858 Washington Street

Suite 301

Dedham, MA 02026

tel: (781) 686-1449

fax: (781) 686-1643

Our new office is more convenient for our clients and visitors. We are now located just off of I-95 with unlimited, free parking. The Bank of America branch in the lobby is an added convenience.

Our email addresses and cell phone numbers remain unchanged, however please make note of our new address and office numbers above.

For those of you in the New England area, we look forward to meeting with you in our new office. For clients outside of New England and outside the United States, we have posted photos below.

We look forward to continuing to serve our immigration clients worldwide.

Main Office

LPL Wall

Waiting Room

Lounge

Office Entrance

Conference Room

One of the biggest myths about the green card is that once an individual has obtained it they can make unlimited trips outside of the U.S., so long as the individual does not stay outside of the U.S. for a trip lasting longer than 6 months.

Unfortunately, many individuals find out that this is not the case only when confronted by a customs official at the U.S. border. A green card holder can be detained and questioned for hours at a time and ultimately have their green card confiscated. At that point they are either able to agree to the confiscation and enter the U.S. as a visitor, or fight the confiscation and be allowed into the U.S. for a determination of whether they abandoned their U.S. residence in Immigration Court.

This problem often arises for business executives and scientists who have international business and research concerns requiring extensive travel or temporary assignments abroad. It can also be a problem for green card holders who need to care for sick or elderly family members outside the U.S. As globalization and ease of international travel have increased this issue has become common.

The solution for green card holders planning on being outside of the United States for significant periods of time is to apply for a reentry permit. A reentry permit is initially granted for a period of two years and can be renewed for one or two year periods at the discretion of USCIS. There is no limit for the number of renewal reentry permits a green card holder can apply for.

A green card holder applying for a reentry permit must file the application while they are in the United States, but is not required to remain in the United States while the reentry permit is adjudicated. Applicants are also required to be photographed and fingerprinted before the reentry permit can be issued.

A reentry permit does not shield a green card holder from questioning at the border regarding the length of their absence, but it does prevent the length of the absence from being the sole criteria used for deeming that the green card holder has abandoned their U.S. residence.

The reentry permit coupled with evidence of residence within the United States can prevent confiscation of the green card at the border.  It is an essential tool that provides peace of mind, for green card holders who must spend significant amounts of time outside the United States.

The green card lottery is an annual program run by the State Department since 1990 randomly allocating 50,000 green cards to individuals from countries that have a low rate of immigration to the United States. It is officially known as the Diversity Visa Program.

The program is not without controversy and has been an opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats.

This year registration opened on October 1, 2013 and remains open until November 2, 2013. There is no cost to participate and the requirements are minimal. An applicant must have a high school education or its equivalent or two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years’ training or experience.

Natives of the following countries are excluded this year from applying, because they have sent a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. over the past five years:

• Bahamas
• Bangladesh
• Brazil
• Canada
• China (mainland-born)
• Colombia
• Dominican Republic
• Ecuador
• El Salvador
• Haiti
• India
• Jamaica
• Mexico
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Peru
• Philippines
• South Korea
• United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories
• Vietnam

Applicants can apply for the lottery from anywhere in the world, and can reapply every year.

If an individual “wins” the lottery they have an approximately 50% chance of getting the green card because  twice as many people are selected than there are visas available in order to meet the full visa quota. Winning applicants can bring their spouse and children under the age of 21 with them to the United States.

This program is particularly useful for individuals who wish to come to the United States but do not have the possibility of family or employer sponsorship. It is advisable if a married couple is applying, for both spouses to register separately because if either is selected they will be able to bring their spouse. Since the repeal of DOMA same-sex spouses are also now eligible to accompany their spouse to the United States.

The agencies handling immigration matters under the Department of Homeland Security are largely unaffected by the government shutdown.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is open for business for all fee for service activities. This means that applications and interviews for various benefits including the green card and naturalization are moving forward.

Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) is also continuing its detention and enforcement operations.

Meanwhile, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) or Immigration Court, which is under the auspices of the Justice Department, is only handling removal cases for individuals who are in custody. Removal cases for individuals who are not detained are being continued or held in abeyance.

The Washington Post has a great round up of how other government agencies are impacted by the shutdown.

President Obama and Governor Romney addressed immigration in a debate setting for the first time Tuesday night. The transcript of their remarks can be found at ABC News Univision , and further coverage and commentary can be found from the New York Times, Washington Post, ImmigrationProf Blog, Colorlines, Greg Siskind, and the Huffington Post.

