Immigration & Deportation Law

How to Choose a Good Immigration Lawyer

2012-01-30T10:23:00.003-06:00

It’s an unfortunate reality that there are a lot of unethical and incompetent people practicing immigration law. How do you know whether your lawyer is a good one or not? Here are a few quick pointers to make sure that you are receiving quality representation:

1) Make sure your immigration “lawyer” is actually a lawyer: There a thousands of unscrupulous people out there who present themselves as experts in immigration law when in fact they know little or nothing; they will often present themselves as a notary/notario, “immigration assistant,” or even as an actual immigration lawyer. If you are using a notario or “immigration assistant,” you should stop doing so immediately and seek out the assistance of a licensed attorney in your area. If you suspect that your “immigration lawyer” is not really a lawyer, you should ask for his or her state bar number. If you live in Texas, you can go to the following webpage and search for your lawyer by name or bar number to verify whether he or she is, in fact, a lawyer.

http://www.texasbar.com/am/Template.cfm?Section=Advanced_Search

2) See if your lawyer has ever been disciplined by the State Bar: Use the link above to look up your Texas immigration lawyer. Click on his or her profile and scroll down to the public disciplinary history section. Not all disciplinary actions mean that your lawyer is bad, but it’s worth asking your lawyer about if he/she has been disciplined in the past.

3) Check out rating sites like Avvo.com: A good rating and positive reviews on websites like Avvo.com suggests that you have a good immigration lawyer.

4) See if your lawyer is Board Certified in Immigration Law: Board certification means that your lawyer has been designated an expert in his/her field by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A lawyer who is board certified in immigration law has several years of experience in the field, has received the approval of other lawyers and judges, and has passed a very difficult test. Choosing an immigration law firm headed by a Board Certified immigration lawyer is very likely to increase your chances of getting the right help that you need for your immigration case.

U.S. Immigration Proposes Drastic Family Unification Rule Change

2012-01-09T10:11:00.004-06:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate Attorney at the Verdin Law Firm, LLC

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, has announced a proposed rule change that would radically alter the landscape for millions of undocumented aliens.

The proposed rule change would allow certain aliens unlawfully present in the United States to obtain a “provisional waiver” of their unlawful presence before departing to their home countries to obtain a visa. The effect would be to drastically reduce the amount of time these aliens spend apart from their U.S. citizen family members.

Under the current rules, many aliens who enter the United States illegally are ineligible to obtain an immigrant visa (a “green card”) without first returning to their home countries. However, when aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days depart to their home countries, they trigger a law which renders them ineligible for permanent residence for either three years or ten years depending on how long they were in the U.S. illegally. Once outside the U.S., the alien can apply for a waiver of the “unlawful presence bar” from the Department of Homeland Security via the Department of State. However, the difficulties associated with passing the waiver applications from U.S. consulates abroad to domestic immigration authorities, combined with the time required by Homeland Security to adjudicate the applications, frequently results in a waiting period ranging from several months to more than a year. All the while, the alien is apart from his or her U.S. citizen family members.

Under the newly proposed rules, aliens who have a U.S. citizen spouse or parent would be able to apply for the unlawful presence waiver before departing the United States. If approved, the alien could then travel to his home country to obtain his immigrant visa and return to the United States legally within a matter of days.

Barring the unforeseen, it is highly likely that the proposed rules will become law within a matter of months. The result will be to effectively eliminate for millions of aliens the uncertainty and risks presently involved in the waiver process, and open the door for their lawful immigration to the United States.

Dallas Immigration Lawyer--Board Certified

2012-01-04T15:14:00.007-06:00

The Texas Board of Legal Specialization announced that Isaul Verdin is now Board Certified in Immigration & Nationality Law as of December 2011.

In Texas there are over 70,000 licensed attorneys. The Texas Board of Legal Specialization has publicly recognized about 7000 attorneys as Board Certified. That is only about 10% of all licensed attorneys in Texas are Board Certified in one of 21 select areas of law.

Judulang v. Holder: United States Supreme Court Strikes Down Limitations on 212(c) Relief

2011-12-27T07:33:00.003-06:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate Attorney at the Verdin Law Firm, LLC

On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Judulang v. Holder, an immigration case arising out of the Ninth Circuit relating to the availability of section 212(c) relief to deportable aliens.

