. And I'm glad to see that more than a few people are stating what is really quite obvious.

Holder will likely reverse this.

[ruggerson]

56. If this was the first screw up

I doubt bloggers would be dragging Obama into this. But there have been a pattern of these types of things. From the first Smelt brief (which Obama, to his credit, corrected and had the DOJ revise) to his repeated utterings about how his "religion" tells him that marriage is "between a man and a woman." (And that, as a canned response to questions about CIVIL marriage. A conflation of religious and civil marriage that only serves to confuse the average American. And a response which he knows better than to give.)

I agree with you that Obama is not responsible for this particular travesty, but I also understand why people project their frustrations onto him.

Having said that, I'm quite aware that he serves the interests of equality and justice far more than any Republican alternative and even a lot of other Democratic alternatives. I just don't happen to think human rights or civil rights or equal rights should be subject to a "bipartisan" process which this WH uses as a working model. There are a few things that should be non negotiable. The dignity of the human being and the principle of equal justice under the law are two of them.

Gays are the only group in the history of our country that have achieved landmark gains under the law, only to have them taken away by majoritarian plebescite. An obscene process, when you think about it. As such, I understand the anger and the impatience. I think Obama does, as well.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. As a Senator, Obama voted against the Uniting American

Families Act, which would have corrected the inequity between gay and straight in bringing our loved ones to live in the US. He voted with the Republicans, against the Act. Because of himself and the others who voted against it, these gentlemen continue to face injustice.
He had a chance to make change and he voted with the bigots.

[ruggerson]

79. I wasn't aware of that. If that's the case, that's appalling.

[struggle4progress]

95. You probably weren't aware of it because it probably never happened

[Number23]

100. Every single word from that poster should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt

"UAFA was introduced under a different name in 2000 and in 2003. No one talked about it much and it was lost in committee. In 2005 UAFA was introduced concurrently in the House and the Senate, where it gained a lot of cosponsors, but again was lost in committee. On May 8, 2007, Uniting American Families Act was introduced to the 4th Congress in 8 years. Just like In the previous 3 congresses it was swept under the table and was ultimately lost in committee and never came anywhere close to a vote."

http://imeq.us/uafa/uafa.php

Just FYI and all... :) This particular group sounds like a great one.

[ruggerson]

106. As noted above, I'm unaware of the bill coming to a vote

I'd be interested to see who the co-sponsors were.

[struggle4progress]

107. Feel free to look it up at Thomas. For this year's bills, follow links I've posted in the thread

[struggle4progress]

94. Really? Can you give us a link to a roll-call vote? I don't think there ever was a vote

Obama did, at one point, insist that “or permanent partner” should be added after the word "spouse"

[mkultra]

110. are you lying bluenorthwest?

[dsc]

62. well he did have time

when he ignored two raids, every bit as illegal, on gay bars in Texas and Georgia. Funny how he has time for issues where his ox is gored but no time for issues of import to gays.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Very, VERY Well Said.

Great post.

[butterfly77]

89. It also seems to me that...

every since the President has been elected the main issues he should be focused on are every Gay issue that is on the books and war. The President can work on the Gay issues but he can't do everything in the first months there is too much.

I don't see some of these issues as the most pressing issues we have to deal with in this country and I am not saying these issues are not important,but we have so many as a country he already has to watch his back against the wingnuts and the military.

[Prism]

90. We're so noisy sometimes

We apologize for keeping our civil rights in the news. Very inconsiderate. While we have our families and lives destroyed from living under second class law, the President is under an awful amount of stress. How unfortunate that we have never extended the courtesy of being concerned about him.

We're being supremely selfish here. Forgive us?

[butterfly77]

93. I will tell what your problem may be..

is that you are too sensitive and I notice everytime I try to talk to someone on Du about something relating to gay issues they get offended,even if you try to ask them a question about gay issues.

[Prism]

96. No, I know what the problem is

You came in at an insensitive angle. I understand that, for heterosexuals, LGBT rights are just one issue out of dozens. It's a concern perhaps, but not the highest to them and certainly only worth a minor amount of oxygen in context of society at large. I also realize that anyone posting an LGBT thread in GD : P is akin to putting a giant kick-me sign on our backs and screaming "Hey, indifferent or hostile to gays? Come help make us feel worse about an already shitty situation!" And then all the usual "liberals" scramble to find their steel-toed boots while glancing about for some queer asses to kick.

