If 'Unauthorized' is Good Enough for the Supreme Court...

Charles Garcia says the phrase "illegal immigrant" is a slur.  Ruben Navarrette disagrees.


The Supreme Court and I take different tacks altogether.


In Arizona et al. v. United States, the majority opinion consistently uses the term "unauthorized" to modify the words "alien," "worker," "employee" and "employment."  Only when quoting other sources - or older Supreme Court decisions - does the Court use the I-Word.


This is consistent with my suggestion, building on the work of many others, that "unauthorized" as a modifier is less pejorative and more accurate...not to mention consistent with the language used in federal statutes.


I also part ways with Navarrette on one other point: for the reasons I discuss in my post, I don't find the word "alien" to be offensive.


And both Navarrette and Garcia need correction on one point: while merely being in the United States without a visa, or overstaying one's visa, is not a crime, crossing into the U.S. without permission is, indeed, a federal misdemeanor crime, and sometimes a felony, depending on the circumstances.


In the end, fighting over labels is a distraction from the hard work of crafting a comprehensive solution that could moot the language dispute.

Special visas offer protection to immigrant victims

Brandon Wade/Special Contributor

Jenna Carl, Immigration and Legal Services case manager at Catholic Charities of Dallas, speaks about the importance of T and U visas and collaboration with local law enforcement during a news conference Wednesday in Irving.

By DIANNE SOLÍS and JASON TRAHAN

Staff Writers

Published: 16 November 2011 11:10 PM

 IRVING — The young woman had endured the verbal abuse for years, but when her boyfriend turned his fists on her, she finally fled with their child.

Despite the woman’s unlawful immigration status in Texas, Dallas police and the Dallas County district attorney’s office helped her. Soon, Catholic Charities of Dallas was involved, too. Today, the woman — who is in her 20s and married to someone else — holds a “U” visa, one of more than 25,000 that have been given since 2009 to immigrant victims of domestic violence and other serious crimes, such as rape and assault.

“It didn’t seem possible that something good could come out of something so bad,” said the woman, who requested anonymity.

This week, federal immigration officials are in the Dallas area training nearly three dozen law enforcement and social-service agencies on the U visas, as well as a similar document known as a “T” visa. Both enable illegal immigrant crime victims to remain in the U.S. up to four years if they agree to work with authorities to solve the crimes.

Advocates had argued for years about the need for a program to help immigrant victims of serious crimes. In the last two fiscal years, the federal government has reached its annual cap of 10,000 for U visas. Last fiscal year, the government issued the most T visas ever for human-trafficking victims — 557.

The visas, though, are another point of controversy in the already-heated, often-partisan immigration debate.

Critics say illegal immigrants should receive no assistance, even if they are the victims of a crime. But supporters of the special visas believe the victims should be protected and that their assistance in catching violent criminals is crucial to keeping a community safe.

“We want everyone … to know what kind of help there is for immigrants who are crime victims,” said Lisa Kehl, the Dallas district director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency launched a public-awareness campaign in the area this week that features a confidential hotline for reporting trafficking crimes.

Officials also held a news conference Wednesday to provide the public with details about the programs.

Tapping down the fear many immigrants have of law enforcement agencies is a huge obstacle to getting help for people living and working off the grid, officials say. Many illegal immigrants do not report crimes to police for fear of deportation — which leads to more victimization and more unsolved crimes.

“Their lives are at risk by remaining a victim,” said Alysa Erichs, the acting special agent in charge with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas.

With both the T and the U visas, certain family members of the visa-holder may also be granted legal protection to remain in the country. T and U visa-holders who are under 21 years of age may also apply for their parents or their siblings who are younger than 18.

Recipients of the T and U visas are eligible for employment.

To qualify, police or prosecutors have to verify that a crime actually occurred, to cut down on people attempting to trick the system.

“The prosecutor assigned to the case is typically the one sponsoring that the victim has been, or is being cooperative,” said Dallas County district attorney’s office spokeswoman Jamille Bradfield.

