No Deportation

A New Immigration Fraud Ring Busted in Los Angeles - Charges Include Fraud and Bribery

2013-05-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Time reported yesterday that Attorney Kwang Man "John" Lee was arrested for being the ring leader of an immigration fraud ring. The authorities reported that he was a man who could make things happen — for a price. For a pound of marijuana and $44,000, the Koreatown attorney allegedly said, he could get an immigrant client a U.S. citizenship. "Price is OK for the risk," Lee told an associate, according to federal authorities.

Mr. Lee was a silver-Corvette-driving attorney, also a former Immigration and Naturalization Service agent. He allegedly had associates at various stages of the immigration process willing to take bribes and provide favors for his clients. At Los Angeles International Airport, he had Customs and Border Protection officer Michael Anders, according to prosecutors. At Citizenship and Immigration Services, they alleged, he had officers Jesus Figueroa and Paul Lovingood. At Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he had special agent James Dominguez, according to court documents.

And he apparently had a long list of clients from across the globe, from Japan to Morocco to the Czech Republic, willing to pay the tens of thousands to cut a corner or two in the process for a permanent residency or citizenship in the U.S.

On May 8th, federal prosecutors announced charges against Anders, Figueroa, Lovingood, Dominguez and a client of Lee's, Mirei Gia Hofmann. The current and former immigration officials were indicted May 7th on charges including conspiracy, bribery, fraud and misuse of government seals. Hofmann faces a single count of immigration fraud.

Lee, who became an attorney in 1997, was previously charged in a separate criminal complaint of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government.

According to affidavits filed in the case, Lee plied the officials with lavish gifts and cash bribes in exchange for immigration benefits including forged admission stamps with a false date of entry into the U.S. and rubber-stamping fraudulent permanent residency or citizenship applications. Anders, who at one point lived with Lee, provided the attorney with a specialized security ink used by Border Patrol officials to stamp passports at airports, according to court papers.

In exchange, Lee bought round-trip tickets to Thailand for Dominguez and a 47-inch flat-screen TV and a computer for Lovingood, and gave thousands of dollars in cash to Figueroa, authorities allege. Anders was paid $50 each time he falsified an entry record, according to the indictment.

Lee complained to a confidential informant that he gets "headaches entertaining them, taking them out to dinner," according to an affidavit. He secured illegal immigration benefits for at least several dozen clients over the years, prosecutors said.

"It looks like this goes back at least 20 years," Assistant U.S. Atty. Meghan Blanco said. "By and large, it involves people who entered the country legally and then overstayed their visa."

New Report from Florida International University Finds DHS Secure Communities Not Targeting "Dangerous Criminals" As Directed By Obama Administration

2013-04-16T10:36:00.000-07:00

Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in South Florida are failing to abide by an Obama administration directive to focus deportation efforts on dangerous criminals, according to a report Monday by a Miami-based immigration advocacy group and researchers from a Florida university.

A majority of undocumented immigrants detained for deportation in Miami-Dade County under a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative known as the Secure Communities program were not serious criminals, the report by Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ) and researchers at Florida International University said.

This is a pattern that is repeated across the country and the San Francisco Bay Area is no exception. Many of the deportations involve people who likely would be covered under proposals for an immigration reform bill currently being thrashed out by members of Congress.

The actions of ICE agents are at odds with guidance issued in June 2011 by the head of ICE, John Morton, who sought to prioritize the removal of convicted undocumented immigrants who posed a danger to national security or public safety, as well as those who game the system by dodging immigration hearings.

In a statement, ICE said it had received guidance restricting the detention of immigrants for minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic infractions and other petty crimes. The guideline gives ICE discretion on how it is implemented.

See the entire report below.

False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities

UNFDDS8HZGUA

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) And Its Allies Profit From the Human Misery In the American Gulag System

2013-04-05T12:34:00.000-07:00

CCA directly profits from the human misery involved in the crackdown on "illegal immigrants." CCA is the largest prison corporation and a member of ALEC,American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC), and has negotiated contracts with states that guarantee 90 percent occupancy rates for the length of the contract, some of which are 20 to 30 years. ALEC has been behind laws that allow prison labor at private prisons, paying inmates as little as 17 cents per hour. The demand for prison labor by corporations such as IBM, AT&T and 3M creates a greater incentive to incarcerate. CCA is also known for human rights violations, cutting services to save money and increase profits. On March 27, hundreds of inmates at the Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico staged a 12-hour protest over prison conditions. Last year, prisoners in Mississippi violently rioted over lack of health care and abusive conditions, as did inmates at another CCA prison in Texas in 2010. A September 2012 report found private prisons to be unsafe, unnecessary and expensive. This week immigrant activists held protests outside of Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D – New York) office to draw attention to the support he has received over the years from the private prison industry. Schumer is a member of the gang of eight in the Senate, the group that is tasked with crafting an immigration reform bill. He also is the recipient of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the GEO Group and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Note that one of Schumer’s biggest donors is Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which lobbies for CCA. Activists are highlighting the Senator’s efforts to prioritize enforcement and punitive measures over policies to unite families. Some of the things that Schumer has done that activists are take issue with include: advocating for more border security at a time when the border is supposed to be the most secure, supporting the implementation of a national I.D. card, and calling the undocumented “illegals.“ The CEO of CCA has even admitted recently to investors that the impact of any immigration reform would be positive because “There’s always going to be a demand for beds.” Just this past Sunday on Meet the Press, Senator Schumer expressed optimism that an immigration bill would be introduced soon, saying, “With the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved on the gang of eight. Now everyone, we’ve all agreed that we’re not going to come to a final agreement until we see draft legislative language and we all agree on that. We’ve drafted some of it already, the rest will be drafted this week. So I’m very optimistic that we will have an agreement among the eight of us next week.” Aside from the protests in New York, there were protests in other cities including Los Angeles outside of a downtown federal building, where protesters held signs that said, “Senator Schumer: you have a Latino problem.”

