Good Case Interpretting Padilla v. Kentucky

Our attorneys represent clients on motions to vacate criminal convictions. Success on a motion to vacate is sometimes the only way that a Lawful Permanent Resident can defend himself against deportation/removal from the U.S. An important case about motions to vacate was recenlty decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 11, 2011 in US. v. Bonilla, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

"A criminal defendant who face almost certain deportation is entitled to know more than that it is possible that a guilty plea could lead to removal; he is entitled to know that is a virtual certainty."

US v. Bonilla, No. 09-10307, 3428 (9th Cir. 2011).

This holding emphasizes the U.S. Supreme Court decision Padilla v. Kentucky that held:

"It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the "mercies of incompetent counsel." Richardson, 397 U.S., at 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less."

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1438, 1486 (2010).

US v. Halloway in Immigration Court

Glickman Turley LLP has taken to the Boston Immigration Court the issues presented in the First Circuit Decision, US v. Halloway, No. 09-1232(1st Cir. 2011). Specifically, we argue that assault and battery on a public official (M.G.L. c. 265, Sec. 13D) is not a crime of violence, and therefore the respondent cannot be removable as an aggravated felon if convicted of ABPO and sentenced to over one year term of imprisonment.

This new interpretation of First Circuit law would permit a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)to apply for a new "green card" through cancellation of removal at the Immigration Court.

Commercial Landlords Beware!

In a precedent setting case issued today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court found that under G.L. c. 186, § 19, after receiving the required notice of an unsafe condition, not caused by the tenant, a landlord of any real estate owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to remedy the unsafe condition. If a tenant or any person lawfully on the premises is injured as a result of the failure to correct the unsafe condition within a reasonable time, the injured party has a right of action in tort against the landlord for damages. A landlord may not obtain a waiver of this duty in any lease or other rental agreement; any such waiver "shall be void and unenforceable. This law is for the first time applied to commercial leases. Previously, it was applied only in the residential real estate setting. The name of the case is Bishop v. TES Realty.

Senators Look Toward Immigration Reform

Senators Charles Schumer (Democrat) from New York and Lindsey Graham (Republican) from South Carolina are reportedly discussing renewing efforts in Congress to enact comprehensive Immigration Reform.  According to an article in the on-line political news site, Politico,  some congressional representatives believe there is a "shot at reform" this year.  Reform could include the DREAM act which would permit enrolled college students to apply for legal permanent resident status and could also include provisions for temporary workers and possibly long term relief for other immigrants in the United States.

Continuance of Removal Proceedings to Pursue Family-Based I-130 Visa Petition

Malilia v. Holder, No. 05-77387, Agency No. A029-554-456 (Feb. 3, 2011)

On February 3, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a case to the Immigration Judge to reconsider his request for a continuance to pursue a marriage-based I-130 visa petition.

In this case, Malilia had pled guilty to delivering a package containing firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(e). The Ninth Circuit held that because Malilia had been convicted of a deportable offense, it did not have jurisdiction to consider Malilia's challenges to the removal order claim that he was not convicted of a deportable offense. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the IJ abused its discretion by denying Malilia's motion to continue removal proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the IJ could delay proceedings, even for a long or indefinite period, if the immigrant meets the burden of showing good cause for the continuance.

Glickman Turley attorneys represent clients on all immigration matters before USCIS, the Immigration Court, District and Circuit Courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeal.

Immigration Court Relief - Asylum and Convention Against Torture

The Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) has published its 2010 Statistical Yearbook. The Boston Immigration Court Judges have granted asylum in 45% of the cases before the Court, a little below the national average of 51%. The largest number of grants of relief were for residents of China, Ethiopia, India, Colombia and Nepal.  The Statistical Yearbook makes clear that grants for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are extremely rare.  Only 489 of over 24,000 applications for relief under the Convention have been granted.  Glickman Turley is proud of its recent success in obtaining relief for a Guatemalan national under the Convention Against Torture.

Marriage Equality: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

In the fight for marriage equality for same-sex couples, incremental gains have been made in the past week with civil unions bills advancing in both Illinois and Hawaii.  Also in the past week, the Wyoming Senate, by a vote of 21-9, passed a constitutional amendment against marriage equality.

A much more satisfying gain toward full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered citizens would be at the federal level.  The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) must be repealed so that same-sex couples can enjoy hundreds of marriage rights now denied them. For example, in immigration law, same-sex couples, unlike heterosexual married couples, are barred from sponsoring family-based visas for their spouses.  For families headed by same-sex couples, many states deny the right of adoption to the non-biological parent/s, leaving them without numerous legal protections.

In Massachusetts, where we enjoy laws permitting same-sex marriage, the extra step of a co-parent adoption is still necessary to give the non-biological parent/s full legal rights with regard to their children.
See our website http://www.glickmanturley.com/ or contact us for more information.