The Boston Globe reported today that Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) will direct state colleges and universities to permit illegal immigrants to pay resident in-state tuition and fees when they obtain work permits through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) federal program.
DACA is a federal program enacted in June that allows undocumented immigrants aged 30 or younger, who arrived to the US before age 16, to obtain work permits and to avoid deportation for two years. The applicants must meet other requirements to be approved through DACA. The fee is $465.
DACA did not require states to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants - President Obama left that as a decision to be made by individual states.
Gov. Patrick will send his directive to the Board of Higher Education today, with the change to take place immediately.
For more on this story, click here.
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
A Challenge to Mandatory Detention
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey ruled in the case of Garfield Gayle, Sheldon Francois, Neville Sukhu v. Janet Napolitano where the issue was whether individuals in removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention. Mandatory detenetion is "detention without possibility of a bond hearing or any other determination of whether detention is justified based on danger or flight risk."
Plaintiffs were seeking the an order from the court that would prevent "the government from mandatorily detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing at which an Immigration Judge ascertains whether they have a substantial challenge to removal and are therefore eligible for an individualized bond hearing."
When the government charges individuals on grounds of removal as enumerated under 8 USC sec. 1226(c) - applying to non-citizens who are "deportable or inadmissible based on specific crimes, including various misdemeanors and minor drug offenses" - they are subjected to mandatory detention. The exception is if an individual can show a very high burden to an IJ that the government is "substantially unlikely to prevail on the charges against them." Mandatory detention can last for months and years.
The Court held that mandatory detention violated the "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment..unless it is reasonably related to the purpose of ensuring availability for removal and protecting the community, and is accompanied by adequate procedural protection." The Court stated that the government had "inadequate hearing procedures violat[ing] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that [the government] must provide constitutionally-adequate hearings to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members - ie, hearings that use the proper standard for when mandatory detention applies and to include adequate notice; place the initial burden on the government to establish prima facie deportability or inadmissibility on a ground that triggers mandatory detention; provide the opportunity for Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to show that they have substantial challenges to removal and are thus not properly subject to mandatory detention; and provide a contemporaneous record of such proceedings."
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Plaintiffs were seeking the an order from the court that would prevent "the government from mandatorily detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing at which an Immigration Judge ascertains whether they have a substantial challenge to removal and are therefore eligible for an individualized bond hearing."
When the government charges individuals on grounds of removal as enumerated under 8 USC sec. 1226(c) - applying to non-citizens who are "deportable or inadmissible based on specific crimes, including various misdemeanors and minor drug offenses" - they are subjected to mandatory detention. The exception is if an individual can show a very high burden to an IJ that the government is "substantially unlikely to prevail on the charges against them." Mandatory detention can last for months and years.
The Court held that mandatory detention violated the "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment..unless it is reasonably related to the purpose of ensuring availability for removal and protecting the community, and is accompanied by adequate procedural protection." The Court stated that the government had "inadequate hearing procedures violat[ing] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that [the government] must provide constitutionally-adequate hearings to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members - ie, hearings that use the proper standard for when mandatory detention applies and to include adequate notice; place the initial burden on the government to establish prima facie deportability or inadmissibility on a ground that triggers mandatory detention; provide the opportunity for Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to show that they have substantial challenges to removal and are thus not properly subject to mandatory detention; and provide a contemporaneous record of such proceedings."
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Supreme Court to Hear Cases About Dog Sniffing Dogs
The New York Times reported on October 29, 2012, that the US Supreme Court will hear cases involving Aldo, a German shepherd, and Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever. The cases focus on how accurate a dog's nose is when trained to sniff drugs as interpreted under the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search.
In 2005, Justice Stevens opined that a drug-sniffing dog does not invade a human's right to privacy because "no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess." In his 2005 dissent, Justice Souter referred to a study that showed "dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60 percent of the time," and that "[t]he infallible dog...is a creature of legal fiction."
Some drug-sniffing dogs are more accurate than others, and some have good days and bad days, according to the article. The result? Difficulty determining false positives from real ones. In 2006, Aldo sniffed chemicals used for concocting methamphetamines in Clayton Harris's pick up truck in Bristol, Florida, after he had been pulled over by police for driving with an expired license place. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Aldo was unreliable and "ordered that the evidence he found be suppressed." Franky's case involved whether police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs outside of people's homes to detect the scent of drugs and drug-making chemicals. The Florida Supreme Court threw out the evidence brought forth by Franky's nose. The US Supreme Court will hear these cases this month.
For more on this story, click here.
For representation on criminal matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
In 2005, Justice Stevens opined that a drug-sniffing dog does not invade a human's right to privacy because "no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess." In his 2005 dissent, Justice Souter referred to a study that showed "dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60 percent of the time," and that "[t]he infallible dog...is a creature of legal fiction."
Some drug-sniffing dogs are more accurate than others, and some have good days and bad days, according to the article. The result? Difficulty determining false positives from real ones. In 2006, Aldo sniffed chemicals used for concocting methamphetamines in Clayton Harris's pick up truck in Bristol, Florida, after he had been pulled over by police for driving with an expired license place. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Aldo was unreliable and "ordered that the evidence he found be suppressed." Franky's case involved whether police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs outside of people's homes to detect the scent of drugs and drug-making chemicals. The Florida Supreme Court threw out the evidence brought forth by Franky's nose. The US Supreme Court will hear these cases this month.