The Dallas Police Department “acts as a certifying agency for the petitioner,” said Lt. Scott Walton, department spokesman. “In that role, we do have criteria in place that helps ensure an offense did occur in Dallas and that the complainant is helping to further investigation.”

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said she agrees there is a need to protect legitimate crime victims but said the program is ripe for abuse.

“There are many people trying to launder their status by concocting false or frivolous stories of victimization,” she said. “Some police departments will not approve any requests because there have been so many attempts at abuse.”

She favors an audit of a random sampling of cases “in order to assess what kind of individuals are benefiting from the program.”

Vanna Slaughter, head of Immigration and Legal Services for Catholic Charities in Dallas, said in her work with the immigrant community, fraud with U visas is rare, mostly because the documentation required to get approval is so involved.

“Hospital records, police reports, transcripts from the jury trial, even newspaper articles can be included as corroboration that the person is a crime victim,” Slaughter said. “Even then, the service center can request additional evidence.”

The Mexican woman who used the U visa to protect her from her boyfriend’s violence said she believes in the value of the program.

“I didn’t just go through this so I could have a green card,” she said Wednesday during a telephone interview. “Having been a victim of domestic abuse, my main message is not to be afraid. They can be safe and they don’t have to live like that. They can come out of it.”

dsolis@dallasnews.com

jtrahan@dallasnews.com

IN THE KNOW

Hotline number

Contact the 24-hour confidential hotline at: 888-373-7888.

Asylum Victory: Gang-Related Violence

Paul S. Haar writes: "I thought that you and my colleagues would appreciate the recent (redacted) decision of Immigration Judge John Milo Bryant of the U.S. Immigration Court at Arlington, Virginia in which he applied the recent Fourth Circuit case of Crespin-Valladares in holding that family members of an individual who was the subject of gang-related violence constitute a protected social group meriting a grant of asylum for our client.  A hard-fought case and well-deserved victory."

 

Paul S. Haar, Esq.
Law Offices of Paul S. Haar
1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel.: 202/862-4328
Fax: 202/862-4397
E-mail: paulhaar@aol.com
Website: www.paulhaarlaw.com

Breaking News: TRO Issued In H-2B Prevailing Wage Hike Lawsuit

"Based on the facts set forth in the motion, the complaint, supporting declarations and the memoranda, plaintiffs have sufficiently established that they meet the requirements for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that neither defendant is authorized by statute to issue either the Final Wage Rule titled 'Wage Methodology for the Temporary non-Agricultural Employment H-2B Program" (76 Fed. Reg. 3452 (Jan. 19,2011)) or the Final Expediting Rule titled "Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment H-2B Program; Amendment of Effective Date" (76 Fed. Reg. 45,667) (Aug. 1,2011 )), these rules are inconsistent with and prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act, these rules fail to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and these rules are arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, plaintiffs will be imminently and irreparably harmed if these ruled were to go into effect, in that certain plaintiff small businesses will be unable to continue employing H-2B employees and, as a result, will be unable to complete existing contracts, which then are likely to be taken over by competitors located in low-cost labor markets. This, in turn, will imperil the continued viability of plaintiff small businesses and create an economic impact on small entities that could exceed $100 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. In contrast, defendants will suffer no harm as a result of this Temporary Restraining Order. Thus, the public interest favors the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to maintain the status quo until a preliminary injunction hearing is conducted, and this Temporary Restraining Order is granted with notice in order to avoid further harm to the plaintiffs."

Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services, et al., v. Solis, CASE NO.: 3:11cv445/MCRIEMT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, PENSACOLA DIVISION, Sept. 26, 2011.

BIB - Daily Edition Gets An Upgrade

Dear BIB - Daily Edition Readers,

Over the past six years you have elevated BIBDE from an obscure blog to a recognized "voice" in the immigration news world.  Now, I am pleased to announce that on Monday, October 3, 2011, BIBDE will "upgrade" and migrate to a new and much more powerful platform: the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community.  As you know, LexisNexis Matthew Bender has always been the sole sponsor of BIBDE, so "sponsorship" remains unchanged.  And whereas before I labored alone, now I will be joined by several skilled technical and legal professionals from LexisNexis and beyond.