First, a little history on section 212(c). Prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, immigration proceedings had been divided into “exclusion proceedings” and “deportation proceedings.” Exclusion proceedings governed those aliens who were seeking admission to the United States from abroad. Deportation proceedings governed those aliens already admitted to the United States whom the government wished to deport. Former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permitted the Attorney General to waive denial of entry for most aliens who fell under one of the grounds of excludability. Over several decades of administrative decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals expanded the application of section 212(c) to cover aliens in deportation proceedings. The problem was that the actual text of section 212(c) was directed only to excludable aliens, and there thus arose the question of how to apply and/or limit the availability of section 212(c) to aliens in deportation proceedings. For many years, the Board vacillated between two basic methods of limiting the application of 212(c) in deportation proceedings. In some cases, the Board ruled that for an alien in deportation proceedings, the ground of deportability must merely (as a practical matter) fall within a ground of excludability as well. In other cases, the Board determined that for an alien in deportation proceedings, there must be a comparable statutory ground of excludability to the ground of deportability with which the alien was charged.

In 1996, with the passage of IIRIRA, immigration proceedings were consolidated into a singular “removal proceeding,” but the statutory distinction between aliens seeking entry to the United States and those being deported after admission remained; consequently, so did the problem of appropriately limiting 212(c) relief in deportation proceedings. Finally, in 2005, the Board settled on the “comparable ground” method of limiting 212(c) relief in deportation proceedings. See Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722, 728 (2005); Matter of Brieva-Perez, 23 I&N Dec. 766, 772-773 (2005). The comparable ground approach analyzes whether an alien’s ground of deportation has a close statutory analog in the INA’s list of excludability grounds.

In Judulang, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Board’s “comparable ground of excludability” method of limiting 212(c) relief to deportable aliens fails the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that agency decisions not be “arbitrary and capricious.” Essentially, the high court reasoned that whether a deportable alien’s ground of deportability corresponds closely enough to a statutory ground of excludability has no bearing at all on any factor “germane to the deportation decision. . .,” such as the seriousness of the crime necessitating the waiver or the alien’s overall fitness to remain in the United States. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals may no longer limit 212(c) relief to deportable aliens based solely on the fact that the ground of deportability has no comparable statutory counterpart in section 212 of the Act.

ICE Announces New Prosecutorial Discretion Measures: What Do They Mean for Your Case?

2011-12-05T10:27:00.003-06:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Associate Attorney at the Verdin Law Firm, LLC

On August 18, 2011, as a follow up to the June 17, 2011 “Morton Memo” on the proper use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would be conducting a nationwide review of deportation cases, including those in which a Notice to Appear has not yet been issued as well as those currently pending before an immigration court.

On November 17, 2011, the Principal Legal Advisor for DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement published a memorandum to all Offices of Chief Counsel (OCC) (the entity that prosecutes cases in immigration court), directing each OCC to conduct a review of both incoming deportation cases and the currently pending immigration court docket.

Here are some important things you should know about these new prosecutorial discretion measures:

· The initial review period will last approximately two months, from November 2011 to January 2012. After this initial period, ICE will review the data it has collected on the use of prosecutorial discretion and issue further guidance to OCCs across the country.

· The June 17, 2011 Morton Memo is still the primary guideline on the use of prosecutorial discretion by ICE attorneys and other immigration authorities. However, the new review procedures by the OCCs do mean that just because you are issued a Notice to Appear by an ICE agent, Border Patrol Officer or USCIS does not mean you will necessarily be put in immigration court. The ICE attorneys will have authority to decide whether to file your Notice to Appear in immigration court or not. ICE attorneys have technically always had this authority, but the new prosecutorial discretion guidelines suggest that they are more likely to favorably exercise that discretion in certain cases.

· For cases currently in immigration court, ICE attorneys might now begin to affirmatively exercise prosecutorial discretion, meaning that they might offer prosecutorial discretion in your case even if you have not asked for it.

· The following types of cases remain high enforcement priorities for ICE and are not likely to receive prosecutorial discretion. These cases are ones involving an alien—

o who is a suspected terrorist or national security risk;

o who has a conviction for-

o a felony or multiple misdemeanors,

o illegal entry, re-entry, or immigration fraud, or

o a misdemeanor violation involving-

• violence, threats, or assault,

• sexual abuse or exploitation,

• driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,

• flight from the scene of an accident,

• drug distribution or trafficking, or

• other significant threat to public safety;

o who is a gang member, human rights violator, or other clear threat to public safety;

o who entered the country illegally or violated the terms of their admission within the last

three years;

o who has previously been removed from the country;

o who has been found by an immigration officer or immigration judge to have committed

immigration fraud; or

o who otherwise has an egregious record of immigration violations.

