Tag Archives: cancellation of removal

Cancellation Victory (well, sort of)

22 Apr

A couple of months ago, I got to enjoy my fifteen minutes of fame when my client became the poster child for problems caused for immigrants in immigration court by the government shutdown.  I wrote a blog piece, wrote another for the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association and, next thing I know, I am speaking to Robert Siegel of NPR’s All Things Considered and people I have not heard from in decades called me to say they heard me on the radio.  But, eventually, my fame wore off and I still had to fix this young woman’s situation.

what-up-with-that

As way of background, my client, a 21 year old college junior who has been here since she was four years old, applied for cancellation of removal from the Immigration Judge.  Cancellation is available to an individual who has been unlawfully present in the U.S. for at least ten years, possesses good moral character and whose removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child.  Congress has decided that only 4000 cancellation cases should be granted every year.  For many years, the 4000 quota was enough for the entire country.  However, as the Obama administration put many more people into removal proceedings, more people applied.  And guess what?  Given a day in court, more people were able to convince judges that they were good people with longstanding ties to the U.S. and deporting them would cause their families tremendous hardship.  By December 2012, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge announced that they had run out of cancellation visas for the entire fiscal year, which had started barely two months earlier.  My client had a hearing in December 2012, in which she was informed by the Judge that there were no more cancellation grants available and the case would need to be continued.  The case was reset until October 2013.  The irony at that time was that she had originally been scheduled in October 2012, when cancellation numbers were available, but had to be rescheduled when the court was shut down due to flooding in lower Manhattan as a result of Hurricane Sandy.10155981_741506099222830_2694746367904436600_n

Fast forward to October 2013 and the government shutdown cancels her latest hearing.  The New York, upon reopening, quickly sent out a hearing notice for March 30.  However, on March 28, the court called me to inform me that the case would need to be rescheduled because the judge had been selected for jury duty!  We were rescheduled for April 18 at 2:00 PM, a date that greatly concerned me as it was Good Friday.  Sure enough, the court called the day before and asked us to come in earlier, which we happily did.  At the hearing, the government informed the court that it agreed with our request to grant our client cancellation of removal.  It took all of fifteen minutes.  The Judge was glad to do so, but explained that there are no cancellation numbers and that my client would be placed in the queue based upon the date and time of her case and would be notified when a number became available to her.  The case could not be “granted” until then.  So, my client, while relieved that she will ultimately be granted, remains in a precarious limbo by another absurd anomaly of our immigration laws- that only 4000 of these may be granted in a given year.  Who knows where Congress got that number?

Here's where Congress got the 4000 number!

Here’s where Congress got the 4000 number!

My client is just one of millions of people left in a state of limbo by Congress’ inability to address the crisis of immigration law.  In this case, my client has DACA and I probably could have gotten the removal case dismissed.  The government stipulated to relief, meaning she would get her green card.  It is hard to say that, in this one case, the problem is the administration.  Like all other arbitrary caps and quotas, such as the H-1B cap, the former cap on asylee adjustment, and caps on immigrant visas, Congress needs to act.

A New Fiscal Year and the Same Old Dysfunction

1 Oct

1_photo

The air is noticeably crisper, the baseball playoffs have begun, I have started to see decorative gourds, but the traffic got a whole lot lighter today.  It is October 1, 2013, the first day of the fiscal year 2014 (FY2014), and the federal government has shut down over the inability of Congress to pass a budget that does not seek to undo the Affordable Care Act.  With the radical takeover of the House of Representatives, government functions, including immigration, have ground to a halt.  If the House can not even keep the government running, how are we to expect that they can actually create positive change by passing meaningful immigration reform?

Here are things that are not going to happen because of the government shutdown:  our client, a lesbian from South Africa, will not get to present her case for protection to an immigration judge and she will remain in limbo for the forseeable future, worrying whether she must return to a country where “corrective rape” is a common occurrence for those deemed to be gay; our clients, DI and NM, husband and wife, will continue to be separated while they wait for the National Visa Center to resume processing DI’s case and deciding whether the birth and marriage documents from Iran are the right ones, and our client, DR will have her hearing rescheduled once again.

