Shirley Tan Update – Board of Immigration Appeals Sets New Deportation Date, all Legal Remedies Exhausted
On Friday April 10, Shirley Tan received a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA has given Shirley until May 10, 2009 to “voluntarily depart,” meaning she is out of options to remain in the U.S. If she were straight, and married her American partner Jay Mercado tomorrow, she could immediately petition for a green card.
In the short-term, Shirley and her family can only hope for an extraordinary measure to keep her in the U.S. In the long-term, the best hope for the Tan-Mercado family is a change to the U.S. immigration law – passage of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) – which would provide lesbian and gay Americans the same opportunity to sponsor their partners for immigration that straight Americans have.
We will continue to keep you posted with any further developments in this heart-wrenching story.
Please note, we are in the process of changing our web host, so this blog post, and any comments you leave, may disappear in the next couple of days.
While I am familiar with Shirley Tan’s story, I will go out and buy the People magazine just to show support. I feel so sad about this latest update. A wonderful family is being shattered into pieces right before our eyes. If there is anything I can do to help them, I will not hesitate. Shirley’s story is our story, her struggle is our struggle, and her cause is our cause. We should not let such a heartbreaking story, which epitomizes the inherent unfairness of US immigration system, die in vain.
Comment by Rick — April 15, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I wish to see is there any breakthrough to help Shirley. She represents all the bi-national same sex couples in US. If she has to be deported eventually, that means there’s no any other way for the same sex couples to stay legally until UAFA passed.
Comment by Dennis — April 15, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
WOW I am speechless that such a thing can happen during this time and age. We (my partner and I) are in the same situation; it’s such a shame. Has Obama read the latest decision on this case, has he read Peoples Magazine or maybe Michelle. Where are all the other celebrities? I have to digest this horrible news first before I can write anything else. It scares me and reminds me that in the near future we will be faced with the same situation / decision. (Thankfully my partner is not illegal, but we still have a deadline, soon).
Comment by Bob — April 15, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Yeah, it seems that way. There is nothing we can do until UAFA is passed. Maybe Tan’s sad departure is a reminder for all of us that we really have to get our acts together to get this bill passed. If our own gay community doesn’t even care about us(It seems that way, most gay Americans do not even know what UAFA is), there is no mention how little support we can get from the mass public. Just remember, UAFA died in the commitee for the last 8 years, we can not let that happen again….if we keep doing nothing, UAFA will fail again.
Comment by Chung Cheng Fang — April 15, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Very sad indeed, i think also the government encourages the gay and lesbians to break the law but not treating them equally. Too sad, we should form a human chain around her, and let this not happend.
Comment by Matumbo — April 15, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
@Matumbo. Your comments are very kind and sweet.
Comment by Rick — April 15, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Does anyone know why People publishes the number 8,500 same-sex binational couples? Why not 36,000?
Comment by TheHeatIsOn — April 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Guys, keep sending e-mails n letters to the mass media, senatorsn congressmen, president, wife of C.A. Governor on Shirley’s case n sad story.
Comment by KIM — April 15, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
@TheHeatIsOn – I don’t know this for sure but I think it is the number of binational couples currently living in the US legally. I think that’s why the number is very conservative. When we talk about the estimated 36,000++ binational couples, we are talking about those who are living in the US legally and those who are in the US with the foreign partners staying illegally and also those who are living in other countries. Even the 36,000 is just an estimate because I think there are more illegal immigrants who are staying in the US with their same-sex partners but are too afraid to speak up. And there are also those who have already moved to other countries and have given up hope of ever moving back together to the US.
Comment by Simon M — April 15, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
I just picked up a copy of People Magazine. Seeing an actual hard copy of the article was a quite different experience than reading it online. It actually made me sick to my stomach.
Concerning the number of same sex binational couples quoted in the magazine, it is an obvious mistake, or perhaps Simon M (comment #8) is correct. So why don’t we write them and tell them so. People sometimes publishes letters to the editor.
We can write the editor. The email is editor@people.com. Fax: (212)522-0794. You can also mail a letter and send it to:
Letters to the Editor
People
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY
10020
Comment by nola — April 15, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Congressional Leaders Mull Partial DOMA Repeal
Some Congressional members are considering repealing part of the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages.
