Archive for the ‘Immigration Court’ Category
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
On March 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision, Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10-1211, rejecting the retroactive application of a provision of an immigration law passed by Congress in 1996 that has prevented many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from returning to the United States after a trip abroad. Citing the “deeply rooted presumption” against applying new laws retroactively, the Court ruled 6-3 that LPRs who temporarily leave the country cannot be denied readmission on account of criminal convictions that occurred before the law took effect.
The Justice Department argued that LPRs with certain criminal convictions may be barred from re-entering the United States any time they leave the country—even if the law in effect at the time of their guilty pleas did not make them eligible for deportation or ineligible for reentry to the United States. The Supreme Court properly rejected this argument, noting that the government’s interpretation effectively prevented such LPRs from ever leaving the country.
In sum, before Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, lawful permanent residents who had committed a crime of moral turpitude could return from brief trips abroad without applying for admission to the United States. However, after enactment of IIRIRA n 1996, lawful permanent residents who had committed a crime of moral turpitude were required to reapply for admission to the U.S. and the crime of moral turpitude (even though committed before the 1996 law) would place the lawful permanent resident into removal proceedings. This U.S. Supreme Court decision concludes that a returning lawful permanent resident cannot be placed in removal proceedings for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed before the 1996 IIRIRA laws.
Tags: 1996, 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, travel, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Immigration Court, Removal/Deportation | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their criminal attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation. The rule established through this case was that criminal defendants must be advised by their criminal attorney of the immigration consequences of a guilty or no contest plea in criminal proceedings. However, the case failed to state whether the rule applies retroactively, meaning, can criminal defendants who pled before 2010 (when the case was decided) claim ineffective assistance of counsel and challenge their prior convictions. In the State of Florida, the criminal courts have held that the Padilla decision is not retroactive and only applies to convictions after 2010.
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon revisit this issue and decide whether the rule established in Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 decision, applies retroactively (or before 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chaidez v. United States to determine whether Padilla applies to persons whose convictions became final before the 2010 court decision. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the 2010 Padilla decision is retroactive, then noncitizen convicted before 2010 that were not informed by their criminal attorney that their plea carries a risk of deportation may have an opportunity to vacate their convictions. This would allow many noncitizens who were removed/deported or currently in removal proceedings to challenge criminal convictions where they were not properly advised of immigration consequences of their pleas.
Tags: 212(h), 212(i), 245(i), AAO, actor, Adam Walsh Act, adjustment of status, admission, adopted child, advance parole, affidavit of support, aged-out children, appeals, approval notice, arrest, arriving alien, asylum/refugee petitions, athlete, automatic citizenship, B-1, B-2, battered spouse petitions, BIA review, biometrics, brother, C, cancellation of removal, CBP, child, citizenship, conditional status, consular, conviction, crew, crime, crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes of moral turpitude, criminal conviction, D, daughter, death of petitioner, death of sponsor, deferred inspection, department of homeland security, department of state, deportation, derivative beneficiaries, detention, DHS, diversity visa lottery, DNA, doctor, dual citizenship, E-1, E-2, E-3, EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, EB-5, embassy, employment authorization, entry without inspection, expedited removal, extreme hardship, family & employment sponsorship, farm worker, fiancé visas, Florida, forms, freedom of information act, G, good moral character, green cards, Guyana, Guyanese, H-1A, H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H-2B, H3, habeas corpus, Haiti, Haitian, Honduras, HRIFA, humanitarian., ICE, immediate relative, immigrant visa, Immigration Attorney, immigration lawyer, inadmissibility grounds, international adoptions, investor visas, J, joint sponsor, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, Kissimmee, L, labor certification, lawful permanent resident, legalization, M, marriage, marriage fraud, Miami, military, motion to reopen, musician, NAFTA, national visa center, naturalization, nonimmigrant visa, notice of hearing, notice to appear, NSEERS, nurse, O, Orlando, P, padilla, parent, passport, physician, preference category, priority worker, professor, prosecutorial discretion, public charge, receipt notice, registry, reinstatement of petitions, relief from removal, religious worker petitions, removal, request for evidence, S, SEVIS, sister, skilled worker, son, special immigrant, spouse, student visas, T, Tampa, temporary protected status, TN, tourist visa, U, unlawful presence, unskilled worker, USCIS, V, veterans, visa waiver program, voluntary departure, waivers, widow, widow petitions, withholding of removal
Posted in Immigration Court, Removal/Deportation | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009
EOIR’s Fraud and Abuse Program provides a systemic response to identifying and referring instances of suspected fraud and abuse by:
- Serving as a point of contact to receive information relating to instances of suspected immigration fraud or abuse. The Fraud Program receives referrals regarding improper activity by aliens, practitioners, and immigration consultants from many sources, including the public. Referrals to the Fraud Program may be sent via e-mail to EOIR.Fraud.Program@usdoj.gov.
- Coordinating with federal and state law enforcement entities and disciplinary authorities to ensure that cases of fraud and abuse are appropriately investigated and prosecuted.
- Coordinating with EOIR’s Attorney Discipline Program in cases that call for the discipline of immigration attorneys and non-attorney practitioners who represent aliens before the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Department of Homeland Security.
- Conducting Fraud Program training for EOIR employees and providing guidance and resource materials regarding fraud and abuse issues on an ongoing basis.
Posted in Immigration Court | No Comments »
