Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

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.