· The following types of cases are low enforcement priorities for ICE and are more likely to receive a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. These cases are ones involving an alien—

o who is a member in good standing of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United

States, an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the

United States, or the spouse or child of such a member or veteran;

o who is a child, has been in the United States for more than five years, and is either in

school or has successfully completed high school (or its equivalent);

o who came to the United States under the age of sixteen, has been in the United States for more than five years, has completed high school (or its equivalent), and is now pursuing or has successfully completed higher education in the United States;

o who is over the age of sixty-five and has been present in the United States for more than

ten years;

o who is a victim of domestic violence in the United States, human trafficking to the United States, or any other serious crime in the United States;

o who has been a lawful permanent resident for ten years or more and has a single, minor

conviction for a non-violent offense;

o who suffers from a serious mental or physical condition that would require significant

medical or detention resources; or

o who has very long-term presence in the United States, has an immediate family member

who is a United States citizen, and has established compelling ties and made compelling

contributions to the United States.

Dallas Private Immigration Bar Welcomes Judge Robert Kimble

2011-11-23T08:28:00.002-06:00

The Dallas Immigration Bar welcomes the addition of Judge Robert Kimble to the Dallas Immigration Court. Judge Kimble previously served as a Trial Attorney at the Dallas Office of Chief Counsel, but has most recently been an EEOC Judge. We anticipate for him to start hearing cases after December 12th.

Seeking Joint Motions to Terminate Before the Dallas Immigration Court

2011-11-23T07:49:00.004-06:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate at the Verdin Law Firm, LLC

Our last few blogs have covered different aspects of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context. One of the ways the immigration authorities can exercise prosecutorial discretion is by the government attorney in immigration court agreeing to a joint motion to terminate your case so you can seek adjustment of status (i.e. getting a green card) administratively through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), rather than through the frequently more stressful environment of immigration court. Recently, the Dallas division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) (the entity that represents the United States government in immigration court) offered some informal guidance to the private bar on the best way to request that Dallas OCC join in a motion to terminate deportation proceedings. This article will highlight the most important parts of the Dallas OCC’s guidelines.

First, if you and your lawyer want to ask Dallas OCC to join in a motion to terminate your case for adjustment before USCIS, your lawyer needs to put together a complete “adjustment packet.” This packet should generally include:

1. The fee receipt for your Form I-485 adjustment application (including the receipt for Form I-485 Supplement A if needed)

2. The original signed Form I-485

3. Form I-485 Supplement A (if needed)

4. An approval notice for an immigrant visa petition (i.e. Form I-130 or Form I-140)

5. A copy of the current United States Department of State Visa Bulletin showing that your visa priority date is current

6. If you entered the United States illegally, proof that you are eligible to adjust status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

7. Form G-325A (Biographic Information)

8. A copy of your foreign birth certificate

9. If you entered the United States legally, proof of your legal entry

10. A completed waiver packet (if needed), including fee receipt

11. Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) with all supporting documentation

12. All of your criminal documents (if applicable)

13. The adjustment packet does NOT need to include a copy of your medical exam (Form I-693), your passport photos, or proof that you have completed your fingerprints, all of which you will have to submit to USCIS before you are allowed to adjust status

The list above is just an overview. If your lawyer is from the Dallas area, he or she should be aware of the specifics of each of the foregoing requirements, as well as the Dallas OCC’s preferred procedure and timeframe for submitting the request. If your lawyer is not from the Dallas area but your case is currently in front of the Dallas Immigration Court and you want to seek termination, your lawyer should contact either the Dallas OCC or another Dallas area immigration lawyer to obtain a copy of the Dallas OCC’s guidelines.

Who Is Subject to Mandatory Detention?

2011-11-04T07:56:00.006-05:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate at Verdin Law Firm, LLC

In our last article, we mentioned that some aliens must be detained when they come into ICE custody. This is commonly referred to as being “subject to mandatory detention.”

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, along with certain cases issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, governs who is subject to mandatory detention.

