[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23099]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       ARBITRARY DECISIONS BY INS ARE ROADBLOCK TO AMERICAN DREAM

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 28, 1999

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the story of 
Ms. Sherol Boles in an op-ed by Anthony Lewis in today's New York 
Times. It is a heart-wrenching story about a woman who is battling for 
her right to remain in this country with her children and her husband. 
Tragically, she may be deported at any time due to arbitrary decision 
making by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the harshness 
of the 1996 immigration law.
  Mrs. Boles' story is not an isolated incident. Since taking office, I 
have personally heard INS horror stories from many immigrants, legal 
residents, and citizens who write, call, and visit my office seeking 
assistance. Ninety percent of casework in my district office is related 
to immigration issues. Many of the problems stem from a clear lack of 
inefficiency and unpreparedness in the INS office in Chicago.
  During my visit to the Chicago INS office earlier this year, I 
witnessed first hand this inefficiency and unpreparedness. Even worse, 
I also witnessed the mistreatment of customers, the lack of respect for 
individuals, the complete disregard of common decency and the hostile 
environment many must face.
  The culture of the ``Customer is Always Wrong'' at the INS must 
change. Customers at the Chicago INS must receive the quality service 
they deserve. These legal residents are customers who pay high fees and 
they deserve to be treated with respect.
  The Chicago INS responded to my concerns and those of my colleagues 
by taking steps to improve the quality of service.
  However, we must work to ensure that those steps taken by the Chicago 
INS remain in place and that additional improvements are made. Finally, 
we must translate our local efforts to the national stage so people 
like Sherol Boles are given the chance to live the American dream.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 1999]

                          Balance of Hardships

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Boston--Dickens gave us the classic picture of official 
     heartlessness: the government Circumlocution Office, burial 
     ground of hope in ``Little Dorrit.'' It would take his savage 
     wit to tell, properly, the story of Sherol Boles and the U.S. 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       Mrs. Boles is a 33-year-old woman from Barbados. In 1996 
     she married Michael Boles, an American who served 12 years in 
     the U.S. Marines. They have 2-year-old twins, born three 
     months prematurely weighing less than two pounds each; they 
     were hospitalized for months and are still under medical 
     treatment.
       The I.N.S. has ruled that Mrs. Boles's marriage entitles 
     her to permanent residence here: a green card. But for 
     reasons in the past she is legally deportable, and the I.N.S. 
     says she must be deported. If she is, it may be as long as 10 
     years before she can enter the United States again.
       Mrs. Boles wants to have her deportation case reopened, so 
     account can be taken of her now-established right to a green 
     card and her children's fragile health. If she is deported 
     alone, her husband could not possibly take care of the twins 
     by himself. If she takes them with her, the medical care they 
     need may not be available in Barbados.
       But the case cannot be reopened without the consent of 
     I.N.S. officials, and they refuse to give it. Why? I.N.S. 
     lawyers explained in a brief, ``She has not shown that she 
     would suffer irreparable injury or that the balance of 
     hardships tilt in her favor.'' Dickens could not have put 
     more unfeeling words in the mouth of one of his fictional 
     tormentors.
       Mrs. Boles is still in the United States because her 
     lawyer, Harvey Kaplan of Boston, sought and won a stay of 
     deportation from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 
     Circuit. The I.N.S. is urging the court to withdraw the stay.
       The past chapters of the story deepen its harshness. Mrs. 
     Boles came to the United States in 1990, to Boston. Some 
     years later she tried to obtain legal permanent residence by 
     using the services of one Joseph Chatelain, who called 
     himself an ``immigration adviser.'' By 1995 Mrs. Boles and 
     others realized they had been defrauded by Mr. Chatelain. She 
     testified in full and agreed to be a witness against him, but 
     he fled and has not been found.
       In 1995, on the basis of her own statements, an immigration 
     judge ordered her deported. He allowed her to depart 
     voluntarily--legally advantageous--by April 1996 ``or any 
     extensions as granted'' by the I.N.S. Immigration officials 
     in Boston, citing her cooperation in the Chatelain case, 
     extended the date successively to March 1998.
       In the meantime Mrs. Boles had married and moved to her 
     husband's home in Phoenix. In February 1997 Michael Boles 
     filed an I-130 petition to get his wife permanent residence. 
     The petition went to the I.N.S. Texas service center, 
     covering Phoenix. It was then transferred to a California 
     center, and from there back to the local I.N.S. office in 
     Phoenix.
       In May 1998, with the petition still pending and the date 
     for voluntary departure just past, the I.N.S. office in 
     Boston gave Mrs. Boles a year's stay of deportation. A year 
     later she had still heard nothing about her green card. She 
     asked an I.N.S. officer in Phoenix for a further stay. 
     Denying it, he said the delay on the green card petition must 
     mean that her marriage was fraudulent--in effect blaming her 
     for the notorious inefficiency of the I.N.S.
       ``Based on a careful review of the facts of this case,'' an 
     official wrote, ``there do not appear to be any unusual 
     humanitarian factors.''
       The petition for a green card was finally granted this past 
     June, more than two years after it was filed. So far it has 
     not helped Sherol Boles. If she is deported, she may come 
     within provisions of the harsh 1996 Immigration Act that 
     would bar her from this country for 5 or 10 years.
       Tough as it is, the 1996 law gives the I.N.S. power to 
     reopen this case. But the service seems determined in its 
     refusal. In its First Circuit brief it argued that the court 
     has no power to review its decision, right or wrong.
       Why is the I.N.S. so adamant? It must want to establish the 
     principle that nobody--not event a court--can make it pay 
     attention to reason and humanity.

     

                          ____________________