Without-fucking-fail.

You know what? I would absolutely love to talk about something else. Love it. But I can't, because every single day my inequality slaps me in the face. Whether it's separate health insurance expenses for me and my partner, figuring out housing, wondering if our powers of attorney will be respected should we get sick. On and on and on.

Every. Single. Day.

I used to be in a binational relationship for several years. You know what I did? Lived in exile from my home country because my relationship, like the one in the OP, just didn't count worth a damn in the eyes of the law.

And how did you enter this thread? By replying to the usual "I don't dislike gays, I just don't have a single good thing to say about their situation or their lives" posters, and making your point "Eesh, you people talk about all this too much, and you really shouldn't have any expectations whatso-fucking-ever of the supposedly Democratic President we've elected."

And you wonder why we're sometimes a little piqued about it all?

Ask your questions, because I'm all for education which, on DU in regards to gay issues, might as well be bumfuck Alabama.

Jesus, we are all liberals here, yes?

Or not.

[butterfly77]

116. Bullshit! Don't put words in my mouth..

you are doing exactly what I said,getting upset just because I made a point and we all know that if it is a gay issue we all have to agree with it,not that I am disagreeing with you. The fact is that we do have many issues and you seem to think that ALL of the gay issue have to take top priority in the first year can't he do some of it next year too..

[PopSixSquish]

31. Is There Anything Which Can Be Done for This Couple Now?

I am deeply disappointed in the Obama administration for the lack of movement on GLT rights. I get that they're working on healthcare, jobs, wars, etc but I'm sure that there are things which can be done now or a few legal things to slow down while Congress moves to repeal DADT and DOMA.

The hate crimes legislation just passed the Senate and will be signed on Wednesday which is good but it is only a start...

[dsc]

32. I am presuming not

If I were their lawyer I would have advised a joint seeking of asylum in Canada as a married couple. Junior from the obvious and the American husband from our bigotry.

[struggle4progress]

35. They would benefit if we passed S424/HR1024

[PopSixSquish]

42. What are the Prospects for Passage?

Shame on me for not knowing more about these bills (I read your posts upthread)...

[struggle4progress]

43. Both bills have been in committee since February. Something like a quarter

of the House signed as cosponsors to the House bill. Intelligent, targeted grassroots activity with some help from people in DC might push things forward: but y'don't know til y'try, y'know

[ruggerson]

51. Let's hope the ball begins to roll after healthcare is done

I do not believe DOMA can be repealed in the next few years without a major push from Obama, and I don't think that's in the cards.

I do think the repeal of DADT now has momentum of its own in congress, and the Armed Services committee will be taking it up next month.

[elshiva]

33. K&R

Important issue. Gay rights now!

[zulchzulu]

41. Hopefully this story is not over yet

I looked around and found some additional information:

According to federal immigration law, immigrants also can apply for residency if they marry U.S. citizens. But the federal government does not recognize gay marriages under the Defense of Marriage Act, and Oliveira's request to remain in the United States based on his relationship with Coco was denied this year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33484851/ns/us_news-life/

This case is tragic and Holder needs to be held accountable for dropping the ball on this. Obama has recently said he is working toward signing bills by Congress repealing DOMA and DADT.

Of course, that is even more complicated when you read:

Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco prefer a more incremental approach that they believe has a better chance of enactment, including a hate crimes bill that passed the House in April and a bill to prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/16/MN6M19NHTS.DTL

Hats off to Senator Kerry for trying to fix the situation...

[vaberella]

59. The first article changes the entire purpose of the argument in post #40.

This actually is not the AG Holder dropping the ball, this is actually something that relates to law. We already know the difficulties this causes when something is law. This is an unfortunate issue. The issue then is most definitely about sexuality considering the reason the asylum seeker was not able to come into the nation on AG Holder's watch. But nothing can be done until DOMA/DADT is repealed. However, once again this goes to my argument about asylum in general in the US, many people who by our estimation would need it are denied asylum.