For more on this story, click here.
For representation on criminal matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Blue Laws of Massachusetts
The Boston Globe published on its website the Blue Laws of Massachusetts - laws that were enacted 340 years ago by the early settlers. Some of the laws have been ruled as unconstitutional and many are not enforced. Click here to take a look at some of the strange laws existing on the books in the Commonwealth!
For representation, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
For representation, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
New Regulations for Foreclosures in MA
The Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts will consider regulations that will assist homeowners avoid foreclosure. Under the proposed regulations, "many mortgage loan servicers would not be able to begin foreclosure proceedings on a borrower already in the process of modifying their loan." Additionally, loan servicers must ensure that the lender has the right to foreclose and that all paperwork is complete. The loan servicers would be required to notify homeowners when they are at risk of foreclosure.
Public comment period is scheduled for November 2012. After the public comment period, the state will have the opportunity to approve or to reject the new regulations. If approved, the regulations would supplement legislation already signed by Governor Deval Patrick back in August.
To read the full story, click here.
For representation on real estate issues, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Public comment period is scheduled for November 2012. After the public comment period, the state will have the opportunity to approve or to reject the new regulations. If approved, the regulations would supplement legislation already signed by Governor Deval Patrick back in August.
To read the full story, click here.
For representation on real estate issues, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Potential for Post-Election Immigration Reform
An editorial published today by Bloomberg highlighted that support for immigration reform is inevitable now that President Obama has been re-elected. The editorial stated that Latinos, known to be a socially conservative demographic, comprised 10 percent of the total vote, giving "Obama almost three votes for every one earned by Romney."
President Obama campaigned on immigration reform that would address the nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. Republican Speaker John Boehner has stated that he is "confident that the president, myself, other can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all."
The editorial further noted that: "Standard & Poor’s has found that cities with high immigration levels show improvements in credit ratings, tax bases and per-capita incomes. High-skills immigrants, meanwhile, not only increase productivity but also generate jobs."
For representation on immigration issues, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
President Obama campaigned on immigration reform that would address the nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. Republican Speaker John Boehner has stated that he is "confident that the president, myself, other can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all."
The editorial further noted that: "Standard & Poor’s has found that cities with high immigration levels show improvements in credit ratings, tax bases and per-capita incomes. High-skills immigrants, meanwhile, not only increase productivity but also generate jobs."
For representation on immigration issues, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Same Sex Marriage Passes in Three More States
The election on November 6, 2012 resulted in three more states allowing same sex marriage: Maine, Maryland, and Washington state. There are now a total of 9 states that have legalized same sex marriage. Three states recognize same sex marriages that are performed outside state lines. For more on this story, click here.
For representation on LGBT rights and same-sex co-parent adoption cases, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
For representation on LGBT rights and same-sex co-parent adoption cases, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, November 5, 2012
BIA Deadlines Impacted by Hurricane Sandy
"On October 29-30, 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was closed due to Hurricane Sandy. The BIA will consider timely filed any filing that meets both of these criteria:
- the filing was due on a weekday during the week of October 29, 2012; and
- the BIA received the filing on or before November 5, 2012.
No request or documentation is required for filings that arrive by November 5, 2012. Filings that arrive after November 5, 2012, are subject to normal filing deadlines. If weather is an issue for any filings that the BIA receives after November 5, 2012, parties should consult the BIA Practice Manual, Chapter 3.1(b)(v), on page 34 (“Natural or manmade disasters”). The BIA Practice Manual is available on-line at http://1.usa.gov/Md03oi." -EOIR, Oct. 31, 2012.
For representation on immigration cases, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-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, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
SJC report: Judge Shopping and OUIs
The Boston Globe reported that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Massachusetts appointed a special counsel to investigate whether "judges in district courts were acquitting drunk drivers at a rate about 20 percentage points higher than juries."
The investigation revealed that there are some courts in Massachusetts that "acquit nearly all of the drunken driving defendants who waive their right to a jury trial." Some judges had near 100 percent acquittals. The special counsel's report stated that juries acquitted OUI cases about 58 percent of the time and judges acquitted nearly 86 percent of the time. The article named Worcester County as one of the areas where judges tend to acquit drunken driving defendants who opt for a bench trial.
The law today allows drunken driving defendants "to avoid the penalty for refusing a breath test, a long license suspension, if they are later acquitted of drunken driving." The report by the special counsel proposed changing the current law. For more on this story, click here.
For representation on OUI cases, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The investigation revealed that there are some courts in Massachusetts that "acquit nearly all of the drunken driving defendants who waive their right to a jury trial." Some judges had near 100 percent acquittals. The special counsel's report stated that juries acquitted OUI cases about 58 percent of the time and judges acquitted nearly 86 percent of the time. The article named Worcester County as one of the areas where judges tend to acquit drunken driving defendants who opt for a bench trial.
The law today allows drunken driving defendants "to avoid the penalty for refusing a breath test, a long license suspension, if they are later acquitted of drunken driving." The report by the special counsel proposed changing the current law. For more on this story, click here.
For representation on OUI cases, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)