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.

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.

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.

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.    

BIA Cannot Make Independent Findings of Fact

In the case of Rodriguez v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) cannot independently engage in fact-finding and may only review the record. When an issue is left unresolved by an immigration judge (IJ), and the BIA wants specific factual findings on said issue, the rules require the BIA to remand the case to the IJ instead of making its own factual conclusions.

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.  

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.  

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.

Comprehensive Review of Prosecutorial Discretion Policy Shows Positive Results

ICE prosecutors in Denver, Colorado have been racing to meet the mid-January deadline ordered by the Obama Administration to review 7,900 deportation cases before the immigration court, according to a report in The New York Times. They have identified over 1,000 undocumented immigrants who are in deportation proceedings that are not a security risk, allowing them to remain in the United States without legal status. Even though the deportation becomes closed and off the docket, it can be reopened at any time.

The policy is part of an effort by the Obama Administration to curb deportations of individuals who are considered low-priority cases, such as those with no criminal records, as well as those with deep ties to the United States. Through this policy, ICE is able to prioritize its resources to focus on deporting criminals such as gang members and sex offenders - those who pose a threat to society and security. 

Running a case-by-case review has been a daunting task for the ICE prosecutors, but "they said they liked their newfound flexibility in pursuing cases - more like the routine practice of their peers in criminal courts," according to the report. Immigration court judges welcome the prospect of reduced backlogs. 

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. 

Shortage of Representation for Deportation Cases

The New York Times published an editorial on December 24, 2011, addressing the lack of competent legal representation for individuals facing deportation. The editorial was written based on a study in the Cardozo Law Review that focused on cases in New York state, surveying judges from five immigration courts.


The report revealed that in 14 percent of cases in New York state, "attorneys' preparation and knowledge of the law and the facts were 'grossly inadequate.'" and that growing majority of people had no representation at all. Between October 2005 and July 2010, there were nearly 15,000 cases (27 percent of the total) where immigrants had to appear in court without representation. Indigent immigrants who appear in immigration court are not entitled to court-appointed counsel - a difference between criminal court and immigration court. 


Meanwhile, Congress has cut funding for the federal Legal Services Corporation, which impacts not only immigrants seeking legal representation in immigration court, but also a large number of Americans who need legal aid in civil matters such as home foreclosures, evictions, and child support cases. 


The New York Times editorial suggested some improvements to the current system. For more information, 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, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.

72 Indonesians in New Jersey Fear Deportation

The New York Times reported yesterday that a community of 72 Indonesians living in central New Jersey for the past two years have been ordered to leave the United States by the Department of Homeland Security. Many of the Indonesians had escaped their homeland because of religious persecution. 


The order comes as a surprise to immigration advocates. Earlier this year, the Obama administration shifted its immigration enforcement plan to focus on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records. The Department of Homeland Security issued a directive in June, 2011, that urged immigration agents and lawyers to use prosecutorial discretion in handling deportation cases. The report explained that prosecutorial discretion includes consideration of a variety of factors, such as the duration of time an undocumented immigrant has lived in the United States and whether the undocumented immigrant was brought here as a child. 


Most of the Indonesians that are seeking help from supporters have been living in the United States for about 10 years, have American-born children, are employed, and have no criminal records - meeting many of the criteria necessary for relief provided by the new prosecutorial discretion directive. 


Two members of the House of Representatives have plans to submit a bill to provide relief for the Indonesians who are facing deportation by "allow[ing] certain Indonesians who fled persecution in their homeland between 1997 and 2002 to resubmit asylum claims that had been denied because they missed a one-year filing deadline." 


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.

A Shift Toward Prioritizing Deportation Cases

Two Brazilian students in Boston received a stay of deportation proceedings, a sign that the Obama administration has been implementing a federal directive issued back in June, 2011, according to a report in The Boston Globe.


The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement urged federal immigration officials to "regularly" use their discretion to keep low-priority deportation cases, such as those involving students, the elderly, and other immigrants, from clogging up the system. The goal of the directive is to give the system an opportunity to deport convicted criminals and other high-priority cases more efficiently. 


Homeland Security announced that immigration agents and prosecutors would undergo prosecutorial discretion training by January, 13, 2012. 


The Boston Globe reported that "there are approximately 300,000 cases pending in immigration court nationwide and more than 8,000 in the Boston court, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University." 


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.

Department of Homeland Security to Review Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings

The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") will review pending
immigration court removal and deportation proceedings to determine which
cases should be dismissed because they qualify for discretionary
relief. Cases involving immigrants who qualify for Dream Act benefits,
have close family relations, are elderly, or who served in the military
may be dismissed at the request of DHS. DHS will seek to more quickly
adjudicate cases where the immigrant has been convicted of a serious
criminal offense, are threats to national security or who have prior
orders of deportation. DHS intends to begin by reviewing newly filed
immigration cases and then expanding the review to longer pending
cases. DHS intends to provide their attorney with more authority to
seek dismissal of appropriate cases. DHS is quoted as stating: "We are
empowering the attorneys [DHS Trial Attorneys] nationally to make them
more like federal prosecutors who decide which cases to bring."

Immigration Court & Prosecutorial Discretion

Glickman Turley LLP attorneys’ advocacy resulted in approvals of requests to exercise prosecutorial discretion to terminate removal / deportation proceedings in the Boston Immigration Court. Our attorneys filed compelling petitions to the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) setting forth reasons why particular clients should not be in removal proceedings. ICE attorneys responded favorably to our requests within two weeks.

If you are an immigrant in deporation / removal proceedings, our attorneys can review your record and help you understand whether you are eligible for any relief including an excercise of prosecutorial discretion.

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.

Obama Agrees to Stop Deportation of Many Young Immigrants

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety, according to a recent New York Times article.

The purpose of this policy is to allow the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to devote its resources to deporting high-priority immigrants, such as those with criminal records.

This relief will allow many immigrant children to remain in the United States, especially if they have lived in the U.S. for many years and have gone to school or want to go to school in the U.S.

Glickman Turley attorneys represent immigrants in all immigrantion matters. We represent immigrants in deportation and removal proceedings on applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, voluntary departure and other matters.

Please contact us if you would like to discuss your immigration status. We will continue to follow this excellent delevelopment for young immigrants and hope for more progress in reforming the immigration system.