"Never Say Never"... to Justin Bieber's deportation?

Celebrities such as Lindsay Lohan, Nicolas Cage, and Paris Hilton often make the news when they get on the wrong side of the law. But the recent arrest of Justin Bieber, on allegations of drag racing and driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs, could lead to more serious consequences than just a fine or jail time.

... Except the Miami Beach PD, that is.
Photo used under Creative Commons license from @jiposhy on Flickr.

Bieber is Canadian, and does not hold U.S. citizenship. He is currently in the U.S. on a temporary visa, based on his extraordinary musical abilities. However, because Justin hasn't been formally charged yet, it is unclear whether the offenses would impact his immigration status. Non-citizens in the U.S., such as Bieber, may face deportation or become ineligible for certain types of immigration relief after being convicted of certain crimes. These crimes are formally named "aggravated felonies" or "crimes of moral turpitude" in the law. Although those titles sound serious, some relatively commonplace acts can result in criminal convictions under those categories.

For more news about Justin Bieber's arrest, read this CNN article.

If you are interested in applying for immigration status based on extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (an O visa), Glickman Turley may be able to help you. Even if you aren't a musical sensation, if you are an immigrant facing criminal charges, or if you are an immigrant who already has a criminal record, then it is important for you to talk to an attorney about your immigration status. Contact us today to see how we may be able to help.

Most Americans Support Path to Citizenship, Study Finds

The Public Religion Research Institute found that 63% of Americans supported a path to citizenship for people currently living in the U.S. without legal immigration status. The survey, published today, showed that support is widespread among people of different political parties, religions, and geographic locations within the U.S.

We'd like a path to citizenship, but we're not out of the woods yet.
Photo credit @StooMathiesen on flickr; used under Creative Commons license.

Only about one-fifth of the people surveyed wanted to increase harsh immigration enforcement strategies such as deportations. Even fewer numbers of people liked the idea of allowing undocumented people to gain green cards, but not full citizenship.

More people said they felt that the U.S. immigration system is "completely broken" in response to this survey, conducted in November, than they did in March of this year.

Survey respondents continued to be divided on the question of increased border security and fence construction, with about half in favor and slightly less than half opposed.

To learn more, visit the Public Religion Research Institute's website, and for more information on this survey please read the related article at the New York Times.

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.

Glickman Turley's Client Gets Promising Ruling in Immigration Appeal

One of our clients came to us when she found out she was facing deportation. After her case was rejected by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, Glickman Turley attorneys filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. We requested a stay of removal for this client, so she could remain in the U.S. while her appeal was pending. The stay was granted, but the court also identified several issues it found relevant to her claims. Specifically, the court requested information on the question of whether there was "substantial evidence" to support the BIA's findings that our client would be able to find work in her home country and that she might have been aware of misconduct by her spouse many years ago. It also questioned the BIA's authority to review credibility findings and whether our client's stated intention to exercise her rights under U.S. law, should she become a citizen, could be held against her. 

Although our client's appeal is not yet decided, this is a promising sign. We will exercise our best efforts to fight for her ability to stay in the U.S.

If you are facing deportation, or if you want to change your immigration status, Glickman Turley can help. Contact us today about your immigration issue.

Possibility of Second Chances for Deportees

Legislators are considering adding a provision to the immigration reform bill that would offer a new opportunity for previously deported people to return to the United States. To qualify, deportees would need to have a child, parent, or spouse with legal permanent resident status or U.S. citizenship, and be free of serious criminal convictions. This group would possibly also include people who first arrived in the U.S. before age 16.

This provision is highly controversial, and some people believe it would give an unfair second chance to people who already broke immigration laws. Others feel it is necessary to enable families to be reunited. Conservative lawmakers are still insisting that border security must be the first priority, and granting paths to citizenship should be conditional on achieving certain targets of border security. However, the bill is far from done; senators have filed at least three hundred potential changes, according to the Washington Post.

One of those possible changes would allow U.S. citizens to petition for their same-sex spouses to get green cards. This would allow same-sex couples to have equivalent ability to petition for their spouses as opposite-sex couples have, regardless of what happens with the Supreme Court decision on DOMA.

Lawyers at Glickman Turley LLP are closely following the immigration bill, and we look forward to advising immigrants of their options under the new law.

Immigration Consequences of Marijuana Convictions Are Narrowed

In an opinion released today, Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided that a state conviction for possession with intent to distribute a small amount of marijuana does not constitute “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, a non-citizen convicted of this crime would not be subject to mandatory deportation, and would not lose eligibility for some forms of discretionary relief from deportation.