United States Supreme Court Slams Door Today on Post-Conviction Relief Under Padilla

2013-02-20T14:33:00.001-08:00

SCOTUS issued a 7-2 decision today in Chaidez v. United States, Slip Opinion No.: 11-820, from the 7th Circuit holding that their prior decision in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky 559 U.S. _____, does not apply retroactively under the Teague Rule 489 U.S. 288 (1989).

As the decision states, "We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, Padilladoes not have retroactive effect." Unfortunately, this means that any decision that was final before Padilla will not have the benefit of that decision. Here is the decision: Chaidez v. United States

Recently Release Report Finds Over 5,000 Children Of Deported Aliens Are Being Placed Into Foster Care

2013-02-14T12:41:00.001-08:00

In fiscal year 2011, the United States deported a record-breaking 397,000 people and detained nearly that many. According to federal data released to the Applied Research Center, through a Freedom of Information Act request, a growing number and proportion of deportees are parents. In the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 46,000 mothers and fathers of U.S.-citizen children. These deportations shatter families and endanger the children left behind.

This “Shattered Families” report is the first to provide evidence on the national scope and scale of the problem. As more noncitizens are detained, the number of children in foster care with parents removed by ICE is expected to grow. Without explicit policies and guidelines to protect families, children will continue to lose their families at alarming rates.

Among the Key Finding In the Report:

• That there are at least 5,100 children currently living in foster care whose parents have been either detained or deported (this projection is based on data collected from six key states and an analysis of trends in 14 additional states with similarly high numbers of foster care and foreign-born populations). This is approximately 1.25 percent of the total children in foster care. If the same rate holds true for new cases, in the next five years, at least 15,000 more children will face these threats to reunification with their detained and deported mothers and fathers. These children face formidable barriers to reunification with their families.

• In areas where local police aggressively participate in immigration enforcement, children of noncitizens are more likely to be separated from their parents and face barriers to reunification. For example, in counties where local police have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, children in foster care were, on average, about 29 percent more likely to have a detained or deported parent than in other counties. The impact of aggressive immigration enforcement remains statistically significant when our research controls for the size of a county’s foreign-born population and a county’s proximity to the border.

• Immigrant victims of domestic violence and other forms of gender-based violence are at particular risk of losing their children. Approximately one in nine of the stories recounted to ARC in interviews and focus groups involved domestic violence. As a result of ICE’s increased use of local police and jails to enforce immigration laws, when victims of violence are arrested, ICE too often detains them and their children enter foster care. Many immigrant victims face an impossible choice: remain with an abuser or risk detention and the loss of their children.

• ARC has identified at least 22 states where these cases have emerged in the last two years. This is a growing national problem, not one confined to border jurisdictions or states. Across the 400 counties included in our projections, more than one in four (28.8 percent) of the foster care children with detained or deported parents are from non-border states. Whether children enter foster care as a direct result of their parents’ detention or deportation, or they were already in the child welfare system, immigration enforcement systems erect often-insurmountable barriers to family unity.

Immigration Judge Granted Withholding to Our Mexican National Client

2013-01-23T13:20:00.001-08:00

Great win for our client in the San Francisco Immigration Court. The IJ granted withholding for a Mexican National based upon membership in a particular social group, namely kinship.

The sticking point for the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel was safe relocation within Mexico. We argued that the client could not safely relocate anywhere in Mexico that her persecutor would not be able to locate her. Our office retained two wonderful expert witnesses that gave testimony and provided written declarations to the Court explaining why the persecutor could find her anywhere inside of Mexico.

DHS has reserved appeal and we will need to wait the 30-days to see what the Service is going to do. I am optimistic that we can prevail on any appeal because the record before the Court is so strong.

DHS Secretary Napolitano Announces Final Rule in Permitting Aliens With Unlawful Presence to File I-601 Hardship Waivers Before Leaving US

2013-01-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today announced the posting of a final rule in the Federal Register that reduces the time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives (spouse, children and parents), who are in the process of obtaining visas to become lawful permanent residents of the United States under certain circumstances. The final rule establishes a process that allows certain individuals to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver before they depart the United States to attend immigrant visa interviews in their countries of origin. The process will be effective on March 4, 2013.

One of the more contentious aspects of this Final Rule involves aliens who are in removal proceedings. As written, anyone in deportation is not eligible for having their I-601 Hardship Waiver adjudicated before having to leave the U.S. to complete consular processing unless their case is administratively closed. Given the lack of action under the Prosecutorial Discretion guidelines by DHS local counsel, relief for aliens in removal under this Final Rule may be illusory.

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissiblity

“This final rule facilitates the legal immigration process and reduces the amount of time that U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who are in the process of obtaining an immigrant visa,” said Secretary Napolitano.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received more than 4,000 comments in response to the April 2, 2012 proposed rule and considered all of them in preparing the final rule.

“The law is designed to avoid extreme hardship to U.S. citizens, which is precisely what this rule achieves,” USCIS Director Mayorkas said. “The change will have a significant impact on American families by greatly reducing the time family members are separated from those they rely upon.”