DR’s case presents an amazing saga of government bad luck and government dysfunction.  DR is supposed to go before the immigration judge on Monday, yet the case is likely not to go forward due to the shutdown.  Even if it did, the word is that the Congressionally-limited 4000 green cards available through cancellation of the removal for FY 2014 are already gone.  Chew on that for a minute.  The 4000 visas available for cancellation, meant to get the country through the entire year, were gone before the FY even started.  Thus, the Judge could not even grant the relief we were seeking.  Perhaps she could have reserved one of the FY 2015 visas and had us return in a year to finish the case.  This was supposed to all occur last year for DR.  However, last year, Super Storm Sandy closed the immigration court in New York for about two weeks.  DR missed her hearing and, by the time, she returned to court in December 2013, the cancellation visas were all gone.  Certainly, there would be new cancellation visas on October 7, a week after the FY begins, we all reasoned in December.  So, we scheduled for October 7.  Oops.  The irony of all this is that the government and the Judge all agree that she should be granted her residence.  Yet, it is Congress that has continued to stand in the way.  The 1996 Congress which passed the dreadful immigration law which limited cancellation grants to 4000 a year has caused endless bureaucratic delay and now with a shut down has made it impossible for the parties to work out a solution.  Meanwhile, DR keeps working and going to school, wondering when she will get the relief she deserves.

The Congressional inaction has also stalled immigration reform.  Millions of immigrants wait for the chance to regularize their status and integrate more deeply into American life.  The promise of reform has been tantalizingly close since June when the Senate passed its immigration bill.  Yet, the House has done nothing with that bill.  Rather than build, they seek to destroy.  In the meantime, millions of immigrants, their families and their employers get up and go to work and school.  They do their jobs while the House Republicans close the biggest employer in the DC area.  Yet, the deportation machine keeps running.  ICE has announced that enforcement and removal operations will continue during the shutdown.  The heavy priority on enforcement over benefits and relief has been noticed in the immigrant priority.  Certain immigrant groups have taken matters into their own hands, seeking entry into the United States across the Mexican border.  I have no idea what will be the long-term effect of that strategy, but I do know that it can not be any less effective than trying to lobby Speaker of the House John Boehner.

At least the traffic in downtown DC is better.

What is the Deal with the Immigration “Line?”

28 Jan

Line

This morning, we had a chance to review the five page blueprint for immigration reform produced by a bipartisan group of eight Senators.  There is a lot to discuss on the blueprint, but one thing specifically jumped out at me:

“Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.

Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.”

As an immigration lawyer, I have to ask “which line?”  There are dozens.  Let’s try to figure out what they could mean.  There are two basic ways that people seek residence, these are: (1) through family; and (2) through employment.  There are other means, but these represent the bulk of immigrant visas.  The Immigration & Nationality Act limits the number of immigrant visas can be issued annually.  The allocation of that finite number of visas is divided by type of application and country of nationality.  Demand exceeds supply and backlogs in each category have developed.  For example, the Jamaican unmarried son or daughter over 21 of a U.S. citizen would have had to  start the immigration process prior to December 22, 2005 to receive an immigrant visa today.  If the same immigrant were from the Philippines, she would have had to started the process fifteen years ago in 1997.  In the employment based context, an employer who seeks an immigrant visa on behalf of an Indian professional with a bachelor’s degree but no advanced degree would have had to start the process before November 8, 2002 for that employee to obtain a visa today.  On another note, the law allows immigration judges to grant residence to 4,000 people a year if they can demonstrate that they have been in the U.S. for ten years, have good moral character, and their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse parent or child.   That cap has already been reached for this year and no new visas through cancellation may be granted until October 2013.  Thus, there are a variety of lines that immigrants may fall into.

How does one get into the queue?  A priority date is established when an immigrant petition or application for a labor certification is filed.  If the petition and/or labor certification is approved, an applicant may take her spot in line depending upon the category.  The immigrant visa backlog is maintained by the Department of State, which does not track applications for labor certifications until an immigrant petition has been filed.  Thus, there are many more thousands of people beginning to get in the queue by filing applications for labor certifications.  Also, the State Department is not aware when people drop off the queue.  A person can die while waiting and, obviously, leave the queue.  People get married, divorced or just grow disinterested in immigrating.  The queue is highly dynamic and fluctuates often.