In a way it's two fold. Asylum seekers are more often than not rejected unless there is extenuating circumstances such as Russian Jews. The rest on the other hand are left to rot back in their home country and that is for different reasons. Some is due to the level of fear the country requesting Asylum finds to be valid in the case of the victim. Other's is political and what not. I personally think there needs to be something done about it...but then again I'm not privy to the criteria placed on each peoples.

The second issue is DOMA/DADT---which in effect will cause a problem even if said couple are married. Although people are legally married in Massachusetts, Federal law is contrary---if DADT and DOMA play such a major issue then those two laws need to be repealed. Which is what I'm hoping for after the health reform bill is passed.

Edited to add: That being said, Obama supports state laws. However if I'm correct don't Federal laws supercede state laws? There State laws that uphold the sterialization of those mentally challenged, while Federal laws say otherwise. <----I'm just remembering Buck vs. Bell.

All in all this is a real mess to be sure. And it's two fold when in the problems it causes. Plus I want to know if it's possible for Federal laws to supercede State laws and if that's the case, that puts AG Holder sort of unrelated to the issue at large but forced to comply with the law as it stands.

[dsc]

63. That is baldly false

He could, at any time, decide for humanitarian reasons to let the guy in DOMA not withstanding.

[vaberella]

68. That's the whole point of seeking asylum which was denied. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

72. And you can show us that straight married people are

separated and one is thrown out when they have a US Senator speaking out for them? Show me your evidence.
Why did your family come here?

[vaberella]

74. First off...what does the conditions of my being in the US have to do with anything.

Secondly, the point was, he was denied asylum first off. Since he applied BEFORE his marriage. Many people are rejected on a regular basis for various reasons (I have stated before). Which both you and I are not privy too and they have valid reasons as Oliviera for seeking Asylum. That being said even if a Senator speaks on your behalf that doesn't mean he supercedes the laws that may prevent your acceptance into the nation. If DOMA/DADT are in some way related to this issue as previously, then there is now way anythig Kerry can do except work to get DOMA/DADT repealed. I mean, I don't see how AG Holder is supposed to go beyond. This is of course due to prejudice enacted into law----which I'm not defending. It's wrong nad I totally support those two laws being repealed. However, if they are law---I mean we have laws for a reason, even if they're shit laws. I never said that I could provide proof for that. And I just explained why I can see Kerry's request not going very far---but to go as far as to say AG Holder ignored Kerry's request would be ludicrous if DADT and DOMA has something to do with it. I'm sure many of our soldiers have had Senator's speak on their behalf and unfortunately the law doesn't give much wiggle room.

[zulchzulu]

76. Holder could address the issue like others who have gotten asylum from Brazil

There are many cases where Brazilians who were treated badly were given asylum in the US. Holder could look at this case from that angle, but he is taking the safe road by looking at the DOMA law to compound the issue.

It's a tragic case. If I were advising the couple, I'd try to get the path to US citizenship going for the Brazilian and do anything to get in the country on worker's permits, etc.

[dsc]

65. all either Obama or Holder have to do

is grant asylum on humanitarian grounds. No messing with DOMA or immigration law.

[HamdenRice]

67. There are a few things fishy about this story. Holder did exactly the right thing.

First and foremost, this is not an issue for the AG's office, nor even Sen. Kerry's office.

It's an issue for the Board of Immigration Appeals. No bad immigration judge is the last step. There is a highly structured system for the appeal of immigration cases, and asking for an individual case to be over turned violates many fundamental principles of justice.

If you can't get justice from the BIA, the next step is direct appeal to the "Circuit Courts," ie, the Federal Courts of Appeal.

AG Holder had very good reason to refuse to intervene in this case.

An individual intervention would also be bad for other couples in the same situation. If the rules being enforced by immigration judges are wrong (and immigration judges as the OP points out are not known for being legal geniuses), then new rules need to be established by precedent and appeal, not by political intervention in a single case.

The progressive, pro-GLBT position would be to let this case work its way through the appeals system, and then when it reaches the circuit court (and only when it reaches the circuit court), file a brief supporting Massachusetts same sex marriage as marriage under immigration law. Otherwise, intervening does nothing to change the underlying problem.