Under current law, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not eligible to adjust status in the United States to become lawful permanent residents must leave the U.S. and obtain an immigrant visa abroad. Individuals who have accrued more than six months of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver to overcome the unlawful presence inadmissibility bar before they can return to the United States after departing to obtain an immigrant visa. Under the existing waiver process, which remains available to those who do not qualify for the new process, immediate relatives cannot file a waiver application until after they have appeared for an immigrant visa interview abroad and the Department of State has determined that they are inadmissible.

In order to obtain a provisional unlawful presence waiver, the applicant must be an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, inadmissible only on account of unlawful presence, and demonstrate the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent. USCIS will publish a new form, Form I-601A, Application for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, for individuals to use when applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver under the new process.

Under the new provisional waiver process, immediate relatives must still depart the United States for the consular immigrant visa process; however, they can apply for a provisional waiver before they depart for their immigrant visa interview abroad. Individuals who file the Form I-601A must notify the Department of State’s National Visa Center that they are or will be seeking a provisional waiver from USCIS. The new process will reduce the amount of time U.S. citizen are separated from their qualifying immediate relatives

Los Angeles-area man admits operating websites that sold nearly $2 million worth of false identity documents

2012-12-21T08:46:00.000-08:00

Two days ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced they had successfully completed an investigation and prosecution of a Los Angeles-area man who admitted operating two websites that sold counterfeit IDs pleaded guilty in federal court Tuesday to transferring false identification document. This announcement followed a joint task force probe conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the HSI-led multi-agency Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force. This case was prosecuted by the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Section.

Ramin Bibian, 47, or Tarzana, admitted that, from approximately November 2005 to approximately August 2012, he operated two websites that sold false identification documents, specifically state driver's licenses, identification cards and international driver's licenses.

Through www.newidcards.com, Bibian offered state driver's licenses and identification cards for prices ranging from $135 to more than $250. For an additional fee, customers could add special features to their identification cards, such as holograms, magnetic encoded strips and high definition printing similar to that used by state agencies. Although he advertised his products as novelty items, Bibian admitted he was well aware the identification cards were similar to legitimately-issued state identification and that his customers intended to use them as substitutes for such.

In addition, Bibian sold invalid international driver's licenses on another website he operated – www.idriverlicense.com. An international driver's permit provides an official translated copy of an individual's home country driver's license for use abroad. The U.S. government has authorized only two entities, the American Automobile Association and the National Automobile Club, to issue such permits. Bibian admitted using false names, including Ray Fray, Arya Jahan and Tova Godsi, in connection with the offense. He also agreed to forfeit $1.9 million to the federal government, which represents the proceeds from the sale of the false identification documents.

Bibian was indicted by a federal grand jury Aug. 16. He was charged with three counts of transferring false identification documents. Under the plea agreement, Bibian pleaded guilty to one of those counts.

Bibian has been in custody since his arrest Aug. 28. His sentencing is scheduled for March 19, 2013, before District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco. He faces a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

CBP "Self-Deportation" Program Ends After Only Two Months

2012-11-30T10:08:00.000-08:00

A U.S. pilot program, operated by Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") designed to deport illegal immigrants by flying them to Mexico City will operate for only two months this year and involve 20 flights, a significant scaling-back of what was billed as a humanitarian effort to avoid deporting people to violent border regions, or the Romney "Self-Deportation" Plan.

The first flight, which carried 131 immigrants, on October 2012, landed in Mexico City, six months after the originally scheduled start date of the program. Slated to run from April through November, the Interior Repatriation Initiative will operate only in October and November.

When the program was announced in February, Mexico's interior secretary, Alejandro Poire, said the flights would improve border security and make it easier for illegal immigrants to return to their hometowns by taking buses from the capital.

Deportees also would no longer be "systematically placed at the mercy of criminal groups in border areas," Poire said in a statement. The flights serve U.S. interests by making it harder for deportees to cross back into the U.S.

Under terms of the agreement, the U.S. pays for the flights, which depart from El Paso, and the Mexican government provides bus fares for the migrants' trips home.

U.S. and Mexican officials did not give specific reasons for the initiative's delay and limited duration.

"Given the complexities and logistics involved with this initiative, the length of time needed to launch the inaugural flight was not unreasonable," the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

The Mexican Interior Ministry confirmed the arrival of the first flight at Mexico City's international airport in October, and said the program would continue through Nov. 29, transporting more than 2,400 people.

"Once in national territory, they will be given food and ground transportation to their communities of origin and-or residence in Mexico," the ministry and the National Migration Institute said in a statement. It said the arriving Mexicans would be given a list of social services available to them and allowed to request medical attention, as well as a phone call to their families.

If there are outstanding criminal charges in Mexico against any of the passengers, they will be investigated for possible prosecution, the ministry said.

Repatriating illegal immigrants has become problematic in recent years as deportations reach record highs and besieged border areas struggle to provide security and housing for people who often arrive penniless and without any contacts.

In the northeastern state of Tamaulipas, where deportations have surged fivefold in recent years, criminals prey on deportees, sometimes abducting them from streets, bus stations and migrant shelters. Many are held for ransom, and others are recruited into criminal networks that have seized control of much of the region.

