Steve Woodruff said this is a victory for all overstayers who availed of the grant of status that the CNMI Office of the Attorney General extended to them before the islands’ immigration system was federalized on Nov. 28, 2009.
“The significance of this decision is that Attorney General Ed Buckingham’s grant of status to so-called ‘overstayers’ has full force and effect for all the persons on that list, notwithstanding the CNMI’s decision not to further process the individuals on the list (and thus not to enforce the conditions),” Woodruff said in an email to the Variety.
Similarly, he said the case of his client Danilo Rejano also means that the CNMI government’s attempt to remove overstayers with grant of status after the federalization law took effect would shield them from being sent back home until it becomes invalid after Nov. 27, 2011.
“And notwithstanding post-federalization attempts by some in the CNMI government to weasel out of that action (and to attempt to continue to assert immigration authority after the U.S. Congress had expressly taken that authority away),” he said.
According to Immigration Judge Dayna Beamer’s five-page order granting Rejano’s request to terminate the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s removal proceedings against him, the respondent met his burden to demonstrate that he is not an intending immigrant and that he was granted an umbrella permit which constitutes a valid entry document under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act.
Rejano was first admitted to the CNMI on Sept. 2, 1990 under a valid labor permit.
In 2009, Rejano was among 628 individuals who were granted conditional umbrella permits which were given under certain conditions.
The CNMI government later denied conditional umbrella permits to overstayers were issued.
Rejano and others who are believed to be overstayers were then referred to DHS for removal proceedings.
DHS used the CNMI government’s denial public statement as evidence but the judge said that was not enough.
“DHS does not deny that respondent entered the CNMI with permission of the CNMI government and inspection by the CNMI government. Rather, DHS’s claim that respondent was not admitted or inspected by a ‘United States immigration officer.’ The INA states that an alien violates section § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) if he is ‘present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than designated by the attorney general,’” Beamer’s order stated.
“Respondent submitted probative evidence and made persuasive legal arguments to rebut the DHS arguments. Therefore, the respondent has met his burden to show that he is present in the CNMI after being admitted or paroled under laws in effect at that time, and that he had arrived in the CNMI at a time and place as designated by the attorney general,” it added.