The National Journal reports that of all the topics hitting twitter during the debate immigration had the largest response. This is not surprising given the lack of attention the issue has gotten in the current election cycle. However, I hardly think this is surprising due to the rather sad state of the U.S. economy.

At any rate, I didn’t find anything either candidate said that surprising or compelling. Both began with the oft used “we are a nation of immigrants” and touted their desire to streamline the system, secure the border, and fix illegal immigration.

I would be impressed if either candidate presented a vision for an immigration system that is compatible with today’s global reality.

Missing from the immigration conversation is that the US is bleeding entrepreneurs due to the byzantine labyrinthine immigration system. Missing was attention paid to legal immigrants who have spent thousands of dollars on filing fees, legal fees and played the immigration waiting game for years in order to come here legally. Missing was acknowledgement that Americans do not have a desire to live in a society where we are constantly asked for our “papers.” Anyone who thinks this burden would not fall disproportionately on Latinos and other minority groups are kidding themselves – perpetual paper showing is not a hallmark of a free society. The headaches this mentality causes is on display in Georgia where residents in need of professional licenses are experiencing massive delays in renewing and obtaining new licenses due to new proof of legal presence in the U.S. requirements.

Victor Johnson at NAFSA sums it up well:

The truth is, today’s world of global mobility bears little resemblance to where we were generations ago when the basic structure of U.S. immigration law was created. We need a new, sustainable national policy now. NAFSA supports comprehensive immigration reform that is based on facts, fairness, and a shared future. True comprehensive reform must address the three pillars of border security and enforcement, broad visa reform, and resolution of undocumented persons.

I hope whoever is elected in November is able to move beyond talking points and craft a practical and just solution.

As I said in my last post on discretion and DREAMers, our current immigration system is unstable and flawed because it is wholly dependent on the whims of whoever is in charge of the executive branch. Mitt Romney’s latest statements that, if elected, he would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program illustrates this point perfectly.

Romney stated first in the Denver Post:

“The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid. I’m not going to take something that they’ve purchased,” Romney said. “Before those visas have expired we will have the full immigration reform plan that I’ve proposed.”

His campaign then clarified his statements following a request by the Boston Globe:

Responding to a Globe request to clarify Romney’s statement to the Denver Post, Romney’s campaign said he would honor deportation exemptions issued by the Obama administration before his inauguration but would not grant new ones after taking office.

The DACA program rests not in a statutory or even a regulatory framework it exists with the stroke of an executive pen and can die by the same. Coverage of Romney’s remarks can be found here, here, here and here.

The discretion problem is further illustrated by three different illegal immigrants in the news: Jose Antonio Vargas, Praq Rado and Qing Xiong Liu. Mr. Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist turned undocumented immigrant activist, was arrested in Minnesota for driving without a valid license.  ICE declined to detain him or initiate proceedings against him. Mr. Rado was arrested by ICE on a train en route to the East Hampton Film Festival for a screening of a short film about his experience of coming to America. He was apparently ordered removed in 2007. Mr. Liu, a Brooklyn father of two small children, was on a bus to Indianapolis in search of work when his ID was checked by ICE who had pulled over the bus Mr. Liu was riding in for speeding. ICE detained him in an Ohio facility because he had not complied with a prior order of removal. Mr. Liu was recently released from custody and has been reunited with his family in Brooklyn.

Assuming that all three of these men have no criminal records or other mitigating factors against them, their disparate treatment is a result of which particular bureaucrat reviews their case. It creates a system that does not uphold the rule of law and is unfair to the immigrants, legal and otherwise, who interact with it.

On September 14, 2012 the Ninth Circuit decided a case called U.S. v. Leal-Del Carmen in which the government (the prosecution) deported a witness who could provide exculpatory evidence for criminal defendant Jonathan Leal-Del Carmen. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to clear the defendant from alleged fault or guilt. It is a very big deal for the government to withhold or block access to this type of evidence.

The Ninth Circuit was less than impressed with the government’s actions. Chief Judge Kozinski, writing for the court, held that the government violated the defendant’s constitutional rights when it deported a witness who could have helped exonerate him.

Here’s what happened in the case.

On March 25, 2010 border patrol agents found 12 illegal immigrants hiding in the brush in Smith Canyon an unfenced area along the United States-Mexico border. They arrested the defendant and another man later that same day on suspicion of alien smuggling.  The border patrol agents questioned at least four of the illegal immigrants – three identified the defendant as a lead smuggler the fourth, Ana Maria Garcia-Garcia said three times that the defendant was not a leader. That’s your exculpatory evidence. The defendant could only be found guilty if the jury believed he was leading the group and her testimony would suggest the opposite. Border patrol recorded the four interviews on tape and then deported Garcia-Garcia and the eight other illegal immigrants they had picked up.