Settled Foreign Worker LCA Complaint Against Former Employer

2012-11-26T12:48:00.000-08:00

I recently negotiated a nice settlement agreement for a foreign employee based upon an alleged violation of his employer’s Labor Condition Agreement submitted on behalf of his I-129 application for H-1B status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). In the Labor Condition Application (LCA) Form ETA-9035 submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, the petitioning employer certifies that they will pay the prevailing wage for the specialty occupation until they achieve a bona fide termination, which includes three elements as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Administrative Law Judges. To effect a "bona fide" termination of an H-1B employee, the employer must: (1) properly terminate the employee under state law; (2) offer the employee return transportation costs home; and (3) notify the USCIS of the H-1B termination. In my complaint, the specialty worker alleged that he was not notified of his termination until he received actual notice of his H-1B status termination, thus Step 1 was never accomplished. The foreign national was assigned to a remote work site and was not notified that his status was being terminated until he was mailed the termination notification from USCIS. This case was very similar to another LCA violation claim that I prevailed in during our administrative hearing in front of the ALJ in the San Francisco Office. This case is presently on appeal to the ARB in Washington DC, but I fully expect to prevail on appeal. The ALJ’s decision can be found here.

Origin of the Term "Immigrant" In American Public Discourse

2012-11-15T14:53:00.000-08:00

After the recent presidential election, the question of immigration reform has become one of the top issues that seems to have any likelihood of achieving legislative success. I personally hope there is some consensus reached between the parties that can achieve a favorable outcome.

This discussion however, started me thinking about how these terms originated, such as "immigrant." It seems that at the time of the founding of the United States, the more common words to describe recent entrants were words such as "alien," "foreigner," and "newcomer."

The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the pioneering American historian Jeremy Belknap was one of the first to use "immigrant" and its cognates in print. In his History of New Hampshire (1792), vol. 3, preface, 6, Belknap wrote, "There is another deviation from the strict letter of the English which is found extremely convenient in our discourses on population . . . The verb immigrate and the nouns immigrant and immigration are used without scruple in some parts of this volume."

The used of "immigrant" appears to have become frequent only after the heavy transatlantic movements of people to North America. After the onset of mass immigration to the United States, which began in the 1840s, the term became routine.

Interesting Question - Can Someone With an Approved U visa and I-192, But also Married to USC, Adjust Their Status Under INA 245(a)?

2012-10-26T12:55:00.000-07:00

We have had several U-Visa Holders, who initially entered the US without inspection (EWI), but have been an approved I-918 and I-192, with an I-94 showing their admission date and they are married to United States citizen spouses who have filed and have approved I-130 Immediate Relative Visa Petitions, but have been denied adjustment of status.

There is seemingly some confusion about this issue of adjustment under INA section 245(a) as our USCIS denial letters quote the alien's ineligibly under 245(i). There is no question that after three years the U-Visa holder can adjust under 245(m), but then they must wait another 5 years before becoming eligible for naturalization.

However, there are valid legal arguments to support a 245(a) adjustment for an immediate relative, as the 245(c) & 245(k) bars are waived for immediate relatives.

I think the issue is not something that the Vermont Service Center has exclusive jurisdiction to decide, as it is their sole determination that no U-Visa holder can adjust under 245(a). As some U visa grantees first entered EWI, however the regulations state that they were lawfully admitted to the United States on the date the U visa is granted. This is aside from other inadmissibility issues that may arise.

I focus this response on an EWI granted U visa status that has not left the United States after the initial EWI. I'm in the 9th Circuit and we have Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006), where the 9th Circuit held that the family unity grant rendered Garcia-Quintero admitted for calculation of the seven years for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. "Our decision focused on the aliens’ acceptance into the Family Unity Program”. Id. at 1015. As part of that acceptance, we looked at Garcia-Quintero’s enrollment in the program, specifically noting that it provided protection from deportation and that FUP beneficiaries “shall be inspected and admitted in the same immigration status as the alien had at the time of departure.” Id. at 1017-18. A U visa grantee received employment authorization, is protected from deportation and the language of the regulation states that they are lawfully admitted. Same benefits as that received by a family unity beneficiary. We deal with legal fictions all the time.

Los Angeles City Council OK's Service ID Cards for Undocumented Aliens

2012-10-17T13:29:00.000-07:00

According to a LA Times Report, a plan to provide official photo identification cards for illegal immigrants in Los Angeles appears to be winning wide support. This plan would help the many residents of the city in obtaining services and access to governmental agencies, such as the school district or in opening a bank account.

A Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday approved the concept after hearing from a wide array of supporters who said it was a practical way to incorporate into civic life the area's large undocumented population.

Opposition to the so-called City Services Card is inevitable because it touches on the hot-button issue of illegal immigration, Councilman Ed Reyes said. But in the end "cooler heads will prevail and understand the humanity of the suggestion," he said.

The committee voted unanimously to begin soliciting proposals from potential vendors who would implement the program, backed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilman Richard Alarcon. That won't happen, however, until a draft proposal is brought before the full council in about three weeks, officials said.

Although no one opposed to the ID cards spoke at Tuesday's committee hearing, the Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council sent a letter stating that it had voted against the proposal.

Reyes, a member of the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee, said it's "about time" that Los Angeles residents, regardless of immigration status, have the ability to easily open bank accounts and access city services.

Los Angeles is a cosmopolitan city with an international economy, Reyes said, and "this card allows people who have been living in the shadows to be out in the light of day." The photo ID would include the user's name, address, date of birth and possibly other identifying information. It could be used by any resident who lacks acceptable documentation to open a bank account or access city services, such as libraries or work-training programs, officials said.

Besides undocumented immigrants, seniors who no longer drive, the homeless and transgender people would also benefit, officials said, because they often lack official ID as well. City staff said the program won't cost taxpayers anything because the third-party vendor would charge from $10 to $20 per card, and would also charge a few dollars a month if an applicant chooses to activate a debit card feature.

