• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Judge stands up to Immigrations treatment of mothers and children

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Flores v. Johnson that should signal the end of the mass incarceration of children and mothers seeking asylum in the United States. Judge Gee found that the government materially breached the Flores settlement agreement, which requires that children in temporary custody be housed in safe, sanitary, non-secure, and licensed facilities. She granted the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the agreement, and ordered the government to show cause why children and their accompanying parents should not be released.

Washington Post describes the new Deportation Program

An article in the Washington Post discusses the challenges that the Department of Homeland Security is encountering as it rolls out the new Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)—the replacement for the discontinued Secure Communities program—under which DHS will seek to be notified by law enforcement before an undocumented immigrant is released from custody.

Premium Processing for H-1B’s continues

USCIS announced that, starting today, it will resume accepting Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service (with an edition date of January 29, 2015), for all H-1B extension of stay petitions. Premium processing for H-1B extensions had been suspended since May 26, 2015, so that USCIS could implement the final rule providing employment authorization for certain H-4 spouses in a timely manner. USCIS clarified that it will accept an I-907 premium processing request on any H-1B extension petition, including pending petitions filed during the premium processing moratorium. If an I-907 was filed and/or received by USCIS prior to July 13, 2015, it will be rejected.

Physical Presence continues to accrue if NTA not served

The BIA sustained the respondent’s appeal and remanded, holding that a notice to appear (NTA) that was served but never resulted in removal proceedings does not have “stop-time” effect for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

DOL Announces Change in Signature on Approved Labor Certifications

The Labor Department alerts stakeholders that, effective immediately, permanent and temporary labor certifications will no longer display the electronic signature of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) Acting Administrator William W. Thompson II. Instead, the electronic signature on approved applications under the permanent and temporary visa programs will be shown as “Certifying Officer.”

H-1B’s being returned

USCIS notified stakeholders that it has finished returning FY2016 H-1B cap-subject petitions that were not selected in the computer-generated random selection process.

USCIS to Apply Shalom Pentecostal Decision Nationwide

A USCIS policy memo acquiesces in the Third Circuit’s decision in Shalom Pentecostal, and instructs adjudicators not to require that qualifying U.S. work experience have been acquired in lawful status for Form I-360 special immigrant religious worker petitions. The memo applies to currently pending Forms I-360 and new Forms I-360 filed on or after July 5, 2015.

USCIS Taking Extreme Measures to Retrieve Erroneously Issued Three-Year DACA EADs

As a result of Judge Hanen’s July 7, 2015, order threatening contempt citations in the ongoing litigation in Texas v. United States, USCIS advised stakeholders during a phone call on July 13, 2015, that it is implementing additional—and in some cases extreme—steps to retrieve approximately 2,500 three-year EAD cards and DACA approvals that were erroneously issued after the court’s February 16, 2015, injunction temporarily halting the implementation of expanded DACA

Illegal Reentry? Try to get it vacated for violation of due process.

Have an Illegal Reentry? How to get it vacated so you don’t have to go to prison

 

Question: I had a deportation order years ago. I re-entered the U.S. illegally, got caught and was convicted in U.S. District Court for illegal reentry. I am serving a three year sentence. Is there anything that I can do?

 

Answer: Actually, there was a great case that just came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.The panel vacated a conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation or removal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326 and remanded for the district court to consider whether the defendant was prejudiced by the deprivation of his due process rights in his removal proceeding.

 

The panel held that the IJ erred when she failed to advise the defendant of the possibility of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The panel explained that § 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was not effective as to proceedings, such as the defendant’s, that had commenced prior to the date of the Act’s enactment.

 

In addition, the provision of IIRIRA that eliminated relief under § 1182(c) did not apply to aliens, like the defendant, whose proceedings had commenced before the enactment of IIRIRA. The panel vacated the defendant’s conviction and sentence and remanded for the district court to consider whether he was prejudiced by the deprivation of his due process rights in his 1999 removal proceeding. The panel stated that if the defendant was not prejudiced, then the district court could reinstate his conviction and sentence. If the defendant was prejudiced, then the district court must dismiss the indictment.

 

Question: Does  this mean that I might be able to get out of prison?

 

Answer: Yes, it would be possible if the proper motions were made to show that your illegal reentry conviction should be vacated due to your due process rights being violated at immigration Court.

 

Question: I am not the best person in the world and have had some crimes.

 

Answer: Not to worry. If your due process rights were violated, then regardless of the crimes, your conviction should be vacated. For example, in this 9th Circuit case just entered, that defendant was actually no model citizen either. His name was Guzman. Guzman was born in Mexico, but came to the United States in 1979, when he was about six years old. He became a Legal Permanent Resident (“LPR”) on July 13, 1989. He was far from being a perfect peregrine; rather, he committed numerous crimes and on December 21, 1995, a deportation proceeding was initiated against him. Undeterred, he committed a robbery in California, was convicted of first degree robbery1 on February 14, 1997, and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment as a result. Because state criminal proceedings necessitated a delay in the deportation proceeding, it was administratively closed in 1997. Guzman served his term, and the deportation proceeding was reopened. On August 12, 1999, the robbery conviction was added to the charges supporting his deportation. On August 25, 1999, the immigration judge (IJ) found that he was deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) and a firearm offense (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)), and that he was ineligible for discretionary relief based upon his robbery conviction. Guzman waived his right to appeal. He was deported. He then entered illegally three times and ultimately the illegal reentry was set aside.
Thus, it is certainly possible, but you need to have your case properly analyzed – especially the original deportation proceeding to see if there is any possibility of due process violations.

Adopted after 16? You may still qualify for Immigration Benefits

n a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the beneficiary of a visa petition who was adopted pursuant to a state court order that was entered when the beneficiary was more than 16 years old, but with an effective date prior to his or her 16th birthday, may qualify as an adopted child under INA §101(b)(1)(E)(i), so long as the adoption petition was filed before the beneficiary’s 16th birthday, and the state in which the adoption was entered expressly permits an adoption decree to be dated retroactively.