Reputation.Resources.Results

Immigration law is full of confusing jargon and seemingly contradictory statutes. One confusing concept is that of “inadmissibility.” On its face, inadmissibility would seem to mean that one who is ineligible to be “admitted” to the U.S. is “inadmissible,” but this term also applies to aliens within the U.S. who have committed one of a number of offenses. In other words, you do not have to be seeking admission or denied admission, once you have committed a qualifying offense, you are “inadmissible”.

In Hernandez-De La Cruz v Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. April 26, 2016), the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part the denial of Hernandez-De La Cruz’s applications for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for withholding of removal if, “the applicant would face other serious harm in […]

On September 26th, 2015 U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee granted final approval of the settlement in Franco v. Holder, paving the way for previously deported immigrants with severe mental disabilities to request to reopen their cases in Immigration Court, and if approved return to the United States.

In an important ruling, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, No. 13-56415 (8-14-15), held that where deportation of an immigrant is a “virtual certainty” as a consequence of a guilty plea, the defense attorney has an affirmative duty to properly advise. It is not enough to say it is a “possibility” under those circumstances.

In many areas of immigration law, the immigration officials within the U.S. government used to have a great deal of discretion and were permitted to use their judgment to make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis. But in the current political climate, more of this discretion is being taken away from individual officials and these officials are often asked to instead enforce hard and fast policies. One of the most easily penalized demographics are non-immigrant visa holders with criminal convictions, because there is an almost completely discretionary element to the issuance of most non-immigrant visas. This means that even seemingly innocuous misdemeanor convictions, such as reckless driving, can greatly affect an individual’s eligibility for a non-immigrant visa.

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that probationer’s cell phones are included in the definition “property” that is subject to warrantless searches and seizures, as long as the search is “reasonable under the totality of circumstances.”

Even the most experienced immigration lawyers can sometimes be completely baffled as to why USCIS denies a particular petition, especially when USCIS claims the applicant committed some type of fraud. In these cases, it can be very difficult to obtain the exact information which led to the finding, which also makes it difficult to develop a strategy for appealing the decision.

There are clear rulings from the Courts regarding the responsibility of defense attorneys to inform their clients of the potential immigration consequences of a plea deal in a criminal case, and a slew of cases where the Court made “ineffective assistance of counsel” findings under these circumstances. Still, there have not been as many precedent cases clearly addressing errors made by immigration attorneys in immigration cases. Last week, the 9th circuit ruled in favor of an applicant for permanent residence in Peters v. Barr, who was caught in a 14-year-long “bureaucratic nightmare” due to the action (and inaction) of her immigration attorney, back in 2006.

If you are not a U.S. citizen and you are charged with a crime, you might eventually need an immigration attorney. But, your criminal defense attorney is legally obligated to advise you of the “clear consequences” of any plea deal.

Did you know that the judges deciding most immigration cases – including serious asylum matters – are employees of the Justice Department and not independent judges like the ones who handle criminal or civil cases? Most people don’t. Even the judges hearing initial immigration appeals are Justice Department employees. Under a new streamlining rule, however, even these judges may not have the final say in the life-and-death decisions affecting people in the immigration system.