In order to be subject to mandatory detention, the following things must be true in your case:

You have been released from the custody of some law enforcement agency other than one within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e. other than ICE, Border Patrol, etc.) after October 8, 1998.
Your post-October 8, 1998 release from non-DHS custody is directly tied to one of the mandatory detention offenses listed below.
You are inadmissible or deportable for having committed any of the immigration violations listed in section 236(c)(1)(A)-(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These violations include:

□ If you entered without inspection or you are arriving at a port of entry:

-You have committed a crime involving moral turpitude

-You have committed a controlled substance offense

-You have committed various prostitution-related offenses

-You have committed, or the government reasonably believes you have committed or will commit, various terrorist activities.

□ If you entered the United States with inspection:

-You have been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude at any time after your admission

-You have been convicted of an aggravated felony

-You have been convicted of a controlled substance offense (other than a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use) at any time after admission

-You have been convicted of certain firearms offenses

-You have been convicted of various other offenses (espionage, sabotage, treason, etc.)

-You have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year

-You have committed, or the government reasonably believes you have committed or will commit, various terrorist activities, or you are determined to be associated with a terrorist organization

So, for example, let’s say you entered the United States without inspection in 1991. Then, you were arrested, convicted, and released from custody for possession of marijuana before October 8, 1998. Then in 2010 you were arrested and convicted for DUI, and released from criminal custody to ICE custody. In this case, you do have a release from non-DHS custody after October 8, 1998. However, because you were released from custody based on an offense (DUI) which is not a basis for mandatory detention, you would not be subject to mandatory detention under the second requirement noted above.

Whether you are subject to mandatory detention can be a complicated legal question, and it is a good idea to find an immigration lawyer to make this determination. You should also note that even if you are not subject to mandatory detention, you must still convince either ICE or an Immigration Judge that you are not a flight risk or a danger to the community so the Judge can order the release on bond. Lastly, remember that Immigration Judges have wide latitude to consider all facts in bond proceedings. Such facts can include the following: arrests that did not result in convictions; medical history; property ties; family ties; and other evidence of good moral character.

Prosecutorial Discretion Before and After Immigration Court

2011-10-21T13:47:00.004-05:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate at Verdin Law Firm, LLC

Last week we talked about options for prosecutorial discretion in immigration court. However, you should know that prosecutorial discretion is not something that happens only in immigration court, and it can be exercised by more than just ICE attorneys. Today we’ll talk about options for prosecutorial discretion before you go to immigration court and after you go to immigration court.

Prosecutorial Discretion Before Immigration Court

There are several possibilities for prosecutorial discretion before you go to immigration court. Many of these have to do with immigration detention/bond issues. In matters of detention, it’s the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers (rather than ICE attorneys) who wield a certain amount of prosecutorial discretion. The biggest area in which ERO officers have some degree of prosecutorial discretion is in deciding whether you will be released from immigration detention, and if so under what conditions.

You should know that certain criminal aliens must be detained. However, for aliens not subject to mandatory detention, an ICE/ERO officer has the authority to decide whether and under what conditions you can be released. If your lawyer’s office has a good relationship with the local ICE/ERO office, your lawyer might be able to:

Negotiate a lower immigration bond for you
Seek deferred action (meaning you would not be placed in immigration court proceedings)
Negotiate your placement in one of the Alternative to Detention programs (ISAP, Electronic Monitoring, etc.)

Prosecutorial Discretion After Immigration Court

If you have already gone to immigration court and been ordered deported from the United States, there are still some possibilities in terms of prosecutorial discretion. Again, if your lawyer’s office has a good relationship with ERO, they might be able to negotiate with ERO to:

Grant a stay of removal (Form I-246)
Obtain a grant of deferred action (post-deportation order deferred action means that ICE will not immediately execute your deportation order)

If new facts or evidence arises after you have been ordered removed, your lawyer might also ask the Office of Chief Counsel (ICE attorney) to sign a joint motion to reopen your case. This would also count as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion is an extremely broad term which encompasses many different possibilities at every stage of immigration enforcement in the United States. How prosecutorial discretion is used often depends on many factors. It is, in many ways, still a developing area of immigration law. However, it is also a very viable option for many immigrants in this country, especially for those immigrants who have one or more of the positive factors in the June 17, 2011 “Morton Memo” and who do not have significant criminal issues.

How Can I Get Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court?