By Kerry Eleveld
Discussions around repealing a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages have heated up in the wake of recent legal challenges filed and the addition of two new states legalizing same-sex marriage.
Legislative aides familiar with the discussions say a handful of congressional leaders have been hashing out the details of the legislation, which would accomplish two goals: repeal section 3 of DOMA as it relates to the federal government’s ability to confer some 1,100 federal benefits on same-sex partners; and provide a way for same-sex couples living in states that do not allow them to marry legally to access the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual spouses.
The most immediate benefits of passing such a bill would go to legally married gay couples — those who have married or will marry in Connecticut or Massachusetts, those who married in California while it was legal (pending the state supreme court decision over the validity of those marriages), and those soon to marry in Iowa and Vermont. Same-sex couples in New York, which recognizes legal marriages performed outside of the state, would also be among the first beneficiaries.
But Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said legislators are also intent on making federal benefits available to same-sex couples living outside those six states. “People are coalescing around the idea of a 50-state solution by recognizing unions that are recognized in at least one state,” he said. “There’s a growing consensus around that.”
By all accounts, the bill will not disrupt section 2 of DOMA, which gives individual states the ability to determine what type of unions they deem legal. “It still protects federalism — states are still able to make their own decision about what state benefits to offer,” Anders added.
According to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, legislators involved in the planning include senators Christopher Dodd, Russ Feingold, and Chuck Schumer, and representatives Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, and Jared Polis.
Legislators declined to discuss specifics due to the fact that they are trying to reconcile different approaches in order to introduce matching bills in the House and the Senate.
“With the landscape changing so quickly, we want to make sure congressional leaders, advocates, and litigators are all in the same place,” said Amy Rutkin, Representative Nadler’s chief of staff.
The basic question surrounding the bill is which same-sex unions to recognize and how to make those unions portable in a way that will allow the federal government to provide benefits to gay partners regardless of whether they live in Alabama or Massachusetts.
According to those familiar with the discussions, some have advocated for only recognizing marriages while others have shown an interest in including civil unions and strong domestic partnerships too.
“The idea is to recognize a relationship or marriage that is recognized by a state,” Anders explained. So if a couple is legally recognized in any state, he added, “you would be entitled to the federal benefits and protections and liabilities of marriage.”
But the Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese said he is less concerned about the exact form the legislation takes at the moment than he is in getting “something on the burner.”
“I think the House and Senate version wouldn’t have to be one in the same, there can be differences,” he said. “But once you get legislation introduced in both, you’ve got the educational vehicle and the organizing principle for the community to really get to work on.”
Sources declined to discuss the exact timing of when such a bill might be introduced, but they generally agreed it would be before the end of the year and probably within the next several months.
While President Obama supports full repeal of DOMA, Solmonese said it was difficult to gauge whether this legislation would be prioritized by the White House because the Administration has not provided such information to the HRC.
“We have had weekly conversations with the White House about the agenda for our community, but we haven’t gotten the priority list from the White House,” he said.
Anders explained that the two key disparate groups legislators are keeping in mind are those couples who are the most mobile and those who are the least. For instance, they want to cover couples who live in Massachusetts or Iowa and marry but then choose to move to another state for a job or to care for a family member or to retire.
“But there are also lots of people who are living in the state they were born in,” Anders said, “and it doesn’t seem that people should be locked out of federal protections simply because they can’t move and may not have the resources or mobility to do so.”
Another option some have suggested is creating a set of criteria, or a federal trigger, that would qualify a couple for federal benefits regardless of whether they are legally unioned in any particular state. While this would provide a way to debate federal benefits outside of the emotion surrounding marriage, Anders said the option has not been under serious consideration and was losing steam fast now that there is a greater proliferation of states extending full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which essentially makes marriage regionally accessible to more people.
The Government Accountability Office reported in 2004 that a total of 1,138 federal benefits are associated with marital status; people generally cite issues like Social Security survivor benefits, federal health benefits, and equal tax treatment as major concerns. A same-sex partner cannot, for instance, collect the Social Security payments of a deceased partner. Partners of federal employees are not eligible for inclusion on their health insurance. In terms of taxation, same-sex partners cannot file joint tax returns; insurance benefits offered to same-sex partners by employers is taxed as extra income rather than being deducted from pre-tax dollars; and while married spouses can transfer an unlimited amount of money to each other without being taxed, anyone else is limited to transfers of up to $12,000 annually.