So, which line do individuals go to?  The blueprint seems to require everyone in the queue to obtain residence before a single beneficiary of the new plan gets residence.  That might take a while.  After all, visas are now available for the Filipino brothers and sisters of American citizens if their American brother or sister originally sponsored them prior to April 15, 1989.  Twenty three years.  Does the plan truly require everyone in the queue to get their residence before anyone who applies under the new program?  Does this mean that no one will get a green card for at least 23 years??  It’s amazing that in an era where there is so much concern over “big government,” members of the Senate would propose a process that takes a quarter century to begin.  At least the Soviets stuck to five year plans.

Here is another sneaky fact that makes this whole idea unworkable.  Many of the undocumented in the U.S., the eleven million, that would supposedly benefit from this program, are already in the queue!!!  Many of them have sought immigration benefits and it is only due to the outrageous backlogs that they become undocumented. They have played by the rules, too, but the system has failed them.   It is a myth that there are so many people abroad who “play by the rules” and are waiting patiently for their turn to come in.  Yes, they exist, but not likely in the numbers that the back of the line crowd says, and should be immediately let in with residence rather than waiting in these atrocious backlogs.

There are, in fact, many highly skilled employees, waiting their turn to apply for residence due to backlogs in employment visas.  These folks are here on temporary visas, working and waiting.  They would seem to have a legitimate gripe if the undocumented got immediate residence.  But the solution is not this garbage about the back of the line.  Raise the immigrant visa numbers to an amount that is commensurate with the American employers’ demands for a workforce.  Don’t make immigrants pay for the arbitrary levels of immigration that were created nearly half a century ago.

So, that’s the issue with the line.  So far, the only politician we have seen who gets this is Jeb Bush, who published the most sane piece on immigration that we have seen during this discussion.  The former Florida governor wrote:  “There is no “line.” Critics of comprehensive reform often argue that illegal immigrants should return to their native countries and wait in line like everyone else who wants to come to America. But unless they have relatives in the U.S. or can fit within the limited number of work-based visas, no line exists for such individuals.For most aspiring immigrants, the only means of legal admission to this country is an annual “diversity lottery” that randomly awards visas to 55,000 foreigners. There are roughly 250 applicants for each visa every year. The absence of a meaningful avenue of access increases the pressure for illegal immigration.”

There are many lines; there is no line.  The line moves, grows and contracts.  Immigration reform will have to deal with this messy reality rather than attractive soundbites such as “go to the back of the line.”

The Provisional Waiver and Removal Proceedings

17 Jan

 

Over the last few weeks we have answered dozens of questions about the provisional waiver.  One group of questions keeps appearing- questions about how people in removal proceedings or with a removal order can qualify for the provisional waiver.  Whereas, the initial rule announced by the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the provisional waiver would be unavailable to people in removal proceedings, the final rule is somewhat more forgiving.  The final rule states that an individual in removal proceedings can not seek a provisional waiver with the Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) unless proceedings have been administratively closed or terminated.

brockes-600

As Julie Andrews sang, let’s start at the very beginning as it is a very good place to start.  Removal proceedings are initiated when the DHS issues a charging document known as a Notice to Appear (NTA) and lodges it with the Immigration Court.  Any of the three immigration agencies, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Citizenship & Immigration Services and Customs & Border Protection has the authority to issue NTAs.  Usually, the time between DHS issuing an NTA and filing it with the court is close to simultaneous.  However, on occasion, the NTA is issued and not filed with the court for days, weeks, months or even years.  An individual is not “in removal proceedings” until an NTA has been filed with the court.  Until the NTA is filed with the court, DHS has exclusive authority to choose not to bring removal proceedings against an individual.  In cases where an NTA has been issued and not filed with the court, that individual is not in removal proceedings and should remain eligible for the provisional waiver.  Removal proceedings continue until the immigration judge grants relief and terminates the case or the person departs the U.S. either under an order of voluntary departure or an order of removal.  In cases where there is a final order of removal, but the individual has not been removed yet, even though there are no more proceedings before the court, that individual is still “in proceedings” and would be ineligible for the provisional waiver.

