SOCIAL SECURITY – APPEALS COUNCIL – OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW, FALLS CHURCH, VA – LETTER FROM LAWFULLY PRESENT NONIMMIGRANT ALIEN
I am sharing this letter to invite Law School Students to review the request sent to Social Security Administration, Appeals Council, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 22041. This Claim for Disability Insurance Benefits uses principles drawn from Natural Law, Constitutional Law, Labor Law, apart from dealing with aspects of Social Security Law and Immigration Law. I spoke to at least twelve different attorneys to get some basic understanding of Social Security Law and Immigration Law. I will appreciate if you can decide this issue like a Juror and I am hopeful that I included all relevant portions of a Decision dated 04 December, 2015, proclaimed by Social Security Administration, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Livonia, Michigan, 48152.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
LAWFULLY PRESENT NONIMMIGRANT ALIEN’S LETTER TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, APPEALS COUNCIL, OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW, 5107 LEESBURG PIKE, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA, 22041
January 08, 2016.
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
5107 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041-3255.
1. I am (Claimant), writing this letter to request the Appeals Council to review the action, dated December 04, 2015, (Decision) of Social Security Administration(SSA), Administrative Law Judge, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Livonia, Michigan 48152(SSA/Livonia ODAR).
2. This written request for Review by the Appeals Council is necessary because of the following reasons:
A. Decision is unlawful for it is not consistent with ‘Applicable Law’.
B. Decision refuses to give attention to ‘Applicable Law’ and thereby demonstrates Contempt of Law.
C. Decision maintains silence without concern for SSA’s Notice of Action that violates U.S. Code, Title
18, Chapter. 77 indicating inability to interpret ‘Applicable Law’.
D. Decision is formulated by Social Security Program Operations Manual System (POMS) (Refer to RS.
00204.020C.4), online “SAVE” Query which is flawed. POMS is not designed to verify Lawful
Presence of Nonimmigrant Alien who receives ‘Benefit’ when ‘Application’ is registered by DHS,
‘Benefit’ granted by Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) under Confidentiality Provisions, Title
8, CFR, Part 245a.21, and Family Unity Provisions, 8 CFR, Part 245a.30, Public Law 106-554.
E. Decision is not impartial; Decision is not just and fair for it violates core principle of Constitutional
Law that demands Equal Treatment under Law.
F. Decision revolves around redundant, superfluous, and unnecessary argument about Lawful Residency whereas Claimant filed Benefit Application (Confirmation Number 29541272) on June 26, 2014 claiming no citizenship or Legal Residence Status.
G. Decision fails to analyze factual evidence that supports Lawful Presence of Claimant with reference to Title 8, CFR, Part 1, Section. 3.
3. Claimant requests the Appeals Council to address serious concerns posed by Decision, the details are as follows:
I. JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a. Decision reads, “Because Claimant did not show proof of lawful residency in the United States, and the field office could not verify his immigration status, his benefits were suspended.”
i. Claimant never claimed either citizenship or lawful resident status. Decision is not consistent with factual evidence already known to SSA or shared with SSA.
ii. SSA’s Notice of Award dated August 16, 2014 suspending monthly payment imposes condition called Compulsory Service, Labor Against Will, Forced Labor, Involuntary Servitude, Slavery, and Serfdom as defined by U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 77, Section. 1581, Section. 1584, and Section. 1589.
iii. This suspension of monthly benefit payment fails to meet the standards for Equal Treatment at Workplace. US Labor Law in principle demands Equality of Treatment of all Employees irrespective of their nationality, or country of origin. Labor Law provides protection to hourly wage earners in respect of Wages, Earnings, working conditions, occupational injury, occupational disease, Disability, and Retirement Income Benefits. For Labor consumes short hours and days of life, aging and its related consequence called senescence acquired under influence of time spent laboring demand Equal Protection sanctioned by Law. SSA need to discuss this Claim with US Department of Justice, US Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to ascertain if the Notice of Award is consistent with US Laws.
b. Decision reads, “After his request for hearing, Claimant requested that a decision be made on the record and did not attend the hearing scheduled for October 28, 2015.”
i. Claimant requests a decision be made based on evidence consistent with criteria for ‘Lawful Presence.’