2011-10-04T15:44:00.007-05:00

By: Jered Dobbs, Esq., Associate at Verdin Law Firm, LLC

Recently there has been a lot of talk in the immigration world about “prosecutorial discretion.” If you are an alien in immigration court proceedings, it’s important that you and your lawyer understand what prosecutorial discretion is and how it might help your case. This blog article will address three common questions about prosecutorial discretion:

1) What is Prosecutorial Discretion?

2) What are the Different Kinds of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court?

3) How Can I Get Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court?

What is Prosecutorial Discretion?

The first thing you should know is that prosecutorial discretion is not a form of relief like cancellation of removal, asylum, voluntary departure, etc. You won’t find a law in the United States Code or the federal regulations entitled “Prosecutorial Discretion.” In immigration court, prosecutorial discretion is basically the authority of the ICE attorney to decide whether and to what degree he or she is going to enforce the immigration laws of the U.S. against you. When you and your lawyer ask the ICE attorney to “exercise prosecutorial discretion,” you are asking the ICE attorney not to do everything he or she could do to get you deported from the U.S. In practice, there are different kinds of prosecutorial discretion.

What are the Different Kinds of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court?

Prosecutorial discretion in immigration court comes in many forms. However, a few examples of the things an ICE attorney can do as a matter of prosecutorial discretion include:

Joining in a motion to terminate your case[1]
Joining in a request for administrative closure[2]
Agreeing to voluntary departure[3]

How Can I Get Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Court?

There are no formal requirements to receive a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion from the ICE attorney. Additionally, you need to understand that the ICE attorney never has to afford you a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. If you have broken the immigration laws of the U.S., the ICE attorney can choose to argue in favor of your deportation.[4]

However, if you have certain positive factors, there is a good chance that the ICE attorney will agree to a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion in your case. Here is a list of some of the things that might cause the ICE attorney to exercise prosecutorial discretion:[5]

You have long term presence in the U.S. (especially as a lawful permanent resident)
You are an elderly alien
You were brought to the U.S. as a young child
You have evidence of educational pursuits (high school diploma, college, etc.)
You or an immediate relative have served in the military (especially in combat)
You are a pregnant or nursing woman
You have significant family ties to the U.S. (especially having a U.S. citizen or resident spouse, child, or parent)
You have severe mental or physical illness, or a close relative who is a U.S. citizen or resident has such illness
You are the victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crimes
You have cooperated or are cooperating with federal, state, or local law enforcement authorities (ex: serving as a witness, informant, etc.)

None of these factors will guarantee a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but having one or more will certainly help your odds. There are also several factors which will hurt your chances of getting prosecutorial discretion. Those factors include, but are not limited to:[6]

You are a serious felon, repeat criminal offender, or have a lengthy criminal record;
You are a known gang member or other person who is a clear danger to public safety;
You have a bad record of immigration violations, such as multiple illegal entries into the U.S. or immigration fraud

Prosecutorial discretion is a broad subject. Next week’s blog article will discuss prosecutorial discretion options for aliens who have not yet been put in deportation proceedings, and for those who already have a removal order from an immigration judge.

[1] If this happens and the immigration judge grants the motion, you will no longer be in immigration proceedings and you will not have to come back to immigration court unless ICE decides to re-initiate your proceedings. The benefit of termination is that you will no longer have to worry about being ordered deported by the immigration judge. A joint motion to terminate is the ICE attorney’s way of letting you stay in the U.S. to try to fix your immigration status through the Department of Homeland Security and/or the Department of State.

[2] If your case is administratively closed, you are still considered to be in immigration proceedings, but your case is taken off the docket. Aliens whose cases are administratively closed often do not have to come back to court for several years. That extra time frequently allows the alien to become eligible for relief from deportation.

[3] If you receive and comply with an order of voluntary departure, you will not be ordered deported from the U.S. This means you will avoid the 10 year bar to re-entry that comes with a removal order, making it easier for you to lawfully return to the U.S. INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).

[4] See, e.g., Panova-Bohannan v. Ashcroft, 74 Fed. Appx. 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The BIA has consistently held that so long as the enforcement officials of the Service choose to initiate proceedings against an alien and to prosecute those proceedings to a conclusion, the immigration judge and the Board must order deportation if the evidence supports a finding of deportability on the ground charged.") (internal quotations omitted).

[5] See John Morton, Memorandum, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, at 4-5, Policy No. 10075.1, June 17, 2011.

[6] Id.

