Immigration -- Challenge to Guilty Pleas

The United States Supreme Court (Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. ____) ruled today that its decision in Padilla v. Kentucky holding that criminal defense attorneys must advise their clients about the clear important immigration consequences of pleading guilty before the plea is entered applies only to guilty pleas occurring after March 31, 2010, the date of the Padilla decision.  Under Padilla, a criminal defendant immigrant could challenge a guilty plea if he or she were not properly advised of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty because the failure to provide that advice is considered to be ineffective assistance of counsel.  While the Supreme Court found that for federal criminal cases, Padilla could not be applied retroactively, in Massachusetts, claims of ineffective assistance may remain retroactive to April 1, 1997 under Clarke v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 30 (2011).

Immigration Reform in the House

Today the House Judiciary Committee is holding a full committee hearing on “America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration.”  Today’s hearing will have two witness panels. The first panel will examine the current legal immigration system and ways to improve it. The second panel will discuss the extent to which immigration laws have been enforced. 

The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Goodlatte (a Republican), has opposed measures in the past that he regarded as amnesty for illegal immigrants.  In a statement released Monday, however, he noted that it would be important to carefully examine the current system in order to understand what isn’t working and how the system could be changed to work more efficiently and fairly.  “Reforming our nation’s immigration laws,” he said, “is a massive undertaking and is too important to not examine each piece in detail.” 

You can find the House Judiciary Committee press release here and an article in the New York Times here.

Push for Same-Sex Couple Immigration Rights

John F. Kerry was never a friend of the gay community in the old days.  But, even old dogs can learn new tricks, and Kerry has evolved.  He filed Senate Bill 48 in an effort to secure permanent resident status for a gay Brazilian national facing deportation because he does not qualify for a spousal visa.  President Obama has shown some backbone in his second term and is proposing legislation to allow up to 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships to apply for legal residency and even U.S.citizenship.  Unfortunately, the proposal was not included in the immigration proposals that a bipartisan Senate working group issued last week, and which the President has largely accepted.  When DOMA is over-ruled, Glickman Turley LLP intends to be in the lead helping same sex couples in immigration matters.

See David Nakamura & Zachary A. Goldfarb, In Immigration Debate, Same Sex Marriage Comes to the Fore , The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2013.

A step in the right direction towards immigration reform

A bipartisan group of eight Senators has agreed on a road map for a national immigration system overhaul this year.  In a document released Monday, the group of eight recognized that the current immigration system is broken and that a comprehensive solution is needed.  The parameters of future legislation would allow a "tough but fair” path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, increased border security, and an improved employer verification system.

The framework attempts to balance the Democrats’ desire for a single comprehensive bill and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants with Republicans’ demands to strengthen border security and modernize the current entry-exit tracking system.  Senator Robert Mendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, offered his explanation as to why the senators finally agreed than any legislation should include a pathway to citizenship, “First of all, Americans support it, in poll after poll.  Secondly, Latino voters expect it.  Thirdly, Democrats want it.  And fourth, Republicans need it.”

Under the plan, immigrants here illegally would be required to register with the government.  They would receive “probationary legal status” once they passed background checks and paid back taxes and fines.  This status would allow them to live and work legally in the United States.  They would be able to become permanent residents, but only after passing an additional background check, paying taxes, learning English and civics, and demonstrating current and past employment in the U.S.  The plan emphasizes that those who came here legally and who are already waiting in line for a green card will be processed first, and that no preferential treatment will be given to those who came here illegally.  The plan offers a faster pathway to citizenship for individuals who entered the U.S. as minor children and who did not knowingly choose to violate immigration laws.

The proposed framework also contains key provisions sought by America's technology and farm industries to attract workers from outside the United States.  Specifically, there would be a separate and more stream-lined green card process for agricultural workers because of their role in the long-term stability of the nation’s agricultural industries.  The proposal would also award a green card to immigrants who have received a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or math from an American University.

President Obama, in a speech given in Las Vegas on Tuesday, welcomed the bipartisan proposal and noted that it was mostly consistent with his blueprint which he issued in May 2011.  There are some key differences, however.  Notably, Mr. Obama’s plan would not make a path to citizenship conditional upon further tightening national borders.  The president’s plan would also extend immigration benefits to same-sex couples when one person is an American.

A link to two New York Times articles further discussing these issues can be found here and here.

Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound: Non-profit or Lobbying Group?

Attorney Donna M. Turley of Glickman Turley LLP works with non-profit corporations in Massachusetts on compliance issues.  She was asked to review the 2011 tax return of Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound by Cape Wind Now.  The irregularities found are cited in the CWN blog.  These irregularities also raise concern about whether the Town of Barnstable has succumbed to the private interests of wealthy landowners.  The link to the article is below.

http://www.capewindnow.org/whats-the-alliance-trying-to-hide-this-time/

New Immigration Rule for Immediate Relatives of US Citizens

On January 3, 2013, The United States Customs and Immigration Services ("CIS") issued a new rule allowing immediate relatives of United States Citizens who are without documentation or have unlawful presence to apply for a waiver of the unlawful presence in the United States before having to return to their home country.  This will allow those immigrants to seek a green card with a waiver while remaining in the United States and if the waiver is granted, they will only have to return to their home country for a short stay to get their green cards.   The applicant will still need to prove hardship to the U.S. citizen to qualify for the waiver.  This new rule is to take effect this March 2013.

Glickman Turley Wins Case Allowing Immigrant to Return to US as LPR

Glickman Turley successfully defended a Brazilian green cardholder who the Department of Homeland security claimed had abandoned her green card when she was working in Angola.  The Immigration Court Judge, after trial, determined that the immigrant always intended to return to the United States, had close family living in the US and had secured employment upon returning.  The Court terminated the removal proceedings and re-admitted the immigrant as a returning legal permanent resident.