Holders would be able to load the card with money, pay bills, make reservations and make purchases via debit transaction at ATM locations, city staff said. San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond are among 10 cities nationwide that already offer such a card or are getting ready to roll one out, said Larry Frank, the mayor's deputy chief of staff.

It would be up to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck to decide whether patrol officers would accept it as an acceptable form of ID.

Representatives of labor, banks, business groups and librarians uniformly expressed support for the ID cards at Tuesday's council committee hearing.

Jesse Torres, chief executive of Pan American Bank in East Los Angeles, said the card would bring security and "peace of mind" to undocumented residents who are forced to carry large amounts of cash on them because they don't have an account.

He said some workers have no choice but to pay up to $1,000 a year in fees to check cashers and payday lenders. Antonio Bernabe, who organizes day laborers, said his workers deal with those issues on a daily basis.

"They are afraid to go into a bank to deposit money," he said. "They are afraid to go into a city building."

Betty Hung, of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, said an ID would bring psychological as well as practical benefits to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows because they're fearful of deportation.

"It sends the message that we are one city," she said. "We are all Angelenos."

LAPD Chief Says Illegal Immigrants Arrested In Petty Crimes Won't Be Placed on ICE Holds

2012-10-05T14:10:00.001-07:00

LAPD Police Chief, Charlie Beck, on Thursday unveiled plans to stop handing over undocumented immigrants arrested for low-level offenses to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for potential deportation. The move by Chief Beck represented a victory for immigrant rights activists just days after California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the TRUST ACT bill that would have extended statewide an approach similar to what Beck is proposing. Under a federal program launched in 2008 called Secure Communities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials work in partnership with local law enforcement agencies to deport undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes. The program helped the federal government to deport a record high of about 400,000 undocumented immigrants last year. Beck told reporters he does not believe federal detentions under the program should apply to undocumented immigrants arrested for "low-grade misdemeanor offenses" and similar crimes. "The LAPD is proposing to no longer grant an ICE hold requests without first reviewing the seriousness of the offense for which the person is being held, as well as their prior arrest history and gang involvement," Beck said. Beck said he believes in some cases the detention of illegal immigrants has unnecessarily split up families. "Community trust is extremely important," he said. "It's my intent that we gain that trust back." Beck said his department arrests about 105,000 people per year and receives ICE holds for about 3,400 of them. About half of those requests are for misdemeanor crimes, which include everything from vandalism to driving offenses, and Beck said he believes about 400 of those requests would be denied by his department if his proposed policy goes into effect. Beck said his department would still honor ICE detention requests on all felonies, which include crimes of violence such as murder and assault, and that his goal was to implement the new protocols by Jan. 1. The proposal, which has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, will have to be presented to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners for their review. The law vetoed by Brown on Sunday would have made California the first state to bar local authorities from honoring federal detention requests on undocumented immigrants, unless those individuals were charged or convicted of a serious or violent felony. Brown faulted the bill for not exempting individuals who had committed crimes such as child abuse, drug trafficking and selling weapons. Law enforcement officials had opposed the bill, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

ICE Director John Morton Kills California's TRUST Act

2012-10-04T12:35:00.000-07:00

In a report issued today by the Immigrant Youth Coalition, IYC accused ICE Director John Morton of single-handedly sabotaging the efforts of the California Legislature to mitigate the harsh effects of the "Secure Communities" by the passage of the TRUST Act. In order to stop the California TRUST Act which had gained widespread support, Immigration Customs Enforcement's Director John Morton went as far as to blackmail the Governor of California into vetoing the TRUST Act. When advocates asked the governors office why Brown vetoed the bill, the staff responded that they had received a call from John Morton Director of ICE saying that if Brown doesn't veto the TRUST Act that California would essentially go back to the old days in reference to immigration raids and more overt enforcement. California would have been the first state in which the impact of "Secure Communities" would be significantly reduced by not honoring immigration detainers. California holds one of the largest undocumented immigrant population in the nation, and deports about 80,000 undocumented immigrants about one fourth of the yearly quota for deportations that the Department of homeland security set in 2010. John Morton could not allow for the TRUST Act to pass, with the Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals now being implemented the pool of deportable immigrants shrunk by almost a million. ICE needed to make sure they meet their 400,000 a year quota for deportations and so they intervened in state politics to ensure the survival of "Secure Communities" If the "Prosecutorial Discretion" memo were actually implemented, laws like the TRUST Act wouldn't be necessary. The TRUST Act would ensure that people with minor or no offenses would be let go without any immigration consequences; it was California's way of holding the Federal Government accountable.

Started at a New Law Practice This Week

2012-10-03T12:50:00.000-07:00

On Monday October 1, 2012, I began my association with a great group of attorneys in Oakland, California, leaving behind the Law Offices of Haitham Ballout, where I practice for the last five years. The incentive in making this change is the intention of the group to form a partnership with myself as one of the named partners. This is an exciting and challenging moment, but in the long run, I firmly believe this is the right move professionally. In my former position at Mr. Ballout's Office, a very capable young attorney as accepted the offer and she will fill my post. The new practice will focus on removal and deportation cases, along with Mr. Dae Hee Kim, Esq. as the experienced criminal defense counsel. I have many years of experience in handling both immigration and criminal appellate cases. My experience also includes many administrative appeals to both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)in humanitarian cases, removal defense, and visa petitions, which involves Walsh Act cases and waivers of all types.

