Ads by Google Ads by Google

Sponsors of couple under SP provision offended by AG’s “misrepresentation of the law”

Attorney General, Mitzie Jessop-Taase
ausage@samoanews.com

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The sponsors of a couple from Samoa, who were supposed to depart the territory after their sponsorship was terminated, have stated in a letter to the Attorney General that they are offended with the AG’s “misrepresentation of the law” that “has added confusion to this matter.”

Tufuga and Lanuola Palepoi are questioning the move by the Attorney General, Mitzie Jessop-Taase preventing a couple from Samoa under their sponsorship, from departing the territory, after their sponsorship was terminated — instead allowing the couple’s immigration status to be transferred to the Amnesty Program.

The couple’s letter to the AG, dated Sept. 23, 2020, is a follow up to their meeting with the AG, held on Sept. 2, to discuss their concerns about a couple they had sponsored for many years under the status of  “Special Provision” (SP).

According to the letter, a relative of the couple from Samoa wanted to take over their sponsorship and that Palepua (the original sponsor) had agreed. The decision included allowing the couple from Samoa to return to Samoa before their new sponsorship would happen.

In this way, the relative would apply for an entry permit to bring the couple back to the territory, in accordance with immigration laws.

Palepua’s letter to the Jessop-Taase goes on to explain the circumstances of their concern.

On Aug. 13th, 2020, they explain, the couple from Samoa was confirmed on Samoa Airways. Palepua drove the couple to the Tafuna Airport, checked them in and walked them to the terminal departure area and said goodbye to them.

Seven days later, on Aug. 20th, Palepua discovered that the couple did not depart the island on that day, and were now living with another family in the territory.

The former sponsors then contacted the Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) Peseta Dennis Fuimaono and advised him of the situation, and were told by the CIO to allow him time to look into the case.

A few days later on Aug. 24th, the couple was advised by the CIO that the couple from Samoa was prevented from leaving the territory “under direction from the Attorney General.”

On Sept. 2nd, a meeting was held at the AG’s office between the AG and the Palepua family to discuss the issue.

“Subsequent to our meeting in your office, we obtained copies of the Amnesty Board Decision for the couple from Samoa that confirms that their sponsorships have indeed been changed,” the letter said. (Copies of the Amnesty Board Decision were attached to the letter to the AG.)

“As such, we are seeking an explanation from your office on the reason for the unilateral change of sponsorship for these two individuals. As required by A.S.C.A 41.0408 (g), a sponsor may revoke sponsorship by giving written notice to the Board and sponsored individuals. Although the referenced individuals were scheduled to depart the island, we still remain their legal sponsors until that sponsorship is revoked in writing,” the Palepua family said in their letter.

Furthermore, the letter states, A.S.C.A 41.0408 (i) allows sponsored individuals to remain in the territory for up to 20 days following revocation of sponsorship.

“In our meeting, you advised us that the law affords individuals whose sponsorship has been terminated 20 days to find a sponsor, which is contrary to the statute.

“We are offended that your misrepresentation of the law has caused added confusion to this matter.”

According to the family, the decision by the AG’s office to unilaterally change sponsorship without due notification to them as legal sponsors has caused them undue stress and anxiety on this matter.

“It is our contention that we remain legal sponsor for these individuals until our sponsorship is legally terminated. Further, we feel that using the Amnesty Program for individuals that have legal sponsors is a matter that warrants legal review and perhaps litigation,” the letter said.

The Palepua family is asking the AG to provide them justification for the following issues:

(a)     Preventing these individuals from departing the territory on Aug. 13, 2020 when their fare had been paid;

(b)     the authority of the AG’s office to change an individual’s legal immigration status while the current status is still legal, and immediately transfer it under the Amnesty Program;

(c)     forcibly changing sponsorship for the… individuals while the sponsorship is still valid and has not been terminated; and

(d)     changing an individual’s legal sponsor when an existing sponsor has not been terminated according to the immigration statute.