The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA erred in looking outside the record of the conviction to conclude that the petitioner was convicted of spousal abuse under California Penal Code §273.5(a) and remanded for the BIA to consider whether the petitioner is eligible for the petty offense exception under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: BIA, crimation, criminal immigration, Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
The Fourth Circuit held that private employment is a “benefit” under the Act, and that the petitioner, who falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen on Form I-9 for the purpose of seeking such employment, was inadmissible under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: Employment, private employment, The Fourth Circuit | Leave a comment »
Politico reports that House Republican leaders are pitching a plan that would fund nearly all government agencies through next September except for DHS, which would only be funded until March. That vote is likely to come next week, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told lawmakers in a closed-door meeting this morning. DHS Secretary Johnson responded that a short-term funding measure for his agency would be a “very bad idea.”
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: government agencies, Politico, Speaker John Boehner | Leave a comment »
The Ninth Circuit declined to follow the BIA’s decision in Matter of Yauri, and held that the BIA’s sua sponte authority permits reopening to allow an arriving alien who is under a final order of removal to pursue an adjustment of status application before USCIS.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: BIA, The Ninth Circuit | Leave a comment »
Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: #executive action, brian lerner, Detention, immigration detention, Immigration Reform, jeh johnson, new policy memo | Leave a comment »
The immigration reform USA has made specific reference to three priorities and how they are to be deported and put into removal proceeding and deported. However, the same memorandum, explains Brian D. Lerner, goes into exceptions of what you can do in order to not be deported or placed into deportation proceedings, even if you fall under one of the priorities.
Priority 1 Exceptions:
Brian D. Lerner reminds that Priority 1 targets are the highest level of targets, such as terrorist suspects, national security, various felonies, aggravated felons and various gang related crimes. The immigration reform USA exceptions to priority 1 are as follows: Of course, if you qualify for asylum, then it does not matter if you are in priority 1 as you can apply and stay if granted asylum. However, the immigration reform USA states that if you do not qualify for asylum and are under priority #1, that you can request that under prosecutorial discretion, you are not placed into removal proceedings and/or removed if in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief, or CBP Director of Field Operations, there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate you are not a threat to national security, border security, or public safety and should not therefore be an enforcement priority.
Clearly, the immigration reform USA is quite strict on allowing an exercise of prosecutorial discretion if you are under Priority #1. It also allows a variety of levels of personnel to make the decision. It might be best, states Brian D. Lerner, to apply with the top official, rather than the lowest level official who might not have as much sympathy or knowledge or procedure. However, it is possible explains Brian D. Lerner if you have a packet put together that is persuasive and that shows that there are compelling and exceptional factors to grant the request for prosecutorial discretion to not be removed. In the memo itself, in the immigration reform USA, it does not discuss what is defined as ‘compelling’ or ‘exceptional’, and therefore, there is lots of room to properly argue relief from deportation.
Priority 2 Exceptions:
Brian D. Lerner reminds that Priority 2 is the mid level priority to deport people. In summary, Priority #2 deals with persons who have 3 or more various misdemeanors, or a significant misdemeanor of which deals with specific crimes such as domestic violence, gun crimes, drug crimes, burglary, or other crimes where there was 90 days or more in custody. The immigration reform USA also included in Priority #2 includes people entering illegally or re-entering illegally and cannot prove they have been in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2014 and finally those people who have abused the visa waiver or other visa programs and in their discretion should be deported.
Thus, Brian Lerner states, that under immigration reform USA, it is in the memorandum that in order to try to apply for prosecutorial discretion so that you are not deported or put into deportation proceedings if you are in Priority #2, the following must be done: First, as with Priority #1, if you qualify for asylum, explains Brian D. Lerner, then you will not be deported here. However, assuming that is not the case as under the immigration reform USA, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, CBP Sector Chief, CBP Director of Field Operations, USCIS District Director, or USCIS Service Center Director, there are factors indicating the alien is not a threat to national security.
Brian D. Lerner, explains that the procedure and requirements to qualify for a Priority #2 exception, might look the same as Priority #1 under the immigration reform USA, it is not the case. First of all, you do not need to show ‘compelling’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances. Brian Lerner states this is huge. The burden of proof needed to show why prosecutorial discretion should be exercised is much less with a Priority 2 request. Additionally, in Priority 2, you must only show that you will not be a threat to national security, whereas under Priority 1, you must show not only you will not be a threat to national security, but to border security or public safety. Thus, the immigration reform USA makes it abundantly clear that it will be easier to get prosecutorial discretion granted under Priority 2, rather than Priority 1.
Priority 3 Exceptions
As you might already guess, Brian D. Lerner explains, Priority #3 is the least priority given to deporting people. The immigration reform USA states that Priority #3 which basically consists of persons issued a final order of removal after January 1, 2014, but do not fall under the other priorities.
In order to be issued prosecutorial discretion if you fall under Priority 3, it must be shown that in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority. Thus, Brian D. Lerner states that under immigration reform USA, this burden is even less than Priority 2. No arguments need to be made about national security. Rather, it must be shown that there is no threat to the integrity of the immigration system, or in the alternative, you are not an enforcement priority. Brian Lerner states it is a bit ambiguous what exactly is meant by ‘integrity to the immigration system’, but the fact it is listed on Priority 3 exceptions, would mean it has the least amount of burden to prove.
Therefore, there are ways to argue that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in each and every priority. Brian Lerner reminds you that you should have the packet for prosecutorial discretion exercised in a very persuasive manner and get a qualified immigration attorney to help comply with the requirements of the immigration reform USA.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: #hangoutsonair, #hoa, Brian D. Lerner, Immigration reform news, immigration reform policies, immigration reform usa, prosecutorial discretion, reform to policies | 4 Comments »
The immigration reform news has made new policies states Brian D. Lerner, for who will be targeted for deportation. There are three different priorities with the first priority being the highest level of deportation and the second priority being the middle level priority and the third priority given the least preference and lowest priority for deportation.
