[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1926-S1927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 451. A bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S1927]]

                          private relief bill

  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, but are warranted in some 
cases. I am introducing a bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai. 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 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 Nationalization 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 
witness 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 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. 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. 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. Rezia 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 
America 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 Westiminster 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 Westminister 
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.
                                 ______