The Filipino woman whose amnesty application was denied by the Immigration Board is fighting her case before the Administrative Law Judge and has filed an official petition appealing the decision by Immigration. The petition was filed by the woman’s attorney, Martin Geer from the American Samoa Legal Aid Office.

The petition before the Office of the ALJ identifies Merlie Gumanab as the petitioner vs. respondents — the Immigration Board of American Samoa; Government of American Samoa; Attorney General of American Samoa; and Chief Immigration Officer of American Samoa Peseta Tamasa Dennis Lutu Fuimaono.

According to the petition filed with the ALJ this week, the appeal is for a hearing and for a stay of the June 3, 2015 decision and order of the Immigration Board, which denied her application for Amnesty under Public Law 33-14.

The petitioner is a foreign national from the Philippines who arrived in American Samoa in December 2007 sponsored by Siala Hunkin, who had paid her immigration bond of $966 shortly after her arrival. The petition says that Gumanab was eligible for Amnesty and filed an application in February, 2014 for the Amnesty program which was passed by the Fono; and prior to the decision by the Immigration board, petitioner was allegedly subject to illegal conduct and false misrepresentation by the Chief Immigration Officer.

The petition states the CIO allegedly told her she had been denied amnesty and allegedly arranged for Gumanab to travel off island to Apia, Samoa where it is alleged she meet him at his hotel room, while he was there for a golf tournament in July 2014.

According to the petition “at the hotel room petitioner refused Chief Immigration Officer’s sexual advances.”

“A criminal complaint was filed by petitioner at the Department of Public Safety against the CIO,” says the petition. Gumanab believed — based on alleged “misrepresentation” by the CIO — that she had been denied amnesty and must depart the territory in July 2014.

According to the petition, the Immigration board never heard her application for amnesty in 2014. It’s alleged that on June 3, 2015 the board, based on upon a report and recommendation of the same CIO who allegedly brought Petitioner to Apia for “sex acts” and who had “assaulted her” recommended to the Board that amnesty be denied for illegal work and bribery.

The petition says that the findings of the board are “arbitrary and capricious based on false and incomplete information upon the recommendation of the CIO who committed illegal acts against her.” On the day of the Board’s denial of Amnesty, a request to the Attorney General, was made requesting a criminal investigation and appointment of an independent prosecutor due to the conflict of interest in the AG’s office in prosecuting persons under the AG’s authority.

Since the board’s decision on June 3, 2015, a criminal investigation and consideration of the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and possibly charge the CIO with human trafficking, acceding to public corruption... has begun,” says the petition.

It’s further alleged that significant facts impacting the decision below will be forthcoming under this investigation. “A remand for reconsideration is appropriate due to the new evidence not reviewed by the Board and the obvious conflict and motivation by the CIO in recommending denial of amnesty. “Petitioner has requested reconsideration by the Board of Immigration and the Attorney General, and petitioner has not received a response.”

The petition says that a stay of the order to voluntarily depart in twenty days or face deportation is appropriate due to the AG’s investigation of the CIO regarding petitioner and other Filipino women being subjected to human trafficking.

“She is a material witness in a criminal investigation as well as a party to this case. The recommendation of the CIO and the decision of the Board is an unconstitutional retaliatory activity for her refusal of his sexual advances and exercise of her right to file a criminal complaint.”

Further, the petition states, “This action violates a variety of criminal acts, including possible charges under the American Samoa Human Trafficking Act.”

The petition alleges that the denial of Gunamab’s request for amnesty is “unconstitutional discriminatory selective action against petitioner for request of her First Amendment rights and due to her ethnicity and race.”

“Virtually all applicants seeking amnesty have been granted amnesty by the Board of Immigration” the petition states.

The petition goes on to say that denial of petitioner’s amnesty request for working illegally is inconsistent with the stated purpose and intent of the amnesty statute — which is to bring undocumented persons and those working without immigration authority into the legal system to allow them the opportunity to work toward legal residence.

Gunamab has asked the ALJ to review and reverse the decision by the Immigration board for the reasons set forth.

She has also requested to “set this matter for immediate hearing or remand it back to the Immigration board for reconsideration [and] issue a stay of petitioner’s ordered departure from the territory until this matter is fully adjudicated by the Attorney General, Homeland Security and this Honorable Court.”