Playing the waiting game in immigration court

Anyone who's had experience with immigration court knows that the process is anything but fast. Nationwide, the backlog has reached an all-time high of 344,230 people in immigration proceedings. See TRAC Immigration for more.

Fortunately, the immigration court doesn't require you
to stand in line the entire time you're waiting for your case.
Used under Creative Commons license from @eschipul

As of September 13, Massachusetts is among the top ten states with the biggest backlog of immigration cases waiting to be processed. It also has the 8th longest wait times. In 2013, a person in deportation proceedings in Massachusetts had to wait an average of 610 days to have the case resolved, above the national average of 562 days. Click here to see some charts. Nebraska had the longest wait times with 761 days, while Hawaii is the shortest at 164.

While the wait times may seem to be a good thing for people who want to avoid deportation, the long delays mean months of uncertainty for people in immigration proceedings.

Quotas aren't just for traffic tickets

It's a full house... by law.
Photo credit @ChodHound, Flickr; used under CC License.

A Congressional quota requires that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) keep roughly 34,000 detainees in custody per day -- whether ICE wants to detain that many people, or not. This policy dates from 2006, when some legislators wanted to make sure that the federal government didn't get lazy on enforcing the immigration laws.

Years ago, ICE filled those spots easily, with the huge number of people it caught at border crossings. Now there are fewer people coming over the border, and ICE cannot meet its quota. So the government searches for legally present immigrants who have criminal records, and also focuses on undocumented immigrants taken into custody during traffic stops by local police.

A large number of these people --as many as half of them --will appear before immigration judges and eventually be approved to stay in the United States. In the meantime, however, they have to spend months in costly federal custody. This also feeds the pockets of private prison companies, such as the GEO Group and CCA. These companies, in turn, spend money lobbying Congress on immigration issues.

Immigration advocates point out that other, less costly forms of supervision are available, such as GPS ankle bracelet monitoring. The alternatives cost less than one-tenth of the price of keeping a person in detention, and research shows there is nearly full compliance with them.

While a quota, in theory, may seem like a way to ensure that immigration laws are enforced, in practice it just means that people are locked up unnecessarily.

Read more at the Washington Post.

"New" rules, or old school?

Well, maybe you won't be able to challenge a conviction that's this old.

Does a criminal defense attorney have to advise her client about the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court said yes, in a case called Padilla v. Kentucky.

The Massachusetts courts agreed, but now the SJC has gone a step further in a recent case: Commonwealth v. Sylvain, SJC-11400. In Sylvain, the court clarified that it's nothing "new" for criminal attorneys to advise their clients about immigration consequences. Attorneys in Massachusetts have been giving their clients this advice for years, and CPCS requires all public defenders and bar advocates to do it.

Because this is not a "new" rule of constitutional rights announced by the Supreme Court, the rule applies retroactively. People who are not U.S. citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the past may now challenge those convictions. They may be able to reverse their convictions if they did not get accurate advice from their lawyers, and if the bad advice affected the outcome of their cases.

 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that this is a "new" rule for federal purposes. See Chaidez v. United States for details. This means that inaccurate immigration advice from criminal convictions in other states and the federal system may not result in a finding of "ineffective assistance of counsel."

If you have questions about a past criminal conviction and your immigration status, or if you are facing criminal charges and you are not a citizen of the U.S., contact us today to see if we are able to help.

GTLLP Firm News

Glickman Turley successfully obtained an Emergency Stay of Execution of Removal Order for an individual detained by ICE who was en route from Boston to Lousiana to be physically removed to his home country in Central America. We obtained this extraordinary relief pending a Motion to Reopen a removal order issued at the San Antonio Immigration Court in 1999. We obtained this relief through "11th hour" strategizing with co-counsel at Harvard Law School, a country conditions expert, and local attorneys in San Antonio who helped with the emergency filing on the day of the client's expected physical removal from the U.S.

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.    

Breaking News (UPDATE) - DHS: Deferred Action Will be Offered to DREAMers

The White House will announce today that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will stop deporting and start granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children and have led otherwise law-abiding lives. The new policy will impact approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants, according to The Huffington Post. The policy change partially implements one of the objectives of the DREAM Act, "a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States without documents but who have attended college or served in the military."

American Immigration Lawyers Association released the following preliminary information in a news alert this morning. Eligible applicants must:

- Be 15-30 years old, and have entered before age 16

- Have been present in the U.S. for 5 years as of June 15, 2012

- Have maintained continuous residence

- Have not been convicted of one serious crime or multiple minor crimes

- Be currently enrolled in high school, graduated or have a GED, or have enlisted in the military

- The deferred action offer will be available to those in proceedings as well as to those who apply affirmatively.

UPDATE: Here is the link to DHS's official memo. 

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 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. 

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.  

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. 

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 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. 

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.