Quote:
Originally Posted by jaylove16
Like I said , time will tell if his DACA had expired or not. Right now it's a he said/she said situation. Also , him shoplifting in 2016 and being charged and convicted of it doesn't help his situation. The lawyers should provide proof his daca is still active. That shouldn't be hard right?
|
If you imagine that any free-advocacy organizations like the NILC would take up any case, without evidence to prove any standing (i.e. vaild EAD or DACA), which is both costly and time consuming, you don't understand how this works.
By the way, reporters from USA Today have seen his EAD, which is valid till 2018.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ump/100583274/
The prior conviction for larceny is at best a misdemeanor, for which he did probation.
As far as 'proof' or 'showing' the damn thing, that is what a trail is for - but you have to build a case first, which at the moment is impossible since the DHS has refused to release any record of the incident (of initial deportation). Hence the Freedom of Information lawsuit.
I smell a rat. The likely story, to my mind at least, is that an agent was in a bad mood that day or did so, "just cuz", and that the DHS is covering for him.
But at the end of the day, even if he was boarder crossing as DHS claims, or not, and deported with a valid 'DACA' status, by law, he is still liable for deportation, regardless - as all of us are.