A "fact sheet" was released earlier this month by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The document is titled "myths versus facts about immigration proceedings." However, it contains inaccurate and misleading information.
Earlier this month, President Trump announced his new plan for reforming the immigration system. The announcement was not particularly detailed, it was also short on any new ideas. For example, the crux of the plan introduced a point system that would emphasize selection of new immigrants based...
On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most significant immigration opinions in decades. In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court addressed the legal sufficiency of a Notice to Appear (NTA). Mr. Pereira argued, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed, that the plain language of that statute unambiguously defines an NTA as specifying where and when the noncitizen must appear for removal proceedings. The Court concluded that NTAs that do not contain at least this basic information do not meet the definition of an NTA under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) for purposes of the stop-time rule and remanded Mr. Pereira’s case for further proceedings. Because non-LPR cancellation of removal is one of the most common forms of waivers filed by non-citizens in immigration court, Pereira is very important. Or, more to the point, it is probably the most common waiver that many people in immigration court in the past two decades would have been eligible for if they had been able to establish ten years of continuous physical presence. The Pereira case also supports arguments for challenging the immigration courts' jurisdiction over cases that were initiated by defective NTAs that lack the required information of time and place of the court hearing.
On May 17, 2018, in a move that will affect the deportation cases of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, Attorney General Jeff Sessions essentially ordered a full stop to the practice of administrative closure. This new pronouncement comes after Sessions referred the case of Matter of Castro-Tum to himself last January. The main issue in the case addressed whether immigration judges have the authority to employ a tool that has been historically recognized as a legitimate practice of managing an immigration court's docket. As one article accurately explained, "Sessions' ruling doesn't just prevent judges from closing cases in the future. He also opened the door to reopening the cases of the 350,000 immigrants whose cases had already been closed — many of whom had been assured by the Obama administration they wouldn't be deported. The attorneys at the Law Offices of Matthew H . Green will continue to defend our clients whose cases have had their cases administratively closed. Any legally illegitimate attempts by ICE to recalendar those cases will be met with aggressive advocacy, challenging the constitutional authority of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, to circumvent the legitimate power of immigration judges to close--and keep closed--the deportation cases of immigrants who, in the final analysis, are not properly considered deportation priorities.
The attorneys at the Law Offices of Matthew H. Green are no strangers to challenging unconstitutional practices by the Department of Justice. For our part, we intend to challenge Matter of A-B- and the July 11, 2018 policy memorandum head on. Doing so will likely require a much more thorough and aggressive approach to defending asylum-seekers, and it will likely require challenges in a variety of immigration courts, U.S. District Courts, and Circuit Courts of Appeal. However, with the proper strategy, we feel confident that thoughtful litigation strategies will ultimately be successful in rolling back and limiting the scope of Matter of A-B-, and will open the gates again to legitimate domestic violence and gang-based asylum claims.
Our elected leaders have no excuse not to compromise in the short term, and over the long haul, on immigration reform. And the simplest part of the process should be the beginning. Their options are literally staring back at them, from the pages of a bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, only a few short years ago.
Immigration Reform May Hinge On Presidential Election Results.
On August 29, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is expanding the program to allow all individuals who are statutorily eligible for the unlawful presence waiver to apply for it--whether their spouses or adult children are citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. This is a very important and significant development, and it presents a wonderful and long-awaited opportunity for many people in the community to finally apply for and obtain their green cards.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, and you are charged with a crime, you automatically have two legal systems that threaten to penalize you with incarceration, fines, probation and, ultimately, deportation. It is dangerous for any noncitizen charged with a crime to handle their case without a good criminal lawyer. But it is nearly as dangerous to use a criminal lawyer who does not understand immigration law. At our law firm, our lawyers work in both of these worlds. Mr. Green has been a criminal defense attorney his entire career, which began over 17 years ago. He and his team of experienced lawyers have years of experience fighting cases in both criminal and immigration courts.
Much of the discussion regarding the recent immigration changes focuses on those who are unlawfully in the country. Deferred status will allow these people to be freed from the fear of immediate deportation, and provide work authorization. However, there is also a group of people who are in the...
