CathInfo.com

Dear Fathers

I just talked with our immigration lawyer and told him we'd gotten a couple of questions about this. He says that nothing in the recent St. Albert the Great bulletin announcement corresponded with the way U.S. immigration law really works.

Here's a summary of the lawyer's explanation:

• Fr. Ramolla went into "unlawful presence" status as soon as we terminated his R-1 status and after he was put into "removal proceedings" by ICE in December 2009. This was automatic.

(BTW, the next hearing in Fr. Ramolla's removal proceeding is slated for May 19 in Cleveland. His bulletin didn't mention that at all.)

• The visa that he got though us until November, 2011 (called an I-94) then immediately became toast -- or Zweiback, if you prefer. It doesn't matter what the expiration date said. The mere existence of an ongoing removal proceeding automatically voided it.

• Once a foreigner is in "unlawful presence" status, the immigration regulations won't allow him to change to legal status while he remains in the U.S. (Exceptions: contracting marriage in the U.S., or facing political persecution and/or torture in the Fatherland).

• To apply for an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa again (together with R-1 [religious worker] status sponsored by ORCM, say), Fr. Ramolla would have to go back to Germany and try to apply for the visa and religious worker status at the U.S. Consulate.

• However, even assuming ORCM could jump through the regulations minefield of the interminable and expensive INS procedure for admitting religious workers -- will Bishop McKenna, Bishop Neville and the Sisters let the the Federal Customs and Immigration Service "inspect" their facilities at Monroe and Highland, as required? -- our friend would be up against another problem.

Fr. Ramolla's CIS record is now forever stained with the scarlet words "unlawful presence" and subject of "removal proceeding."

• And since his permanent record will also show that he remained in the U.S. for a full year after the removal proceeding began (from Dec 2009-Dec 2010), the Consulate will inform Fr. Ramolla that U.S. immigration law imposes an automatic 10-year ban on him re-entering the U.S. So, if he'd care to try applying for another visa in connection with ORCM, he would be welcome to come back again in 2021, but not before then.

I looked up the regulation on the 10-year ban. If you're interested in slogging through the legalese, it's discussed on page 8 of this docuмent:

(http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF.)

• On the $3,000 legal fee, the lawyer says that potential deportees will sometimes want to string the proceedings along for as long as possible to stay in the country, even when he's told them that in that in the long run, they'll be deported anyway. He makes them sign a statement saying he's told them they'll finally be deported.

I asked him if he were handling Fr. Ramolla's case himself, what defense would he use? After trying to spin out a couple of ideas, he said he couldn't come up with one that could ultimately work.

• The lawyer's conclusion on the rosy claims in the SAG bulletin: No way.

• As regards Fr. Ramolla's trial with CIS on May 19, the lawyer thinks that because their cases are essentially the same, the outcome for Fr. R. will be the same as it was for Bernie Hall: CIS will "allow" Fr. Ramolla to depart "voluntarily" within a certain period of time -- though perhaps a little more than the 60 days Bernie got.

Thus the principal points of how the lawyer reads the situation. He's been handling our immigration work for nearly twenty years now, and he's almost always been right, so I think this is probably the way things will end up.

-- Fr. Cekada

Herb, you're a gentleman and a scholar.

 :cheers: