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 Lady Visits Boston Today

First Lady Michelle Obama will be visiting Boston this evening for a reception and $5,000- to $25,000-a-head dinner at the Institute of Contemporary Art to benefit the Obama Victory Fund, according to The Boston Globe. Obama will spend the earlier part of the day campaigning in New Hampshire on behalf of her national initiative to combat childhood obesity. 


The Institute of Contemporary Art is located at 100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA - just a few blocks away from the offices of Glickman Turley LLP on 250 Summer Street, Boston, MA (click here for a map of our address). 


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. 

New Housing Discrimination Rule Protects LGBT Families

The Obama administration's new federal housing regulation that prevents discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation went into effect yesterday, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. The new rule expands the definition of "family" to protect LGBT families against discrimination and exclusion from U.S. Housing and Urban Development programs. Owners and operators of federally-funded or federally-insured housing, and lenders offering federally-insured mortgages, will no longer be able to discriminate against members of the LGBT community based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. For more information, including a guide called "Know Your Rights: Fair Housing and Transgender People," 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. 

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

Glickman Turley LLP News: Sexually Explicit Photo Case Dismissed

Attorney Paul Glickman successfully argued that a sexually explicit photo texted as part of an online dating conversation was not obscene under Massachusetts law and that it could not be the basis for a criminal prosecution.  The Plymouth County Clerk Magistrate issued a written opinion finding that there was no probable cause for prosecution under the standards for determining obscenity set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).


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.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over 351 Year Old Will

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments over dispute involving a will that is 351 years old. William Payne was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant who bequeathed in his will that a land called "Little Neck" in Ipswich, Massachusetts, "shall never be sold, and shall 'for euer' be used to benefit Ipswich public schools" and that "the sayd land not to bee sould or wasted." 


The trustees of the will had been planning to sell the land recently but a group of Ipswich parents are fighting to stop the sale. A lawyer for the trustees said that proceeds from the land sale could be invested and bring in more funds to Ipswich public schools. One Ipswich parent argued that the point of this lawsuit is not about the money, but rather a question of why anyone in Massachusetts would bother creating a charitable trust if the terms of the trust can be violated. Under current Massachusetts law, if the mission of the trust becomes impossible to carry out, then the terms of a charitable trust can be violated. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has not rendered a decision in this case yet. 


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.