To avoid triggering immigration consequences, the conviction must be for sharing a "small amount" of marijuana where no money was exchanged. The Court did not define "small amount," but Mr. Moncrieffe had 1.3 grams of marijuana and this was deemed to be small. The Court urged a "commonsense conception" of the terms involved, and the opinion drew a distinction between sharing marijuana and conducting commercial drug dealing.

This case comes just weeks after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that "social sharing of marijuana is akin to simple possession, and does not constitute the facilitation of a drug transfer from seller to buyer that remains the hallmark of drug distribution." The SJC found that sharing a joint is a civil infraction and not a criminal offense. In two related cases, the SJC found that non-criminal possession or use of marijuana cannot be the basis of a search. The Court also stated that growing one ounce or less of marijuana for personal use only should not be considered a crime.

If you are facing criminal charges related to marijuana, or immigration issues that come from a criminal conviction, please contact our office to see how we could help you.

Budget Cuts and Immigration Detainees

Federal immigration officials have recently released hundreds of detainees from detention centers around the country.  Officials stated that this was done in an effort to save money in light of looming budget cuts.  More releases are still possible depending on the outcome of budget negotiations.  A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) emphasized that the detainees who were released were “noncriminals and other low-risk offenders who do not have serious criminal histories.”  

Officials would not specify exactly how many detainees were released or where they were released from.  Immigrant advocates have reported that detainees were released from detention in New Jersey, Texas, Florida, New Orleans, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia and New York.

The government has not dropped the deportation cases altogether.  The detainees were merely freed on supervised release while their cases are pending.  Under supervised release, defendants in immigration cases will be required to report regularly at a regional immigration office.

You can read more about the releases here.

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.

DACA and Potential Pitfall for Job Verification from Employers

The New York Times reported that businesses are concerned about providing job verification documentation for deferred deportation applicants. The Obama Administration announced in June 2012 that young undocumented immigrants will be able to apply for two year deferred deportation while obtaining legal work permits. The program does not allow applicants to gain legal immigration status. 

The program has been a source of concern for employers who have been approached by their employees to provide job verification that proves they have been in the country for the requisite time period (for more on if you qualify for DACA, click here.) When applicants admit to being an undocumented workers, employers  may have to fire them until the applicants legally obtain a work permit. Also, employers fear that if they agree to provide a job verification request, it will serve as proof that they knowingly hired an undocumented immigrant, which violates federal law. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released guidelines that confirm "the businesses could provide verification for deferred deportation applicants. This information will not be shared with the enforcement authorities, 'unless there is evidence of egregious violations of criminal statutes or widespread abuses.'" 

For more on this story, click here. 

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.    

Demographic Profile of DREAMers: A Closer Look

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) has released a demographic profile of immigrants who stand to benefit from the Obama Administration's deferred action plan that was announced in June, 2012. According to the IPC, "...approximately 1.4 million immigrants currently in the United States who might meet the requirements of the deferred action initiative, either now or when they are older." The deferred action plan allows individuals to obtain "a two-year, renewable reprieve from deportation to unauthorized immigrants who are under the age of 31; entered the United States before age 16; have lived continuously in the country for at least five years; have not been convicted of a felony, a 'significant' misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors; and are currently in school, graduated from high school, earned a GED, or served in the military." Contact our attorneys at Glickman Turley LLP to schedule a consultation in order to apply for the deferred action initiative. 


For more on the IPC profile, 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. 

Same-Sex Spouses and Immigration: Obama Administration Strives to Change Discrimination

The Obama administration continues to make strides to change long-standing discrimination in immigration law. Read about the suspension of deportation/removal of an illegal Irishman married to his US citizen husband. It is important to note that as this point no particular DHS has not granted any immigration benefits to same-sex spouses of US citizens, however, this case and others show that DHS may close removal proceedings in certain cases. We eagerly await more changes in policy that will allow same-sex spouses of US citizens to be successful in their affirmative applications for immigration relief for their spouses. Until then, contact our attorneys to to schedule a consultation and learn about current policy as related to LGBT issues and immigration law.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Gay-married-illegal-Irishman-has-his-deportation-suspended--163155386.html#ixzz21AWESfdw


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.  