Once a person is in removal proceedings, the provisional waiver rule is clear that those proceedings must be administratively closed or terminated before that individual can seek the provisional waiver.  Termination of removal proceedings can happen in one of two ways.  First, proceedings are terminated where the immigration judge grants relief, allowing an individual to remain in the U.S. in some sort of legal status.  Second, and this is the rarer form of termination, ICE may elect to terminate proceedings because it has decided that seeking removal in a particular case is no longer in the interests of the government.  Although the DHS has exclusive authority to issue and to decide whether to file a Notice to Appear in immigration court,  once proceedings have been initiated, DHS becomes a party to litigation and only the immigration judge has the authority to terminate removal proceedings.

Administrative closure is a tool of convenience for immigration courts.  Administrative closure allows the court to take a case off an active docket and place it into “hibernation.”

clipart_sleepingbearBy administratively closing a case, the case remains pending before the immigration court, but it is taken off the active calendar.  When a case is pending before the court, it is on an active calendar and at the end of each hearing another hearing must be calendared.  When a case has been administratively closed, it is not on any calendar and no hearings are scheduled.  The case remains before the court, but the court is not acting on the case.  In order to get the case back on the active docket, one of the parties must file a “motion to recalendar” the case.  Cases can be administratively closed for months or years at a time.  Either party may request administrative closure and the immigration judge has authority to grant it.  Until recently, the law required the concurrence of both the foreign national and the government to allow for administrative closure.  However, last year, in Matter of Avetisyan, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an immigration judge may grant administrative closure over the objection of one of the parties.  In other words, DHS can not unilaterally deny the foreign national’s  ability to obtain administrative closure.

People currently in removal proceedings who would otherwise qualify for the provisional waiver can seek both termination and administrative closure.  We expect that ICE, who represents the government in removal proceedings, will be fairly accommodating to requests to terminate or administratively close cases where the foreign national can present a prima facie case for eligibility for the provisional waiver.  In these cases, your lawyer ought to prepare a motion to terminate or administratively close demonstrating that you qualify for the provisional waiver and that the pending removal proceedings are the only impediment.  These individuals should be able to demonstrate that they are the spouse, parent or children of a U.S. citizen and that their only violation of law relates to entering illegally.  By presenting evidence to the government of qualification for the provisional waiver and readiness to file it, it seems that ICE would exercise its discretion to administratively close the case to allow the applicant to file the provisional waiver application.  Upon approval, termination seems appropriate.  If the case is not approved, it is reasonable to expect that ICE would seek to recalendar the case and proceed with removal proceedings.  Should the government refuse to join a motion for administrative closure, the immigration judge has the authority under Matter of Avetisyan to close the case nonetheless upon the motion of the foreign national.

People with old orders of removal who have not yet departed the United States would need to reopen removal proceedings so that removal proceedings can be administratively closed or terminated.  This is a heavy lift.  If the removal order is more than 90 days old, a foreign national will, generally, need the government to agree to reopen for the purpose of closing.  Makes sense, right?  However, there may be circumstances where the hardship is so clear and extreme and the facts are so compelling that the government agrees to this.  By asking the government to join a motion to reopen, an individual with a final order of removal, who may or may not be on the government’s radar screen for removal, makes herself vulnerable to enforcement of the removal order should the government prove unwilling to join in reopening.  While there are limited circumstances in which an immigration judge can reopen on his own motion, those instances are rare and should not be, generally, relied upon.

Finally, people who have been deported or departed the U.S. under an order of voluntary departure or removal are ineligible for the provisional waiver and must seek the waiver through the traditional means at the consulate in their home country.

The provisional waiver has the potential to help thousands of people in removal proceedings.  Many of them may be waiting for hearings on cancellation of removal which requires a much higher level of hardship than the provisional waiver’s standard of extreme hardship.  It is not really conceivable that anyone can navigate this thicket without experienced counsel.  Visit us at BenachRagland.com or check with your local bar or the American Immigration Lawyers Association to find qualified attorneys to assist you.

 

Indifference

13 Dec

 

It is very true that the immigration laws need a wholesale revision.  Congress needs to make substantial changes, regulations need to be re-written, precedent decisions scrapped and new guidance forthcoming.  But another change is needed and this change may the hardest of all.  It is a change of attitude within the agencies.  We have written in this space on multiple occasions about the hostility that elements within ICE have for their political leadership and the “culture of no” within CIS has been well-documented.  However, less reported is the blase indifference that many civil servants within the agency take toward the people affected by the way they go about their jobs.