Immigration Judge James Nugent Joins Dallas Immigration Court

2010-10-24T20:17:00.004-05:00

The Dallas legal community is honored to welcome Immigration Judge James Nugent to the local immigration courts. Judge Nugent was first appointed as a federal immigration judge in February 2005 where he served as a judge at the Oakdale Immigration Court in Louisiana. In mid 2010 he joined the Dallas Immigration Court after Immigration Judge Anthony Rogers retired.

Haiti TPS in Removal Proceedings

2010-01-17T21:20:00.000-06:00

By: Isaul Verdin, Esq.

Any national from Haiti that is currently in removal proceedings needs to take advantage of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This status was authorized on January 15, 2010 as a result of the devastating earthquake in Haiti. After the respondent files for TPS on form I-821 and obtains the necessary receipts, the respondent needs to make a motion to the Immigration Court for Administrative Closure of removal proceedings. If the respondent makes a prima facie showing that he or she is eligible for TPS, then the Immigration Judge should grant the Motion to Administratively Close the proceedings. This will protect the respondent from removal while he or she is on TPS.

Form I-821 can be found at www.uscis.gov

Are Lawyers Questioning Whether Local Law Officials are Following Proper 287g Program Standards?

2009-09-09T23:07:00.000-05:00

Immigration lawyers should become familiar with the nuances of the 287g Program Standards. This program creates a partnership between ICE and local law enforcement officials through a Memorandum of Agreement which allows local officials to perform immigration law enforcement functions.

Only after ICE personnel appropriately train local law enforcement, can local officials perform certain designated functions to process a detained individual with immigration issues.

A defense lawyer that wants to aggressively represent his or her client must be ready to challenge whether local law enforcement officials are following proper procedure under the 287g program. In my experience, many local officers are not thoroughly trained to handle the complexity of all of the immigration issues. For example, in some areas, local officers can set bond amounts for undocumented detainees. Oftentimes, in these cases, the local officer will summarily set a high bond amount. A detained individual should not accept this amount as set in stone. A defense lawyer can quickly challenge the amount by contacting the supervisory ICE officer that is the liaison between the local officials and the designated ICE office. In my experience, the ICE officer will generally be willing to consider all facts to exercise more discretion in the bond amount. Many local officials generally assume that all "illegals" are criminals and warrant a high bond amount. However, this can be overcome with proper documentation and by contacting key ICE personnel.

In addition, defense attorneys should be ready to complain to ICE officials about local officer misconduct or abuse of discretion. A well documented complaint can serve as a useful tool to prevent future local official abuses. In the complaint, the defense lawyer should challenge whether the local officers received the appropriate level of training. If it can be shown that the local officer did not receive proper training or did not have the required experience, then there is an abuse of the 287g program; and consequently, this would call for appropriate Congressional complaint.

Isaul Verdin, Esq.

Isaul Verdin quoted as an immigration law expert on NBCdfw.com

2009-07-26T23:53:00.000-05:00

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Immigration-Courts-Face-Staggering-Backlog.html

Sotomayor on Immigration

2009-07-15T01:09:00.000-05:00

By Isaul Verdin, Esq.

If confirmed as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, some in our nation may assume that Sonia Sotomayor will take a liberal position on immigration issues. To evaluate this assumption, one should consider her record at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

While she served as a federal judge at the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard 850 asylum cases. The Senate subcommittee on immigration, border security, and citizenship tracked Sotomayor's statistics on immigration cases and found that she ruled on behalf of the government 83% of the time. In other words, she only ruled on behalf of asylum seekers 17% of the time. According to Senator Chuck Schumer, who heads this Senate subcommittee, she was exactly at the median point in her circuit. That is, compared to her colleagues on the bench she ruled in the middle. This indicates to me that she is neither a liberal nor a conservative when it comes to immigration issues. Only time will tell if she changes her views while on the Supreme Court bench.