Also, it's not clear that this couple's marriage was disparaged because it was a same sex Massachusetts marriage. I know lots of Brazilians in New York, and the immigration authorities treat marriages between US citizens and Brazilians as prima facia frauds designed to get green cards. If this were a straight couple married in New York, they would be treated the same way. The intrusiveness of the immigration authorities in "proving" the validity of a US-Brazil marriage, or US-Nigeria, US-Colombia, US-Ghana marriage is now at outrageous levels, if they are not denied outright.

By getting married after filing his asylum petition, the petitioner has guaranteed that the immigration authorities will give zero credence to his marriage, no matter what his gender.

I hope this couple have lots of joint assets like bank accounts, and can describe each other's favorite colors, foods, and entertainments, or otherwise, no matter what their gender, their marriage isn't going to be taken seriously by "La Migra."

[dsc]

81. I know for a direct fact that you are wrong on virtually all counts

First, they didn't choose to get married after filing the petion, they couldn't get married before doing so (Marriage in MA was legalized in mid 2004). Second, my cousin married a Brazillian woman who had overstayed her visa. She has her green card now and they haven't been married over a year. Third, the legal opinion, issued by the judge, specificly said that the marriage was facially invalid under DOMA.

[HamdenRice]

85. You seem confused

Whether they had a choice or not, the fact is that Oliveira sough asylum before getting married. As you wrote:

"In 2005, Tim Coco and Junior Oliveira legally married in Massachusetts. At the time, Oliveira was seeking asylum in the United States, ..."

Your cousin was very lucky. Most Brazilians are treated terribly by ICE, and here where I live, ICE makes it difficult for US-Brazil marriage to be used to establish residency.

Lastly, you seem not to understand the immigration appeals process:

"Third, the legal opinion, issued by the judge, specificly said that the marriage was facially invalid under DOMA."

The point is that the immigration judge is the lowest level judge and can be overturned by the BIA or the Federal Court of Appeals. I think we all agree that would be a good outcome, not just for this couple but as precedent for many others.

Lastly, I think the common ground to find is over the new policy of Hillary Clinton and the Holder ICE, which is that rape and sexual abuse have very recently been declared to be grounds for asylum. The standards under which his asylum case was decided have changed.

It would be great to take advantage of this new policy of the Holder ICE to get Oliveira asylum status -- which is a separate issue from his marital status.

[NotNarrow]

112. Your info. isn't based on all available facts

I know not everything fits in one story so I looked at other stories online about this couple. First, his asylum application began and went through the whole process -- adjudication officer, immigration Judge (who incidentally was one of the illegal appointments who's only experience was writing wills and divorces at Judd Gregg's NH law firm), Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and so on. The judge found Oliveira's testimony "credible" and his fear of Brazil "genuine," but said the threats, taunts and rape (which the judge agrees happened and was not addressed by Brazilian police) did not amount to "physical" harm. The process took five years and concluded in 2007 when he accepted voluntary departure. While one is waiting for a ruling, one does not accrue illegal time. In fact, Oliveira never accrued any illegal time in the U.S.

He also met his future spouse in 2002, but there was no such thing as same-sex marriage until late 2004. They married in 2005 -- not as an end-run around the law, but because they were in love. In fact, the couple didn't file their marriage application until after Oliveira left the country (so as to not "overstay"). Their marriage application went through the normal procedure and was denied solely on DOMA grounds. The government deemed their marriage "real" and that there was no evidence of a sham, but denied their application only because of DOMA. They appealed to the BIA again and the BIA had to uphold DOMA. Now, they are in Federal court.

Ok, maybe it would have been wink, wink, but Holder (who has the power to overrule immigration judges and BIA) could have granted the asylum since it was at least a bona fide request and spare the U.S. and that family the DOMA battle. The immigration judge and BIA knew the couple was married by the time they ruled, but just ignored it.

[ruggerson]

121. Thanks for the background. Well researched and thoughtful.

[VMI Dem]

73. I would think that his embrace of religious fundamentalism would be enough.

Isn't this rather minor compared to that?

[Prism]

82. Dsc, you should know by now

Anything bad that happens to a gay couple is a completely singular circumstance, totally unrelated to their sexual orientation, and if you'll only settle down and allow the usual suspects explain it to you, you'll see that really nothing bad ever happens to the LGBT community. Concretely, at least. We know, in theory, that there is inequality. In theory. And we're all deeply supportive of the community. In theory. But any specific example you ever bring is always the - entirely singular - exception to this inequality, and you really must be patient as it is explained why no example of inequality is ever really a true example of inequality.

