• 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

Arizona Law Enjoined

As many of you know, the Arizona Immigration Law was supposed to go into effect today. However, the Federal Judge enjoined the most egregious portions yesterday thereby stopping the enforcement of this unconstitutional law. The Governors attempt to use the backdoor method of trying to enforce the immigration laws and by being racist (as indicated by her remarks that all aliens are ‘pack mules’ for the drug cartels, makes it incredulous that she was ever elected. When she tells the federal government to essentially bring it on, they did just that. The federal government filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Immigration Law basically stating that a State cannot legislate its own immigration policy when that immigration is regulated, enforced mandated by the federal government.

While the federal immigration system is somewhat broken and definitely needs an overhaul, it must be enacted by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. It simply cannot be enacted by States. The law in Arizona (which mostly has been enjoined from proceeding forward) was an attempt to have local police officers basically profile people who ‘look’ like they are illegal and then follow-up with questions to ultimately put them in deportation proceedings and/or deport them.

This is America and everybody comes from somewhere else. It is a mixing pot of people from all around the world. Thus, when the Arizona law stated that it allowed questioning of persons who ‘look’ illegal, that is a very racist way of basically saying anyone that was Mexican would be questioned. This is not the way America works and it is a disgrace that Arizona would pass such a law. If the purpose of the passage of the law (other than being racist) was for economic reasons, it is in fact having the opposite effect. In fact, many organizations worldwide are boycotting Arizona. Companies which had conferences are pulling out and items made and distributed in Arizona are being boycotted. Thus, while for some reason the Governor of Arizona thought it would be smooth sailing to sign a racist, profiling and unconstitutional immigration law, the bottom economic line of Arizona is now feeling it.

It is quite certain that Arizona will most likely appeal the Federal Judges decision and there will be considerably more litigation on this matter before it is concluded, it should be a wake up call for other States thinking of enacting similarly racist bills and laws. The U.S. will not simply sit around and let racist laws which go against the very core of what it is to be an American to be passed and to eat away at our freedoms and the constitution itself.

We all must fight this type of legislation through the Courts, peaceful protests and boycotts. Immigration Lawyers will constantly bring these matters to Court and fight for the foreign national.  For now, the lawsuits will proceed forward. Hopefully, more people and organizations will boycott Arizona to teach the Governor and legislators of Arizona that they must abide by the constitution and that the simple racism and unfairness of such a law is unfair and cruel to the people whom it targets.

How the Policy Review will change USCIS policy

A USCIS news release and Q&As on the agency-wide Policy Review including the first 10 issue areas for review, public survey results and how the Policy Review will change USCIS policy. The issue areas include H-1Bs, family-based adjustment of status, Form I-601 and more.

HRW and ACLU Report on Deportation by Default

A report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on “Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System.” The report includes input from the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.

AAO dismissed waiver application as moot

In a 6/17/09 decision, 

Administrative Appeals Office (

 

AAO) dismissed waiver application as moot, finding applicant’s admission of prior drug use to a psychiatrist insufficient for inadmissibility finding. AAO addresses Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

 

USCIS published a 30-day notice extending use of Form N-644

On 7/15/10, USCIS published a 30-day notice extending use of Form N-644. However, USCIS should have published a 30-day notice on a revision to the Form N-644, not an extension.

USCIS updated its FY 2011 cap-subject H-1B petitions

USCIS updated its count of FY 2011 cap-subject H-1B petitions and advanced degree cap-exempt petitions receipted.  As of 7/23/10, approximately 26,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. USCIS has receipted 11,300 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.

Nijhawan changes what is an Aggravated Felon



NIJHAWAN changes Criminal Conviction Analysis

The manner in which Immigration Attorneys used to analyze whether a particular conviction is an aggravated felon has changed. It is necessary to look into the newly issued Supreme Court case NIJHAWAN to find out what must be done by the Immigration Attorneys and what should be done to try to help the criminal defendant. First, however, you should know the basic facts of this case. First, it was a defendant that committed fraud. In Immigration Law, it specifically states that an aggravated felony is one whereby the defendant commits fraud upon someone else in which the deceit to the victim is more than $10,000.

In this particular case, there was no amount specified in the judgment as to the amount that the victim suffered. However, in other documents in the file and in other parts of the proceedings there was information that the amount the victim suffered was $1,000,000U.S.. Therefore, the issue becomes what can the Immigration court, BIA or Circuit Courts look at in order to determine whether an aggravated felony as put forth under Immigration Law has been committed. Under the old TAYLOR analysis, it was quite limited what could or could not be looked at by the Immigration court to determine this. Without going into too much detail, there was analysis as to whether the it should be a ‘categorical’ or ‘non-categorical’ approach.

Nijhawan put forth a different type of analysis dealing with ‘circumstances’. Words such as “crime,” “felony, and “offense” sometimes refer to a generic crime (a “categorical” interpretation), and sometimes refer to the specific acts in which an offender engaged (“circumstance- specific” interpretation). The basic argument favoring the “categorical” interpretation rests upon the Taylor case. The categorical analysis rests heavily on interpretation of the statute, a breakdown of the language in the statute of the crime that was committed and an analysis as to whether the federal definition of the crime matched the actual crime the defendant was convicted under.

In Nijhawan, the Supreme Court stated that the Immigration Attorneys in this case would have to use the circumstance specific interpretation, not the categorical interpretation. Here, the analysis does not fall on the language of the statute, but the circumstances which is anticipated by the language of the statute. Thus, whereby Nijhawan was arguing that the Immigration Court should only be allowed to look at the charging documents, abstract of judgment and other very specific documents, the Supreme Court disagreed. The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous. Thus, it will probably not be overturned anytime soon.

To make clear, Nijhawan states that in this particular case, the $10,000 threshold is NOT an element of the crime, and therefore, the categorical approach is not applicable. The jury in this case found Nijhawan guilty, but nowhere in any of the crimes that he was convicted is the amount of the deceit to the victim an element of the crime. If it is ‘element’ specific, then we must look at the specific facts giving rise to the conviction, not the statute itself. Keep in mind that the categorical approach is when looking at the general definition of the crime itself and still can be used if an elemental analysis is not called for.

As for documents that are permitted, it seems that under the Nijhawan ‘circumstance’ specific interpretation, the door has been opened considerably. Specifically, plea agreements, stipulations and the like will be admissible for the Immigration Court to be able to see. Thus, it seems that it has become more difficult for Immigration Attorneys to try to argue that certain crimes are not aggravated felonies. However, it does seem to fall on whether a particular crime involves using the categorical approach, or the elemental approach. As to which approach to use and as to which crime falls under either approach, I am certain there will be much litigation in the future.

Money draws under partnership agreement

ARB finds that receipt of money draws under partnership agreement did not constitute payment of wages for LCA purposes, and failure to pay was willful.

Money draws under partnership agreement

ARB finds that receipt of money draws under partnership agreement did not constitute payment of wages for LCA purposes, and failure to pay was willful.

DOS issued U.S. passports to thousands of registered sex offenders

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)  found that Department of State (DOS) issued U.S. passports to thousands of registered sex offenders during FY 2008. Currently, DOS has no statutory authority to deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those convicted of sex tourism.