Matter of MONGES-Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 246 (BIA 2010)

Posted on June 3, 2010 by Mike Baker

BIA Finds No Conflict Between Regulation’s Time Limits on Motions to Reopen and INA § 242B(e)(1)’s Limit on Discretionary Relief.

(1) The 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2010) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or after the 1996 promulgation of the regulations.

(2) The 5-year limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear at deportation proceedings under former section 242B(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1994), is not in conflict with, and does not provide an exception to, the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) held in Matter of Monges-Garcia, 25 I. & N. Dec. 246 (B.I.A. May 20, 2010), that (1) the 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen in 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1) (2010) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or after the 1996 promulgation of the regulation, and (2) the five-year limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear at deportation proceedings under former INA § 242B(e)(1) (1994) is not in conflict with, and does not provide an exception to, that 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen. The matter was before the BIA following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s remand of the Board’s prior decision in the matter to permit the Board to answer these questions, Monges-Garcia v. Gonzales, 228 Fed. Appx. 665 (9th Cir. 2007).

The respondent is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the U.S. without inspection on February 16, 1994, after which deportation proceedings were initiated against her with the issuance of an order to show cause and notice of hearing (Form I-221). When the respondent failed to appear for her scheduled hearing on October 28, 1994, the immigration judge (IJ) ordered her deported in absentia. On April 7, 2003, the respondent filed a motion to reopen her deportation proceedings, seeking to apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen. The IJ denied the motion, finding that the respondent did not establish that her failure to appear resulted from a lack of notice or exceptional circumstances as required by former INA § 242B(e)(1) and that her motion was time barred under the regulations. The Board upheld this decision, and the respondent sought review in the Ninth Circuit, which remanded.

Former INA § 242B(e)(1), which was added by § 545(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), [FN3]  provides as follows: At deportation proceedings.–Any alien against whom a final order of deportation is entered in absentia under this section and who, at the time of the notice described in subsection (a)(2), was provided oral notice, either in the alien’s native language or in another language the alien understands, of the time and place of the proceedings and of the consequences under this paragraph of failing, other than because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (f)(2)) to attend a proceeding under section 242, shall not be eligible for relief described in paragraph (5) for a period of 5 years after the date of the entry of the final order of deportation.

Listed in paragraph (5) are voluntary departure under INA § 242(b)(1) [8 USCA § 1252(b)(1)], suspension of deportation or voluntary departure under INA § 244 [8 USCA § 1254], and adjustment or change of status under INA §§ 245, 248, or 249 [8 USCA §§ 1255, 1258, or 1259]. In conjunction with this and other provisions in § 242B relating to the required notice of deportation hearings that must be given to aliens and the consequences for their failure to appear, Congress mandated that the Attorney General issue implementing regulations within six months of enactment of IMMACT regarding the period of time in which motions to reopen and to reconsider may be offered in deportation proceedings, including a limitation on the number of such motions that may be filed and a maximum time period for the filing of such motions. Accordingly, the Department of Justice published a final rule in 61 Fed. Reg. 18900 (Apr. 29, 1996), effective July 1, 1996. The regulation, now at 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1), provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a party may file only one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen proceedings, which must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.

The BIA, in an opinion written by Board Member Charles K. Adkins-Blanch and joined by Board Member John H. Guendelsberger and Temporary Board Member Jean C. King, found that, pursuant to the time limitations imposed by the regulations, a motion to reopen a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion entered on or after the July 1, 1996, effective date is subject to the 90-day deadline because 90 days after the date of the order would be later than September 30, 1996. In addition, the Board said, the regulations make clear that any motion to reopen such a final order entered before July 1, 1996, must necessarily be filed by September 30, 1996, which is the later deadline in that case. Since these regulations were promulgated pursuant to Congress’ directive in conjunction with its enactment of the enforcement provisions of INA § 242B setting forth the consequences of failure to appear at deportation proceedings, the Board concluded that (1) Congress clearly intended that the time and number limitations on motions would further the statute’s purpose of bringing finality to immigration proceedings and (2) therefore, the 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen contained in 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or *1052  after the 1996 promulgation of the regulations. Thus, since the respondent is subject to the current version of 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1), which required her to file her motion to reopen by September 30, 1996, because her in absentia deportation order was issued on October 28, 1994, and her motion to reopen was not submitted until April 7, 2003, the Board found her motion untimely filed and therefore properly denied by the IJ.