The new Community features a variety of content and resources including all of the BIB - Daily Edition content.  The site will feature blogs, podcasts, and commentary from leading immigration law professionals alongside LexisNexis resources such as Immigration Law & Procedure, Bender's Immigration Bulletin and the entire lineup of LexisNexis Matthew Bender immigration publications.

With the launch of this new resource, we will be transitioning users of BIBDE to the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community where you will be able to view all of the same content and more.  BIBDE will redirect to the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community beginning on October 3, 2011.  On that Monday  you will also begin receiving Daily Email Newsletter Alerts from the Immigration Law Community.

The Alerts will contain the same BIB Daily content that you’ve been receiving with the opportunity to include additional content from the Immigration Law Community.

To add additional content to your Daily Newsletter Alert, you will first need to activate your Immigration Law Community account by resetting your password on the following page: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/immigration-law/user/emailforgottenpassword.aspx  Please use the email address that is associated with your BIB -Daily Edition subscription.

Once you’ve entered your email address and clicked on the “Recover Password” button, you’ll receive a confirmation via email within 15 minutes.  The email confirmation will provide instruction on resetting your password and will direct you back to the Immigration Law Community where you can sign in using your email address and newly established password.

Once you have signed into the Immigration Law Community, you can navigate to the Newsletter page and add additional content to your alert from the Immigration Law Community as well as the other 17 LexisNexis Community sites.

(During this transition, should you have technical questions or problems, please write to Tracie Morris or Gregg Lawson: tracie.morris@lexisnexis.com   gregg.lawson@lexisnexis.com)

We are excited to bring this new experience to you and we look forward to hearing your feedback.  Change can bring challenges, and the new platform is a work in progress, so please let me know how the transition is working for you, and how we can make your ILC experience more rewarding.

Many thanks,

Daniel M. Kowalski

Asylum Victory in Chicago: trafficking; Congo, Belgium

Ashley Huebner writes: "On August 9th, 2011, the National Immigrant Justice Center and pro bono attorneys from the Chicago office of McDermott Will & Emery LLP obtained asylum for a woman from the Democratic Republic of the Congo based on the harm that she suffered as a victim of sex trafficking.  This decision was unique in that the majority of the harm that the client suffered occurred in Belgium, where the client was trafficked, and not in the DRC itself.  However, the judge found that this harm was a direct and inevitable consequence of having been trafficked from the DRC and therefore constituted persecution of the client in the DRC.  The judge further held that the client had been targeted for sex trafficking because of her membership in the particular social group of “young Congolese women who have participated in prostitution.”  Finally, the judge found that even if DHS had rebutted the presumption of future persecution, the client was still eligible for asylum because she would suffer “other serious harm” if she were returned to the DRC.  A redacted copy of the decision is attached."  Matter of X-, Aug. 9, 2011.

Ashley Huebner

Supervising Attorney, Asylum Project
National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)
A Heartland Alliance Partner
T: 312-660-1303
F: 312-660-1506
www.immigrantjustice.org

Unpub. BIA mandatory detention victory in Va.

Thomas K. Ragland writes: "Attached is a BIA decision I just received in a hard-fought case.  DHS charged my client, who was convicted in Virginia of misdemeanor attempted sexual battery, with aggravated felony “sexual abuse of a minor” – and insisted he was subject to mandatory detention.  I challenged the aggfel charge in Immigration Court, the IJ agreed and ordered release on $10K bond.  DHS appealed to the BIA and invoked the automatic stay at 8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2), ensuring he would not be released.  I filed a habeas petition in ED Va. and, one week later, DHS relented and withdrew the automatic stay.  My client was released but DHS aggressively litigated the BIA appeal.  Nearly a year and a half later, the BIA has dismissed DHS’s appeal, agreeing that the conviction is not an aggfel under proper application of the modified categorical approach and controlling Fourth Circuit law.  The BIA also agreed that DHS failed to prove my client is a danger to the community or a flight risk."  Matter of X-, Sept. 8, 2011.