In the weeks after President Barack Obama presented his immigration executive action, many have voiced their opinions on the policy changes. Republican lawmakers have spoken out against the action as being illegal and bad policy. Some immigration activists have criticized the action for not going far enough. However, the country at large remains very divided on the issue.
Republican lawmakers have been speaking out against President Barack Obama’s immigration plans since they were announced over a month ago, but so far have taken no meaningful action against the policy changes. Instead, it was Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio who has attempted to strike the first blow against the immigration executive actions. Now his lawsuit against the immigration orders has seen its first day in court.
Immigrant detention centers have faced harsh criticism from immigrant advocates, and human rights groups for their harsh conditions. As one temporary facility in New Mexico is shuttered early, a new center opens in Texas. The Texas detention facility will be for immigrant families, and will be the largest of its kind in the country. However, the harsh conditions at the facility and past claims of abuse continue to follow the private prison operator who will take over the new detention center.
Despite all the complaints aimed at one of the least productive Congress’ in history, in the last days before leaving for the holidays the Senate has managed to pass a budget and confirm a couple Obama appointees. One of those appointees is the new head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. For the first time in the history of the office, the head of ICE will be a Latina.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is no stranger to controversy. He has been the subject of numerous lawsuit, often finding himself on the losing end. He was also the first Arizona official to file a lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s executive actions enacting immigration policy reforms. Now Sheriff Arpaio has agreed to dissolve his controversial immigration raid squad.
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s executive action awaits review. As does the larger lawsuit backed by more than 20 states, including Texas and Arizona, which argues the president has overstepped his constitutional authority in authoring the executive orders. Yet a federal judge in Pennsylvania has already chimed in on the issue, with an order declaring Obama’s executive actions unconstitutional. However, that order will have little impact aside from garnering headlines.
Just days ago, we questioned how the coming immigration reform changes would affect Tucson and southern Arizona. It appears the Tucson Police Department had the same questions, and came to a similar conclusion. In spite of the Arizona state laws, which have not yet changed in light of the coming executive actions, the police will no longer question all those they encounter about their immigration status.
It did not take long after President Barack Obama’s announced immigration policy changes before his challengers took to the courts to stop the executive actions. One of the most fervent anti-immigration figures in the country, Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio filed a lawsuit challenging the immigration changes within hours of the November 20th announcement. In response to the first of the coming lawsuits, the Justice Department has sought to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Arizona sheriff Arpaio.
The recurring issue of Arizona’s anti-immigrant laws finding themselves at odds with federal laws and constitutional guarantees is again rearing its head. After Arizona’s law barring those who qualify Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) from getting driver’s license was blocked, and reconsideration denied, there was one place left for a final ruling. Now, Governor Jan Brewer is asking the nation’s highest court to take up the issue.
The immigration policy changes announced by President Barack Obama will go into effect over the course of the next year. However, it remains unclear to what extent those changes will impact Arizona and the Tucson area. State law SB 1070 may stand at odds with the new executive action on deportation priorities. The new immigration priorities focus on criminals and national threats, while SB 1070 requires police to question the immigration status of all those they suspect to be in the country illegally.
Millions of immigrants rejoiced at the recently announced changes in the country’s immigration policy. President Barack Obama’s executive action has created a form of deferred deportation relief for additional childhood arrivals as well as the parents and spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs). With more than 30,000 immigrants detained on a daily basis, this newly created deferred status may offer many of them a chance at freedom.
President Barack Obama’s announced immigration policy changes have provided a way for millions of immigrants in the country to be afforded some relief from deportation. The expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) will defer deportation and provide employment authorization. However, some people are taking this opportunity to take advantage of immigrants, and scam them out of money while providing useless or even harmful services.
During a tense hearing on Capitol Hill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson was pressed on immigration policy changes. Johnson said he was comfortable with the legal basis for the president’s executive actions. During the hearing, Arizona Representative Ron Barber asked Johnson to return to southern Arizona, to hear the concerns of the people who live along the border.
President Barack Obama continues to face heavy criticism from Republicans for his recent announced immigration policy changes. At the same time, immigrant activists have voiced disappointment for the president not going far enough to extend deportation deferral to a greater number of immigrants. Meanwhile, a number of mayors from across the country are gathering in support of the president’s executive action on immigration.