Turning to the Ninth Circuit’s second question, the Board found no conflict between the regulation and INA § 242B(e)(1), both of which emanated from Congress’ concern over delays in immigration proceedings. Since the regulations carry out Congress’ intent, the Board saw no inconsistency between them and the statute. The Board rejected the respondent’s contention that INA § 242B(e)(1)’ s five-year limitation on an alien’s eligibility for discretionary relief as a result of failure to appear at deportation proceedings is an exception to the 90-day deadline in 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1). The Board explained that the five-year bar is applicable only to aliens who failed to appear for a hearing, including those who left the U.S. and subsequently returned, whereas the general time limitation on filing a motion contained in 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1) is an independent provision that applies to any alien who has been ordered excluded, deported, or removed. These provisions, the Board said, have separate restrictions for different purposes and are not at odds with one another. Moreover, since Congress intended to prevent aliens from obtaining benefits as a result of the mere accrual of time after the entry of a final administrative order, the Board opined that it would be inconsistent with that intent to allow an alien who avoided deportation for more than five years after failing to appear for a hearing to be exempt from the regulatory time limitations on motions to reopen. Thus the Board concluded that aliens must comply with the applicable provisions of both 8 CFR § 1003.23(b)(1) and INA § 242B(e)(1) in order to apply for adjustment of status.

Since the respondent’s motion to reopen was filed well after the regulatory deadlines and did not qualify for any of the permissible exceptions to the time limits on motions to reopen, the Board upheld the IJ’s decision that the respondent was precluded from reopening her proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Posted in absentia deportation order, BIA, Board of Immigration Appeals, Motions to Reopen | Leave a comment

Ninth Circuit Finds Son of U.S. Citizen Remains Such After Citizen’s Death and Remains Eligible for § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) Waiver.

Posted on June 3, 2010 by Mike Baker

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in reviewing the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) in Matter of Federiso, 24 I. & N. Dec. 661 (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2008), has held that the Board erred in holding that the son of a U.S. citizen was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) [8 USCA § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i)] because his citizen mother died before a decision was rendered on his waiver application, Federiso v. Holder, 2010 WL 1980763 (9th Cir. May 19, 2010).

The petitioner is a Filipino national who entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in November 1986 as the unmarried son of a U.S. citizen (his mother). Fifteen years later, removal proceedings were initiated against him because he had falsely represented that he was unmarried when he applied for his visa, rendering him inadmissible and therefore removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) [8 USCA § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)] for having procured his visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation. The petitioner requested relief under INA § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) which gives an immigration judge (IJ) the discretion to waive the removal of an immigrant who procured a visa through willful misrepresentation if the immigrant “is the spouse, parent, *1050 son, or daughter” of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The removal proceedings dragged on for years, and, after the proceedings had been initiated but before the hearing on the petitioner’s request for § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) relief, his mother died. At the hearing, the petitioner and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disagreed about whether the petitioner was still eligible to apply for a § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) waiver. The IJ held that he was since he “continues to be the son of a United States citizen” after the death of his U.S.-citizen mother. The IJ then examined a long list of equities in the petitioner’s favor and granted the waiver. DHS appealed, and the BIA, agreeing with DHS, held that “to be eligible for a waiver of removal” under § 237(a)(1)(H)(i), “an alien must establish a qualifying relationship to a living relative” (emphasis added). Because the petitioner’s mother was no longer living, the BIA held that he was no longer eligible to apply for the waiver. The BIA therefore vacated the IJ’s decision and ordered the petitioner removed to the Philippines. The petitioner sought review by the court of appeals.

The court acknowledged that, where there is ambiguity in the statute, it must defer to the agency’s interpretation, but found the text of § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) plain and unambiguous and the Board’s interpretation clearly contrary to the plain meaning of that text.

INA § 237(a)(1)(H) provides that:

The provisions of this paragraph relating to the removal of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission as aliens described in section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), whether willful or innocent, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be waived for any alien (other than an alien described in paragraph (4)(D)) who– (i) (I) is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and (II) was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of such admission except for those grounds of inadmissibility specified under paragraphs (5)(A) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) which were a direct result of that fraud or misrepresentation.

This text, the court said, “clearly states that the son of a citizen of the United States may be eligible for a waiver of removal.” Since neither DHS not the BIA disputed that the petitioner was the son of a U.S. citizen, the court opined that that alone was enough to resolve the case. However, the court also pointed out that, while the Board interpreted the statutory provision to apply only to a living citizen, “this is not what the statute says.”

