President Obama’s appeal to Congress for a bipartisan overhaul of the nation’s broken immigration system in a speech delivered at American University School of International Service.
Filed under: Congress, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Tagged: Congress, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Leave a comment »
ICE issued its strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2010-2014. This plan lays out how ICE will meet its responsibilities for criminal investigation and civil immigration enforcement over the next five years.
Filed under: ICE, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Strategic Plan, USCIS | Tagged: ICE, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Strategic Plan, USCIS | Leave a comment »
ICE reported a total of 400 Haitians in ICE Custody as of 6/24/10 including criminal and non-criminal detainees. ICE deferred to USCIS on question of the number of Haitians who have applied for asylum since the earthquake.
Filed under: deportation attorney, Haitians Detainees, ICE, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Tagged: deportation attorney, Haitians Detainees, ICE, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
The Department of State (DOS) issued a cable on biometric signature and affirmation of the DS-160 NIV Application. This cable includes an action request to all DS-160 posts, effective immediately.
Filed under: Department of State (DOS), DS-160, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Tagged: Department of State (DOS), DS-160, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Leave a comment »
The Department of State (DOS) issued guidance on where applicants can file the DS-117 Application to Determine Resident Status, how post should process applications, and new procedures for the creation of a permanent refusal record for denied applications.
Filed under: Department of State (DOS), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Resident Status, USCIS | Tagged: Department of State (DOS), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Resident Status, USCIS | Leave a comment »
The DOL Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announced that the National Electronic Job Registry (job registry) in which H-2A job orders will be posted and available to the public will be operational on July 8, 2010.
Filed under: Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, National Electronic Job Registry | Tagged: Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Leave a comment »
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announces that it has filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s SB1070 legislation on immigration.
Filed under: Department of Justice (DOJ), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Lawsuit, USCIS | Tagged: Department of Justice (DOJ), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Lawsuit, los angeles immigration attorney | Leave a comment »
New Win for Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner; Battered Spouse with only emotional distress granted Lawful Permanent Residency
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Another new case: Date of entry into the United States alleged in government’s notice to appear did not bind the court and the parties where the government disputed the date during an evidentiary hearing after notice was given to petitioner that the issue was in dispute, and petitioner never expressly objected on the grounds of judicial admission, instead stipulating to an evidentiary hearing on the issue; immigration judge’s determination that alleged entry date was not credible was supported by substantial evidence where testimony of immigration officers–that petitioner admitted to entering the following year–was consistent, detailed, and corroborated by a contemporaneously prepared affidavit. Immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum relief were supported by substantial evidence where petitioner was unable to explain material inconsistencies as to when he entered the country and when he received threats that caused him to leave his country. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder – filed July 2, 2010
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Question: I have a friend who is in detention and I am being told he cannot get out because of mandatory detention. Can you elaborate what this is and why is he not permitted to exit?
Answer: After 1996, the Immigration Laws were much more severe, including a very wide based mandatory detention policy. However, and finally, a case has just been issued by the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) which softens and narrows the mandatory detention policy.
The basic facts of the case is as follows. Luis Felipe Garcia-Arreola is a long-time permanent resident with a drug conviction. This conviction makes Mr. Garcia-Arreola deportable but eligible for 212(c) relief. After getting arrested on a domestic assault and transferred to ICE custody, ICE sought mandatory detention pursuant to INA § 236(c) and Matter of Saysana, the case which originated the mandatory detention policy.
In a brave decision, Immigration Judge Teresa Holmes-Simmons distinguished Saysana with the facts of Mr. Garcia Arreola’s case and recognized that Saysana had been universally rejected by Federal District Courts. DHS appealed and during this time, the Saysana case itself was rejected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. DHS then changed its position and retreated. Finally, the BIA overruled Saysana!
The good news: the holding specifically states that mandatory detention applies where there has been a (a) release (b) from non-DHS custody (c) after October 8, 1998, (d) that is “directly tied” to the basis for detention under INA §§ 236(c)(1)(A)–(D).
The bad news: Primarily because it was unaddressed by the parties, the Board left standing another horrible mandatory detention decision – Matter of Rojas, 23 I&N Dec. 117 (BIA 2001), a deeply-divided Board decision which concluded mandatory detention applies even if ICE fails to assume custody of an alien “when released.”
The Board’s “resort to contortions” in Rojas and Saysana has only resulted in creating more chaos in our immigration detention system and wasted hours and resources on needless litigation, all in an effort to prevent an Immigration Judge from exercising discretion in bond redetermination decisions. See Rojas, 23 I&N Dec. at 130 (dissent).
Thus, while there is good news in the issuance of this decision of narrowing the mandatory detention policies, there is work to do and we should continue to fight in the courts and the BIA to get other similarly bad decisions vacated or overruled.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney, los angeles deportation lawyer, los angeles immigration attorney, los angeles immigration lawyer | Tagged: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, mandatory detention | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 