[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10797-S10798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1290. A bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                       private relief legislation

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief 
legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his 
wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai.
  As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant 
private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, in nearly 8 years, I 
have introduced just one bill to grant such relief--a bill for the 
relief of Saeed Rezai in the last Congress. As I said before the Senate 
when I introduced that bill in 1995, I had hoped that this case would 
not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that 
private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure that the 
equities of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's case are heard and that a number of 
unresolved questions are answered without imposing a terrible hardship 
on Mr. and Mrs. Rezai and on their marriage.
  I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way 
of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the 
urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States 
in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a 
U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition 
on his behalf. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by 
the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who 
entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The 
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in 
Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before 
his 2-year period of conditional residence had expired. In immigration 
proceedings following the divorce, the judge heard testimony from 
witnesses on behalf of Mr. Rezai and his former wife. After considering 
that testimony, he found there was insufficient evidence to warrant 
lifting the conditions on Mr. Rezai's permanent residency and, in the 
absence of a qualifying marriage, granted Mr. Rezai voluntary departure 
from the United States. The judge was very careful to mention, however, 
that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted 
voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his 
words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.''
  Despite these comments by the immigration judge, who clearly did not 
anticipate the future application of the Sec. 204(c) exclusion to Mr. 
Rezai's case, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition for 
permanent residence on behalf of her husband based on that very 
exclusion. An appeal of this decision has been pending before the Board 
of Immigration Appeals [BIA] for 3 years. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai 
appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident 
status in 1990. In August 1995, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 
denied this appeal and reinstated the voluntary departure order. Under 
current law, there is no provision to stay Mr. Rezai's deportation 
pending the BIA's consideration of Mrs. Rezai's current immigrant visa 
petition.
  Mr. President, there is no question that Mr. Rezai deportation will 
create extraordinary hardship for both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout 
all the proceedings of the past 6 years, not a single person that I 
know of--including the INS--has questioned the validity of Mr. and Mrs. 
Rezai's marriage. In fact, many that I have heard from have 
emphatically told me that Mr. and Mrs.

[[Page S10798]]

Rezai's marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the 
prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect 
that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Thus, Mrs. Rezai's 
deportation will result in either the breakup of a legitimate family or 
the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a third country 
foreign to both of them.

  It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United 
States for more than a decade. During this time he has assimilated to 
American culture and has become a contributing member of his community. 
He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the 
security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained 
the respect and admiration of both his peers and his supervisors. In 
fact, I received a letter from the interim president of Westminster 
College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to 
his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just 
one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from 
members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of 
these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and 
deprive the community of his continued contributions.
  Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would create a particular hardship 
for his wife, who was diagnosed just a few years ago with Multiple 
Sclerosis [MS]. Mrs. Rezai's doctor has recommended that her husband be 
designated as her primary caregiver for what is expected to be a 
lifelong debilitating illness. It is doubtful that adequate medical 
care would be available should she be forced to return with her husband 
to Iran or to some other country willing to accept them as immigrants. 
Finally, her doctor has suggested that severe symptoms and rapid 
deterioration of Mrs. Rezai's condition are possible as a result of the 
stress being placed upon her by her husband's protracted immigration 
proceedings and the uncertainty of their future.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think before enforcing 
an action that will result in such severe consequences as the 
destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of 
Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. The legislation I am introducing 
today, if enacted, will put an end to what has been a long and drawn-
out ordeal for the Rezais by granting Mr. Rezai full permanent resident 
status. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety 
of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be 
addressed. With the introduction of this legislation today and its 
consideration by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, 
we can ensure that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the 
thorough review of these questions by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 
I urge each of my colleagues to support this immigration bill.
                                 ______