ii. Claimant claims the benefit of Right to Life granted by the US Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land. As such, there is no dispute about Claimant’s Physical Presence in the US. For this reason, US Constitutional Law is ‘Applicable Law’ to settle this Claim.
iii. Claimant states that he is not a convicted felon and SSA’s action violates Bill of Rights protection granted by the 13th Amendment.
iv. Claimant submitted ‘Waiver of Your Right to Personal Appearance Before an Administrative Law Judge’ (Form OMB No. 0960-0284) that states, “While claiming that my presence and employment in the US is known to Government, I am not in a position to speak, to answer, or to testify in response to questions about Immigration Status (Refer to ‘Benefit’ granted by Title 8, CFR Part 245a.21) as the issue may be resolved by Executive Action by the US President (Refer to Deferred Enforced Departure – ‘DED’ provision of Title 8, CFR, Part 1, Section.3, para 4 v), Immigration Reform if approved [Refer to Adjustment of
Nonimmigrant Classification of INA, Section. 274a.12(c)], or by a resolution in a Federal Court of Law in accordance with Law that sanctions due process.
v. Claimant submitted a written summary dated November 07, 2014 to SSA-Livonia ODAR stating that immigrant status (Lawful Permanent Resident or Temporary Resident Status) is not required to file Claim for Social Security Benefits, and presented evidence in proof of Lawful Presence. This evidence includes, documents to show Claimant is registered by DHS (Refer to INA Section. 245A, registered Application Form I-687L and I-485) and is issued Alien Registration Number, documents to show Claimant is in compliance with requirement of Change of Address Notification (Refer to 8 CFR, Section 237(a)(3)(A), documents to show Claimant’s Nonimmigrant Classification, and Category such as 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(22), and 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(24), the Section of Law(INA) that defines the basis for Alien’s US Lawful Presence.
vi. Claimant could not present himself at his hearing on October 28, 2014 for he is not a ‘free’ citizen and he requested SSA-Livonia ODAR to obtain permission from the Government to authorize alien’s personal appearance is ignored.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
a. Decision reads, “For an individual to be eligible for retirement benefits, he or she must show proof of lawful residency in the United States, if such proof is not provided, an individual will not be paid benefits.”
This statement lacks legal validity for it cites Law that is not applicable to this Claim. In fact, Law has provisions to pay Social Security Benefits to certain Nonimmigrant Aliens ‘Lawfully Present’ in the country.
b. Decision reads, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no monthly benefit under this title shall be payable to any alien in the United States for any month during which such alien is not lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General (Sec. 202(y).”
The statement found in Social Security Act displays Contempt of Constitutional Law. Section. 202(y) of Social Security Act is founded upon false presumption of infallibility of bills enacted by legislation in the US Congress and signed into Law. The Appeals Council may kindly grant me permission to test and verify Constitutional validity of Social Security Act as amended.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
a. Decision reads, “Claimant has been asked several times to supply documentation that he is lawfully present in the United States. He has not done so. To verify his legal residency, Claimant could provide his I-94 or I-551, neither of which he has done. In fact, Claimant has not provided any proof of lawful presence to substantiate his claim that he is in the United States lawfully.”
The statement is not consistent with ‘Findings of Fact’ discussed in subsequent paragraphs of this part of Decision. The statement has no merit and can only be described as false utterance. Further, Claimant submits that SSA field offices issued valid, current Social Security Number during August 1986, October 1986, February 1987, December 1988, February 1989 and September 1990.
b. Paragraph 3 of Decision reads, “None of the provided documents are deemed “acceptable” (See also RS 00204. 025).”
POMS, online “SAVE” Query system is not designed to handle verification of information that pertains to ‘Lawful Presence’ of this Claimant. SSA can easily verify Employment Authorization Document (EAD) without concern for any expiration date shown on the face of those documents. These documents show that the Claimant is duly registered and his place of residence is known to DHS; apart from personal and biometric information, EAD records Nonimmigrant Alien’s Category such as (c)(22), or (c)( 24) which specifically relate to the Section of INA that provides the basis for Alien’s Lawful Presence in the US. Apparently, SSA-Livonia ODAR has not recognized the value of EAD as a source of information to determine Nonimmigrant Alien Classification [Refer to INA Section
c. Paragraph 4 of Decision reads, “Based on the foregoing, Claimant has not established that he is lawfully present in the United States.”
