The US Supreme Court held that a lawful permanent resident who was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) has a right to reenter the United States after a short period of time travelling abroad. In this case, the Court concluded that the IIRIRA does not govern a pre-1996 criminal conviction - the appropriate application of the law would be the legal regime in force at the time of the conviction.
For more, click here to read Vartelas v. Holder.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
SJC Rules in 275 Washington Street Corp. v. Hudson River International, LLC
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SCJ) held that when a commercial tenant breaks a commercial lease, the landlord will not be able to collect damages until the end of the original lease term, even if the lease contains an indemnity clause. Damages may be wholly ascertained and fully assessed against a tenant at the end of the lease term because of "the possible intervention of factors, presently unknown, that make the determination of damages uncertain at the present."
The defendant in 275 Washington Street Corp. v. Hudson River International, LLC, conceded that it will owe damages for abandoning the premises and ceasing to pay rent, but the issue on appeal was whether damages may be determined at present time. The landlord argued that since the premises were re-leased, the damages are easily ascertainable by calculating the difference in rent between the original and substituted leases. The SJC was sympathetic to the landlord, but concluded that "the tenant's view is consistent with the present state of Massachusetts law and is one with which we are constrained to agree."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The defendant in 275 Washington Street Corp. v. Hudson River International, LLC, conceded that it will owe damages for abandoning the premises and ceasing to pay rent, but the issue on appeal was whether damages may be determined at present time. The landlord argued that since the premises were re-leased, the damages are easily ascertainable by calculating the difference in rent between the original and substituted leases. The SJC was sympathetic to the landlord, but concluded that "the tenant's view is consistent with the present state of Massachusetts law and is one with which we are constrained to agree."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Glickman Turley LLP Wins 3/10 Year-Bar Waiver Application
Glickman Turley successfully represented a client on an adjustment
of status application that required a waiver of removability because
the client had been unlawfully present in the U.S. for over a year
and then left the U.S. Based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen with
whom she has a U.S. citizen child, our client applied for an
immigrant visa at her Caribbean country's U.S. Embassy. She was
erroneously granted an immigrant visa only to be found inadmissible
at the port of entry. After a two year struggle with DHS that
included the adjustment application, removal proceedings, and a
successful motion to terminate, our client was granted permanent
resident status. She is eager to continue her life in the U.S.,
working as a stylist, caring for her family here, and planning a
trip to visit her parents in her home country.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Glickman Turley LLP Defends Green Card For Twenty-Year Resident
Glickman Turley successfully defended a lawful permanent resident
from removal (deportation) to Africa in a decade-long struggle with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS wrongfully alleged
that our client was deportable for criminal reasons and for
committing fraud on immigration petitions. In our representation,
Glickman Turley represented the client on two motions to reopen and
vacate criminal convictions that were based on constitutionally
defective pleas. Also, our motion to terminate proceedings in the
Immigration Court was granted because the client credibly testified
that he did not commit immigration fraud, but rather made unknowing
mistakes on immigration petitions.
Our client will continue to live in the U.S. with his lawful permanent resident wife and son and his U.S. citizen son. He will continue to work as a valued employee at a prestigious local medical institute.
Our client will continue to live in the U.S. with his lawful permanent resident wife and son and his U.S. citizen son. He will continue to work as a valued employee at a prestigious local medical institute.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
US Supreme Court: Ineffective Counsel Claims Can Be Brought Up At Plea Level
The United States Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective counsel during the plea negotiating stage. The rulings in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye effectively expand the rights of the accused for "what used to be informal and unregulated deal making," according to The New York Times.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented because the ruling "opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" that he referred to as "plea-bargaining law" - a point that was acknowledged by the majority. However, Justice Kennedy said "Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials...The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented because the ruling "opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" that he referred to as "plea-bargaining law" - a point that was acknowledged by the majority. However, Justice Kennedy said "Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials...The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
First Circuit Rules in Favor of Petitioner in Jabri
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rendered its decision in the case of Abdallah Jabri v. Holder on March 16, 2012. The Appeals Court ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred when it upheld the holding of an immigration judge (IJ) that the petitioner, a native and citizen of Jordan, had not made credible claims and therefore denied him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CIA). Petitioner had appealed on the basis that the IJ and BIA had ignored material portions of evidence that supported his claim while focusing on minor and nonexistent inconsistencies to deny him relief. The Court agreed with the Petitioner, holding that "The IJ must...present a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole. We are not satisfied that the IJ has done so here."
