I'll stay... as long as you love me

For singer Justin Bieber, things are getting worse. He turned himself in to authorities in Toronto, Canada, this week on charges of assaulting a limousine driver. And over 100,000 people have signed a petition to the White House, asking that Bieber be deported. How could these two events impact Justin's future immigration status in the United States?

Don't make him fade away.
Photo used under Creative Commons license from @ilovejb123 on Flickr.

If it turns out that Justin is convicted of crimes in any country, and he decides to apply for a green card, he will have to explain his criminal record. Applicants for certain types of immigration benefits, such as asylum or a green card, must disclose any prior criminal convictions. This is true whether the crime occurred in the U.S. or in any other country. If a person doesn't disclose his or her criminal record, it is likely that the government may still find out. Prior criminal convictions won't necessarily prevent someone from getting approved for immigration benefits, but it is important to talk with an attorney before applying to be aware of any risks. The list of crimes that can impact someone's immigration status is very complicated, and an experienced attorney can help determine whether someone's record will cause problems.

Could the White House petition result in Justin's deportation? It's very unlikely, because Justin's crimes likely aren't serious enough to qualify him for deportation. He also has many fans in the U.S. who would like him to stay! Having broad support from your community can be important in certain immigration settings. Under certain circumstances, the law allows the government to exercise discretion, and decide whether a person should be allowed to stay in the United States despite some mishap. Again, it is important to talk to an attorney before requesting prosecutorial discretion. An attorney can help you figure out whether your circumstances would qualify you to apply, and whether you would have a good chance of success.

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.

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.    

Commonwealth v. Flint: Judge Denies Motion For New Trial Due To Incomplete Record

In Commonwealth v. Flint, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the lower court's judgments denying the defendant, Mark Carl Flint, his motion for a new trial. The SJC held that the trial judge properly conducted an evidentiary hearing to reconstruct the record from trial, as enumerated in Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74 (1978). The defendant had argued that he was denied his constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, and effective assistance of counsel because of the absence of a complete transcript of his trial. The guidelines in Harris state that "if the proceedings at trial can be sufficiently reconstructed and presented to the appellate court, a new trial is not constitutionally required when the transcript is not available through no fault of the parties." 


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. 

Massachusetts Expands Program Targeting Illegal Immigrants

A federal program targeting illegal immigrants launched today in Massachusetts, allowing the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to share arrestee fingerprints to expedite identification of illegal immigrants. The goal is to deport illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes, including repeated violations of federal immigration law. The Secure Communities program does not give local police the authority to enforce immigration law, but Governor Deval Patrick believes the program will result in an increase of racial profiling cases and will promote fear in minority communities.

For more on this story from Boston.com, 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 co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters. 

New Updates to CORI Law Launch Today

The Boston Globe reported today that Massachusetts has updated its CORI system today to limit searches of criminal history to 10 years back, but allow for wider access for employers who use the system to screen potential employees. CORI - Criminal Offender Record Information - was passed in 1972 in order "to restrict dissemination of criminal histories to law enforcement agencies" and today it is a central registry where employers, landlords, and third party background screening companies have access to search the criminal backgrounds of potential volunteers and job applicants. 

Supporters of the new overhaul argue that limiting searches to 10 years back, with the exception of homicide and sex offense convictions, will allow "greater opportunities for offenders who stay out of trouble to reintegrate into society." Opponents argue that Massachusetts employers should not be restricted on what information they can access. However, the National Consumer Law Center reported that background screening companies often commit mistakes in their searches, resulting in matching people to crimes they did not commit, revealing sealed juvenile offense, and omitting important information about a case, according to the article. 

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. 

Supreme Court Considers Whether Padilla Ruling Can Apply Retroactively

The United States Supreme Court will decide whether its ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, that immigrant defendants are entitled to effective counsel in criminal cases applies retroactively to criminal cases decided before the 2009 Padilla ruling.   This is significant for immigrants who have criminal convictions before 2009 and whose defense counsel did not advise them of the important immigration consequences of a guilty plea.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled last year in Commonwealth v. Clarke that Padilla applied retroactively in Massachusetts and that criminal defendants who were not adequately advised of the immigration consequences of their plea may be entitled to a new trial.  However, the Supreme Court may now have the final say on the matter.   See Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820.

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.