The Department of State has published an announcement in the Federal Register notifying qualifying individuals of the opening of the registration period for the DV-2011 Diversity Visa lottery.
If you are eligible to apply for the DV-2011 Diversity Visa lottery you must submit your application electronically between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), Friday, October 2, 2009, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5), Monday, November 30, 2009.
Click here for the full DV-2011 Instructions.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Women Facing Persecution in Pakistan
Today I am working on an asylum application for a Pakistani woman who fled Pakistan because she feared for her life. At the time she escaped, she was 29, unmarried, and pregnant. She was engaged to a man that her family had arranged a marriage with, and he was not the father of her child.
Moreover, she was a Sunni Muslim, and the father of her child was a Shi’a Muslim. Knowing that this was a death sentence for her, she and the father of her child came to the United States in search of safety.
Here is some of the initial research I have gathered on the persecution of women in Pakistan who have an out-of-wedlock child, and/or marry the man of their choosing:
Just a few months ago, in June, a young woman who married against the will of her family was beaten and killed, along with her husband and three of his relatives, by over three dozen attackers headed by her family, “to avenge the so-called dishonour brought to the family due to the elopement of the girl.”
Last September, three women who attempted to marry men of their own choosing were kidnapped, driven to the desert, beaten, shot, and then buried alive. Upon hearing of this heinous crime, a local politician stated that “such acts were part of a ‘centuries-old tradition’ and he would ‘continue to defend them.’”
“Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed ‘illicit’ relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped as they are thereby deemed to have brought shame on their family. The truth of the suspicion does not matter – merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonour on the family and therefore justifies the slaying.”
Moreover, she was a Sunni Muslim, and the father of her child was a Shi’a Muslim. Knowing that this was a death sentence for her, she and the father of her child came to the United States in search of safety.
Here is some of the initial research I have gathered on the persecution of women in Pakistan who have an out-of-wedlock child, and/or marry the man of their choosing:
Just a few months ago, in June, a young woman who married against the will of her family was beaten and killed, along with her husband and three of his relatives, by over three dozen attackers headed by her family, “to avenge the so-called dishonour brought to the family due to the elopement of the girl.”
Last September, three women who attempted to marry men of their own choosing were kidnapped, driven to the desert, beaten, shot, and then buried alive. Upon hearing of this heinous crime, a local politician stated that “such acts were part of a ‘centuries-old tradition’ and he would ‘continue to defend them.’”
“Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed ‘illicit’ relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped as they are thereby deemed to have brought shame on their family. The truth of the suspicion does not matter – merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonour on the family and therefore justifies the slaying.”
California Lawmakers call for Suspension of Immigration Laws
Does anyone else find it ironic that that California State lawmakers have passed a resolution that calls for the non-enforcement of laws?
It has been reported that California State Senator Gilbert Cedillo-D sponsored a resolution in the California Senate that has passed by a partisan vote of Democrats that calls for a moratorium on the enforcement of all Federal and State immigration laws in the State of California.
Now, I'm not saying that the United States immigration laws don't need to be fixed, but to suspend immigration enforcement all together is simply ridiculous, and sets a terrible, and dangerous precedent. Thankfully this resolution isn't worth the paper that it is written on.
Only in California.
Click here to read the entire text of the joint resolution.
It has been reported that California State Senator Gilbert Cedillo-D sponsored a resolution in the California Senate that has passed by a partisan vote of Democrats that calls for a moratorium on the enforcement of all Federal and State immigration laws in the State of California.
Now, I'm not saying that the United States immigration laws don't need to be fixed, but to suspend immigration enforcement all together is simply ridiculous, and sets a terrible, and dangerous precedent. Thankfully this resolution isn't worth the paper that it is written on.
Only in California.
Click here to read the entire text of the joint resolution.
Monday, September 28, 2009
In the Shadow of the Raid
The documentary "In the Shadow of the Raid" premiers at the Morelia International Film Festival, in Mexico between Oct. 3 and Oct. 11.
Second Circuit to Immigration Judge: If you deny asylum, you must give legally sufficient reasons for the denial.
In an unpublished decision (Madaminova v. Holder, Sept. 25, 2009), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has put their foot down ruling that an Immigration Judge must give sufficient reasons for denying an application for asylum, and may not simply just say no.
The Court ruled that conclusory determinations regarding incidents an asylum applicant describes in their application for asylum are insufficient, and that the Immigration Court must explain why it is denying the asylum application.
The Court further ruled that the Immigration Judge must identify the legal standard relied upon in assessing whether the testified experience constitutes persecution, must consider the cumulative effect of an asylum applicant’s experiences as opposed to assessing them in isolation, and may not simply state that the past described incidents simply do not rise to the level of persecution.
Although this case does not have binding precedential effect on other cases arising out of the Second Circuit, it sends a message to Immigration Judges that you can’t just say “no” without explaining your answer thereby precluding an asylum applicant from seeking meaningful judicial review of the denial.
The Court ruled that conclusory determinations regarding incidents an asylum applicant describes in their application for asylum are insufficient, and that the Immigration Court must explain why it is denying the asylum application.
The Court further ruled that the Immigration Judge must identify the legal standard relied upon in assessing whether the testified experience constitutes persecution, must consider the cumulative effect of an asylum applicant’s experiences as opposed to assessing them in isolation, and may not simply state that the past described incidents simply do not rise to the level of persecution.
Although this case does not have binding precedential effect on other cases arising out of the Second Circuit, it sends a message to Immigration Judges that you can’t just say “no” without explaining your answer thereby precluding an asylum applicant from seeking meaningful judicial review of the denial.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)