First Group of Approval Notices for "Dreamers" Sent

2012-09-12T17:17:00.003-07:00

After approximately three weeks of accepting applications from young undocumented immigrants seeking to avoid deportation and get a work permit, ("Dreamers") the government already has approved some of the roughly 72,000 applications the government has received. The Homeland Security Department said Tuesday that a small group of applications has been approved and those immigrants are being notified this week about the decision. The department did not say how many applications had been approved. The first wave of approvals comes months head of DHS' own internal estimates of how long the application process for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program could take – and less than 60 days before the Nov. 6 elections. According to an internal DHS document obtained by The Associated Press, the department's Citizenship and Immigration Services had estimated that each application could take several months to be completed. "Following a thorough, individualized case review, USCIS has now begun notifying individuals of the determination on their deferral requests," DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard said in a statement. He said about 72,000 applications have been received since the program's Aug. 15 start. DHS said background checks, including finger prints checks, are being conducted on each immigrant before an application can be approved. The average wait time for approval is expected to be about four months to six months. Most applications for immigration benefits take several months for to process. In certain circumstances, people can pay extra fees to speed up the process. There currently is no such option for deferred action applications. President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on June 15 that young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. before they turned 16, are 30 or younger, are high school graduates or are in college or have served in the military would be eligible to apply to avoid deportation for up to two years and get a work permit. The immigrants also could not have a serious criminal record. Applicants for deferred deportation must pay a $465 paperwork fee that is expected to cover the cost of processing the work permit and for finger printing. DHS has estimated that as many as 1.04 million immigrants could apply to avoid being deported in the program's first year, with about 890,000 being eligible immediately. According to the DHS document, it could cost between $467 million and $585 million to process applications in the first two years of the program, with revenues from fees estimate at $484 million. That means the cost to the government could range from a gain of $17 million to a loss of more than $101 million.

DHS Secretary Napolitano Announces "Dream Act" Defered Action Process

2012-08-03T13:25:00.000-07:00

Today, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the broad outlines of the deferred action program for "Dream Act" eligible aliens. The Press Release is attached below, however, the announcement is shy of specific details. More will be forthcoming from DHS.

USCIS to begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action on August 15, 2012.

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today provided additional information on the deferred action for childhood arrivals process during a national media call in preparation for the August 15 implementation date.

On June 15, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced that certain young people who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines may be eligible, on a case-by-case basis, to receive deferred action. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is finalizing a process by which potentially eligible individuals may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

USCIS expects to make all forms, instructions, and additional information relevant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process available on August 15, 2012. USCIS will then immediately begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

Information shared during today’s call includes the following highlights:

Requestors – those in removal proceedings, those with final orders, and those who have never been in removal proceedings – will be able to affirmatively request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals with USCIS. Requestors will use a form developed for this specific purpose. Requestors will mail their deferred action request together with an application for an employment authorization document and all applicable fees to the USCIS lockbox. All requestors must provide biometrics and undergo background checks. Fee waivers cannot be requested for the application for employment authorization and biometric collection. However, fee exemptions will be available in limited circumstances.

The four USCIS Service Centers will review requests.

It is important to note that this process is not yet in effect and individuals who believe they meet the guidelines of this new process should not request consideration of deferred action before August 15, 2012. Requests submitted before August 15, 2012 will be rejected.

California Legislature Contemplates the TRUST ACT

2012-07-13T12:27:00.001-07:00

The California Legislature recently passed the TRUST Act and the bill has been sent to the Governor so signature. The bill aims to correct the inherent flaws of the federal Secure Communities program.

For nearly three years, the Obama administration has advertised the Secure Communities program as a targeted enforcement tool that identifies "dangerous criminal aliens" for deportation. Over and over, federal officials have insisted that the program's focus would be chiefly limited to those immigrants whose criminal convictions show that they pose a danger to public safety.

But that's not the case. In practice, Secure Communities is a dragnet that fails to distinguish between felons convicted of serious crimes and nonviolent arrestees facing civil immigration violations. In California alone, more than half of the 75,000 people deported under the program since it began in 2009 had no criminal history or had only misdemeanor convictions.

Under the program, local law enforcement agencies are required to send the fingerprints of everyone booked into local jails to the FBI, which checks them against criminal databases. Department of Homeland Security officials then check the prints against immigration records and issue requests, known as "detainers," to local authorities asking them to hold particular individuals for 48 hours. As a result, immigrants arrested for illegal street vending or driving without a license who would ordinarily be released have to sit in jail for two days. After that, they are either transferred to federal custody or released, although some end up in jail for longer.

Local officials across the country are deeply concerned about having to spend their scarce resources filling already overcrowded jails with non-dangerous arrestees, and are also concerned that the program will undermine law enforcement by deterring immigrants from cooperating with police. So California lawmakers have passed the Trust Act, which would require police to release those who have posted bail, face no serious charges and have no prior serious criminal convictions, despite federal detainers. Officials in New York, the District of Columbia and Cook County, Ill., already have similar rules in place.

Prosecutorial Discretion Clinic in San Francisco on July 14, 2012

2012-07-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

Our office has received many phone calls of the last few weeks asking about the June 15, 2012 announcement from President Obama that his administration will grant temporary relief in the form of prosecutorial discretion to any "Dream Act" eligible young person.

It is my understanding that this relief is temporary, for a two-year period, and anyone granted discretion will be eligible for an EAD Card, or work authorization. As there has been a tremendous amount of interest, many San Francisco Immigration Service Providers have joined together for a workshop on July 15, 2012, at Golden Gate University in San Francisco to help provide information to the public.