Though, of course, we're all very supportive of equality. Were we to ever be given a tangible example of inequality. Which has never appeared on this board. But when you bring an indisputable, totally unfalsifiable example of inequality, for serious, we'll be all over that and supportive.

In theory.

[SacredCow]

86. But the real question is.....

When/If we get the ponies we were promised, will they be real ponies, or theoretical ones?

:shrug:

[Prism]

88. Ponies are mythological creatures

We created them entirely for the purposes of frustrating the current administration, for they shall seek and seek the pony but be forever unable to produce one. This, in turn, allows us to criticize the President and party at will for all eternity, thus enabling us to reproduce. It is common knowledge that young homosexuals spring forth fully formed out of the astral essence of bitchy, yet hilariously witty, commentary and derive developmental sustenance from the tears and hatred of faux liberal heterosexuals.

We're a crafty people.

[Zenlitened]

101. Excellent post. All too true, sadly.

And always the same old crowd, rushing in to explain away, shoot down, diminish and dismiss.

:eyes:

[ecstatic]

83. But the mechanisms in place were set up by republicans

So until those discriminatory policies are overturned, wouldn't it be self defeating to put republicans back in office (through non-voting or backing third party candidates)?

That being said, I agree with others who said that this happens to heterosexual couples all the time too.

[Life Long Dem]

87. Let me guess.

Obama didn't ask gays if they wanted to play basketball as well? :sarcasm:

[dsc]

92. gee let a white gay poster belittle black causes on here in this way

He would be banned in a New York second. Funny how that works.

[Life Long Dem]

99. I didn't belittle the cause.

I belittled the attack on Obama over this.

"This month, Obama called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act.

"Attorney General Eric Holder did not act on a Friday deadline in the case of Genesio "Junior" Oliveira, effectively denying the 30-year-old Brazilian man's request for asylum in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds."

"We needed the Attorney General to make a decision on whether Junior could come home," said Coco, 48, of Haverhill. "He didn't take this request seriously."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_asylum

[dsc]

102. Who appointed, and at whose pleasure, does Mr. Holder serve

hint, his name is Obama.

[struggle4progress]

108. Ninth Circuit Recognizes Rape Constitutes Persecution on Account of Political Opinion (2004)

Publication Date: June 14, 2004

(San Francisco, CA, June 14, 2004) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today granted Guatemalan asylum-seeker Reina Izabel Garcia-Martinez’s Petition for Review of an adverse Board of Immigration Appeals decision. A victim of gang-rape by soldiers in her native country in 1993, the decision recognizes Ms. Garcia-Martinez is entitled to protection under national and international laws that offer sanctuary for individuals who have been subjected to torture and other egregious treatment in their homelands.

In remanding the case to the BIA, the three-member panel of judges -- David R. Thompson, A. Wallace Tashima and Johnnie B. Rawlinson – noted that Ms. Garcia-Martinez "has suffered atrocities that most of us experience only in our worst nightmares."

The panel found that in rejecting Ms. Garcia-Martinez’s initial application for asylum on the grounds that she had failed to demonstrate past persecution, Immigration Judge Mimi S. Yam had overlooked evidence of persecution that was "stamped on every page" of her record. It is Ms. Garcia-Martinez’s assertion that her rape was a form of torture or political persecution that prevents her from returning to her homeland. In 1996, Judge Yam had ordered Ms. Garcia-Martinez deported to Guatemala. A subsequent review of Yam’s decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals resulted in a one-sentence affirmation upholding the deportation order, without opinion.