Here is where I am supposed to say that the majority of the people who work for the immigration agencies are hard-working, well-intentioned people laboring under tremendous workloads and inadequate resources.  I am supposed to say that those who are indifferent to the human lives in the case before them are far outnumbered by the valiant majority who struggle against the bureaucratic odds to make a difference.  Sorry, but I can not say that.  I have to say that indifference is the default and care and compassion and vigor are the exception.  Such virtues do exist within the immigration agencies, but they are rarely on display.  Initiative and “going the extra mile” are snuffed out like weeds in those Round-Up commercials.  The overwhelming majority simply have little concern for the people affected by the way they do their jobs.  Immigration reform will be incomplete unless it addresses this problem as the power of clerks and administrative staff to harm the interests of immigrants remains immense.

Let’s focus on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Immigration Court system.  Here are just a couple of things that have happened to us in the past few months that show how bureaucrats affect people’s lives by the way they do their jobs:

  • Client was detained by ICE.  ICE said that he was subject to mandatory detention.  We wanted to argue to the Judge that he was not.  We filed a request for a bond hearing, which is a matter of right, on October 24.  The case was not scheduled until November 27, five weeks after we filed.  This meant that our client had to sit in jail for an additional five weeks after we asked for his release before a judge could consider his claim that he should not be detained.  Five weeks is a long time to sit in jail when the law says you do not have to sit in jail.  The decision on when to give him a hearing was made by the Immigration Judge’s legal assistant.  No doubt she was reacting to limits on how many cases a judge can hear on any given day, but the harm of the judge hearing one more case against an individual spending several weeks in jail ought to be considered.
  • Client was detained by ICE.  When ICE detains an individual that they are placing into removal proceedings, ICE must issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging the individual with removability.  ICE must file the NTA with the Immigration Court and the Court must schedule the hearing.  We requested bond.  Although the rules require the Court to schedule a bond hearing for any detained individual regardless of whether an NTA has been filed, the Court’s backlog in recording the filing of NTAs causes the staff to fail to schedule a bond hearing.  A hearing was finally scheduled 30 days after the client is taken into custody and the Judge orders release.
  • Client was scheduled for hearing on her application for cancellation of removal for 10/31/2012.  That hearing was set in December 2011.  Hurricane Sandy closed the Immigration Court that day and for several days afterwards.  Expecting that the court would reschedule the case once it reopened, we wished to inform the court that we did not need much time for a hearing.  In December 2011, the Court scheduled the case for three to four hours of time.  However, since then, we negotiated with ICE counsel and agreed that all issues in the case could be resolved in a hearing of an hour or less.  On November 15, 2012, we filed a motion letting the court know that we did not need much time, so that the Court could squeeze us in wherever it had time.  We made several calls to and left messages with the court’s clerical staff, none of which were returned.  We finally spoke with the legal assistant to the judge around December 1, who stated that she had not seen the motion and she would have to look for it, but that she was not going to stop what she was doing to do so.  If she found it and the Judge ruled on it, she would give us a courtesy call.  On December 4, 2012, we got the call- hearing on December 11!  However, on December 5, the rumors started flying- the cap on grants of cancellation of removal had been met and no cancellation grants could be made until October 1, 2013.  As these were just rumors, we went ahead with the hearing, traveling to another city to be there on December 11.  At the hearing the Judge informed us that, since there were no cancellation numbers, she could not and would not hold a hearing and we could come back in October 2013.  So many small acts of initiative could have made a difference here: (1) the clerk could have addressed the motion in a timely manner and we could have gotten on the calendar before  numbers ran out; (2) when numbers ran out, the court could have called and rescheduled knowing that we would have to travel to attend the hearing at substantial cost to the client.
  • They never call back.  Never.

