Immigrant Sues Over Immigration Rights for Same-sex Marriage

LOS ANGELES, CA– A filipino immigrant filed an action seeking a legal right to remain in the United States on ground of her same-sex marriage to an American woman.


Same-sex Marriage immigration rights

The lawsuit has sought to win the same immigration rights as heterosexual marriages for gays and lesbians. To help file the lawsuit against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the homosexual couple was assisted by a group, which declares that it is the first proposed class suit of its kind.


Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Since the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) clearly defines that a marriage if the union of a man and a woman, the same-sex marriage of plaintiff Jane De Leon, an immigrant coming from the Philippines, to her American spouse Irma Rodriguez may be in trouble finding appropriate basis to justify a legal presence in the US of one alien spouse.

In view of the foregoing, the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff and her spouse moved to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).


Obama administration on same-sex marriages

The legal action filed in the federal court of Los Angeles finds fault with the procedure undertaken by President Obama’s administration, which is reviewing immigration cases concerning same-sex marriage on a case-by-case basis instead of temporarily holding it off while the courts are determining the constitutionality of DOMA.

The lead attorney and executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law stated that the waiver, which the plaintiff is seeking for, is oftentimes granted to same-sex couples. The lawyer further stated that he is concerned about not having any policy to implement for the protection of homosexual immigrant couples from deportation, as the present administration has done for undocumented youth.

Currently, same-sex marriage is permitted in six (6) states and in the District of Columbia.


Rulings questioning DOMA’s constitutionality

  • In Boston, a federal appeals court on May 31st held that DOMA is unconstitutionally depriving lawfully married homosexual couples of federal benefits.

Facts of the plaintiff’s case

  • In 2008, the spouses were married in California at the time when same-sex marriage was legally authorized in California State prior to the constitutional amendment, which was approved by the voters to ban same-sex marriages.

  • In April 2011, Immigration officers denied the plaintiff’s application for an immigration visa based on her false testimony in 1989 claiming that she was married as a common-law partner to a Filipino when she moved to the United States.

  • In 1992, the plaintiff began her relationship with her same-sex spouse.

  • In September 2011, the immigration officer denied her application for waiver, which is showing humanitarian grounds that if the plaintiff is forced to leave the country, it would affect her same-sex spouse Rodriguez and would cause hardship to the latter.

  • The 9-year-old son of the plaintiff stated that his stay in the US depends solely on his mother’s case.


Legal immigration services

If the plaintiff was only guided by a competent lawyer prior to entering the United States sometimes in 1989, she could have not encountered this trouble because a highly skilled immigration attorney could have effectively guided her through the process.

Niren and Associates, a firm doing immigration business for decades, is consist of licensed immigration attorneys who can efficiently handle a client’s case in all areas of immigration. The firm has offices in Canada and the United States.

For the free assessment of your case, you may call (213) 232-4397 or email info@visaplace.com.

Any information provided here does not constitute legal advice and is intended for general information only. Should you require legal advise, you are encouraged to contact a lawyer directly. All blog postings are public and are not subject to solicitor/client confidentially. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case, and case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any further case undertaken by the lawyer.

Tags:

Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.