Last week some Senate democrats sent a timid letter to the White House asking President Obama to use his executive powers to ease-up on the removal of those unauthorized immigrants of good moral character who would have qualified for the Dream Act. Earlier this last month, the President declared that Executive action was not an option in Immigration Reform. This is a mistake in my view. Keep in mind that these Dreamers were brought to the US at a very young age and have known no other place that they can call home other than the US. Some of them have families of their own with USC children and still they face removal at every turn. A simple review of the qualifications for an I-601 Waiver of Conditions of Inadmissibility would solve half the issue outright.

The simplistic way that this would work will be that under an Executive Order, a Dreamer would file an AOS with an I-360 coupled with an I-601 waiver as a juvenile, thus suspending their age to the age they were when they were first brought to the US. The Secretary of Homeland Security would then use her already existing discretionary powers to identify, under an Executive Order, any reason upon which discretion could be exercised in order to cure any condition of inadmissibility and parole the Dreamer who will then go on to adjust their status. This is fair and will hold up under scrutiny. Elections being a matter of who gets what, when, where, how much and how often, I believe that the time of reckoning is near for the President and the choices are simple: executive action now or ask not for whom the bell is tolling. After all, republicans can do no worse on immigration.

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 4/19/2011

Like us on


A couple of months ago, USCIS began to issue a combined Advance Parole and Work Permit Card that can be used both for I-9 List A employment verification card and an I-512 Advance Parole card. This will allow Adjustment applicants to travel in and out of the US during the pendency of their applications. The card will have to be presented when entering the US as an application for parole. Many otherwise eligible Individuals applying for adjustment may have been unlawfully present in the U.S. before applying for adjustment.

As to those individuals, it may be better to never use the parole option on the new card during the pendency of their application as they may be refused parole and lose their opportunity to adjust their status had they stayed put. In other words, nothing has changed, which begs the question: why issue Advance Parole at all if there is no guaranty of re-entry? It seems to me that re-entry should be guaranteed to all and if an applicant is found inadmissible or ineligible for adjustment, then they ought to be denied at the end of the process and after re-entry. Advance Parole ought to mean what it says.

Aime M. Katambwe, Esq. 04/05/2011

Like us on