Powered By Blogger

Sunday, May 1, 2011

What's new with same-sex couples and immigration

I recently gave a short presentation on this topic at a law school club meeting.

First, an immigration judge in New York suspended the deportation of the same-sex spouse of an American citizen so that the couple could challenge the constitutionality of DOMA.
Currently, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, or Massachusetts. An Argentine national came here several years ago and overstayed her visa, making her deportable. While here, she married a US citizen. On a raid of a passenger bus, this Argentine lady was found to be here illegally and placed in deportation proceedings. As the legal spouse of a US citizen, she would be entitled to apply for certain types of relief from deportation. Without that relationship, she has no relief from deportation.
This lady is legally married to a US citizen. They were married in Connecticut and live in New York (which does not perform same-sex marriages but recognizes those performed in other states). The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for purposes of the federal government to only be between a man and a woman. The Obama administration has recently announced that it believes DOMA to be unconstitutional and will not defend it in court. This announcement has clouded the validity of DOMA for this particular immigration judge.
Should DOMA be found unconstitutional, this Argentine lady's deportation will have been unnecessary and will have caused great harm to her family. By suspending the deportation, this immigration judge is allowing her family to stay together while the courts determine whether DOMA is constitutional. Other immigration judges are not required to follow this judge's lead. However, many judges may choose to act as this judge did in similar situations.

Second, US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it would put applications for immigration benefits from same-sex spouses into pending status as opposed to denying them outright. This is because it is not clear whether DOMA is constitutional. However, several days later, USCIS announced it would resume denying these types of applications because DOMA is still valid.
I find this dichotomy interesting. The Justice Department will not defend DOMA in court but Homeland Security (which administers USCIS) will enforce a law that the administration believes unconstitutional. So at this point, the administration will not defend the law, but it will enforce it.