A Guyanese man had his bid to remain in the US denied earlier this month after his wife withdrew her application for sponsorship and instead sought a restraining order against him.
The man, Wilfred Johnson, claimed that he had been subjected to cruelty by his wife but this was rejected by an immigration judge, who ordered that he be removed from that country – a decision which was upheld by three US Circuit Court judges on April 16.
According to a copy of the decision, which this newspaper has seen, Johnson is a native of Guyana who entered the US in or about March 1995, “without inspection.” In February 2003, he married a US citizen, with whom he has two young children. His wife then filed and obtained approval of an Alien Relative Petition, which permitted his presence in the US.
It was revealed that Johnson briefly returned to Guyana but went back to the US and was paroled into that country in July 2005 as an applicant for legal permanent residence.
“However, by March 2006, Johnson’s marriage began to deteriorate and he left the marital home. Meanwhile, Johnson’s wife withdrew the Alien Relative Petition, commenced divorce proceedings, and obtained a restraining order preventing Johnson from visiting his young children,” the court document said.
Based on the allegations made by his wife in obtaining the restraining order, Johnson was taken into custody by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While in custody the Guyanese was served with a notice to appear and charged with removability “in that [he] was not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, re-entry permit, border crossing card, or valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
In an attempt to block his deportation about one month after he was served with the papers, Johnson filed an application in the Immigration Court for cancellation of removal under the Special Rule for Battered Spouses.
The court held a hearing during which Johnson testified in support of his application and alleged that his wife had mistreated him by making baseless allegations against him and depriving him of access to their two children.
“Johnson claimed that his wife’s actions amounted to extreme cruelty and that if he is subject to removal, his children will suffer,” the court papers said.
His petition was denied by the judge and he was ordered removed but he then appealed and petitioned the Circuit Court for a review.
In reviewing the case the Circuit Court judges noted that the immigration judge had to determine whether the allegations Johnson’s wife made against him in the divorce proceedings and in seeking a restraining order, as well as her deprivation of Johnson’s access to his children, amounted to extreme cruelty. It was concluded that there was no objective standard by which this can be determined.
The judges said that even if they were to assume jurisdiction, “we would not be persuaded by Johnson’s claim that merely amounts to a disagreement with the IJ’s [immigration judge’s] conclusion that his wife’s treatment did not amount o extreme cruelty.
“We find nothing inadequate about the BIA’s [Board of Immigration Appeal] review of the IJ’s decision.
Further, the judges found that Johnson’s argument that the BIA’s failure to address the potential hardship to his children raises a “colourable question of law” lacked merit.