Chief Judge Kozinski in a lengthy footnote (sometimes the best part of a judicial opinion) calls into question the government’s story about what happened when Garcia-Garcia and the other illegal immigrants were interviewed. I am going to quote from it at length, because I think it’s interesting and Chief Judge Kozinski points out other potential shenanigans:

FN3 “It’s not clear from the record whether border agents interviewed the eight other aliens in the group. At a motion hearing, [the defendant’s] attorney asked the government to produce any statements taken from those witnesses: “I can’t tell whether there was actually a statement taken, even if it was unrecorded, for the other eight material witnesses…. I have no statements from these eight individuals at all.” The Assistant United States Attorney represented that he was not aware of any statements but would turn them over if they could be found. Defense counsel apparently never received any statements, because in his jury summation he argued, “And for the nine other witnesses we have no idea because nobody bothered to question them, or ask them or see what they knew.”

We find it suspicious that the government would interview some of the witnesses but not the others. It’s also curious that the testimony of the single exculpatory witness happened to be included on the tape with the inculpatory witnesses. The government argued before the district court that a border agent made the video of Garcia–Garcia’s interview because he believed her testimony wasn’t exculpatory and wanted to show he wasn’t “hiding anything.” But the agent couldn’t have known what Garcia–Garcia would say before she said it. Either the agent made videos of all the witnesses but preserved only some, or he first interviewed them without a video recorder and then replicated some of the interviews on tape. Either alternative leaves us skeptical that the government did not question the eight other aliens it apprehended.

The Assistant United States Attorney disavowed that there were audio or video recordings of the eight others, saying he ”inquired about that specific point,” but he produced no sworn statement to that effect from any of the agents involved. Nor does the record disclose any evidence as to notes the agents may have taken in connection with the witness interviews. It’s possible that the agents made such notes but did not produce them because they did not believe them to be exculpatory.

The defendant had not been arraigned and had no attorney when Garcia-Garcia was deported, meaning his attorney never had an opportunity to interview her. Defense counsel was forced to submit multiple discovery requests to force the government to turn over the video recordings of the interview – which the court took issue with.

You may be thinking, well they got to play the video of the testimony at trial so not that troubling – wrong, the district court denied use of the video at trial. The Ninth Circuit stated that the district court abused its discretion by blocking the video or any mention of the missing witness.

The Ninth Circuit further held that the video recording should be admissible because the government engaged in conduct (deportation) designed to prevent Garcia-Garcia from testifying. Furthermore, the district court should have given the jury a missing-witness instruction which would tell the jury that Garcia-Garcia existed; they should presume that she would testify unfavorably against the government, and that the government prevented her from testifying.

The court had no patience for the government’s argument that Garcia-Garcia was not in its control:

The government quibbles…that Garcia–Garcia is not “peculiarly” within its power, given that it has no knowledge of where she is in Mexico and therefore has no better chance of finding her than [the defendant] does. But it’s the government’s fault that no one knows where she is. The government removed Garcia–Garcia from the country and thus put her beyond the reach of the court and defense counsel. It also failed to obtain and keep her contact information, which would at least have made it possible to seek her voluntary return.

Because Garcia–Garcia is an alien lacking a lawful immigration status, the federal government had exclusive authority to parole her into the country to testify. For the government to say that it isn’t responsible for her absence because it no longer knows where to find her comes close to the classic definition of chutzpah. (internal citations omitted)

It sounds like chutzpah to me.

Criminal prosecution is a powerful tool of the state and it is deeply troubling when it abuses that power through getting rid of unfavorable witnesses.

The most frequent questions I get asked when a new person finds out I am an immigration lawyer is “so what do you think we should do about illegal immigration, why can’t we just send them home?” The second most frequent question I get asked is what I think of President Obama’s record number of removals. He has removed so many illegal aliens he is sometimes colloquially referred to as the “deporter-in-chief.” My follow-up question to both inquiries is to ask what they think the removal process looks like. I hear variations on this theme: “the illegal alien gets picked up by Immigration and put on a plane back to their home country.”

This prompts me to begin a series of posts on removal proceedings and how the process actually works.