Comment by Jim — April 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Thanks Jim, I think it’s wise to remove partial DOMA instead of all. I hope if the congress can remove Sec. 3 of DOMA, all the gay couples can have the federal benefits immediately, include the immigration right. I hope it will come soon.
Comment by Dennis — April 15, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Ask for asylum in Canada in an emergency??
Comment by Roby — April 16, 2009 @ 1:38 am
I’m also confused about the number. Quote from another article ( Mercury News):
‘A study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school estimated there are about 36,000 binational couples living together in the United States, with nearly 30 percent of those couples in California.’
So the study mentions clearly that there are 36,000 couples LIVING TOGETHER in the US ( which doesn’t include those living abroad).
The only possible explanation could be that the rest of the 36,000 plus have already found another way to stay legally ( because in People Magazine they write 8,500 would seek immigration benefits).
But still, the number is confusing because it has never been used anywhere else. Where does this number suddenly come from?
Comment by Lee — April 16, 2009 @ 4:58 am
Like Shirley, my american dream became a nightmare. I didn’t choose to fall in love with a US citizen, it just happened! We had a chance to live free in France where I am from, but my partner had a business and employees to take care of here. I haven’t seen my family and friends for 4 years now. I am afraid of what could happen to my grand mother who is 80 (will I see her again?)If I leave the country I can’t come back because I’m illegal now.I can’t drive, can’t work of course, I’m even agraid afraid to walk by myself. Like others, we ‘ve been scammed, money for a green card, it never happen!! I’ve never felt so depressed in my life. Land of freedom? /i don’t think so.
Comment by dukie — April 16, 2009 @ 5:20 am
Meanwhile from NY: FYI, our gov is going to propose gay marriages today it is reported in our local news. Just FYI. Stay Tuned and supportive!
Comment by Joe — April 16, 2009 @ 6:21 am
ALL RIGHT PEOPLE!!! I have to say that for us SO FAR a partial romoval of DOMA seems to be the easiest way to acquire immigration benefits. This, I believe would be easier than repealing DOMA all together, pass UAFA this year or wait for CRI. Under the current immigration law immediate family members have the priority and even our undocumented people that are part of a partnership and enter the country with a Visa and overstayed it could adjust their status right away. I think this is AMAZING news because it seems to be a “middle of the road” approach that would find less resistance. I’ll take whatever we can get at this moment.
Comment by Harrison — April 16, 2009 @ 8:19 am
What a sad turn of events!! It just reminds us all what we are fighting for. I found another article Chris Waddling wrote about an executive order from Obama. Now I know I have seen some say yes this would work but others say no. I am not sure what to believe at this point. I am just trying to keep my family intact like all of you
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12101399
Comment by Concerned citizen — April 16, 2009 @ 8:20 am
I posted the Advocate story in the last talkback (post #8) and said then that we now need to pursue three strategies: push for UAFA on its own, push for a combination of UAFA with CIR or another bill, and, thirdly, also ask for a full repeal of DOMA and not just Section 3. Feel free to call for a partial repeal only if you must but I personally feel we might as well push for a full repeal, especially when the Prez himself favours it.
@Concerned Citizen, Obama cannot change immigration laws by executive order (likewise, he can’t repeal DOMA and DADT by executive order). Immigration reform is always decided by Congress but Obama can apply pressure in much the same way as he did with the stimulus bill. Realistically, I think even a partial repeal of DOMA is unlikely to happen this year unless there are more significant victories for our community on state level before year’s end that would increase the pressure on the administration act on the federal level. Naturally, I’d love for it to happen this year but as I said in the last talkback, the Republicans will not sit back idly.
Comment by Tim — April 16, 2009 @ 10:09 am
oops, this should have read “on the administration TO act”
Agree on the good news from NY: will be very interesting to see events unfold there. The Dems’ majority in the senate is very slim but at least Paterson got a debate going.