The court also found that the BIA erred in relying on two Ninth Circuit decisions which held that the purpose of the waiver was to promote family unity and that waivers should not be granted in instances in which that purpose would not be furthered: Chung Wood Myung v. District Director of U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 468 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1972) (finding that the waiver should not be granted for the father where the U.S. citizen child lived in Korea with his mother), and Kalezic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 647 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding that, where the alien was divorced from his U.S. citizen wife and thus family unity was not applicable, the waiver would not be granted). The court found Kalezic of little value in adjudicating the instant case since it involved a marital relationship, not “the wholly distinct relationship between parent and child.” While a husband ceases to be his wife’s spouse upon divorce, the court pointed out that “[A] child never ceases to be his mother’s son. He always is her son, even after her death.”

The court found Myung more relevant since it involved a parent-child relationship but explained that, in the decades since it issued Myung and Kalezic, both the statutory text at issue and the role of the interpreter have changed. The court pointed out that, when it decided these two cases, it looked to the purpose of the statute rather than to its language but that now it is governed by Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and its progeny, and, unless the “statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” before the court, the court’s work is done. Here, the court reiterated, the statutory language at issue is plain: the son of a U.S. citizen may be eligible for a waiver. Also, the court noted, when Myung and Kalezic were decided, the waiver was mandatory whereas it is now discretionary. Thus, the court said, whether an alien is eligible for a waiver is a question of statutory interpretation fit for judicial review whereas whether issuing § 237(a)(1)(H) relief to a particular alien is consistent with the statute’s underlying purpose is a case-by-case policy determination that the statutory text commits not to the courts but to the discretion of the Attorney General and his designee the IJ. Neither the BIA nor the court may further its preferred interpretation of Congress’ intent by misreading or adding to the statutory eligibility requirements that Congress has laid out quite clearly, the court concluded. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings.
________________________________________
BIA Finds Fraud Waiver Applicant’s Qualifying Relative Must be Living to Establish Eligibility.

BIA finds that the purpose of a fraud waiver under INA §237(a)(1)(H)(i)(I) is clear from the statutory language and court interpretations – to unite aliens with their living USC or LPR family members. Concludes that because the waiver applicant’s mother is deceased, he lacks the qualifying relative. Matter of Federiso, 24 I&N Dec. 661, (BIA 2008). To be eligible for a waiver of removal under INA § 237(a)(1)(H)(i) [8 USCA § 1227(a)(1)(H)(i)] (2006), an alien must establish a qualifying
relationship to a living relative, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) has held. Matter of Federiso, 24 I. & N. Dec. 661 (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2008).

Posted in 212(h) waiver, Matter of Federiso | Leave a comment

EOIR Creates Immigration Judge Conduct and Professionalism Web Page

Posted on June 3, 2010 by Mike Baker
The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge has established a procedure that allows any person to file a complaint about the conduct of an Immigration Judge.  Below are links to documents which describe how to file a complaint, the procedures used to process complaints, and statistics concerning the disposition of complaints.
Process for Handling Complaints Against Immigration Judges
Summary of Complaint Process
Flowchart of Complaint Process

Filing a Complaint
Instructions for Filing a Complaint

Immigration Judge Complaint Statistics

(Coming Soon)

Posted in Chicago Immigration Court, Immigration Judge | Leave a comment

Increase of Non-Immigrant Visa Application Fees Effective June 4, 2010

Posted on May 31, 2010 by Mike Baker

 Important Notice – New Nonimmigrant Application Fees: The Nonimmigrant visa application processing fees will increase on June 4, 2010 and will be tiered, as shown below. (There will no longer be one single visa application fee for all nonimmigrant categories.) See the Press Release.  Applicants will have to pay the full fee in effect on the day they apply, regardless of when they pay. (Review additional information, including a cost of service study on the www.Regulations.gov website.)

Description of Service and Fee Amount
Nonimmigrant visa application and border crossing card processing fees (per person):

