Subject: Suspension of status

From: [email-masked] (J Su)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 17:00:21 CST

Some one asked earlier today about whether INS officer can suspend a PR's 
status, the answer is "yes", here are the laws about what kind of circumstance
a PR may lost his/her status:
US code title 8 has a big section about it:

CHAPTER 12.  IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY  
DEPORTATION; ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
 
@ 1254.  Suspension of deportation; voluntary departure
 
   (a) Adjustment of status for permanent residence; contents. As hereinafter
prescribed in this section, the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend
deportation and adjust the status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, in the case of an alien (other than an alien described in
section 241(a)(4)(D) [8 USCS @ 1251(a)(4)(D)] who applies to the Attorney
General for suspension of deportation and--
 ...........deleted...............
 
I. SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION [8 USCS @ 1254(a)]
 ...........deleted.............
C. Administrative Discretion
38. Delegation of authority
39. Factors considered
40. Particular circumstances
41. -Communist affiliation
42. -Effect on family members
 43.  -Public burden
 ..........deleted...............
 
 43.  -Public burden
   Extent of burden upon public that would result from favorable exercise of
discretion is clearly relevant and proper consideration for immigration judge
presented with petition for suspension of deportation under 8 USCS @ 1254(a).
Nee Hao Wong v Immigration & Naturalization Service (1977, CA9) 550 F2d 521.
   Denial of suspension of deportation because of petitioner's charge on people
of State of California while he was hospitalized, his lack of close family ties,
contact or contribution to his care, his complete dependency on welfare
assistance which was anticipated to continue into indefinite future, and
distinct possibility that he would require further hospitalization did not
constitute abuse of discretion.  Nee Hao Wong v Immigration & Naturalization
Service (1977, CA9) 550 F2d 521.
   Although discretion given Service under 8 USCS @ 1254 is broad, it is
discretion to determine what does or does not constitute extreme hardship to
applicant, and consideration of state's interest in reducing welfare rolls is
not relevant to existence of extreme hardship; where it may have been factor in
Board's decision not to grant hardship relief, that INS believed petitioner to
have been burden on public purse, case will be remanded to Board for
reconsideration.  So Chun Chung v United States Immigration & Naturalization
Service (1979, CA3) 602 F2d 608.
   Board may properly refuse to deny suspension of deportation where alien is
completely dependent on public assistance and fails to seek work despite good
health.  Vaughn v Immigration & Naturalization Service (1981, CA1) 643 F2d 35.
   Neither immigration judge nor Bureau of Immigration Appeals abused discretion
in concluding that native of Guatemala is not entitled to discretionary
suspension of deportation under 8 USCS @ 1254(a)(1), based on his receipt of
welfare assistance, food stamps, and medical aid for one-year period during his
residency in United States, his inability to maintain job with same employer,
and illegal manner in which he brought 4 of his children into United States,
since consideration of such factors is proper in determining whether alien is
entitled to relief as matter of administrative discretion.  Ramirez-Gonzalez v
Immigration & Naturalization Service (1983, CA9) 695 F2d 1208 (disagreed with
Dolores v Immigration & Naturalization Service (CA6) 772 F2d 223).