How to Obtain Release on Bond if the Detainee is Not Subject to Mandatory Detention - Avvo.com

2009-07-10T01:50:00.001-05:00

How to Obtain Release on Bond if the Detainee is Not Subject to Mandatory Detention - Avvo.com

Shared via AddThis

Dallas Immigration Court has new immigration judge-- Hon. Michael Baird

2009-07-07T22:53:00.000-05:00

A background on Michael P. Baird, Immigration Judge

Judge Baird was appointed as an immigration judge in April 2009 and has begun hearing cases in the Dallas Immigration Court. He received a bachelor of business administration in 1989 from Clayton State University and a juris doctorate in 1992 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2006 to April 2009, Judge Baird served as an assistant district attorney in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit in Georgia. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a judge in the Municipal Court of Jonesboro, Ga. From 1997 to 2004, he was Chief Judge for the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Ga. From 1995 to 1996, Judge Baird was in private practice. From 1993 to 1995, he served as senior assistant solicitor general at the Clayton County Solicitor’s Office. From 1992 to 1993, he was in private practice. From 1986 to 1990, Judge Baird was a police officer with the Lake City Police Department. From 1998 to 2008, he has also served as an assistant professor and on the adjunct faculty in the university system of Georgia. Judge Baird is a member of the Georgia Bar.

The Dallas private immigration bar welcomes Judge Baird.

Does Napolitano Have the Skills to Lead the Leaders?

2009-07-03T00:19:00.000-05:00

By: Isaul Verdin, Esq.

President Obama has delegated a critical task to Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The President expects her to lead both House and Senate leaders to comprehensive immigration reform. But, can she do it?

In short, yes. She has both the skills and the survivor attitude to do it.

As a former governor of Arizona, Secretary Napolitano has proven her experience to lead strong-willed individuals. In conservative Arizona while dealing with complex border issues, she successfully maintained a centrist approach to her politics and she gained a reputation for being a fair bipartisan player. These skills will be invaluable to her as she leads the charge against a constantly growing anti-immigrant political tide.

Another asset that will allow her to navigate the hot political waters, will be her survivor attitude. A little known fact about Secretary Napolitano is that she is a cancer survivor. This kind of experience will toughen a person against any other hardknock. Politics should be easy compared to beating cancer.

With Secretary Napolitano at the helm of the issue, I'm confident that we should see positive reform in President Obama's first term in office.

Immigration Law: Possible Deportation?... A Guide for Detainees under ICE Custody

2009-06-28T21:49:00.000-05:00

Whether you have permanent resident status, have lawful nonimmigrant status, or whether you are presently in the United States without legal status, you face the possibility of deportation in certain circumstances.

All non U.S. citizens face the possibility of being placed in removal proceedings if they commit a serious crime, or a series of certain types of crimes. Certain crimes may appear minor in nature, but can have serious immigration consequences.

Additionally, if you have no status and are inside the United States, then the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) may detain you at any time and will generally initiate removal proceedings against you.

The following is a guide for your consideration in the event that DHS detains you.

Step 1: Stay Calm. Whatever the circumstances may be, if DHS detains you, you must stay calm. You must not speak to the DHS officers about any criminal offense you may have committed nor discuss any issues related to your immigration status. You must simply indicate that you want to speak to your immigration attorney or that you want to see an immigration judge. You must also remember NOT to sign any document without having your attorney review it.

Step 2: Retain Counsel. If you are detained, you must coordinate with your family so they may retain a lawyer on your behalf. It is critical that your family search for an immigration lawyer experienced in representing clients in removal proceedings.

Step 3: Request Bond. If you hired an immigration lawyer, then the lawyer will request bond for you. Not everyone is eligible for release on bond. This will depend on the nature of the crime you committed, or whether you have an existing deportation order. If you are bond eligible, then your family should immediately pay the bond. If you cannot pay the bond, your immigration lawyer may request the Immigration Court to lower your bond amount. If you are not bond eligible, then you must wait in the detention center until your case is finalized in Immigration Court.

Step 4: Meet with Counsel. If you are released on bond, you will need to meet with your immigration lawyer immediately so that the two of you can develop a strategy that meets your needs. If you are not released on bond, then you will need to discuss your case with your immigration lawyer over the phone. Your lawyer can coordinate a telephonic consultation even if you are detained.

Step 5: Follow Your Counsel’s Advice. Being placed in removal proceedings is a frustrating and overwhelming affair, especially if you are not bond eligible. You must be patient. Trust your lawyer to work on your behalf. With your cooperation, your lawyer will help you achieve the best and most realistic results possible.

Author: Isaul Verdin, Esq.
http://www.jluciolaw.com/

Blog Launch

2009-06-27T13:20:00.000-05:00

In this blog my mission will be to post recent trends in immigration law and cover removal proceeding trends. I hope to cover background on immigration judges throughout the country.

Along the same lines, I hope to provide insight on policies and practices in different ICE Offices of Chief Counsel.