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Two Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases recently. One case involved a widow's claim that her children conceived by her late husband's sperm were entitled to survivor's benefits and the other case held that illegal immigrants cannot take advantage of a parent's lawful residence status when they are charged with crimes subjecting them to deportation, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

In Astrue v. Capato, the Court upheld "the government's multi-part definition of who deserves survivors benefits" in a 9-0 decision. Karen Capato had used sperm her late husband had deposited in a sperm bank to conceive her twins. She argued that the children were entitled to survivors benefits because they qualified as "natural children", despite being born after her husband's death, under the Social Security Act. The Court rejected her claim because regulations "define a 'natural child' as one who could inherit the father's property under state law." The Capatos were residents of Florida where state law specifies that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to inherit the late parent's property. The children were not named in their father's will before he passed.

In Holder v. Martinez-Gutierrez, the Court ruled that when illegal immigrants are charged with a crime that exposes them to deportation, they cannot take advantage of their parent's lawful residence. The Court held that "individuals must hear their own leniency through years of lawful residence."

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.  

United We Dream Network Campaign Raises Awareness

The New York Times reported that the United We Dream Network has launched a campaign to increase pressure on President Obama to act on preventing young illegal immigrants from being deported. The Dream Act, a proposal in Congress, would allow young illegal immigrants to obtain legal status in order to defer deportation and to attend college. Currently, many young illegal immigrants graduating high school are not able to enroll in college partly because they cannot apply for financial aid. Those who do graduate from college are then prevented from finding a job since they cannot legally work in the US.

The article stated that "The current proposal of the Dream Act would give legal status to foreign-born high school graduates who came to the United States illegally as children, if they complete two years of college or military service." President Obama has voiced his support for the Dream Act. However in 2010, the Act passed the House but did not pass through Senate due to opposition from the Republicans. For more on this story, 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.  

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. 

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. 

Allegations Arise Against ICE: Did the Government Lie to the Supreme Court?

Washington Square Legal Services, Inc. (WSLS) alleges that the Office of the Solicitor General may have lied in front of the Supreme Court in a 2009 case (Nken v. Holder) as to whether the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had a policy in place for returning individuals who had been wrongfully deported. WSLS issued a press release on March 9, 2012, stating that a new memo from ICE dated February 24, 2012, demonstrated that there was no government policy in place to return wrongfully deported individuals in 2009 and raises more questions than answers about how ICE deals with these cases. 


"It includes no concrete information on how people wrongfully deported are to be returned to the United States. Instead, this memo seems designed to help the government convince courts that it has a polic in place, when all other evidence points to the contrary," said Jessica Chicco of the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project at Boston College. 


ICE claimed that the policy has always existed but the latest February directive does not provide effective relief  measures nor does it provide a procedural framework. The directive also failed to explain how the government would communicate with individuals who have been wrongfully deported how they could return to the United States, particularly for individuals who do not have legal representation in the U.S. 


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. 

First Circuit Held that Immigration Court Deprived Defendant of Due Process in US v. Miszczuk

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that even though the defendant in US v. Miszczuk was removable based on his past criminal convictions, the Immigration Court failed to put on record any findings of fact or law that substantiated the removal order. The First Circuit highlighted that even though immigration court proceedings are within the executive branch of the government, they are still civil proceedings that must meet the constitutional standards of due process. 


The defendant had been subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration Court. He subsequently did not cooperate with officials to effectuate the deportation back to his native Poland by refusing to sign travel documents. After being detained for five years, the defendant was also charged criminally with "willful failure or refusal to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to his departure." 


The First Circuit called this an "unusual criminal offense" that provides the defendant the option to request the Court to review the validity of the removal order before he could be brought to trial on the criminal charges. The defendant exercised this option and the First Circuit concluded that "The absence of any findings of fact, or documented application of the facts to the law by the immigration officer in this case may be enough for this Court to find the removal order inadequate and to dismiss the criminal case...Absent clear findings of removability, this Court cannot invent reasons by which the defendant might be lawfully convicted." Therefore, Immigration Court proceedings need to meet procedural and substantive due process requirements. 


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.

United States v. Farrell Decision By US Court of Appeals for First Circuit

In a new ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court determined that the Massachusetts crimes of burglary or breaking and entering may not be a violent felony for armed career offender purposes.   The definition of crime of violence for that law is similar to the definition applicable to determining whether the crime is a crime of violence for immigration purposes.   Immigrants in removal proceedings based upon aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude arising from convictions for burglary or breaking and entering may have new arguments for relief.   The case is United States v. Farrell,  First Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2012.


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.