Unpub. BIA late-filed asylum victory: changed/extraordinary circumstances

"[W]e disagree with the Immigration Judge's determination that, since the respondent had already submitted an asylum application in [date] based upon a fear of persecution on account of his sexual orientation, his discovery of his HIV positive status in [date] could not qualify as a change in the respondent's circumstances that materially affected his eligibility for asylum (I.J. at 7-8). We find that it is a changed circumstance materially affecting his asylum eligibility. We therefore conclude that despite his arrival in the United States in 1998, the respondent should have been permitted to apply for due to his discovery of his HIV status."

Matter of X-, July 14, 2011.  [Hats off to Paul O'Dwyer!]

Another Padilla habeas victory in Texas

Marfa superstar Steve Spurgin writes: "Attached is the first published Padilla decision out of Texas' 11th Court of Appeals.  These Eastland justices understand Padilla and correctly reversed the trial court, mandating ICE's release from detention for my young LPR client - detained for over 18 months - with no other criminal history."

The Court said: "When the deportation consequence is clear, as it is in this case, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1483. Inasmuch as counsel did not give Salazar correct advice, we hold that Salazar has satisfied the first prong of Strickland. ... We hold that Salazar established that he was prejudiced because he would have gone to trial given the correct information about his deportation status and because a decision to reject the plea bargain in favor of a trial would have been rational under the circumstances. Consequently, we hold that Salazar satisfied the second prong of Strickland. ... [C]ounsel's duty to give correct legal advice where the consequences of a guilty plea with respect to deportation are clear carries with it the obligation to investigate what the deportation consequences to the client would be given the client's individual circumstances. ... We reverse the trial court's order denying the writ, vacate the Orders of Deferred Adjudication and Placement on Community Supervision, and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings so that Salazar may answer the indictment."- Salazar v. State, Aug. 31, 2011.

AAO Extreme Hardship Victory; Violence In Mexico A Factor

"According to Mr. Y, he does not know much about Mexico and when he has traveled there, he has both witnessed and personally experienced violence. The AAO takes administrative notice that the U.S. Department of State urges U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to parts of Mexico, including Sinaloa, where the applicant and Mr. Y contend they would live, due to ongoing violence and persistent security concerns. The U.S. Department of State recognizes that one of Mexico's most powerful transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) is based. in the state of Sinaloa. U.S. Department of State, Travel Warning, Mexico, dated April 22, 2011. Considering all of these factors cumulatively, the AAO finds that the hardship Mr. Y would experience if he had to move to Mexico is extreme, going well beyond those hardships ordinarily associated with inadmissibility or exclusion. The AAO therefore finds that the evidence of hardship, considered in the aggregate and in light of the Cervantes-Gonzalez factors cited above, supports a finding that Mr. Y faces extreme hardship if the applicant is refused admission."  Matter of X-, Aug. 10, 2011. [Hats off to Philip Hornik!]

AAO Motion Timing

Doug Stump writes: "I have seen discussion on several list serves suggesting that one only has 15 days to file a Motion to Reopen the revocation of a previously approved petition because the appeal time for such a revocation is only 15 days. The TSC asserted that very argument in the cases underlying the attached decision from the AAO.  The AAO got it right when it held the 30 days set out in 8 CFR 103.5(a)(1)(i) is applicable to revocations. Maybe this will be beneficial to others as well."

T. Douglas Stump

50 Penn Place, Ste. 1320

1900 N.W. Expressway

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

(405)879-0800

 Website: www.usvisagroup.com

Motion in Limine Victory in S.F.