Here is the pertient information:

*********************************************
The San Francisco Immigrant Legal and Educational Network (a coalition of immigrant legal and education service providers which includes the African Advocacy Network, Arab Resource and Organizing Center, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Causa Justa: Just Cause, Central American Resource Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Dolores Street Community Services, Filipino Community Center, La Raza Centro Legal, La Raza Community Resource Center, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, and People Organized to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights) and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, along with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Centro Legal de la Raza, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA), East Bay Community Law Center, GGU Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, GGU La Raza Law Students Association, and GGU Law Career Services, will be hosting a two part free legal clinic on prosecutorial discretion for pro se (unrepresented) individuals currently in removal proceedings.

Part I (July 14, 2012): We will provide an overview of prosecutorial discretion, distribute and review a pro se guide for those individuals interested in applying, and provide free legal screenings to evaluate other immigration relief and whether prosecutorial discretion should be pursued. We will ask pro se individuals interested in applying for PD to return to part two of the clinic Saturday, July 28, 2012, with their completed packets so that they may be reviewed by an immigration attorney prior to being submitted. We have a higher need for experienced immigration attorneys for this first part of the clinic.

Part II (July 28, 2012): We will review prosecutorial discretion requests prepared by individuals using the pro se guide distributed during Part I to make sure they are ready for submission. We will also assist those individuals who are unable to complete a request on their own.

*Due to the Obama administration's June 15, 2012 announcement regarding deferred action for undocumented youth, we will also conduct a brief Know Your Rights presentation during Part I and provide consultations to individuals in proceedings who might qualify for temporary relief under the new guidelines. Clinic info:

Where: Golden Gate University 536 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

When: July 14, 2012, 11:00 – 4:00

AND

July 28, 2012, 11:00 – 4:00

Victory in my Latest Criminal Appeal

2012-07-10T09:04:00.001-07:00

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, recently issued an opinion in a criminal appeal of a conviction for California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) - Unlawful Driving of a Vehicle. The case name was People v. Martinez and the jury trial took place in Contra Costa County. I was appointed to represent the appellant in the case.

On appeal, I raise one issue, that the trial judge inserted an variant jury instruction that confused the jury and impermissibly lessened the burden of proof for the prosecution. After oral arguments, the court of appeal agreed with my argument and reversed the verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

The opinion is presently unpublished, however, I requested that the court consider publishing the opinion to discourage other District Attorneys from seeking to insert variant language into the standard CALCRIM instructions.

The opinion can be seen here.

Board of Immigration Appeals Remanded One of Our Adam Walsh Cases Back to USCIS For Further Proceedings

2012-06-01T12:10:00.001-07:00

Last month, our office received the decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals in an Adam Walsh Case. We argued to the Board that USCIS improperly imposed the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard" in determining whether the petition poses a risk to the intended beneficiary. My contention was that this standard had no underlying basis as Congress never intended to require this criminal law threshold. In most immigration matters the standard is more probable than not.

In the decision, the Board specifically asked USCIS to explain 8 items in how they reached their conclusion to deny our client's I-130 visa petition. It is my belief that this is a milestone in adjudication of these petitions because the entire process has not be thoroughly thought through and the Board is asking USCIS to do so.

Board of Immigration Appeals Decision in Walsh Act Case

Facebook co-Founder, Eduardo Saverin, Renounces U.S. Citizenship to Avoid Paying Taxes

2012-05-14T10:53:00.001-07:00

Facebook co-Founder, Eduardo Saverin, whose family fled from Brazil to the United States seeking asylum protection, has just renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying approximately $600 million dollars in taxes from his expected windfall from the Facebook IPO. It seems the 1% again clearly demonstrate that they owe no obligations to the 99%. As someone who works in the trenches day in and day out, fighting for asylees fleeing from persecution around the globe, I am deeply saddened by someone who takes advantage of the largeness and generosity of the United States, and then absconds with the loot when it is not longer convenient for that person.

Here is the full story as reported.

When Eduardo Saverin was 13, his family discovered that his name had turned up on a list of victims to be kidnapped by Brazilian gangs. Saverin’s father was a wealthy businessman in São Paulo, and it was inevitable that he’d attract this kind of unwanted attention. Now the family had to make a permanent decision. They hastily arranged a move out of the country. And of all the places in the world they could move to, the Saverin family saw only one option. They took their talents to Miami.

Would it be too much to say that America saved Eduardo Saverin? Probably. Maybe that’s just too overwrought. The Saverins were just another in a long line of immigrants who’d come to America for the opportunity it affords—the opportunity, among other things, to not have to worry that your child will be kidnapped just because you’ve become wealthy.

Just because his parents moved here doesn’t mean Eduardo Saverin owes America anything, right?

Yet if you study the trajectory of Saverin’s life—the path that took him from being an immigrant kid to a Harvard student to an instant billionaire to the subject of an Oscar-winning motion picture—it emerges as a uniquely American story. At just about every step between his landing in Miami and his becoming a co-founder of Facebook, you find American institutions and inventions playing a significant part in his success.

Would Eduardo Saverin have been successful anywhere else? Maybe, but not as quickly, and not as spectacularly. It was only thanks to America—thanks to the American government’s direct and indirect investments in science and technology; thanks to the U.S. justice system; the relatively safe and fair investment climate made possible by that justice system; the education system that educated all of Facebook’s workers, and on and on—it was only thanks to all of this that you know anything at all about Eduardo Saverin today.