i. For the purposes of Title 8, U.S.C. 1611(b) (2) only an alien who is lawfully present in the United States means: 2. “an alien who has been inspected and admitted to the United States and who has not violated the terms of the status under which he or she was admitted or to which he or she changed after admission.” AND, 4. “An alien who belongs to one of the following classes of aliens permitted to remain in the United States because DHS has decided for humanitarian or other Public Policy reasons not to initiate removal proceedings or enforce departure.” 4. (iv) “Family Unity beneficiaries pursuant to Section 301 of Public Law. 101-649 as amended.
ii. The grant of Family Unity Benefits provides a period of Authorized Stay Such That the Beneficiary Is Not Accruing Unlawful Presence within the Scope of INA Section 212(a)(9)(B). This Authorized Period of Stay begins as of the date the Application Form was filed. Accordingly, a Family Unity Beneficiary will not accrue Unlawful Presence as long as he or she retains Family Unity Protection.
iii. Title 8, CFR, Section 245a.37 describes rules for ‘Termination of Family Unity Benefits.’ Para(2) reads, “The Beneficiary commits an act or acts which render him or her ineligible for Family Unity Benefits under the LIFE Act Amendments;” Para(4)(b) describes ‘Notice Procedure’ to Terminate Family Unity Benefits. “Notice of Intent to Terminate, and of the grounds there of shall be served pursuant to the provisions of 8 CFR 103.8. Any Final Decision of Termination shall also be served pursuant to the provisions of 8 CFR 103.8. Para (4) (c) describes Effect of Termination of Family Unity Benefit. “Termination of Family Unity Benefits under the LIFE Act Amendments shall render the alien amenable to removal under any ground specified in Section 237 of INA including those grounds described in Section 245a. 34(a). In addition, the alien will no longer be considered to be in a period of authorized stay by the Attorney General as of the date of such termination.” INA requires Attorney General to advise in writing (Notice of Intent to Terminate) a determination prior to termination of Family Unity Benefit.
iv. This Claimant continues to stay in the United States maintaining ‘lawfully present’ status without accruing ‘unlawful presence’ until and unless Attorney General makes decision and communicates in writing any change in that Benefit. There is no reason to speculate any action as per procedure given in INA Section 245a.37 (4) (b) and provisions of 8 CFR 103.8. As of today, Claimant’s Lawfully Present status remains the same as it was on July 28, 1986 or March 14, 1990, or on February 22, 2003.
d. Paragraph 5 of Decision reads, “Notably, Claimant expressed concern about with what government entities Social Security shares its information, and did not want to appear for the hearing in person.”
Remarks of Claimant:
i. Claimant shared information in respect of his Employment History, from September 1969 to July 1986 with DHS Immigration Officer at Detroit on February 22, 2003 during Interview that was videotaped, and with SSA to file this Claim.
e. Paragraph 5 of Decision in its conclusion reads, “Such statements are not favorable to Claimant’s credibility with regard to his allegation that he is a lawful resident, but instead intimate that he is, in fact, currently an illegal immigrant waiting for that status to change by law.”This Claimant will demand ‘Lawfully Present’ Status if the US Public Policy places controls and extends period of stay. Refer to Title 8, CFR, Chapter 1, Section 3, and Paragraph 4.
This entire statement is inconsistent with facts discussed in Paragraph. 2. Apart from inconsistency, the statement clearly reflects the need for Review of Decision by the Appeals Council.
Decision reads, “Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits protectively filed on July 3, 2014, Claimant is not eligible for such benefits due to lack of Proof of legal residency.”
It is transparent beyond all reasonable doubt to suggest that Decision is not legally valid for its conclusion is unrelated to ‘Applicable Law’. There is no evidence to show Claimant is accruing Unlawful Presence in the United States. On the contrary, it will be utterly ridiculous to suggest that a duly inspected and admitted Nonimmigrant Alien registered by DHS is Physically Present in the United States paying Federal, State, Social Security, and Medicare Taxes continuously since 1986-87, could be deriving the Benefit of Unlawful Presence from Provisions of Legal Protection duly sanctioned by Immigration and Nationality Act.
In conclusion, Claimant requests the Appeals Council to uphold Benefit Provisions of INA that account for Lawful Presence of Nonimmigrant Alien whose period of stay in the country is extended due to Public Policy reasons.