Petitioner and his family entered the United States and lived in New Hampshire when he was a child. They overstayed their visas and removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner in April 2009. However, Petitioner and his family had converted from Islam to Christianity during their years living in the United States and Petitioner feared he would be persecuted on account of his conversion if he entered Jordan. The Court noted "There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children." Petitioner also feared his grandfather, a prominent member of the Islamic community, would instigate an honor killing against him for converting to Christianity.
For more on this case, click here.
Petitioner and his family entered the United States and lived in New Hampshire when he was a child. They overstayed their visas and removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner in April 2009. However, Petitioner and his family had converted from Islam to Christianity during their years living in the United States and Petitioner feared he would be persecuted on account of his conversion if he entered Jordan. The Court noted "There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children." Petitioner also feared his grandfather, a prominent member of the Islamic community, would instigate an honor killing against him for converting to Christianity.
For more on this case, click here.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, March 19, 2012
US Supreme Court Hears Case on Social Security Benefits and In Vitro Fertilization
NPR reported that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on Monday where the issue is "whether children conceived via in vitro fertilization after the death of the parent are eligible for Social Security benefits." Currently, there are 100 pending cases before the Social Security Administration that fall under such category.
The case before the Supreme Court involves the twin children of Karen and Robert Capato. Mr. Capato died of esophageal cancer in early 2002. When Mr. Capato's condition had worsened after his diagnosis, the couple decided that he should deposit sperm at a fertility clinic because they wanted their son to have siblings. After Mr. Capato's death, Mrs. Capato used her husband's sperm to become pregnant and gave birth to twins.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that the twins are not eligible for survivors benefits because they were conceived after the death of a parent. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled in favor of Karen Capato because here was a case "where medical-scientific technology had advanced faster than the regulatory process." The government appealed the case, arguing "that posthumously conceived children fall outside the class of children entitled to survivors benefits because 'they were brought into being by a surviving parent with the knowledge that the deceased biological parent will not be able to contribute wages for their support.'" Capato's lawyers have argued that the language of the 1939 Social Security Act defines a child "as biological offspring of a married couple," and that any children of the individual would be eligible to receive survivors benefits, regardless of when they were conceived.
The case before the Supreme Court involves the twin children of Karen and Robert Capato. Mr. Capato died of esophageal cancer in early 2002. When Mr. Capato's condition had worsened after his diagnosis, the couple decided that he should deposit sperm at a fertility clinic because they wanted their son to have siblings. After Mr. Capato's death, Mrs. Capato used her husband's sperm to become pregnant and gave birth to twins.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that the twins are not eligible for survivors benefits because they were conceived after the death of a parent. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled in favor of Karen Capato because here was a case "where medical-scientific technology had advanced faster than the regulatory process." The government appealed the case, arguing "that posthumously conceived children fall outside the class of children entitled to survivors benefits because 'they were brought into being by a surviving parent with the knowledge that the deceased biological parent will not be able to contribute wages for their support.'" Capato's lawyers have argued that the language of the 1939 Social Security Act defines a child "as biological offspring of a married couple," and that any children of the individual would be eligible to receive survivors benefits, regardless of when they were conceived.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Glickman Turley LLP: Firm News
Glickman Turley successfully argued that the denial of an arrest and conviction on a green card application was not a willful knowing misrepresentation for deportation and removal purposes. The immigration court ordered the case closed and restored the immigrant's green card and ability to apply for citizenship and naturalization.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
New Detention Center For Immigrants Opens in Texas
The New York Times reported that a new immigrant detention center has opened in Karnes County, Texas. The detention center is part of the Obama administration's plan to reform the immigration system in order "to provide a less penal setting for detainees" that are considered a minimal safety risk. The detention center resembles a school setting more than a jail where detainees will be allowed to move freely around most of the center. The guards who are unarmed will be referred to as "resident advisers" dressing in khaki pants and blue polo shirts. There will be courtrooms on the premises for immigration hearings with video conferencing available for judges in San Antonio and Houston.