Now comes news that Saverin has decided to renounce his U.S. citizenship, most likely to avoid a large long-term tax bill on his winnings in the Facebook IPO. Saverin owns about 4 percent of Facebook stock. By renouncing his citizenship last fall, well in advance of the IPO, Saverin will pay an “exit tax” on his assets as they were valued then. But he’ll pay no tax on income derived from stock sales in the future—that’s because he now lives in Singapore, which has no capital gains tax. It’s unclear how much this move will save him, since it depends on how Facebook’s stock performs. But let’s say the value of his stock doubles over the long run, from an estimated $3.8 billion now to around $8 billion. If that happens, he won’t pay any tax on the $4 billion increase in value—which, at a 15 percent capital gains rate, will save him $600 million in taxes.

Is this fair? No. It’s worse than that, though. It’s ungrateful and it’s indecent. Saverin’s decision to decamp the U.S. suggests he’s got no idea how much America has helped him out.

So, to enlighten him, let’s list all the ways Eduardo Saverin has benefitted from America. First and most obviously, he lived a life of relative safety in Miami, something that wasn’t guaranteed for him in Brazil. Second, also obvious: If Saverin hadn’t come to America, he wouldn’t have met Mark Zuckerberg, and—not to put too fine a point on it—if Saverin hadn’t met Zuckerberg, Saverin wouldn’t be Saverin.

Third: Harvard. Zuckerberg and his cofounders met in the dorms, and while Harvard is a nominally private institution, it enjoys significant funding and protections from the government. In 2011, Harvard received $686 million, about 18 percent of its operating revenue, from federal grants; that’s almost as much as it received from student tuition.

Would Facebook have been founded without Harvard? Perhaps—maybe Facebook would have come about wherever Zuck went to school. Still, there were social networks at lots of other schools. There was clearly something about Harvard’s student body that was receptive to Facebook. More generally, elite, government-sponsored American universities like Harvard have been instrumental in the founding of many tech giants. Microsoft’s founders met at Harvard. Yahoo and Google’s founders met at Stanford. But even if you believe that these universities shouldn’t claim credit for the companies they brought about, it’s still hard to argue that Facebook would be where it is today without the American taxpayers’ large investment in public education. Facebook depends on really smart people to make its products. You don’t get smart people without tax dollars.

Fourth: The American government’s creation of the Internet. The strangest thing about Silicon Valley’s libertarian politics is how few people here recognize how the Internet came about. ARPANET, the earliest large-scale computer network that morphed into the Internet, was funded by the U.S. Defense Department, as was the research into fundamental technologies like packet switching and TCP/IP. Delve deeper into the network and you get to the microprocessors that run the world’s computers—another technology that wouldn’t have come about by loads of federal research grants.

Even the Web itself can trace its founding to government grants. Tim Berners-Lee worked at CERN, the research group funded by Europeans governments, when he worked on the HTTP protocol. Marc Andreessen worked at National Center for Supercomputing Applications—which is funded by in a partnership between the federal government and the state of Illinois—when he created the Mosaic Web browser. Then you’ve got GPS, a technology that makes much of the mobile revolution possible, and one that is wholly created and operated by the U.S. government.

Fifth: The judicial system. If it weren’t for the U.S. courts and laws, Saverin might have been permanently shut out of Facebook. But in 2009, he settled a lawsuit with Facebook that gave him credit as a co-founder and his current stake in the firm. In other words, it’s only because Saverin could sue Facebook and depend on a relatively fair judicial system that he’s got the billions on which he’s now skirting taxes.

Fair courts aren’t to be taken for granted, by the way. There are many places in the world where, if you are wronged by a billionaire, you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. One of those places is Brazil; according to Transparency International, the courts in Saverin’s birth country are beset by corruption.

Now, none of this is to discount Saverin’s own contributions to Facebook’s success. Though he was only there at the beginning—and although he had some pretty terrible ideas for Facebook, including his plan to show interstitial ads when you went to add a friend—let’s assume that he did in fact add $4 billion of value to the world.

The question is, what’s fair for him to keep?

As a son of immigrants myself, I’ve got no patience for the argument that he should keep all of it. Pretty much everything in my life that I enjoy wouldn’t have happened without my being born in the United States. My education, my job, my wife and family, the fact that I’m not persecuted for my race or religion (my parents fled from the war-torn aftermath of WWII), the fact that I can sometimes forget to lock my doors at night and not end up killed by marauding bands—I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but when I think about all the ways that the United States has been integral to everything in my life, taxes seem like a tiny price.

Now, remember that the tax rate on long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. In other words, Saverin gets to keep 85 percent of everything he’s making from Facebook’s IPO. Given how much of his wealth depends on the government, that’s more than fair.

New Report Released by Pew Foundation Cites Net Zero Migration from Mexico

2012-04-23T15:07:00.000-07:00

According to a just released report from the Pew Foundation Hispanic Center, the net migration from Mexico has fallen to zero, meaning the largest immigration boom in the history of the United States may have just ended.

The Mexican migration has been one of the largest in the nation’s history. About 12 million Mexicans have crossed the border, more than half illegally. That flow not only stopped but may have actually have begun to reverse, an equally historic shift. The report found that from 2005 to 2010, “about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.” The drop is the first of any significance in more than two decades. There are 40 million immigrants in the U.S. today. Mexicans account for 58 percent of the illegal population and 30 percent of all U.S. immigrants. China is the next largest country of origin, but accounts for only 5 percent of the total number of immigrants.

2012 Pew Hispanic Center Report

Shocking New Video About Homicide at US Mexico Border

2012-04-19T15:44:00.000-07:00

Just saw this video clip on Youtube that was quite shocking. I am not easily shocked by police violence, but this seems to be an egregious case by the US Border Patrol.

Here is the Link

Wow.