PHILADELPHIA – A motion to dismiss filed on behalf of U.S. Immigration Services and the Department of Justice regarding the non-issuance of an immigrant visa for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied in federal court on June 10.
Judge John R. Padova, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled the Court is within its right to assume jurisdiction over the litigation regarding the denial of an immigrant visa for the wife of Phoenixville resident ____ ____, a convicted sex offender. Full Article
This is very good news for a lot of people. I’m in a very similar situation, and it’s been very stressful for both my wife and I. We were married 12 years before I caught my case (we were living in a different country for most of that time), now she is applying for her greencard, even though we knew it was going to be difficult. Her application has been pending for over three years now, haven’t heard anything from immigration regarding her case.
It’s good to know a similar case is pending in federal court, it’s possible my wife hasn’t heard anything yet since they might be waiting to see how this case goes, going to keep on eye on it now. I read the judges opinion, it was very good, pretty much shut down the department of homeland securities motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the federal court has no jurisdiction over immigration matters.
It’s blatantly obvious that this law is so unconstitutional on so many grounds, that is why it is a federal matter. Even the judge quotes the reasons by stating ““Cause One” that that
the statutory prohibition on the filing of I-130 petitions by individuals with such
convictions violates the ex post facto clause in Article I of the Constitution under circumstances (such as his) in which the individual was
convicted of the qualifying crime prior to enactment of the Walsh Act. He further contends, in “Cause Two,” that application of the same statutory prohibition
violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, because it burdens his fundamental constitutional right to marriage, cannot survive strict scrutiny, and is not accompanied by adequate procedural protections. Finally, Bakran contends, in “Cause Three,” that the statutory prohibition, as interpreted by CIS, violates his right to be free from constitutionally excessive
punishment because it, in effect, banishes his spouse from the United States for life.”
I mean it’s crazy, what if we also had kids, or the couple involved in this case? They too would be banished from the US under the Adam Walsh act. I have a good feeling this case is going to have a good outcome.
Same argument I often make: do the same restructions also apply to convicted drug dealers or felony drunk drivers, etc? Wouldn’t they also potentially present a risk to the immigrating spouse/family member? (And how about those very high recidivism rates for drunk drivers? Much higher than for (s)ex-offenders.)
Wow, This is great news! I nearly have the same exact issue.
I’m an RSO, US citizen in California. I’ve been married to my Canadian wife for over 5+ years. She just got denied because of the AWA after 2+ years of waiting. We’re now attempting again but more aggressively and will take it as far as I can go with a (what I believe) is a good lawyer.
Janice, If I can get your opinion/input, it would certainly help.