No, this isn’t about a 1990s movie starring Brendan Fraser as an ingenuous fellow raised from birth in a secret, time-locked underground shelter by his paranoid parents during the ‘60s Cold War era from which he “emerged” as a quaint-looking chap 35 years later.
On the contrary, today’s version is a real-life event that has been made public but stayed dormant for decades. However, just like its movie counterpart, it has found itself suddenly thrust into the vortex of present-day realities, blasting its way from a benign existence into a powerful weapon capable of obliterating a special type of proceeding historically available to green card applicants in the US.
As discussed previously in this corner, the USDHS recently issued a controversial memo upending the longstanding practice of allowing qualified green card applicants to adjust their status to permanent resident inside the US without the need to leave the country to apply for an immigrant visa abroad.
In justifying the new policy, the USDHS relied extensively on the case of Matter of Blas, 15 I & N Dec. 626, 628, originally decided by the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on 2 August 1974 and subsequently affirmed by both the US Attorney General (AG) and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Featuring the plight of a Filipino protagonist named Pedro Blas, the decision served as the foundational precedent for the rule that adjustment of status within the US is a discretionary privilege subject to administrative grace, not a guaranteed right of green card applicants.
By way of factual background, Mr. Blas traveled to the US as a tourist on 21 September 1970, leaving behind a wife and four minor children in the Philippines. On his visa application, he had misrepresented a number of things, including his plan to permanently abandon his family in the Philippines. After overstaying his visitor’s visa, he filed for divorce and subsequently married a US green card holder, who petitioned for him as an immediate relative after becoming a naturalized American In affirming the immigration court’s decision denying Mr. Blas’ adjustment of status application, the BIA clarified a number of conflicting rulings on the subject, laying down the rule that although adjustment of status would ordinarily be granted in the absence of major adverse factors, still the relief always remained a matter of discretion, with the onus of persuasion falling on the applicant to prove eligibility.
Consequently, since the totality of circumstances in Mr. Blas’ case had failed to overcome said burden (especially his wicked plan to abandon his family in the Philippines), the denial of his application was proper.
Interestingly, the above interpretation failed to elicit unanimous concurrence and had in fact invited a controverting opinion from the BIA’s chairman, who crafted a well-reasoned dissent.
Being a divided decision, the AG was forced to intervene, ultimately putting a stamp of approval on the original ruling but anchoring it on a different ground: since there were no sufficient positive factors that could negate the adverse impact of Mr. Blas’ prior misrepresentations (because to allow him to use family unification as an affirmative equity was to reward him for his lies), a denial was warranted.
A powerful Blas from the past? Indeed it was — and a Filipino-made projectile at that.