Once again U.S. immigration is in the news regarding domestic violence and gang-violence related to asylum seekers. The turmoil came from the speech made by attorney General, Jeff Sessions’ opening remarks to the House Judiciary Committee’s Oversight of the Department of Justice regarding asylum. Mr. Sessions has not created a new rule of law or stepped beyond the current regulations. Instead, he stated that the law should be applied according to his Session’s and the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the Legislators’ intention. The Trump/Sessions interpretation includes separating children from parents suspected of illegally crossing the border.
The fact is, there have been allegations of abuse of the asylum application process related to domestic violence, gang-violence and other type is issues. Sessions is now requesting that Judges be more restrictive regarding these matters. However, that does not mean that qualified applicants cannot file for asylum, even on these grounds.
For example, someone that has been a victim of domestic violence in X country, is not necessarily a victim for asylum in U.S. because, under the Trump/Sessions interpretation, the crime of domestic violence should be resolved within the legal system of that country, and/or maybe that victim can move to other areas within the country in order to find safety. For this person, the asylum application would not be approved. Nevertheless, if a victim of domestic violence is married to a military or governmental official, and the victim neither can be protected by the country’s legal system nor will (s)he be protected by moving to a different area within the country, then this person could have an asylum application approved. In the case of gang-violence, if the victim is in, or married to someone in a gang, and same as above, cannot find recourse within the country’s own legal system or protection anywhere in his or her home country, it is plausible to file for an asylum application.
It is also important to understand that there are other ways to protect foreign nationals that are victims of domestic violence or gang violence, other than through asylum, especially if they are already in the United States.
Feel free to contact our office with any questions.
Solita Chocron, LL.M.
El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia en Venezuela dio un golpe de estado al orden democrático con la sentencia Nº 156 del 29 de Marzo del 2017. Resumiendo su contenido en unas líneas, produjo una decisión a un recurso de interpretación introducido por los apoderados de Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), con la cual de un plumazo, decretó que todas la acciones y la potestad de la Asamblea Nacional (El Ente Legislativo elegido por el pueblo venezolano) quedarán sin efecto, asumiendo todas sus atribuciones y dejando el país en manos de mal llamado “Ejecutivo Nacional”.
De esta manera la falsa democracia existente durante mas de 15 años deja de existir; y como consecuencia, la posibilidad de usar las herramientas electorales de la democracia para rescatar al país de tanta violencia, abuso y corrupción.
Este es finalmente el momento donde públicamente se desenmascara el régimen comunista y totalitario de Venezuela que han impuesto tanto Nicolás Maduro, como su antecesor, Hugo Chávez Frías. Sin embargo, no hay que olvidar que estos han sido unos títeres manejados en el tinglado internacional por Los Castro de Cuba y por otros radicales como Irán, Rusia e incluso los terroristas internacionales. Lamentablemente se han concentrado en el poder los mas infames y corruptos individuos para utilizar las riquezas del pueblo, llevando al país a un caos de las dimensiones de un holocausto. Aun nos sabemos cuál es la intención, ni las repercusiones que esta decisión tendrá en el futuro cercano para los venezolanos. Es de esperar una represión abierta en todos los sectores del país.
Aun cuando la comunidad internacional ha reaccionado inmediatamente a este acto inconstitucional con amonestaciones públicas al régimen, llamados al retorno del orden constitucional y retiro de sus embajadores, incluyendo la promoción de acciones a nivel de las organizaciones internacionales, los venezolanos tenemos que entender, de una vez por todas, que la comunidad internacional, por sí sola, no va a resolver este caos, pues no se van a involucrar directamente enviando ningún tipo de auxilio o ayuda.
Esto sigue siendo un problema interno del país y de los venezolanos. Está en manos de cada uno de nosotros el reaccionar inmediatamente y con acciones claras en este preciso momento. Es la unidad y solidaridad de todos lo que puede sacar el país adelante. Acciones de valentía como las de la Fiscal General, denunciando el rompimiento del hilo constitucional, deben ser apoyadas por todos y no criticadas. En este momento todos aquellos que quieran luchar por retomar el orden jurídico del país deben ser aceptados por la mayoría. No se puede esperar a que otros hagan por el país lo que no hemos hecho los venezolanos. Hay que pensar en las generaciones por venir y recordar a aquellos que en otras épocas lucharon con valentía contra un régimen opresor para salvar a Venezuela. Es ahora donde hace falta ese Bravo Pueblo Venezolano! Nosotros que somos de “Dichos” recordemos a aquel que dice: “A Dios rogando y con el mazo dando”. Esperemos que todos juntos podamos llamar a elecciones en un futuro cercano y que Venezuela vuelva a ser un paraíso para todos.