Ms. Garcia-Martin was represented pro bono before the Ninth Circuit by Jayne E. Fleming and Raymond A. Cardozo, Oakland based attorneys from the top 25 international law firm Reed Smith LLP. According to Ms. Fleming, today’s opinion in Reina Izabel Garcia-Martinez vs. John Ashcroft, Attorney General is an important one for all women applicants asserting asylum claims. "The Ninth Circuit obviously agrees that the Department of Justice erred in focusing on the form of persecution she experienced – that is, the sexual assault -- rather than on the motive for the persecution, which was political oppression" ...

http://www.reedsmith.com/newsroom/search_newsroom.cfm?FaArea1=CustomWidgets.content_view_1&cit_id=331

So perhaps the asylum seeker in this case may have a useable appeal through BIA

[mkultra]

111. looks like the applicant broke the 180 day rule and fell victim when asylum was not granted

If you marry as an illegal in the US you can file for temporary providing you haven't been here unlawfully for more than 180 days. Since this person was applying for asylum for two years, i would imagine they where banking on that to kep them in as you stay as long as you have a pending asylum application.

I betting that once the asylum was denied, then the 180 day rule kicked in and its deportation. This info is available to the public on a computing system commonly refereed to as the internet.

[struggle4progress]

113. My current (unprofessional) understanding is that DOMA moots the 180 day rule

[mkultra]

118. why is that?

[struggle4progress]

123. Let's be precise. The actual rule is that 180 days illegal presence triggers

an automatic exclusion period: that wouldn't change. Recognized marriages bring an associated right to remain while applying for a visa or permanent resident status, provided one hasn't been illegally present for 180 days: this was summarized in the post to which I replied as here less than 180 days illegally and in a recognized marriage confers certain legal benefits -- but since DOMA prevents recognition of the marriage, such discussion is is moot


How Do I Become a V-Nonimmigrant as the Spouse or Child of a U.S. Permanent Resident? (V-1, V-2 and V-3 Visa Classifications)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=51f2194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD

[mkultra]

126. sounds reasonable, now explain how that links to Obama

Which is the point of the OP. I think we can all agree that DOMA is bigotry and that it was DOMA that prevented the exit. The ops is issuing the as an example of why we should be pissed at Obama. Seems like a good reason to be pissed at a democratic majority in congress to me.

[struggle4progress]

127. My #6 shows the immigration judge is one of a number of political appointees from the W era

with no background in immigration law. My #108 provides an example of the difficulty rape victims have experienced in the immigration system: it concerns a woman who was gang raped by military members, with immigration taking the attitude, So, yeah, OK, but what's the actual problem?. My #7 points out the link to DOMA; in #8 and #9, I link to bills in the House and Senate that would address the issue in the OP

In 2008, there were over 47000 US asylum requests, fewer than 11000 of which were granted; at least 13000 were denied. You can get information from the Asylum Statistics link here: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub.htm

With numbers like that, most cases are not going to receive careful scrutiny on review, but will be examined only for obvious problems. So the problem created by the W political appointees moved into civil service positions will endure for some time. This problem does not affect only immigration, and Congress ought to strengthen the qualifications requirements for a number of Executive appointments and create some mechanism for challenging the unqualified

Unfair treatment of asylum seekers is not uncommon, as one can see by considering the situation with Central American refugees fleeing the horrors of El Salvador or Guatemala in the Reagan era:

... Although many Salvadorans applied for asylum in the 1980s, approximately 2 percent of applications were approved while the majority found their applications were considered "frivolous" ... In 1991, a group of religious organizations and refugee advocacy organizations won its class-action lawsuit against the federal government for its discriminatory treatment of asylum claims from Salvadorans and Guatemalans. The American Baptist Churches v Thornburgh (ABC) decision compelled the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS, now US Citizenship and Immigration Services) to offer de novo (initial) asylum hearings under new and fairer regulations to all Salvadorans and Guatemalans whose previous applications were denied in the 1980s ... http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=636

In short, there are a number of distinct problems here one should like to see addressed, which in this particular case have affected the individuals discussed in the OP. Some of these problems (DOMA) obviously reflect prejudice against gays; some probably reflect various occult prejudices of individuals handling immigration cases; and some reflect large issues, not limited to the gay community but impacting it in some cases. Different people will approach these issues differently, but I think some of them would be best attacked by broad-based coalitions that recognize the current situation is unfair to many people in many ways

[dsc]

115. DOMA makes the 180 day rule irrelevent

my cousin's wife's visa was over a year expired and she was just fine.

[mkultra]

117. got any links on that

i cant seem to find that in DOMA.

[tomm2thumbs]

114. thanks for posting