In the whole AMH case, the Bakers's main theme is their accusation that the Hes were using AMH as a tool to stay in the U.S. In Dr. Yue's Amicus brief, he proved that the Hes knew that having custody of AMH could NOT avoid deportation. That shattered Bakers' basic theory.
The Bakers not only accused Hes of using AMH as a shield against deportation, they actively pressured the U.S. government to deport the Hes. The Bakers also tried to cut off Hes' livilihood by reporting Hes as illegal workers.
Now that the Hes win back child custody, the Bakers say they would help the Hes to stay in the U.S permanently. The Hes refused Bakers' offer.
But it is clear that the Bakers do know that having AMH custody can't shield the Hes from deportation.
So, who is using AMH as a pawn? Who is playing the courts?