  • Nonimmigrant visa application processing fee (non-refundable), DS-160 or Form DS-156 for all categories below:
    • Non-petition-based nonimmigrant visa (except E): $140.00
    • H, L, O, P, Q and R category visa: $150.00
    • E category visa: $390.00
    • K category visa: $350.00
  • Border crossing card fees:
    • Border crossing card – age 15 and over (Valid 10 years): $140.00
    • Border crossing card – under age 15; for Mexican citizens if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing card (valid 10 years or until the applicant reaches age 15, whichever is sooner): $14.00
Other Fees
  • L visa fraud prevention and detection fee – for visa applicant included in L blanket petition  (principal applicant only): $500.00
When the nonimmigrant visa application processing fee is not required:
  • Applicants for A, G, C-3, NATO and diplomatic visas (defined in 22 CFR 41.26): No Fee
  • An applicant for a J visa participating in official Department of State or USAID sponsored educational and cultural exchanges, under a G-1, G-2, G-3 or G-7 program number, as well as the applicant’s dependent spouse and children: No Fee
  • Replacement of machine-readable visa when the original visa was not properly affixed or needs to be reissued through no fault of the applicant: No Fee
  • Applicants exempted by international agreement as determined by Visa Services, including members and staff of an observer mission to United Nations Headquarters recognized by the UN General Assembly, and their immediate families: No Fee
  • Applicants travelling to provide charitable services as determined by Visa Services: No Fee
  • U.S. Government employees travelling on official business: No Fee
  • A parent, sibling, spouse or child of a U.S. Government employee killed in the line of duty who is traveling to attend the employee’s funeral and/or burial; or a parent, sibling, spouse, son or daughter of a U.S. Government employee critically injured in the line of duty for visitation during emergency treatment and convalescence: No Fee
Nonimmigrant visa issuance fee, including border-crossing cards.
When the nonimmigrant visa issuance fee is not required:
  • An official representative of a foreign government or an international or regional organization of which the U.S. is a member; members and staff of an observer mission to United Nations Headquarters recognized by the UN General Assembly; and applicants for diplomatic visas as defined under item 22(a); and their immediate families: No Fee
  • An applicant transiting to and from the United Nations Headquarters: No Fee
  • An applicant participating in a U.S. Government sponsored program which may include applicant’s dependent spouse and children: No Fee
  • An applicant travelling to provide charitable services as determined by Visa Services: No Fee
Other – When a Visa is Not Required – Visa Waiver Program
  • Citizens of Visa Waiver Program participating countries, and meeting requirements pay a small fee. Select  USCIS fees  to learn more.
Coming to the U.S. Permanently – Immigrant Services
Description of Service and Fee Amount
  • Filing an immigrant visa petition (Collected for USCIS and subject to change)
    • Petition to classify status of alien relative for issuance of immigrant visa, select USCIS, Form I-130 for fees and form.
    • Petition to classify orphan as an immediate relative, select USCIS, Form I-600 for fees and form.
    • Petition to classify Convention Adoptee as an immediate relative, select USCIS, Form I-800 for fees and form.
    • Immigrant visa application processing fee (non-refundable, per person), Form DS-230: $355.00
  • Diversity Visa Lottery surcharge for immigrant visa application (non-refundable, per person applying as a result of the lottery program): $375.00
  • Immigrant visa security surcharge, for all IV and DV applicants: $45.00
  • Affidavit of Support Review (only when AOS is reviewed domestically), Form I-864: $70.00
Note: Forms and fee amounts are listed for immigration petitions which are submitted to Department of State, either accepted at an Embassy or Consulate abroad, or within the U.S to the National Visa Center or Kentucky Consular Center. Other immigration related forms can only be approved by the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigrants Services (USCIS).  For other fees (relating to forms starting with an “I” select  USCIS Forms and Fees  for additional information.

Special Visa Services

Description of Service and Fee Amount
  • Application for Determining Returning Resident Status, Form DSP-117 : $400.00
  • Transportation letter for Legal Permanent Residents of U.S.: $165.00
  • Application for Waiver of 2 year foreign residency requirement (J Waiver),
    Data Sheet, Form 3035 : $215.00
  • Application for Waiver of immigrant visa ineligibility (collected for USCIS), Form I-601 : $545.00
  • Refugee or significant public benefit parole case processing: No Fee

( NOTE: This fee chart is based on the Code of Federal Regulations – Title 22, Part 22, Sections 22.1 through 22.7.)

 ____________________

Effective June 4, 2010, the US Department of State is increasing its non-immigrant (temporary) visa processing fees at all US embassies and consular posts and moving to a tiered schedule of fees.  The new schedule is as follows:

Nonimmigrant visa and border crossing card application processing fees (per person):

(a) Non-petition-based non-immigrant visa (except E category):  $140

These include include B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas

(b) H, L, O, P, Q and R category non-immigrant visa:  $150

– H visa – temporary workers and trainees

· L visa – intracompany transferees

· O visa – aliens with extraordinary ability

· P visa – athletes, artists and entertainers

· Q visa – international cultural exchange visitors

· R visa – religious occupations

(c) E category nonimmigrant visa:   $390

      E covers Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors.

(d) K category nonimmigrant visa:  $350

     The K category includes fiance visas and those for foreign nationals married to US citizens who are waiting for approval of a Form I-130.

