Five Benefits of Having a Copy of Your "A File" from USCIS or the Immigration Court through a FOIA Request

Obtaining a copy of your "Administrative" or "A" file from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has many benefits.  As most of our readers know, USCIS is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and it is responsible for the administration of immigration and naturalization adjudication functions and establishing immigration services policies and priorities.  The Immigration Courts are a component of EOIR under the U.S. Department of Justice.

The request for a copy of the A-file is done through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The "A file" is basically a person's record maintained by USCIS (and legacy INS) since at least 1955. Generally speaking each individual should have only one A-file.  The A-file is created when action is required for a particular individual. This "action" can include for example petitioning for an immigrant visa, requesting an immigration benefit, the initiation of removal proceedings, or submitting an adjustment of status petition.  The A-file can also be created at "any other time a case file is needed". Once created, it contains all immigration records  for that particular non-citizen applicant.

I'm not very fond of the word "alien" so I use "non-citizen applicant" instead.  In all fairness to our friends at USCIS, the term "alien" is actually a statutory term defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  INA section 101(a)(3) defines an "alien" as any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

Although there are many reasons why an applicant should have a copy of his or her A file, here are some:   

• It helps you determine whether or how to proceed with an application. In some cases the A file will reveal facts that may have not been disclosed previously or were simply forgotten.  Some of the information contained in the A file may affect eligibility for the benefit desired, or may affect where and how the application has to be submitted.
• It will help you see what the immigration officer is seeing.  The A file will have the documents you submitted and those that others have submitted on your behalf.  The interviewing officer will be making his or her decision in part by what's in the record. It's important that the applicant also know what's in the file.
• It helps you prepare.  By knowing what you have in the file, you can prepare adequately for an interview and anticipate issues that may be addressed.  In some cases many years have passed since the original A file was created and it's important to review the file. 
• It helps you determine eligibility. In some cases obtaining a copy of the A file will help determine eligibility for the relief sought such as a Motion to Reopen or assist in documenting an application for relief.
• It's free (for the most part). Most requests have no fees associated with them (unless the records are voluminous or take several hours to research).

Keep in mind that each agency has different procedures on how they handle FOIA requests.  Because every agency has different FOIA procedures, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be contacted separately.  Below is some information on how to submit a FOIA request with USCIS and EOIR. 

• USCIS.  Utilize Form G-639.  USCIS' website has a lot of useful information that will assist you in preparing and submitting the application. 
• EOIR (Immigration Court).   The request should be made in writing to EOIR. The request should have some information such as a description of the records sought, the applicant's name, "A number", and the date and court location of the proceedings.  A Certification of Identity (Form DOJ-361) may also be required.   For more information please review EOIR's Fact Sheet on FOIA requests. 

Done with time, the results of a FOIA request can be a very useful tool.  Keep in mind that FOIA requests take several months to process. Submitting the request as early as possible is the way to go.

Matter of GUEVARA ALFARO: Silva-Trevino's mandatory three-step framework supports finding that intentional sexual conduct by an adult with a child is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT).

In Matter of GUEVARA ALFARO, 25 I&N Dec. 417 (BIA 2011), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that:

1. Any intentional sexual conduct by an adult with a child involves moral turpitude, as long as the perpetrator knew or should have known that the victim was under the age of 16.
2. Absent otherwise controlling authority, Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are bound to apply all three steps of the procedural framework set forth by the Attorney General in Matter of Silva-Trevino for determining whether a particular offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

In a decision dated April 27, 2010, an Immigration Judge terminated the removal proceedings against the respondent. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed from that decision. The appeal was ultimately sustained, the proceedings reinstated, and the record remanded for further proceedings.

The respondent in this case was a citizen of El Salvador  who adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident in 1997. He was placed in removal proceedings after being convicted of several offenses, including unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (statutory rape) in violation of section 261.5(d) of the California Penal Code. That section provides as follows:

Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

In Matter of Silva-Trevino the Attorney General established a three-part framework for determining whether a particular offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

• First, a categorical approach must be employed under which the criminal statute at issue is examined to ascertain whether moral turpitude is intrinsic to all offenses that have a “realistic probability” of being prosecuted under that statute.
• Second, if the issue cannot be resolved under the categorical approach, a modified categorical approach should be undertaken, which requires inspection of specific documents comprising the alien’s record of conviction (such as the indictment, the judgment of conviction, jury instructions, a signed guilty plea, or the plea transcript) to discern the nature of the underlying conviction. 
• Finally, if the record of conviction is inconclusive, probative evidence beyond the record of conviction (such as an admission by the alien or testimony before the Immigration Judge) may be considered when evaluating whether an alien’s offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. 