These are problems that are not going to be addressed by legislation.  They require a wholesale change in attitude and a lesson in courtesy. This is not simply a problem of
“poor customer service.” I hate the idea of customer service in a government agency. I think they owe us MORE than a business owes its customers. We are citizens, we are a polity and they are our government. They derive their authority from us. A business derives its income from us, which it can choose to accept or not. Citizen vis-a-vis government is entitled to more respect and deference than a Slurpee-buying sap at a Seven-Eleven.  Homer_and_Apu

These problems require an understanding that immigration detention is a serious deprivation of liberty that must be limited in duration and for the most serious matters.  A culture must grow within the Immigration Court that anything that unnecessarily prolongs detention is to be avoided and that resources will be provided to ensure that immigrants have access to prompt hearings.  Employees of the court system must be trained to recognize that they should do all they can to ensure that detained individuals have access to process.  A person is charged with murder is put in front of a magistrate judge within 24 hours who sets bail (or not).  A person charged with overstaying a visa is often detained for weeks before he gets review of his detention.  How does that system make sense?

This post was mostly cathartic.  Future posts will explore some of the legal underpinnings of the immigration detention regime.  For example, a U.S. Supreme Court decision many years ago said that removal proceedings are civil and not criminal and many criminal procedural protections are, therefore, unavailable in removal proceedings.  Given the militarization of the border and the use of detention during removal proceedings, we wonder how much of that flawed doctrine still can stand.

What?? I’ve Got Another Cap to Worry About? Cancellation Numbers Dry Up.

7 Dec

The rumors flew wildly on Wednesday.  The cap has been reached!  No, not that cap.  The H-1B cap of 65,000 visas for FY 2013, which began on October 1, 2012, was reached in June 2012.  No new H-1B visas would be available until October 2013, the beginning of FY 2014.  But anyway, this is not about the H-1B cap.  Turns out there is another cap.  There is a cap on the number of people who can be granted cancellation of removal in any given fiscal year.  That cap is 4,000 people.  Per year.  Nationwide.  Immigration Judges have the authority to cancel the removal of 4,000 nonresidents who meet the criteria for cancellation of removal.  Apparently that cap was reached on Wednesday, December 5.  Last year, it was not reached until February.    In order to qualify for cancellation of removal, an individual must:

  • have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least ten years
  • possess good moral character
  • demonstrate that her removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusually hardship” to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child.

It’s a pretty steep burden.  Many immigration judges have interpreted the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to require a very overwhelming and unconscionable level of hardship.  Cancellation cases require reams of documentation and hours of witness preparation and testimony.  The government usually fights cancellation cases and a win is a big accomplishment.  Yet, cancellation is often the only form of relief available to many individuals in removal proceedings.  Take, for example, an individual who entered the U.S. without inspection from Mexico in 1998, who married another Mexican national and had two children while in the U.S.  During his time in the U.S., he has worked and paid taxes and has no criminal record.  If that individual wound up in removal proceedings, he could apply for cancellation of removal and argue that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children.  His life, his contributions to our society and the needs of his children would be the subject of a real inquiry by an immigration judge.  Due to the numbers of people in removal proceedings, the backlogs in the immigration courts, and the practice of ICE in fighting cancellation cases tooth and nail, this individual can expect to have his cancellation application heard in several years.

Now, it seems, an applicant also has to win the calendar lottery.  Cancellation numbers become available on October 1, and, if the rumors are true, and I have little doubt that they are, they were gone by December 5. This means that no one can be granted cancellation of removal again until October 2013.  This is not to say that people who have hearings between now and October will be denied.  It simply means that they can not get decisions.  It means months of uncertainty and instability for them and their families.  It means greater backlogs in  the immigration courts as cases can not be completed.  For example, I expected to have a client granted cancellation of removal next Tuesday.  What she will get is a wink and nudge that she will get cancellation in October.  Until then, young lady, please make do and do your best to complete your education.

Some may argue that the number of cancellation grants allowed in any year indicates the number of individuals Congress believed should be able to demonstrate the level of hardship necessary to be granted cancellation of removal and that judges are being too lenient and generous in giving out cancellation. That may be true.  The Congress that created cancellation and imposed the cap, the 1996 Contract with America Congress, was not known for its generosity towards immigrants.  But Congress legislates in the abstract.  Judges deal with the real and the person sitting in their courtroom and their children and their dreams and their accomplishments and must make decisions that affect people’s lives.  The Immigration Judges of the country are sending a loud and clear message to Congress- the cancellation limit should be eliminated and, if not, raised substantially.