(e) Border crossing card–age 15 and over (valid 10 years) :$140

(f) Border crossing card–under age 15 (for Mexican citizens if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing card (valid 10 years or until the applicant reaches age 15, whichever is sooner):  $14

By law, the fees may only be set at cost. The Department of State therefore commissioned an independent study conducted from August 2007 through June 2009 to determine their actual processing costs. Average cost numbers were then rounded up to the nearest ten for easy of foreign currency conversion. The additional revenue resulting from this rounding will be used for GSS services.

The implementing legislation’s list of reasons why some “petition based” visa types are more expensive (H, L, O, P, Q, and R) gives a brief insight into the processing activities conducted at the consulates for them:

  • review of extensive documentation
  • a more in-depth interview of the applicant
  • receiving petition information from DHS,
  • conducting reviews of government and commercial databases to confirm the existence of the petitioning business, and
  • entering that data into the Petition Information Management Service (PIMS) database.

Visa reciprocity fees vary from country to country and still apply, so consult with your local post, consulate or embassy to find the exact visa application fees applicable in your case.

Fee changes are only in effect for non-immigrant visas applied for at consular posts (consulates and embassies).  Fee changes are under review for other consular services like US passports, immigrant visas.  Department of State, May 24, 2010 press release, Nonimmigrant Visa Application Fees to Increase June 4, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/142155.htm.

These new fees were set forth in the Federal Register: May 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 97),Rules and Regulations, pages 28188-28194. From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr20my10-3] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 22 CFR Part 22, Public Notice: 7018, RIN 1400-AC57. Title: Schedule of Fees for Consular Services, Department of State and Overseas Embassies and Consulates.

Nonimmigrant Visa Application Fees to Increase June 4

On May 20, 2010, the Department of State published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to increase nonimmigrant visa application processing fees, also called the Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) fee, and Border Crossing Card (BCC) fees. The interim final rule also establishes a tiered structure with separate fees for different nonimmigrant visa categories. The new fees are scheduled to go into effect on June 4, 2010.
The Department is increasing fees to ensure sufficient resources to cover the rising cost of processing nonimmigrant visas. This increase applies both to nonimmigrant visas placed in passports and to border crossing cards issued to certain applicants in Mexico.
The new, tiered fee structure was created to cover the higher unit costs for processing certain categories of nonimmigrant visas that are more complicated and require more in-depth consideration than most other categories of nonimmigrant visas. The Department is required to recover, as far as possible, the cost of processing nonimmigrant visas through the collection of the application fees. For a number of reasons, including new security enhancements, the $131 fee set on January 1, 2008 no longer covers the current, actual cost of processing nonimmigrant visas.
Under the new schedule of fees, applicants for all visas that are not petition-based, including B1/B2 tourist and business visitor visas and all student and exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas, will pay a fee of $140.
Applicants for petition-based visas will pay an application fee of $150. These categories include:
· H visa for temporary workers and trainees
· L visa for intracompany transferees
· O visa for aliens with extraordinary ability
· P visa for athletes, artists and entertainers
· Q visa for international cultural exchange visitors
· R visa for religious occupations
The application fee for K visas for fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens will be $350. The fee for E visas for treaty-traders and treaty-investors will be $390.
Concurrent with the publication of the interim final rule, the Department will also release additional cost of service data and re-open the public comment period for an additional 60 days. At the conclusion of that period, the Department will consider public comments and publish a final rule. To view the interim final rule, please go to 75 Federal Register 28194. Comments may be submitted via www.regulations.gov.
This fee increase information may also be found on the Department of State, Travel.state.gov internet site, on the Fees for Visa Services webpage, and also on U.S. Embassy and Consulate websites abroad. Only the fees for nonimmigrant visas will change on June 4. Proposed fee changes related to U.S. passports, immigrant visas, and other consular services are still under review.

PRN: 2010/669

Posted in Increase of Non-Immigrant Visa Application | Leave a comment

City of Chicago Gun Turn-in: Don’t Kill A Dream. Save A Life Saturday, May 8th from 10am-4pm.

Posted on May 5, 2010 by Mike Baker

Advisory Message has been issued by the Chicago Police Department – Headquarters.

Wednesday May 5, 2010 10:00 AM CDT

City of Chicago Gun Turn-in: Don’t Kill A Dream. Save A Life

The City of Chicago Gun Turn-In will be held at 22 locations throughout Chicago on Saturday, May 8th from 10am-4pm. Turn in a gun and receive a prepaid Mastercard up to $100, no questions asked! Support the event with a $10 donation by texting “DREAMS” to 2-0-2-2-2. For more information, go to www.dontkilladream.org.

For full details, go to https://local.nixle.com/alert/2066713/

Posted in Chicago | Leave a comment