Advocates of human rights and immigrants had long criticized the federal government's use of jails and jail-like detention centers for mistreating detainees, including providing poor health care that would result in deaths, for people who were mainly detained for civil violations. There are plans to upgrade several existing detention centers around the country, as well as plans to build new centers in South Florida and Chicago to hold medium and high security detainees.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Advocates of human rights and immigrants had long criticized the federal government's use of jails and jail-like detention centers for mistreating detainees, including providing poor health care that would result in deaths, for people who were mainly detained for civil violations. There are plans to upgrade several existing detention centers around the country, as well as plans to build new centers in South Florida and Chicago to hold medium and high security detainees.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
A Look at Art and Trademark Infringement
The New York Times has posted a slide show by columnist Adam Liptak exploring the legal issues surrounding art and trademark infringement. Click here to see the slide show.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Glickman Turley wins Motion to Reopen Removal Proceedings
Last week, Glickman Turley's immigration attorney Ellen Sullivan
successfully moved to reopen removal (deportation) proceedings
against a woman whose prior attorney failed to provide effective
assistance of counsel. Now, with the case reopened, the client has
the opportunity before the Boston Immigration Court to defend her
green card or, in the alternative, apply for asylum for protection
from religious and social group persecution in her home country.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
SJC Reverses Conviction of Larceny of Property Over $250 by False Pretenses in Commonwealth v. McCauliff
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the nonperformance of a promise is not sufficient grounds to show deception as a basis for the crime of larceny by false pretenses. In Commonwealth v. McCauliff, the defendant had assured the complainant that he would pay back a loan after he sold a property he owned in Fitchburg, MA. Even though the defendant made "seemingly deceptive statements and evasive actions" such as writing a check from an account that had been closed after promising the complainant that the sale of the property was imminent, the SJC held that the Commonwealth did not prove all elements of the crime of larceny by false pretenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The SJC reasoned that a mere nonperformance of a promise did not show deception: in this case, there may have been a buyer ready to purchase the property but the sale later fell through. The SJC opined: "Conflicting inferences of equal likelihood do not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Allegations Arise Against ICE: Did the Government Lie to the Supreme Court?
Washington Square Legal Services, Inc. (WSLS) alleges that the Office of the Solicitor General may have lied in front of the Supreme Court in a 2009 case (Nken v. Holder) as to whether the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had a policy in place for returning individuals who had been wrongfully deported. WSLS issued a press release on March 9, 2012, stating that a new memo from ICE dated February 24, 2012, demonstrated that there was no government policy in place to return wrongfully deported individuals in 2009 and raises more questions than answers about how ICE deals with these cases.
"It includes no concrete information on how people wrongfully deported are to be returned to the United States. Instead, this memo seems designed to help the government convince courts that it has a polic in place, when all other evidence points to the contrary," said Jessica Chicco of the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project at Boston College.
ICE claimed that the policy has always existed but the latest February directive does not provide effective relief measures nor does it provide a procedural framework. The directive also failed to explain how the government would communicate with individuals who have been wrongfully deported how they could return to the United States, particularly for individuals who do not have legal representation in the U.S.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
"It includes no concrete information on how people wrongfully deported are to be returned to the United States. Instead, this memo seems designed to help the government convince courts that it has a polic in place, when all other evidence points to the contrary," said Jessica Chicco of the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project at Boston College.
ICE claimed that the policy has always existed but the latest February directive does not provide effective relief measures nor does it provide a procedural framework. The directive also failed to explain how the government would communicate with individuals who have been wrongfully deported how they could return to the United States, particularly for individuals who do not have legal representation in the U.S.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
First Lady Visits Boston Today
First Lady Michelle Obama will be visiting Boston this evening for a reception and $5,000- to $25,000-a-head dinner at the Institute of Contemporary Art to benefit the Obama Victory Fund, according to The Boston Globe. Obama will spend the earlier part of the day campaigning in New Hampshire on behalf of her national initiative to combat childhood obesity.
The Institute of Contemporary Art is located at 100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA - just a few blocks away from the offices of Glickman Turley LLP on 250 Summer Street, Boston, MA (click here for a map of our address).
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The Institute of Contemporary Art is located at 100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA - just a few blocks away from the offices of Glickman Turley LLP on 250 Summer Street, Boston, MA (click here for a map of our address).
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
New Housing Discrimination Rule Protects LGBT Families
The Obama administration's new federal housing regulation that prevents discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation went into effect yesterday, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. The new rule expands the definition of "family" to protect LGBT families against discrimination and exclusion from U.S. Housing and Urban Development programs. Owners and operators of federally-funded or federally-insured housing, and lenders offering federally-insured mortgages, will no longer be able to discriminate against members of the LGBT community based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. For more information, including a guide called "Know Your Rights: Fair Housing and Transgender People," click here.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
First Circuit Held that Immigration Court Deprived Defendant of Due Process in US v. Miszczuk
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that even though the defendant in US v. Miszczuk was removable based on his past criminal convictions, the Immigration Court failed to put on record any findings of fact or law that substantiated the removal order. The First Circuit highlighted that even though immigration court proceedings are within the executive branch of the government, they are still civil proceedings that must meet the constitutional standards of due process.