Comment by Tim — April 16, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Thaks Tim, yes, I agree it’s too optimist to expect the law change this year. But it will be great if it happen in surprise.
Comment by Dennis — April 16, 2009 @ 11:09 am
@Folks who live in the awesome NY state
Please contact your local Reps and state Senators and ask for their support in the marriage equality bill introduced by Gov. Paterson today! It is very important for us to do so because we need NY state on our side. If NY legalizes marriage for LGBTs, it will put tremendous pressure on CA to rule differently on the Prop 8 case. Let them know that “a right delayed is a right denied”. Let’s keep the momentum going!!!
Comment by Simon M — April 16, 2009 @ 11:59 am
…..WOW….Im speechless to (as in post number 3 “bob”)…..
I’m at a loss…..as to this…..is april 2009..and people are treated in this way?
it also shows to my mind….how did the “INS” ever get to become so powerfull
this is where I am at a loss….
Comment by derek — April 16, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Hello,
We are a binational couple we have been together for 3 years now 2 of them appart and 1 together here in the states. Well our story is long but to make it short I came here in a tourist visa and apply ahead of time for an extension (bad idea) after months waiting for the letter back, I got a denial and was told that my stay in the USA was illegal this was in february. My gf is graduating from college this month the 25th and we have arrage everything to go back to my country together right after graduation. We do not know how long are we staying there, but we will love to some day come to visit her family together. My question is if the UAFA becomes a law in years from now, will I be able to come with my future spose? we are getting a civil union in Ecuador my home country.
Any info or ideas would be so much appreciated.
Comment by ASH — April 16, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
WOW! Fascism! Scary!
Comment by Brian — April 16, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
The problem is people focus on the fact that Shirely is here as an illegal immigrant. We must show them that many of us have no other choices, because we cannot support our foreign partners to get permanent residency.
We must let the whole country know about our struggle.
Can we gather, especially those who have children, and protest for our right? It’ll be too late when time runs out for us, one family by one family….
We must all come out and fight for our right.
Those of you who are living in California, please go to Shirely’s house and protest for UAFA.
Comment by Mike — April 16, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
your right Mike, they do focus on the fact that she is illegal, and not that she didn’t have much of a choice… or that she thought the lawyers were handling it. My partner lives abroad, it’s just hard.
Comment by bkbzipper — April 16, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
I think even Shirley has a valid visa, they won’t extend the period for Shirley to stay anymore. The immigration always tough to the aliens, and they would not have sympathy on you.
Comment by Dennis — April 16, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ralls/tearing-families-apart-wh_b_186630.html
Comment by bkbzipper — April 16, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Did not donate before, but my partner and I will be making a monthly donation to IE. We have also called and written to congressional members. I just feel we should, collectively, do whatever we can to advance our cause. With Obama in office, the time to act is now!
Comment by Rick — April 16, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Oh my God!!!! I wish I lived in CA because I swear I would chain myself to their frickin’ door and nobody would be able to move me!!! I am so pissed right now…this is so unfair!
Comment by Harrison — April 16, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
@bkbzipper(28): Thanks for the link. It is another focused powerful article. And to Rick, yes, thanks for reminding me to send ANOTHER check to IE. It is money so well used.
Comment by Joe — April 16, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Joe, I agree with you that it’s money well used. Personally speaking, it just feels not right to leave it all to IE when my partner and I are financially able to contribute, even just for a small donation. If we don’t support IE, who will help us?
Comment by Rick — April 16, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Suddenly, my NY state taxes makes sense. The Gov introduces Gay marriage to NY State:
http://video.newsweek.com/#?c=94773&l=1747276046&t=19935307001
Also, Newseek April 13th edition has a full page (last page) editorial you must all read. It lambasts the “don’t ask don’t tell” (Clinton)BS that it is per Anna Quindlen/”The Last Word” column (If I find it online I’ll let you folks know, but for now try to obtain a copy-ironically it is the issue with “The Decline and fall of Christian America” on the cover.
