[House Report 112-620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-620
======================================================================
FOR THE RELIEF OF ALLAN BOLOR KELLEY
_______
July 24, 2012.--Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 794]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 794) for the relief of Allan Bolor Kelley, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 1
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 4
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 5
Purpose and Summary
The bill grants permanent resident status to Allan Bolor
Kelley.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Allan Kelley was born in the Philippines in 1978. In 1990,
at age 11, Allan was brought to the U.S. with a tourist visa by
David and Marta Kelley. The Kelleys had gone to the Philippines
in 1988 in order to find a child to adopt. Mr. Kelley's
brother-in-law's mother ``was taking care of many children
whose parents were not able to take care of them themselves, so
they sort of dumped them on her.''\1\ Mr. Kelley sought to
adopt two children in her care, Allan and a young girl,\2\ in
the Philippines: ``I met with an immigration lawyer and
attempted to get the paperwork done in the Philippines. During
the next year, the law changed within the Philippines. I was no
longer able to adopt in the Philippines . . . And so that's why
we pursued the route of adopting [the children] in the
U.S.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Matter of Maria Lejani Abada Kelley, Alan Bolar Kelley,
transcript of Executive Office for Immigration Review removal hearing
at 82 (March 8, 2004).
\2\The girl later married a U.S. citizen and thus is not a
beneficiary of this private bill.
\3\Matter of Maria Lejani Abada Kelley, Alan Bolar Kelley,
transcript of removal hearing at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soon after Mr. Kelley brought Allan and the girl to the
U.S., Marta left him and they later divorced. Mr. Kelley
decided to keep the children himself. However, he did not
pursue adoption proceedings for many years because of advice
from his attorney (``Well, at that point in time there was a
scandal going on with Woody Allen, who apparently had adopted
some children and was having sex with one of them. . . . And my
lawyer told me that it was difficult for a single man to adopt
a pubescent girl, in light of the Woody Allen situation.''\4\).
The lawyer advised him to wait until Allan could apply for
suspension of deportation, then available to illegal immigrants
who had been in the U.S. for 7 years and who would suffer
extreme hardship if removed. Mr. Kelley eventually did adopt
Allan, but not before Allan's 16th birthday and thus too late
for the adoption to be recognized under U.S. immigration law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Id. at 88-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kelley also sought cancellation of removal (the
successor provision after the elimination of suspension of
deportation by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996) for Allan--but the 9th Circuit
ruled that they could not meet the statutory requirements
(exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the U.S. citizen
parent of an illegal immigrant).
Allan, now 33 years old, has been ordered deported.
H.R. 794 grants Mr. Kelley permanent residence.
The two most clear precedents for private bills in adoption
circumstances do not apply here. One is that the birth parents
have died or abandoned their children. Another is that the
adoption proceedings were initiated before the child turned 16,
even if they were not completed by that time.
There is other relevant precedent. In the 97th Congress, a
private bill was enacted for Andre Eubanks.\5\ Andre was born
in 1975 in Brazil. In 1980, when Andre was five, he was adopted
in Brazil under Brazilian law by a U.S. couple because his
birth parents (still alive) found him ``an unwanted, unplanned
child and [had] neither the financial ability nor the resources
to raise and educate'' him. The U.S. permanent resident mother
was Andre's birth aunt, who had been asked by her sister
(Andre's birth mother) ``to take care of Andre because she
could no longer handle the responsibility.'' The adoptive
parents brought Andre to the U.S with a tourist visa in 1981.
They were unable to meet the adoption requirements of U.S.
immigration law because Andre was not an orphan and ``the
adoptive mother . . . was unable to establish the 2-year
residence period required by law due to an illness.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Priv. L. No. 97-17. See H.R. Rep. No. 97-129 (1981) & S. Rep.
No. 97-358 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are great similarities between Andre's case and that
of the present private bill for Allan--in both cases, an
American adoptive parent decided to bring a child to the U.S.
improperly with a tourist visa, the child was taken from
relatives of the adoptive parent, and the adoptive parents
could not meet the requirements for adoption under U.S.
immigration law. The largest difference between the cases of
Andre and Allan is the type of hardship involved. On the one
hand, Andre was 6 years old at the time his private bill was
considered--he was totally dependent on others for his
sustenance. Allan, however, is in his 30's, and, as the
immigration judge commented, could take care of himself in the
Philippines. On the other hand, Andre was much younger than
Allan and had not spent many of his formative years in the
U.S., as had Allan. Therefore, Allan would suffer a much larger
culture shock if sent back to the Philippines than Andre would
have suffered had he been sent back to Brazil.
In the 111th Congress, the Immigration Subcommittee
requested an ICE report on Mr. Kelley and ICE provided the
Subcommittee with a report which contained no derogatory
information. On March 10, 2011, the Subcommittee again voted to
request a report. On May 3, 2011, ICE provided the report. It
revealed no derogatory information.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
794.
Committee Consideration
On June 28, 2012, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 794 favorably reported without amendment,
by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 794.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 794, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed the following legislation ordered reported by the
House Committee on the Judiciary on June 28, 2012:
LH.R. 823, a bill for the relief of Maria
Carmen Castro Ramirez and J. Refugio Carreno Rojas;
LH.R. 824, a bill for the relief of Daniel
Wachira;
LH.R. 316, a bill for the relief of Esther
Karinge;
LH.R. 794, a bill for the relief of Allan
Bolor Kelley;
LH.R. 357, a bill for the relief of Corina de
Chalup Turcinovic; and
LH.R. 1857, a bill for the relief of Bartosz
Kumor.
Those bills would make certain individuals eligible for
permanent U.S. residence and could have a very small effect on
fees collected by the Department of Homeland Security and thus
would affect direct spending. Therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that enacting those
pieces of legislation would not have a significant impact on
the federal budget.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
794 grants permanent resident status to Allan Bolor Kelley.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 794 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Permanent Resident Status for Allan Bolor Kelley.
Subsection (a) provides that Allan Bolor Kelley shall be
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence upon filing an application for issuance of an
immigrant visa under section 204 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
Subsection (b) provides that if Mr. Kelley enters the
United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered and
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible
for adjustment of status under section 245 of the INA.
Subsection (c) provides that subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa
or the application for adjustment of status is filed with
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Subsection (d) provides that upon the granting of an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mr. Kelley, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce
by 1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of his birth under section 203(a) of the
INA or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that
are made available to natives of the country of his birth under
section 202(e) of the INA.
Subsection (e) provides that the natural parents, brothers,
and sisters of Mr. Kelley shall not, by virtue of such
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under
the INA.