Santucci Priore, P.L.’s immigration law department is committed to keeping the public up to date on President Trump’s executive orders that include travel bans now targeted to travelers from six (6) different countries, and any countries that are added to that list. The updates will include full text of the pertinent orders and other legal documents so that our immigration clients and other followers have the direct information, free of media spin from either side of the political spectrum. Stay tuned to www.500law.com and our firm’s Facebook and Twitter profiles.
The Latest Report and Background:
According to the Courts, the changes made to President Trump’s new Executive Order were not enough. Specifically, on March 15, 2017, a Federal District Judge in Hawai’i blocked President Trump’s Second Travel Ban Order, only six (6) hours before it went into effect. The Court’s Temporary Restraining Order blocks President Trump from implementing sections 2 and 6 of the new Executive Order. Section 2 is the portion of the Executive Order that calls for Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. This is the portion of the Executive Order that specifies the amount of time in which nationals from the 6 specified countries will be denied entry into the U.S (if they do not meet any of the exceptions). Section 6 addresses the suspension on entry into the United States by refugees. The Trump Administration will not be able to implement these portions of the Executive Order at this point, unless the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court enter a stay of the Temporary Restraining Order while the proceedings continue. The Court’s Order is focused on the constitutional issues with the Executive Order and finds that the new Executive Order still violates the Establishment Clause. (For a further explanation of said constitutional issues see the complete text of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i below).
Another Federal District Judge in Maryland temporarily blocked part of the new Executive Order as well. The Plaintiffs in this action consist of nonprofit companies that work with refugees as well as a group of individual visa holders who allege that they’ve experienced stigma from the president’s actions and would be separated from family trying to travel to the United States once the order takes effect. The Plaintiffs sought a nationwide injunction stopping the order from taking effect in its entirety. The Court declined to grant such broad relief and granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and denied it in part. The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the implementation of section 2(c) of the Executive Order, the section of the Executive Order that specifically states the name of six Muslim countries whose nationals will be denied entry into the U.S for the ninety (90) day period. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish that Section 2(c) of the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause. The Court also issued a nationwide injunction on this matter because the Plaintiffs are located in different parts of the United States, indicating that nationwide relief may be appropriate. (For a further explanation of the scope of injunction see the complete text of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland below).
Plaintiffs also requested an injunction against the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order for the sections relating to the temporary ban on refugees, alleging that they believe that it also offends the Establishment Clause. However, the Court did not believe Plaintiffs met the burden to warrant the entry of an injunction against these sections at this time. As for the remaining portions of the President Trump’s Executive Order, the Court has found that the Plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient basis to establish their invalidity.
Judge Robart, the Judge who issued the Order for the stay on the implementation of the President Trump’s original Executive Order, has been requested to enforce his prior injunction against the new Executive Order but no hearing has been scheduled for this request.
As a precautionary method, it is important to seek the advice of counsel, if the Executive Order has or may impact you or your family in any way. Solita Cochron from Santucci Priore, a veteran United States immigration clerk and attorney in Venezuela, along with the firm’s attorneys, are standing by to offer assistance to those who are confused or concerned and anyone else, with lawful motives, who is seeking to enter or become a legal resident or citizen of our United States of America. Santucci Priore is offering assistance to clients with the following U.S. immigration issues: Family-based immigration, asylum, citizenship, naturalization, change of status, as well as permanent employment and inventor visas. The firm is also, for a limited time, offering, pro-bono (free), immigration advice and assistance to anyone that is or has been affected by President Trump’s Executive Order, and any future modified version of the Executive Order.
By: Jessica Maxey, Law Clerk
SANTUCCI PRIORE, P.L.
J.D. Candidate, May 2017
Click here for the text and an explanation of the Second Executive Order.