Today, I will start with grounds for removal from the United States. An alien is deemed removable under six broad categories [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)-(6) – I’m including the statutory cite because it drives me crazy when they are not included in a blog entry]. The six categories are:

1. Aliens who were not admissible to the U.S. at the time they entered the U.S., when they applied for the green card, or have violated their status in some other way. Included in this category are aliens who do not leave after their visa has expired, and aliens who enter the country illegally.
2. Aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses;
3. Aliens who fail to register or use false documents;
4. Aliens who trigger certain national security issues;
5. Aliens who have become public charges, and cannot show that the cause of becoming a public charge arose after entering the U.S.; and,
6. Aliens who unlawfully vote.

These categories apply to all aliens in the U.S. from those present in the U.S. with a tourist visa to legal permanent residents who hold the green card.

In my next post in this series I will discuss how an alien who falls into one of the six categories above comes to the attention of the appropriate immigration authorities.

I have heard many times from folks on the left and the right that foreigners who wish to immigrate to the U.S. should ideally wait in line for a visa or a green card. I have also heard that illegal aliens should go to the back of the line if they are granted some type of amnesty. But, when pressed, very few can articulate what exactly the line is and who waits in it. Here I am hoping to help, by explaining the mythical line in layman’s terms.

First, some initial definitions are important. All foreigners who come to the U.S. on a visa are divided into one of two categories: immigrants and non-immigrants. An immigrant holds the immigrant visa or, as it is commonly known, the green card. They are legal permanent residents of the U.S. Non-immigrants hold non-immigrant temporary visas like tourist visas, work visas and student visas.

With that out of the way, back to my original question –what exactly is the line and who waits in it?

The line refers to foreigners waiting for the green card. While there are restrictions on certain types of non-immigrant visas they are better understood as quotas, rather than a line.

An immigrant’s place in line for a green card is determined by the date an immigrant petition is filed on their behalf by either a family member, an employer or, in limited instances, for themselves.  The date the petition is filed gives the immigrant their priority date which controls their place in the line.

The line is controlled by the Visa Bulletin put out monthly by the State Department.  Here’s where one of the biggest misconceptions about the line falls apart– there is not a singular line. There are at least 65 different lines for different categories of immigrants.

Each category of immigrant listed in the Visa Bulletin has a cutoff date, which means that USCIS is issuing green cards for immigrant petitions filed in that category before that date. If the Visa Bulletin’s cutoff date in a category is January 1, 2005 then all immigrants in that category with a priority date before January 1, 2005 can be issued green cards.

These lines move at vastly different paces. For some immigrants their time in line lasts as long as it takes USCIS to process the petition, for others the wait can be decades long.

Who has the longest wait for family based petitions? According to the October 2012 Visa Bulletin immigrants in these four categories have the longest wait times:

1. Siblings of U.S. Citizens from the Philippines have the longest wait, a whopping 23 years long.  Their cutoff date is February 8, 1989. (I was in preschool when these petitions were filed).
2. Married children of U.S. Citizens from the Philippines come in at second place with just more than a 20 year wait. Their cutoff date is July 22, 1992.
3. Unmarried children of Permanent Residents who are 21 years of age or older from Mexico come in at third place with just under a 20 year wait. Their cutoff date is October 1, 1992.
4. Married Children of U.S. Citizens from Mexico come in at fourth place with a 19 year wait. Their cutoff date is February 8, 1993.

The wait times calculated above are just estimates. The line does not necessarily advance a month with each monthly bulletin. This highlights how unpredictable and complicated our system is. If comprehensive immigration reform does come to fruition and some type of amnesty is granted, should illegal aliens be able to jump ahead of individuals who have been waiting to immigrate legally to the U.S. for years? If they are to go to the back of the line, which line should they go to the back of? If the wait is decades long is that workable?

In the coming weeks I plan on posting more details on how the Visa Bulletin works and how immigrants are categorized.

The coverage of the Obama administration’s policy change towards so-called DREAMers, illegal aliens who were brought here as children, has garnered significant media coverage. Coverage here, here and here.

In my view, what has been missing from the discussion is how a change like this is emblematic of an inherent problem in our system. It continues a trend of the government creating immigration “law” through executive orders, policy memorandums and updates to various operational manuals; none of which are subject to meaningful legislative review or the regulation making process.

What are the limits of presidential power and prosecutorial discretion? On the one hand this program could be stopped at any time – it is wholly within the whim of the executive branch to maintain it. It creates no affirmative rights, only a process to ask the government to ask for its discretion. Conversely, if a DREAMer is under a final order of removal and they benefit from this program, how is that action different from a warden releasing a prisoner from prison after she has been found guilty by a court and sentenced?

This policy change is beneficial for this subset of illegal aliens, but it stands in stark contrast to the many policy changes that have created burdens where none is legislatively authorized.