征求為聯邦調查局姓名調查 (name check)煩惱的朋友

本人移民調整身份申請（I-485）卡在了聯邦調查局姓名調查 (name check) 這一關節已有2年多了。不少朋友有類似問題。最近發現 the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrations’ Rights Projects 在征求這方麵信息 （請見詳情如下）。該組織是非營利性質。他們正在為一件相關案件 起訴政府。如果您也為此事煩惱，請聯係該組織 Cecilia Wang 律師 （415 343 0770 ext 772）。或email 本人代交 [e-mail]。該組織需要征集更多信息來決定是不是將namecheck問題加入他們這個正在進行中的案件。希望團結大家力量用法律手段來解決這個移民難關。謝謝！

ACLU SEEKS ASSISTANCE IN SUIT AGAINST INS DISTRICT OFFICES
The American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project is seeking information to prepare an amicus brief for the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving exclusion proceedings against a lawful permanent resident.

Recently the Federal District Court in Chicago ruled that a lawful permanent resident in exclusion proceedings is entitled to an individualized parole hearing in from an immigration judge or other impartial adjudicator. The judge in the case found that the new Section 236(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which allows INS district directors to solely decide to place someone in custody is an unconstitutional denial of due process.

The ACLU is seeking evidence for its brief to back up the contention that district directors are "structurally biased" and that district directors do not fully and adequately consider the merits of parole requests and routinely deny them in a cursory fashion.

The ACLU is asking that immigration advocacy organizations and immigration professionals provide information on the following questions to Cecilia Wang at 415-621-2493 x 16:

1. Has it been your experience that district directors routinely and typically treat parole requests in a cursory way, and deny them without due consideration of their individual merits?

2. How do district director parole determinations compare to immigration judge bond determinations, as far as the depth of the analysis and weighing of factors?

3. Does your organization have any actual district director parole denials that tend to demonstrate that district directors approach parole requests in a "cookie-cutter" or "rubber-stamp" manner; i.e. that district directors do not give each request individualized and careful consideration? Any such sample denials should be typical.

4. Does your organization have statistics on the frequency of district director grants of parole?

5. Would your organization be interested in signing onto the ACLU amicus brief?

所有跟帖： 

• Good move!! -Pinklady66- ♀ (0 bytes) () 09/17/2006 postreply 10:06:16

• 回複：征求為聯邦調查局姓名調查 (name check)煩惱的朋友 -DEShaw- ♂ (10 bytes) () 09/17/2006 postreply 12:53:33

• 強列要求斑竹置頂 -DEShaw- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/17/2006 postreply 12:55:07

• 回複：征求為聯邦調查局姓名調查 (name check)煩惱的朋友 -PepperRabit- ♀ (2545 bytes) () 09/18/2006 postreply 13:25:55

• 回複：回複：征求為聯邦調查局姓名調查 (name check)煩惱的朋友 -redangel21- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/30/2006 postreply 14:34:56