However, the immigration reform news makes clear that there are issues and policies that apply to all of the priorities. Brian D. Lerner explains that prior policy memos were specifically revoked per the immigration reform news. The memorandum by Jeh Johnson states as follows: Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein. However, resources should be dedicated, to the greatest degree possible, to the removal of aliens described in the priorities set forth above, commensurate with the level of prioritization identified. Immigration officers and attorneys may pursue removal of an alien not identified as a priority herein, provided, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest. Unfortunately, Brian D. Lerner, immigration attorney, states that this is a rather wide open policy. It certainly allows an ICE official to simply claim that deporting a particular individual is in the ‘federal interest’ of the U.S., or deporting somebody who entered illegally would serve the ‘federal interest’ by not encouraging others to do the same act. The immigration reform news certainly has delineated the different policies, but this particular paragraph, explains Brian D. Lerner is problematic. It would seem that the ICE official which is essentially on the bottom of the enforcement hierarchy should not be given the authority in her own individual opinion what is and is not in the Federal interest of the U.S. This is exactly what the memorandum on the ‘policies’ of deportation spells out.
The immigration reform news then goes on to state that its policies on detention. It is actually quite fair states Brian D. Lerner. Specifically, the immigration reform news states as follows regarding the detention policies: As a general rule, DHS detention resources should be used to support the enforcement priorities noted above or for aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. The immigration reform news states that absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, who demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest. The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner states it is about time. There has been years of detaining pregnant mothers, elderly, mentally infirm and persons with physical disabilities. It has taken a toll and not looked very humane to the rest of the world. However, the immigration reform news per this memo seems to put an end to this type of detention. The immigration reform news goes on to state that to detain aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory detention, DHS officers or special agents must obtain approval from the ICE Field Office Director.Brian D. Lerner explains this is very fair as it does not put all the decision making ability in the front-line officer and will make a more uniform execution of this policy If an alien falls within the above categories and is subject to mandatory detention, field office directors are encouraged to contact their local Office of Chief Counsel for guidance.
Brian D. Lerner explains that this immigration reform news shows how the Obama administration priority is to not deport or to detain persons who are not in the listed priorities of deportable persons. What is interesting, explains Brian D. Lerner, is that on other parts of this memo, broad discretion is given to officers to decide whether or not to place one in removal proceedings. However, here, if the person is in detention, in accordance with the immigration reform news, they are not given that discretion, and in actuality, must go to a supervisor to keep the person detained if they fall under this category. Thus, the immigration reform news is good, but there are parts that could use clarification states Brian Lerner.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: #executive action, Brian D. Lerner, brian lerner, deportation policies, Immigration Reform, Immigration reform news | Leave a comment »
The immigration reform bill just issued by President Obama is actually not a ‘bill’ per se, but rather, an executive order. One part of the order was a comprehensive memo by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that changed, altered and made in some respects clearer the priorities for deporting people and/or putting people in deportation proceedings.
Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney, states that the immigration reform bill that deals with priorities has three major parts. The highest priority is referred to as Priority 1, second highes t is Priority 2 and of course the third and least preference is Priority 3. Therefore, states Brian Lerner, if you will be requesting prosecutorial discretion and you are under Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill, you should have the highest chance of success.
Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill states as follows: Priority 3 (other immigration violations): Priority 3 aliens are those who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014. The immigration reform bill states that aliens described in this priority, who are not also described in Priority 1 or 2, represent the third and lowest priority for apprehension and removal. Hence, states Brian Lerner, it is listed by the Secretary of Homeland Security that is the lowest priority. This is quite interesting, because usually somebody with a prior removal order will get one of the highest priorities from immigration.
Resources should be dedicated accordingly to aliens in this priority according to the immigration reform bill. Priority 3 aliens should generally be removed unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws or, unless, in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority. Unfortunately, it is this part of Priority 3 of the immigration reform bill that gives most concern. It puts a great deal of discretion in the officer at the lowest levels the ability to basically believe that removing somebody is always an enforcement priority. Brian Lerner states that it is this section that also is the most ambiguous and unclear. Perhaps in the months to come before the regulations are issued, there will be clarification as to this last part of Priority 3.
Brian D. Lerner explains in more detail the immigration reform bill and its reference to a ‘final order of removal’. It is necessary, explains Brian Lerner to know what is meant by the term ‘final order of removal’. An order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the Act shall become final: (a) Upon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals; (b) Upon waiver of appeal by the respondent; (c) Upon expiration of the time allotted for an appeal if the respondent does not file an appeal within that time; (d) If certified to the Board or Attorney General, upon the date of the subsequent decision ordering removal; (e) If an immigration judge orders an alien removed in the alien’s absence, immediately upon entry of such order; or (f) If an immigration judge issues an alternate order of removal in connection with a grant of voluntary departure, upon overstay of the voluntary departure period, or upon the failure to post a required voluntary departure bond within 5 business days. Brian Lerner states that if the respondent has filed a timely appeal with the Board, the order shall become final upon an order of removal by the Board or the Attorney General, or upon overstay of the voluntary departure period granted or reinstated by the Board or the Attorney General.
The immigration reform bill does give a lot of hope to the families and to foreign nationals here in the U.S. However, Brian Lerner states there are ambiguities in the Priorites memo and you should get an experienced attorney to help you.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney, Immigration Reform | Tagged: brian lerner, Immigration Attorney, immigration california attorney, immigration los angeles, immigration reforem, immigration reform priorities memo, priority 3, prosecutorial discretion | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 