CaribWorldNews, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. April 23, 2010: A Guyanese immigrant has lost an appeal bid to waive his deportation.
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit this week upheld a deportation order by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the case of Wilfred Johnson.
Johnson entered the United States in or about March 1995, without inspection. In February 2003, he married a United States citizen, with whom he has two young children.
But Johnson`s wife filed and obtained approval of an alien relative petition, which permitted his presence in the United States. After briefly returning to Guyana, Johnson returned and was paroled into the United States in July 2005 as an applicant for legal permanent residence.
However, by March 2006, Johnson`s marriage began to deteriorate and he left the marital home. Meanwhile, Johnson`s wife withdrew the Alien Relative Petition, commenced divorce proceedings, and obtained a restraining order preventing Johnson from visiting his young children.
Based on the allegations made by Johnson`s wife in obtaining the restraining order, he was taken into custody by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While in custody, Johnson was served with a Notice to Appear and charged with removability `in that [he] was not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, re-entry permit, border crossing card, or valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.`
About one month later, Johnson filed an application in the Immigration Court for cancellation of removal under the Special Rule for Battered Spouses.
Thereafter, the Immigration Court had a hearing at which Johnson testified in support of his application. He testified that his wife mistreated him by making baseless allegations against him and depriving him of access to their two children. Johnson claimed that his wife`s actions amounted to extreme cruelty and that if he is subject to removal, his children will suffer.
The IJ denied Johnson`s application for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed and dismissed Johnson`s appeal. Johnson then petitioned the Appeals court to review the BIA`s order. But the court contended that Johnson failed to meet its statutory duty in reviewing the IJ`s decision.
They found that Johnson had not established that he was battered by his wife, subjected to extreme cruelty by her, or that his removal would result in extreme hardship to himself, his children, or his wife. The BIA affirmed the IJ on the ground that Johnson `did not establish that he has been battered` by his wife and he did not demonstrate extreme cruelty which precludes him from` relief under the extreme hardship provision of the immigration law.