The defendant had been subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration Court. He subsequently did not cooperate with officials to effectuate the deportation back to his native Poland by refusing to sign travel documents. After being detained for five years, the defendant was also charged criminally with "willful failure or refusal to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to his departure."
The First Circuit called this an "unusual criminal offense" that provides the defendant the option to request the Court to review the validity of the removal order before he could be brought to trial on the criminal charges. The defendant exercised this option and the First Circuit concluded that "The absence of any findings of fact, or documented application of the facts to the law by the immigration officer in this case may be enough for this Court to find the removal order inadequate and to dismiss the criminal case...Absent clear findings of removability, this Court cannot invent reasons by which the defendant might be lawfully convicted." Therefore, Immigration Court proceedings need to meet procedural and substantive due process requirements.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters
The defendant had been subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration Court. He subsequently did not cooperate with officials to effectuate the deportation back to his native Poland by refusing to sign travel documents. After being detained for five years, the defendant was also charged criminally with "willful failure or refusal to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to his departure."
The First Circuit called this an "unusual criminal offense" that provides the defendant the option to request the Court to review the validity of the removal order before he could be brought to trial on the criminal charges. The defendant exercised this option and the First Circuit concluded that "The absence of any findings of fact, or documented application of the facts to the law by the immigration officer in this case may be enough for this Court to find the removal order inadequate and to dismiss the criminal case...Absent clear findings of removability, this Court cannot invent reasons by which the defendant might be lawfully convicted." Therefore, Immigration Court proceedings need to meet procedural and substantive due process requirements.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Glickman Turley LLP News: Sexually Explicit Photo Case Dismissed
Attorney Paul Glickman successfully argued that a sexually explicit
photo texted as part of an online dating conversation was not obscene
under Massachusetts law and that it could not be the basis for a
criminal prosecution. The Plymouth County Clerk Magistrate issued a
written opinion finding that there was no probable cause for prosecution
under the standards for determining obscenity set forth by the United
States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Massachusetts Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over 351 Year Old Will
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments over dispute involving a will that is 351 years old. William Payne was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant who bequeathed in his will that a land called "Little Neck" in Ipswich, Massachusetts, "shall never be sold, and shall 'for euer' be used to benefit Ipswich public schools" and that "the sayd land not to bee sould or wasted."
The trustees of the will had been planning to sell the land recently but a group of Ipswich parents are fighting to stop the sale. A lawyer for the trustees said that proceeds from the land sale could be invested and bring in more funds to Ipswich public schools. One Ipswich parent argued that the point of this lawsuit is not about the money, but rather a question of why anyone in Massachusetts would bother creating a charitable trust if the terms of the trust can be violated. Under current Massachusetts law, if the mission of the trust becomes impossible to carry out, then the terms of a charitable trust can be violated. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has not rendered a decision in this case yet.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The trustees of the will had been planning to sell the land recently but a group of Ipswich parents are fighting to stop the sale. A lawyer for the trustees said that proceeds from the land sale could be invested and bring in more funds to Ipswich public schools. One Ipswich parent argued that the point of this lawsuit is not about the money, but rather a question of why anyone in Massachusetts would bother creating a charitable trust if the terms of the trust can be violated. Under current Massachusetts law, if the mission of the trust becomes impossible to carry out, then the terms of a charitable trust can be violated. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has not rendered a decision in this case yet.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, March 2, 2012
BIA Rules in the In re: Jesus Gaytan-Castro Case
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that under the doctrine of res judicata, removal proceedings are barred even if the respondent was erroneously granted adjustment of status in the prior proceedings. The case, In re: Jesus Gaytan-Castro, involved the issue of whether the Gaytan-Castro was eligible for adjustment of status pursuant to his father's visa petition. Gaytan-Castro was granted adjustment of status.
The BIA reviewed and agreed with the Immigration Judge's decision that the removal proceedings must be terminated because the doctrine of res judicata requires that once a final judgment on the merits of an action is rendered, the parties are barred from relitigating the issues that could have been raised in that action. Therefore, the BIA concluded here that when an erroneous grant of adjustment of status arose, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the option of filing a timely appeal or a motion to reopen and rescind, which it failed to do, and is now barred from proceeding with new termination proceedings.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The BIA reviewed and agreed with the Immigration Judge's decision that the removal proceedings must be terminated because the doctrine of res judicata requires that once a final judgment on the merits of an action is rendered, the parties are barred from relitigating the issues that could have been raised in that action. Therefore, the BIA concluded here that when an erroneous grant of adjustment of status arose, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the option of filing a timely appeal or a motion to reopen and rescind, which it failed to do, and is now barred from proceeding with new termination proceedings.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)