The Treason Bar is ecstatic about even some of the more obscure aspects of the expansion of the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. One oft overlooked aspect is the illegal expansion of waivers for unlawful presence and the open subordination of the law in the definition of extreme hardship for legal waivers of 3 and 10 year bars to admission to the United States.
Waivers for illegal aliens seeking to enter or remain in the United States as legal immigrants is restricted by law to spouses and children of legal permanent residents (LPR) and U.S. citizens (USC).
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
(v) Waiver.-The Attorney General has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien. No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the Attorney General regarding a waiver under this clause.
And the waiver is only available if the alien proves extreme hardship to that USC or LPR.
A qualifying relative for cases involving unlawful presence would include a citizen or legal resident spouse or parent, according to U.S. immigration law.
The common effects of deportation—such as job loss, the uprooting of family, and even separation of parents from small children—are considered "typical" hardships, even if those outcomes cause plenty of grief for the immigrant's family members. A hardship would be considered "extreme" only if it was unusual or beyond that which one normally would expect from a deportation or barred re-entry.
However, the Obama Regime is seeking to overturn the will of Congress in legislation twofold by expanding the waiver to statutorily ineligible illegal aliens and to define extreme hardship out of existence. Basically redefining deportation itself as an extreme hardship.
In his memorandum, Jeh Johnson, Secretary, slyly equated those statutorily eligible for a waiver, to all those statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa.
DHS Memorandum Dated November 20, 2014 by Jeh Johnson
Today, I direct DHS to amend its 2013 regulation to expand access to the provisional waiver program to all statutorily eligible classes of relatives for whom an immigrant visa is immediately available. The purpose behind today' s announcement remains the same as in 2013-family unity.
The small but significant difference being is that some illegal aliens are statutorily eligible for a waiver for illegal presence in the United States, but many more illegal aliens are statutorily eligible to apply for an immigrant visa. This makes illegal alien parents and siblings of LPRs and USCs eligible for waivers of illegal presence. Something not in the law.
Furthermore, Johnson sought to redefine extreme hardship to mere deportation.
As a related matter, I hereby direct USCIS to provide additional guidance on the definition of "extreme hardship." As noted above, to be granted a provisional waiver, applicants must demonstrate that their absence from the United States would cause "extreme hardship" to a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The statute does not define the term, and federal courts have not specifically defined it through case law. It is my assessment that additional guidance about the meaning of the phrase "extreme hardship" would provide broader use of this legally permitted waiver program.
USCIS should clarify the factors that are considered by adjudicators in determining whether the "extreme hardship" standard has been met. Factors that should be considered for further explanation include, but are not limited to: family ties to the United States and the country ofremoval, conditions in the country of removal, the age of the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, the length of residence in the United States, relevant medical and mental health conditions, financial hardships, and educational hardships. I further direct USCIS to consider criteria by which a presumption of extreme hardship may be determined to exist.
So, according to Johnson, the law as written means nothing, and the provisions of a statute may be "presumed" to be irrelevant to the policy ends of the Obama regime. Time for action this day.