Comment by Joe — April 16, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Found: Anna Quindlen in Newsweek on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” farce:http://www.newsweek.com/id/192456
Comment by Joe — April 16, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
For NY State residents, I implore you to watch the Governor’s speech to learn who the characters are behind the “marriage equality” mov’t in Albany:
at http://www.ny.gov/governor/
Find April 16-”marriage equality” on the top right of the site, then click on “watch”. Then you will know whom to email/write to and support. For all those of you non-NY residents, it is worth watching anyway, and do write to them anyway to show support, esp Mayor Bloomberg and Gov Paterson. I know you are all busy but I think it is worth the time. I started it reluctantly and then finished the whole thing (although the questions in the end could not be well heard-turn up the vol in the last few minutes!!).
I wrote to Gov Paterson to congratulate him and thank him. Then I asked him to advocate for the UAFA. But I noticed in the video that Congressman Nadler was right behind him anyway!!!
Comment by Joe — April 17, 2009 @ 12:37 am
@ASH When did your legal status expire? Usually overstay counts from the date stamped on your I-94. If you have overstayed for more than six months but less than a year you’d be subject to a three-year bar (from entering the US), a ten-year bar if you have overstayed for more than a year.
However, under current immigration laws, if UAFA is passed, even if you are subject to the three or ten-year bar, your partner will be able to apply for a waiver for you and sponsor you for a green card.
Comment by SupportUAFA — April 17, 2009 @ 11:26 am
how come nobody in the news is reporting about the latest update in shirley’s case?? Will they let this happen? We live in NY State and I heard that our senator Valesky and rep Christensen won’t support Paterson on the same sex marriage bill. Are they bitter because of the taxes issues?
Comment by dukie — April 17, 2009 @ 11:54 am
this is interesting… does apply to UAFA? an article on how GOP might be losing more and more because they’re too religious, gay marriage issue comes up… maybe UAFA passage would help the GOP by reaching out a little???? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/steve-schmidt-mccain-camp_n_188354.html
Comment by bkbzipper — April 17, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
I saw “Good Morning America” is asking for entries for everyday people to tell “their story”… is someone here in a position to go public? Might be great coverage!
Comment by bkbzipper — April 17, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Does anyone know when shirely deportation date is?? If so anyone willing to fly down there and form a human chain round there house?? We keep talking i want action. Any takers.
Comment by Matumbo — April 17, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
She’s supposed to leave by May 10th, Mother’s Day… that’s just really cruel. If there was something we could all do on the same specific date (say a week before she leaves in protest) … maybe calling and faxing in mass using the Mother’s Day Cruelty to her U.S. Citizen sons, which makes it more “newsworthy”, to the big media… TV, newspapers news blogs. The side issue on this that makes it a little more difficult is that it’s constantly mentioned that she was here illegally.
Comment by bkbzipper — April 17, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
I think there’s nothing can help Shirley now. Unless we can make it very very big on TV, news. Otherwise, we can only pray the miracle come, or the UAFA passed.
Comment by Dennis — April 18, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Omg bkbzipper (#42)You point out a genius of an irony. Mother’s Day and such a cruel act against nature (separating a Mother from her children) on that very day. This will go a long way to millions of mothers who see motherhood as a more important issue than “illegal” immigration and all that. This may just be the notion that the movement (to help Shirley and Jay) needs to shift support of millions to their side! That’s this faceless nameless process of this heartless, cruel and fundamentally unjust man-made “law” just so happens to bear down its axe on the bonds of mother and children on MOTHERS DAY!! Pls join me in sending out emails to all we know, linking the evolving story of Shirley and Jay and the inevitable separation of their family, to the celebration of “Mothers Day”. It think these are exactly the kinds of jolting ironies that may get even more attention from the likes of Larry King, Oprah, Ellen D….Michelle Obama??
21st century USA?? This is beyond even imagination let alone belief and tolerance.
Comment by Joe — April 18, 2009 @ 9:37 am
I can’t fall asleep… thinking this may eventually happen to me and my partner. Can’t get it out of my mind…
Comment by Janice — April 18, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
CNN did a story on a lesbian couple facing deportation in June. It was in the morning April 18. Too sad!
Comment by brian — April 19, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
This is President Obama’s chance to show true LEADERSHIP by stopping the destruction of this couple’s life! Meghan McCain has come out in favor of marriage equality, why can’t our President?
Comment by InExile — April 21, 2009 @ 6:07 am