When applying Matter of Silva-Trevino to this case, the BIA analyzed this case as follows:

• It first analyzed section 261.5(d) of the California Penal Code under the categorical approach. Since the statute does not require a perpetrator to have engaged in intentional sexual contact with someone he or she knew or should have known to be a child, there is a realistic probability it could be applied to conduct that does not involve moral turpitude. The offense prohibited by section 261.5(d) is therefore not a categorical crime involving moral turpitude under the first step of Silva-Trevino. 
• Applying the second step, the BIA found that there were no documents in the record of conviction establishing that the respondent knew or should have known that his victim was a child.
• The only remaining step of Silva-Trevino is the third, which provides for consideration of probative evidence beyond the record of conviction. For this step, the BIA analyzed the respondent's testimony before the Immigration Judge. 

Because the BIA generally lacks the authority to make findings of fact in the course of deciding appeals (8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)), it remanded the case for the Immigration Judge to make specific factual findings regarding whether the respondent knew or should have known that his victim was a minor, taking into consideration the respondent’s prior testimony before the Immigration Court and any other relevant evidence.

Country of Refuge: Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPRs

Recently we began a series on the strengths and benefits of our immigration law and policy. Today we'll briefly touch upon Cancellation of Removal for Non-Lawful Permanent Residents (Non-LPRs).  Cancellation of Removal for LPRs will be discussed in a different post.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Attorney General has discretion to grant various forms of relief from removal. One of these forms of relief is Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPRs under section 240A(b) of the INA. This section provides that a foreign national seeking cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents must establish four statutory requirements: 

1. Physical presence in the United States for a continuous period of ten years; 
2. Good good moral character during that period of time; 
3. No convictions for certain criminal offenses; and 
4. Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the applicant's spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.

There are only three decisions published by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to guide adjudicators in deciding whether an applicant can demonstrate that a qualifying relative would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship: Matter of Recinas, Matter of Andazola, and Matter of Monreal.  These cases will be discussed in detail in a different post under the heading of "hardships" and "waivers".

One can argue whether the standard to show eligibility under the Cancellation of Removal provisions is too high or whether more quotas should be made available, but to those that qualify - obtaining this benefit is literally a life-saver. I have been very fortunate in my years practicing immigration law to have assisted several clients to obtain their lawful permanent resident status through Cancellation of Removal.  Take for example the case of a foreign national in removal proceedings who has a seriously ill U.S. citizen child and has no other form of relief available. If this person is removed the child would not be able to obtain the medical care needed in their home country. Without the availability of Cancellation of Removal as a form of relief, many would be removed every year from the United States to face dire and extreme hardships.  Fortunately, thanks to our generous and humanitarian immigration provisions, qualifying applicants don't have to face such hardships.

Immigration Enforcement on Steroids. Precursor to Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced unprecedented immigration enforcement statistics achieved under the Obama administration, including the removal of 392,000 noncitizens - 195,000 of which were convicted criminals. Also announced was the audit of more than 3,200 employers suspected of hiring illegal labor, and the approximately $50 million in financial sanctions imposed.  

“This administration has focused on enforcing our immigration laws in a smart, effective manner that prioritizes public safety and national security and holds employers accountable who knowingly and repeatedly break the law,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Our approach has yielded historic results, removing more convicted criminal aliens than ever before and issuing more financial sanctions on employers who knowingly and repeatedly violate immigration law than during the entire previous administration.”

Who would have thought that the Obama administration would be credited with a more than 70 percent increase in removal of criminal aliens from the Bush administration.  Could this be enough to convince skeptical Republicans to consider the viability of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)? 

The way that I see it, the argument of my skeptical Tea Party colleagues goes something like this: "Are you kidding? CIR? You're insane. Look, when President Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law in 1986, the promise was that there would be a major crackdown to include tighter security at the Mexican border, that employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and that there wouldn't be a problem of illegal immigration anymore. 25 years later, we have 15 million more undocumented individuals here."  I see their point, somewhat.  These are fighting words after all, and that's why I enjoy talking to my Tea Party friends, over tea and crackers (no pun intended), and I avoid the issue of immigration altogether (most of the time).

Maybe President Obama is a genius after all (on the issue of immigration - mind you). If my conspiracy theory is right, President Obama is laying the groundwork to push CIR forward in the Spring of 2011. He'll bring all the skeptics together and say: "Now hold on, I know I'm not the father of the modern conservative movement, but you wanted troops on the border - and I gave it to you; You wanted more deportations, and I gave it to you - 70% more than your beloved President Bush; You wanted more work site enforcement, and I gave it to you; You wanted strict penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, and I gave it to you; You wanted nothing to do with "amnesty", so I gave you "comprehensive immigration reform" or "earned legalization" - pick the term you like; WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT?" Ok, maybe he won't be yelling at the end, but it sure would be nice to watch.