Francisco Ugarte writes: "I wanted to share with folks a recent written decision granting in part our Motion in Limine, which requested procedural protections for Respondents during their suppression hearing.   While we have filed many of these procedural motions, this is the first time I have seen a written decision on these issues.  In the decision, the Court applies longstanding criminal law procedural principles, which exist in criminal suppression hearings, to immigration suppression hearings.  Similarly, the Court found that while Matter of Barcenas holds that there is no “right to a suppression hearing,” Barcenas does not preclude immigration judges from ordering a hearing designed exclusively to adjudicate the suppression motion.  The only problem is that the judge still provided DHS with an opportunity to provide additional evidence of alienage of Respondents after Respondents made a prima facie case—which, in this case, could mean more than a year after the original motion to suppress was filed.  This could present due process problems (if the evidence was in the possession of DHS but not provided to Respondents until after they fully briefed the issues).  Regardless, I believe this decision can be helpful to others dealing with suppression motions.  I’d like to thank Mike Wishnie and the Yale Immigration Clinic for providing a sample motion, which was helpful in crafting and arguing these procedural law issues."

Francisco Ugarte
Immigration Attorney, Dolores Street Community Services

San Francisco Immigrant Legal & Education Network | SFILEN

938 Valencia St.

San Francisco, CA  94110

Work: (415) 282-6209 x23

Cell:    (415) 571-3470

Fax:     (415) 282-2826

ICE reminder to local jail re 48-hr detainer rule

Craig R. Shagin writes: "I am attaching an interesting letter [dated Aug. 10, 2011] that was produced following a state habeas action I filed. It is from Director Decker reminding by Fax the Warden of Adams County Prison in Pennsylvania that he is only to hold detainees for 48 hours past the state authorized detention.  I thought this might be an important piece of evidence in any case in which it was important to demonstrate the awareness by ICE of the repeated violations of this requirement by state agencies."

Craig R. Shagin
Shagin Law Group LLC
120 South Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101  

cshagin@shaginlaw.com

Unpub. BIA Victory in TX: conviction vacated; remand

Michelle Saenz-Rodriguez writes: "Thought I would pass along a good BIA (unpublished) decision George just got on a  recent Padilla case.  The BIA does a nice job of addressing the Pickering standard and why it should be sent back to the trial court  The TA’s office had opposed the motion and the BIA reopened it Sua Sponte." Michelle L. Saenz-Rodriguez - www.sralawonline.com

Editor's Corner: Think Like A Bureaucrat

Aug. 19:  The White House and DHS made a big splash on August 18, 2011 by announcing a new deportation policy.  Under the initiative, some 300K immigration court cases will be reviewed.  Low-priority cases (students, dishwashers, nannies, dry-wallers) may get dumped or shelved, enabling the courts to focus on deporting the real bad guys - "criminal aliens."  And all new incoming cases will be reviewed as well, with the possibility of low-profile cases not being filed with the immigration court in the first place.  Under this initiative, some immigrants may be eligible for work permits until the dust settles.

But how will this play out in the trenches?  To answer that question, think like a bureaucrat.

Those in charge of implementing this new initiative at the ground level are ICE career prosecutors, deportation officers and administrators.  Until now they have made their bones and have been promoted on the strength of how many folks they arrested, detained and deported, and how fast.  Being "bad guys" has been good for their careers.

Now, suddenly, they are being told to be "good guys."  Huh?  If I am an ICE bureaucrat, my first question will be, "How will I (or will I) be rewarded for moving a case from the 'deport' pile over to the 'back burner' pile?"  Until that question is answered very clearly, little or nothing will change, and the policy will be seen as nothing more than a blatant election-cycle play for the Latino vote.  For this to work, ICE bureaucrats will need to know they will be rewarded and protected if they take a DREAM Act-eligible student out of the deport queue.

It's one thing to make a big play for the media at the White House and DHS Secretary level.  Will they follow up with clear instructions to the field - and a reward system - that will stick?

- Daniel M. Kowalski, Editor-in-Chief, Bender's Immigration Bulletin and Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition.

Padilla - Coram Nobis victory in Ohio

Neil Fleischer writes: "I won what I thought was a pretty big case in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio that sets some good precedent. I brought a Writ of Coram Nobis which was  granted.  Basically , Judge Spiegel ruled that Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively and vacated my client's 1999 bank embezzlement conviction. I assume government will appeal , but right now it is good law."

U.S. v. Reid, No. 1:97-CR-94, S.D. Ohio, W.D., Aug. 4, 2011.

Neil I. Fleischer Esq.

The Fleischer Law Firm LLC

917 Main Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(p) (513)977-4209

(toll free)  1-888-242-1803

(fax) (513)977-4218

www.immigrate2usa.com

Blog: http://immigrate2usa.blogspot.com/

BIA Oral Argument - Report

Attorney Raymond Lahoud, of the Law Offices of Baurkot & Baurkot in Easton, PA, presented oral argument at the BIA on an important aggravated felony issue.  Pasted below are his pre-argument notes, his post-argument report, and links to documents.  Hats off to you, Ray!

-------------------

Board of Immigration Appeals Schedules Oral Arguments in Case of Dominican National Who Has Been Detained for Nearly Two Years -- Decision Expected to Have Far Reaching Implications

August 7, 2011 – Falls Church, VA – The Board of Immigration Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for a case involving a long term Permanent Resident, who was born in the Dominican Republic, and has been detained in immigration custody without bond for nearly two years.  The Resident, a long term resident of Easton, Pennsylvania, who’s name cannot be released for privacy concerns, has three children, has been married for over a decade and, prior to his detention, was the owner of a lucrative auto shop in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  When taken into custody, pursuant to the harsh mandatory detention statute found in the Immigration & Nationality Act, the family business was destroyed and the Resident’s wife and children lost their home, cars and their only source of financial support, as well as a large part of their emotional support.

Removal proceedings were instituted in February of 2010, based on the alien’s 2002 conviction for Attempted Arson in the Third Degree in New York.  “It took immigration almost a decade to commence removal proceedings against my client,” said Raymond Lahoud, the alien’s attorney who will be orally arguing the case before the Board of Immigration Appeals on August 10, 2011.  Lahoud, a national Deportation Defense attorney for Baurkot & Baurkot, noted that his client “was prepared to win this case last year, but the Department of Homeland Security filed a last minute motion, claiming that the offense that [he] was convicted of was an aggravated felony, under Immigration Law.  When a crime is deemed an aggravated felony, the consequences are devastating and make it impossible for any individual in deportation proceedings to assert any form of relief.”

Judge Walter Durling rendered a decision at York, Pennsylvania’s Immigration Court, against Lahoud’s client, agreeing with the Department of Homeland Security’s flawed argument that, just because parts of the New York statute were found in a federal aggravated felony statute, the New York statute is deemed an aggravated felony.

“The York Deportation Court’s decision was flawed in every way and lacked any support in case law,” said Lahoud, “Baurkot’s deportation defense team reviewed legal decisions from across the nation and there is a complete lack of precedent supporting the Government’s argument against my client.  If anyone agrees with the Government’s argument, then, quite possibly, every state crime, regardless of how small it may be can be deemed an aggravated felony, just because the state statute has a few of the same words that are contained in a federal aggravated felony statute.” 

“This case has far reaching implications and could lead to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of more aliens who, quite simply, should not be deported, given that their crime is anything but an aggravated felony under Immigration law,” said Lahoud, “it seems as though they are using my client as a test case, forgetting that he has long been a contributing member of society with a wife, business and children.  There is absolutely no way that New York’s Attempted Arson statute is an aggravated felony and the Government’s attempt to make it so would lead to a massive expansion of what is considered an aggravated felony – a phrase that has the most severe of consequences with respect to removal proceedings.”

