Categories
Updates

2 Filipinos spared from deportation due to PH war on drugs

Share this:

SAN FRANCISCO — Two Filipino immigrants, who served jail terms for drug offenses but were apprehended by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and placed on deportation proceedings, were recently granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because they are potential targets of President Rodrigo Duterte’s lethal war on drugs.

One immigrant was immediately released after an immigration judge’s CAT ruling while the other remains in custody pending the written decision of the judge that could withstand an impending appeal of ICE against the still detained convict.

The two grateful Filipinos living in San Francisco chose to remain unidentified. Both men have families, are indigents and in their mid-30s. They are green card holders who were represented for free by legal advocacy group for Asians in San Francisco.

Their lawyer, Kevin Lo, is a staff attorney in the Immigrant Rights Program of the Asian Law Caucus. Lo chanced upon the two men when he visited the San Francisco immigration detention center and realized that the two Filipinos needed representation, as most people in immigration detention are usually not legally aided enough.

Claims for protection

“In evaluating the cases of the two Filipinos clients, we learned about the situation in the Philippines with President Duterte’s drug war. And when we realized that they had claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, we decided to take their cases because we know the situation is pretty serious,” Lo shared.

“We decided to make the argument that drug addicts who are deported to the Philippines has a more then 50 percent chance to be added to government watch lists and subsequently killed,” Lo explained.

Asian Law Caucus sought the help of Vicente Rafael, professor of history in the University of Washington, specializing in Southeast Asian history. “Rafael became our source for the condition in the Philippines particularly the drug war being waged by President Duterte,” Lo said.

Rafael’s declaration together with another expert’s statement proved very helpful in securing the detainees’ protection from the judge.

“We [also] submitted a big stack of articles and pictures to show that in the Philippines drug convictions typically equal torture and death,” Lo explained. “If we haven’t been able to submit the country condition confirmation that intended to show that the government’s (drive against drug offenders) is true, the ruling may not have been granted and they could have been deported.”

Scheduled to testify again

Rafael is scheduled to testify by phone on another case, in Tacoma, Washington, largely along the same lines. Nearby Seattle was where an earlier case employing the CAT appeal protection lost.

Lo wants to make clear though that the CAT is usually the last thing that people try for because it doesn’t lead to any legal status; one can still be deported when conditions change. It is also not granted very often.

“For our clients, the judge said he won’t be deporting our clients. But once Duterte is no longer in power and the drug war is no longer happening, they can be deported. So, CAT is an acknowledgement that you are deportable, but for human rights reason, you are not going to be for now,” disclosed Lo.

He says its a form of relief that applies to other people in other countries with dangerous condition of human rights. “The Duterte situation is so extreme, so rare that the head of state will be so explicit and proud that he killed so many people that started back when he was mayor of Davao City.”

Unfair deportation system

Lo also stressed that the U.S. deportation system is so unfair because even if immigrant convicts spent only a few months in a U.S. prison, they are being deported even for drug crimes that are not serious.

“Current U.S. immigration law punishes drug crimes very heavily. It is kind of funny that we are criticizing Duterte for his war on drugs, while the U.S. war on drugs, although not be as bad, is pretty extreme too,” Lo lamented.

In the deportation process, ICE will request for travel documents from the Philippines and also will turn over a copy of the deportee’s criminal record. What that means is that the U.S. is explicitly telling the Philippines that the deportee is a drug abuser or trafficker. Under Duterte, it is very likely that the deportee will be added to the drug list.

Duterte supporter Atty. Arnedo S. Valera, a practicing immigration attorney, congratulated Lo and company for “creative legal representation” in finding a relief from deportation for these two Filipinos.

Legal aberration

However, he contended that “this ruling is a legal aberration and not the prevailing case law in almost all immigration courts in 50 States. For the last decade, based on specific and unique removal issues faced by Filipino immigrants, I have been successful in obtaining asylum alleging fear of even torture under the Aquino and Arroyo regimes.”

Most likely, these liberal rulings will be appealed by the government because the fact is, under the drug policy of the Duterte administration, drug addicts who surrender and are not engaged in selling drugs and other criminal activities are sent to rehabilitation centers for treatment and drug rehabilitation.”

Duterte critic and seasoned litigator Ted Laguatan says that the present Philippine government has developed a global reputation for being engaged in state-sponsored extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

“Numerous documented reports and graphic pictures of Filipinos brutally murdered by police elements and so called ‘vigilantes’ many of whom are also police elements dressed in civilians, have been published in international publications. More than 8,000 killed since President Rodrigo Duterte sat in office,” reasoned Laguatan.

Laguatan says that while government apologists continue to deny that these killings are state-sponsored, there are so many recorded footages of President Rodrigo Duterte delivering speeches urging the police to continue with these killings and assuring them of his protection.

‘Duterte behind the killings’

“Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that Duterte is behind these killings as the styles or modes of executions are the same as those used by the notorious Davao Death Squad reputedly headed by Duterte when he was Mayor of Davao City. Moreover, the more than 8,000 killings are self-evident. They would not have happened if Duterte were not President. As such, more Filipinos in removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be using the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) to prevent their removal,” Laguatan opined.

Another eminent immigration lawyer Lourdes Tancinco noted that with the current social political environment in the Philippines, the view of the outside world on the controversial war of drugs has an impact on the fate of Filipinos abroad.

“I am not surprised that it had reached the immigration courts involving Filipinos who are facing removal. It would not be difficult to find sufficient evidence for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act considering that substantial and factual information is available in regards to the increasing number of death of people involved in illegal drugs. The courts can rely on expert opinion or organizations like the UN Commission on Human Rights,” Tancinco said.

Tancinco noted that the challenge in employing CAT is proving whether the abuse is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or any person acting in an official capacity.

By Jun Nucum, via @inquirerdotnet

Categories
Global Pinoy

Deadbeat Dad’s Restriction on Foreign Travel

Share this:

Joshua was petitioned by his U.S. citizen spouse, Jessica, in 2005. After ten years, their marriage ended in divorce. There are three children born from the relationship and all of them are minors. The court ordered that Joshua pay child support in the amount of $1,500 per month.

For one year, Joshua paid his child support regularly. However, Joshua was terminated from his employment and found it difficult to pay for his child support obligations. In 2016, his unpaid child support reached $35,000.

Meanwhile, depressed and unemployed, Joshua decided to return to the Philippines.

He applied for a U.S. passport but was denied. While he was issued a U.S. passport in the past, he was told a renewal of his U.S. passport was problematic because he owed child support. Desperate to depart for the Philippines, Joshua, upon advice of his friends, applied for dual citizenship and was issued a Philippine passport. He traveled back to the Philippines and stayed with his long time sweetheart for more than three months. When he was about to return to the United States, he found himself with only a Philippine passport. He was told that a mere Philippine passport without a U.S. visa was an insufficient travel document to go back to the States.

Joshua applied again for a U.S. passport. Will he be issued one by the State Department despite his child support arrearages?

Passport Denials

The U.S. Department of State has a Passport Denial Program that is designed to help states enforce delinquent child support obligations. Parents certified by a state as having arrearages exceeding $2,500 are submitted by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the Department of State, which denies them U.S. passports upon application or the use of a passport service.

This program was established as a penalty for deadbeats who owe court-ordered child support. It also serves as an incentive for passport applicants who wish to travel to first settle their child support arrearages before taking a trip outside the United States.

Reporting Child Support Arrearages

The restriction on the issuance of a passport applies only if there is previous court intervention in the child support matter and individuals representing the child are utilizing state support collections services. If there is no court order of child support, enforcement through this program is not available.

Limited Passport

The rule restricting issuance of passports to persons who owe child support, like Joshua, is not absolute. There is an exception. Joshua could secure a passport limited in purpose only, that is, only to be issued and used for his “direct return” to the United States. He could not use this passport for any other purpose.

The regulations that restrict issuance of passports to deadbeats withstood constitutional challenges because there is governmental interest in ensuring that those who do not pay child support obligations remain within the jurisdictional authority of the United States. The exception allowing Joshua a limited passport back to the U.S. ensures that he would be within the jurisdiction of the courts to face, own up to, and hopefully comply with his child support obligations.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Why US consuls may revoke B2 visitor visas

Share this:

Once a non-immigrant visa is issued by a consular officer at the US Embassy, it may be used by the visa holder anytime during the validity period of the visa. There are also cases where an unexpired visitor visa may no longer be used for travel. This happens when derogatory information is received by the consular officer and the visa is prematurely revoked by the said consular officer.

Aida travels annually to the United States on a visitor (B2) visa. She stays at least for five months and departs for the Philippines thereafter. Information was received by the consular officer from a reliable source that Aida was engaged in unauthorized employment while on a visitor’s visa. Recently, as Aida was preparing to travel to the United States, she received a letter from the US Embassy requesting that she surrender her visa. She was taken aback to receive the notice, but nevertheless proceeded to the US Embassy in Manila. As she presented her visa, the consular officer marked REVOKED on it and she was given a document stating that the visa was denied under INA 214(b). Can Aida re-apply for another visa and travel again to the United States?

Circumstances

There are only certain circumstances under the regulations where consular officers are allowed to revoke a nonimmigrant visa: (1) ineligibility of the visa classification based on INA 214(b); (2) an immigrant visa is issued; (3) the visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued or (4) the visa holder is subject to a Watchlist Promote Hit for an arrest or conviction of driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated or similar arrests/convictions (DUI) that occurred within the previous five years.

The most common ground for revocation is based on Immigration and Nationality Act 214(b). This is a provision of the law where the visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant “until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant visa status. A consular officer will have to base the revocation on clear evidence of intent to immigrate to the United States. Working and residing in the United States are signs that the visitor’s visa applicant has the intention to reside permanently in the United States and more importantly it is a violation of the terms of his visitor’s visa.

Required procedure

There is a required procedure for the revocation of the visa. The consular officer should notify the alien of the intention to revoke the visa and request the alien to present the travel document in which the visa was issued.

While the notice of intent to revoke a visa affords the alien the opportunity to demonstrate why the visa should not be revoked, there is no longer a procedure for reconsideration of the revocation. An applicant whose visa has been revoked may apply for another visa. Or, a consular officer may provisionally revoke a non-immigrant visa while considering the visa holder’s eligibility for a visa.

The consular officer will print or stamp the word “REVOKED” in large block letters across the face of the visa. A ground for the ineligibility, or derogatory information, is entered into a database called Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS). And every time, an individual applies for a visa, this information is noted in this system and will affect the application for a new visa.

In the case of Aida, there will be an opportunity for her to apply for a new visitor visa but she has to overcome the inadmissibility ground, which is the main reason why her visa was revoked. Otherwise, she may want to consider filing for a waiver. Approval of this waiver is discretionary on the part of the consular officer and the rate of approval is low. Hence, one should refrain from violating the terms of his visa to avoid the complications of a possible visa revocation.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw.)