The Board of Immigration Appeals, commonly referred to as the BIA, only hears twelve oral arguments per year.  Mr. Lahoud, who has offices in Allentown and Easton Pennsylvania as well as in New Jersey and New York, has sought and received the assistance of fellow immigration attorneys as well as the American Immigration Attorneys Association and the American Immigration Council, both have which dedicated whatever resources Mr. Lahoud requires to ensure success before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

-----------------------------------

Aug. 11, 2011

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, I appeared before the BIA in Falls Church, Virginia and presented oral arguments with respect to one of my clients.  I attended my client's wife and mother, several others that work for the Baurkot Law Firm and Andres Benach from Duane Morris in Washington, DC.

I believe that we did quite well while there.  There were individuals from several other immigrant rights organizations present.  The Board was very inquisitive and was willing to listen to all arguments.  The members seemed to have open minds and allowed me to really bring forth my arguments in full.

The DHS attorney was chastised by the Board for the Department's constant failure to respond to briefs submitted by Respondents in every appeal.  In seems as though DHS simply sends in a basic "dismiss Respondent's appeal without any comment or even review by any more than a single board member."  

DHS' brief in my case only asked for a summary affirmance of the IJ's decision.  Board members told DHS that in all cases, DHS should actually put some time in and respond to a brief submitted by a Respondent.  In a case of first impression, such as the one before the Board yesterday (where DHS forced the issue), then DHS really has no reason not to submit a brief-- at least a supplemental brief when oral arguments were actually granted.

Several issues seemed to be of concern to the BIA.  One was that if the Court rules in the favor of DHS and finds Attempted Arson in the Third Degree in NY to be an aggravated felony, the sliding scale will continue sliding and the amount of people who can be deported would grow substantially, even for the smallest of crimes.  There was kind of a question of "where are we going to stop" if we keep interpreting the "described in" part of aggravated felony statute starts including all kinds of state convictions.  Where is the limit?  DHS really did not have a response to that, other than saying, in the arson case, deportations would not increase that much.  

I wanted to email all of you to thank you for your many comments and words of advise when I reached out to you.  Also, I wanted to express a special thanks to the AILA Philadelphia Chapter and National Office, Andres Benach from Duane Morris, who took time out of his schedule to be with me yesterday at the BIA, the Immigrant Defense Project in New York, Isaac Wheeler from IDP and Daniel M. Kowalski, editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin– everyone provided a great deal of information that was indispensable.

Again, many thanks to all.  I will keep you updated as this case progresses.

Raymond Lahoud, Esquire

Law Offices of Baurkot & Baurkot 

227 South Seventh Street
Easton, PA  18042
Phone:  (484) 544-0022
Fax:      (610) 810-1878
E-Mail:  rgl@bmblawyers.com

-------------------------------------------------------

Links to documents:

Respondent's brief: click here

DHS Mot. Summ. Aff: click here

DHS Mot. to Pretermit 1: click here

DHS Mot. to Pretermit 2: click here

===============================================

Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition

Habeas Victory in NJ: Sylvain v. Holder

“Because the Attorney General did not take Petitioner into custody when he was released from incarceration in approximately 2007 (or earlier), but waited to take him into custody until 2011, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1). Instead, Petitioner's pre-removal-period detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which authorizes the Immigration Judge to release him on bond. This Court grants a Writ of Habeas Corpus and directs that an Immigration Judge must provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2), within 10 days of the date of the entry of the Order accompanying this Opinion.”

MICHAEL SYLVAIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC HOLDER, 
et al., Respondents.Civil No. 11-3006 (JAP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69591, June 28, 2011, Decided, June 28, 2011, Filed

Contempt order against Austin's 'Cristo Vive' for UPIL

Here's a link to the article in the Sunday, June 19, 2011 issue of the Austin American-Statesman, and here's the contempt order.

Podcast: A view from Canada

Kevin L. Zemp, Canadian attorney and AILA member and partner at Bennett Jones LLP in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, shared with us interesting news about recent changes to Canadian immigration law.

Courtesy of Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition.