Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

President Obama proposed to eliminate country-specific caps for certain immigrant visa categories to stimulate small-business growth. Country-specific immigrant caps are limits on the number of immigrant visa the United States will grant each year. According to a White House statement, the purpose is to attract more high skilled foreign workers, including entrepreneurs to the United States. Employers, especially those in the technology business, complain that these caps prevent them from hiring skilled workers and growing their companies in the United States.

Obama called for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and if this is not politically possible, he will seek reforms in smaller steps. "If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses and defend this country," Obama said.

The Department of Homeland Security said it will implement several measures to simplify the process for immigrant entrepreneurs to do business in the United States, and also to keep more foreign nationals with science and technology degrees from U.S. universities.

Obama said the proposal was a "symbol of how important it is for us to spur entrepreneurship, to help start-ups, to move aggressively so that we can ensure more companies that create most jobs in our economy are getting a leg up from various programs that we have in our government."

Opponents of Obama's plan point to the high unemployment rate in the United States and question why the government would be extending nonimmigrant visas for highly skilled workers while many US citizens and permanent residents are unemployed and are seeking those jobs.

Obama told reporters on Tuesday that he expects Congress to pass a bill this year. However, some members of Congress are likely to oppose the proposal.

Missouri may join the list of states with their own immigration laws that rival the federal government's traditional enforcement role. A bill introduced in the Missouri Legislature by Republican State Senator Will Kraus would require state and local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police with reasonable cause. The law would also make it a misdemeanor not to carry documentation of citizenship. These provisions are similar to the laws passed in Arizona and Alabama. The Missouri bill would also require school officials to verify students' immigration status. This has led to much criticism that the law would damage education and cause extensive racial profiling and harassment of children.

Laws currently on the books in Arizona and Alabama also make state and local law enforcement responsible for checking immigration statuses if they have reasonable suspicion that a person may not have legal status. Since immigration status is determined based on federal law, and immigration laws are principally enforced by federal agencies, this has created a conflict between state and federal law enforcement. Local police may not have the particular training and expertise to enforce federal immigration laws and regulations. Immigration regulations change on a regular basis. The state laws have also raised concerns that local police will engage in racial profiling, targeting individuals who, in essence, do not look "American."

Missouri's proposed law would add another layer to the confusion by putting school administrators and perhaps even teachers in the middle of the fray. Many immigrants and immigration attorneys know that immigration status is often not as simple as having a card or piece of paper. Federal law provides a vast number of forms of legal immigration status, and people who do not deal primarily with these issues may not know all of the available options.

Senator Kraus has stated that his bill was motivated by an effort to determine what "illegal immigration" costs the state, and whether Missouri could claim reimbursement from the federal government for its efforts in enforcing immigration law. He says that the bill would require the state's Board of Education to collect data and determine the cost to the state of educating undocumented immigrants. This is of course different from the cost of immigration enforcement. The United States Supreme Court has long held that children, regardless of immigration status, have a right to an education through the public school system. States have contributed to the cost of immigration enforcement in some ways. Cook County, Illinois, for example, recently addressed the issue of the cost of local cooperation with immigration detainers sent by federal officials, a story we covered in this immigration blog.

Continue reading "New Proposed Law Would Require Schools to Verify Students' Immigration Status" »

The Obama administration has adopted a policy of focusing immigration enforcement efforts on individuals with criminal records, particularly for violent crimes, and individuals believed to pose a threat to national security. They are therefore de-emphasizing cases against people who, despite allegedly lacking legal immigration status, have resided in the United States for a significant period of time, do not have criminal records, and have put down roots. This particularly includes people who have families in the United States, and who may have children who are themselves U.S. citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the direction of the White House, recently undertook a review of all pending deportation cases in Denver. Of a total 7,900 cases, it found that 1,301, almost one of every six, should be closed under the Obama administration's guidelines. A similar review in Baltimore led to the closure of 366 of its 3,759 pending cases. "Closure" in this situation means that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will no longer prosecute their claims against these particular individuals, and the immigration courts will suspend or dismiss the cases. Aside from dismissal of the deportation cases, this review does not confer any other benefits on any of the affected individuals. DHS hopes to conclude a nationwide review of pending cases by the end of this summer.

Critics of these reviews, and of the White House's policy in general, describe it as a form of "backdoor amnesty." This is a common criticism among those who seek stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, but it is not a fair way to characterise the reviews or the policy at all. Deportations and removals are complicated and costly proceedings, and the administration has made a decision to focus on the cases that could have the biggest benefit on society as a whole. Specifically, the benefit would be to seek to remove immigrants who have shown themselves to be violent or dangerous, and to leave the ones who are contributing to society alone. The people whose cases have been suspended or dismissed have not received any direct benefit from the government.

Continue reading "After Review of Pending Deportation Cases, One in Six Get a Reprieve" »

Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago, is home to one of the country's largest jails. The county made headlines last fall when it decided to ignore requests from federal immigration authorities to detain certain inmates past their release date. The practice, known as an immigration detainer, describes a request by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to local law enforcement to hold an inmate who may have immigration issues until ICE can take custody of the inmate. The Cook County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance in September 2011 that prevents county jails from complying with ICE detainers unless ICE agrees to cover the cost of the extra detention. ICE generally does not compensate local jails for complying with detainers.

County officials, in addition to cost issues related to holding detainees longer in county facilities, point to due process concerns. Detainers, they argue, amount to additional imprisonment without the opportunity for hearing or review. This "erodes community trust in local police," they say.

The conflict between Cook County and ICE heated up in November with the case of Saul Chavez. Chavez was charged in a hit-and-run crash in Chicago that killed a pedestrian in the summer of 2011. ICE issued a detainer after his June arrest asking the county to notify them 48 hours before his release so ICE agents could take him into custody for alleged immigration violations. Chavez's family posted bond for him in November, after the ordinance had passed, so the county jail ignored the detainer and released Chavez. Chavez has not been seen since.

The same day that Chicago media reported on Chavez's case, January 4, 2012, ICE Director John Morton wrote a letter to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. Morton accuses the ordinance of "undermin[ing] public safety in Cook County" and possibly violating federal law. State and local law enforcement have little to no authority regarding immigration laws, and any obligation of local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE detainers is not well-defined. It is not entirely clear, therefore, how Cook County's ordinance violates federal law.

Critics of the ordinance had already alleged that it would eventually lead to violent and dangerous criminals being released from custody. Commissioner Timothy Schneider called it "our Willie Horton moment in Cook County." He has sponsored an ordinance that would allow the sheriff to communicate with ICE about specific detainers.

Continue reading "ICE Challenges Cook County, Illinois' Policy on Immigration Detainers" »

Advocates for fair and reasonable treatment of immigrants had cause to celebrate last month in Arizona. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been a controversial figure in the national immigration debate for some time, but his office received a blow from the federal government last month after a report announced evidence of discriminatory and even unconstitutional conduct. The Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) on December 15, 2011 that it had to reach a voluntary agreement to cease practices of racial profiling and discrimination against Spanish-speaking detainees, or it would face a lawsuit for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved much more quickly, almost immediately revoking MCSO's authority to screen the immigration status of inmates in the county jails. Federal immigration authorities will handle that task for now.

Arpaio has been the subject of multiple investigations and inquiries in recent years, many directly related to how the MCSO handles immigration investigations and treats suspected undocumented immigrants. The DOJ began an investigation several years ago into allegations of discrimination and racial profiling, culminating in its December 2011 announcement. During the investigation, the DOJ threatened to sue the MCSO to compel its cooperation. Numerous lawsuits by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and by individuals detained by the MCSO allege discriminatory or abusive acts.

A 2011 lawsuit, as one example, alleges that the MCSO kept a woman shackled during and after her delivery of a child by Caesarean section, causing injury and violating her rights. Authorities may have also violated state policies against shackling women in labor. The alleged incident occurred in 2009 after she had pleaded guilty to a forgery-related offense. She claims that guards at the jail ignored her cries for help because she was speaking Spanish. She had to find someone to translate for her.

The decision by DHS means that MCSO will have have full access to federal immigration databases under the Secure Communities program. Secure Communities is a program spearheaded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of DHS, allowing local law enforcement to cooperate more easily with federal immigration officials by sharing information regarding detainees' immigration status and criminal records. The program is part of a policy of the Obama administration to focus immigration enforcement efforts on individuals with criminal records and those who pose a clear threat to public safety or national security.

Continue reading "Controversial Arizona Sheriff Stripped of Authority to Conduct Immigration Screening" »

Police in Georgetown, Ohio arrested three men for suspected trafficking of controlled substances, as reported by the Maysville Ledger Independent. All three men were charged with felony counts of drug trafficking and drug possession. Two of the men were released on bond. The third man, a 32 year-old gas station manager named Yogesh Patel, remains in custody. Police reportedly determined that he is an undocumented immigrant and placed a detainer on him. This means that he cannot be released from custody until his case is reviewed by federal immigration authorities. Once his criminal case is resolved, county authorities intend to turn him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may issue detainers to local law enforcement requesting them to hold an individual for a period of time so that they can review the person's immigration status and, if necessary, take custody. This period of time does not begin to accrue until after local law enforcement no longer has need to hold the person. A person could therefore post a bond and still be subject to detention by ICE. Typically, ICE has 48 hours to take custody of a person once they have posted bond locally, or else the person must be released. If ICE takes custody of the person and decides to seek removal, they may not allow a bond. People may find themselves forced to post bonds to both local law enforcement and to immigration authorities.

Immigration detainers have begun to affect an increasing number of U.S. citizens, according to a recent report in The New York Times. DHS and ICE have expanded the Secure Communities program, which aims to integrate local law enforcement with federal databases of suspected immigration law violators nationwide by 2013. Local law enforcement officials participating in the program check fingerprints of everyone booked into jail against DHS databases. Flaws in these databases' records have reportedly led to a number of false positives, causing local authorities to hold citizens wrongly identified as suspected undocumented immigrants, sometimes for long periods of time.

ICE officials assert that, as they lack the legal authority to detain U.S. citizens, they give "immediate and close attention" to anyone who claims they are a citizen. ICE has announced that it is revising its detainer forms to require local law enforcement to inform suspects of their immigration holds. The agency also says it plans to offer a hotline giving detainees direct telephone access to ICE.

Continue reading "Ohio Businessman's Arrest Leads to a Hold by Immigration Officials" »

The U.S. Supreme Court, at the request of Arizona governor Jan Brewer, has granted certiorari to an appeal in a lawsuit by the federal government challenging Arizona's controversial 2010 immigration statute. By agreeing to hear the case, the Court is putting the issue center stage in its docket for a presidential election year. It will likely hear oral argument in the case in April 2012, and should issue a decision next summer.

Governor Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law on April 23, 2010. The law requires law enforcement to check a person's immigration status in certain situations, and it empowers police to detain and arrest a person without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the person is undocumented and has committed an offense that would make them removable from the U.S. It places a considerable amount of responsibility on state and local law enforcement for enforcing immigration laws, which are set exclusively at the federal level. Supporters of the law say it is necessary to combat crime and other problems resulting from increased levels of illegal immigration into the state, and to make up for the federal government's purported inaction in enforcing its own laws. Critics point out the lack of guidelines as to how law enforcement makes determinations as to who might be undocumented. Racial profiling and harassment of Hispanics and other minority group, they argue, are the inevitable results of the law.

The Obama administration, for its part, has announced a policy of focusing immigration enforcement efforts on people with serious criminal histories and people who pose a clear threat to national security. People who have lived in the United States for a long period of time and have generally followed the law are deemed low-priority under this policy. Arizona's approach of potentially treating everyone as a possible undocumented immigrant is at odds with the White House's policy. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress power over setting immigration policy, and the federal government has long had primary control over immigration law.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010 challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, seeking an injunction preventing its enforcement, and requesting an order holding that federal immigration law preempts the Arizona statute. The U.S. requested a preliminary injunction, which a federal judge granted on July 28. Arizona requested and obtained an expedited appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court issued its ruling on April 11, 2011, in which it upheld the trial court's injunction. An appeal of the Ninth Circuit's ruling will now go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Will Consider Controversial Immigration Law" »

Alabama's controversial immigration law, passed earlier this year, invited yet more scrutiny several weeks ago when police arrested a German businessman. Police pulled the man over just outside Tuscaloosa on November 16. He was driving a rental car that did not have tags, and he only had a German ID. Since Alabama's law requires police to investigate the immigration status of people involved in traffic stops, they arrested him. The man turned out to be a Mercedes-Benz executive visiting the company's 3,400-employee plant in Tuscaloosa.

The Mercedes-Benz plant is one of Alabama's great success stories of the past few decades. The company's 1993 decision to open the Tuscaloosa facility paved the way for similar plants by Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota, according to Bloomberg News. Mercedes-Benz itself described the arrest as "unfortunate" and declined additional comment. The incident has fed a growing sense among Alabama business leaders, some would say finally, that the law does more harm than good for the state's economy.

In other parts of the state, leaders are already sensing that the law is driving away not only workers, but investors and foreign employers. In March of this year, Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, a Chinese manufacturer, announced its intention to build a $100 million factory, employing at least 300 people, in Thomasville, Alabama. The company has now hinted that it will consider other offers elsewhere, which has Thomasville's mayor scrambling to do damage control. Other states are even trying to woo Mercedes-Benz and other large companies away from Alabama.

State leaders claim they intended the law to deter undocumented workers and increase the number of available jobs for unemployed Alabamans. Alabama is already very low on the national scale of economic strength and employment rates, and the new law has shown no signs of improving that. Fields of crops lay rotting because the people with experience working those fields either stayed away for fear of arrest or fled the state entirely. Small businesses in small towns and big cities alike across the state told a New York Times reporter that business was significantly down as their regular customers vanished.

Continue reading "Alabama Immigration Law Shows More Unintended Consequences After Arrest of German Businessman" »

A 19 year-old Guatemalan who has resided in the United States since he was three years old hopes to get a reprieve from deportation one year after the government first tried to send him back to his country of origin. Bernard Pastor, who lives in the Cincinnati area, is requesting an extension from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Detroit. He obtained a one-year deferral from ICE last year, which expires on December 17. He has amassed support from friends, fellow students, clergy, and immigration advocates, who maintain that deporting him "would serve no useful purpose," according to as Associated Press report.

Pastor's parents brought him to the U.S. from Guatemala when he was three years old in order to escape religious persecution by the military regime then in power. Although Pastor's uncle reportedly obtained legal asylum, his parents did not. They nevertheless chose to stay in the U.S. By all accounts, Pastor is an all-American teenager. He became an honors student, a soccer star, and the homecoming king of his high school. He graduated among the top 5 students of his high school class in 2010.

A fender bender in Springdale on November 17, 2010, when Pastor could not produce a driver's license, brought him to the attention of police, and then ICE got involved. Pastor spent a month in jail, during which time an attorney and many friends and supporters advocated for him. ICE agreed to a one-year extension for Pastor to stay in the country and released him from jail on December 17 of last year.

Pastor's supporters and advocates widely publicized his case through the media and the internet. Facebook pages and a Change.org petition pleaded his case. Pastor was at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on December 18, the day after his release, to support the DREAM Act in the Senate. The DREAM Act would have given him a path to legal immigration status if he attended college. While the bill passed the House of Representatives, it failed in the Senate.

Continue reading "Guatemalan-Born Ohio Teen Seeks Additional Reprieve from Deportation" »

The Obama administration announced a revision to its policy on deportations earlier this year, stating that it would review cases for over 300,000 undocumented immigrants facing removal that it characterized as "low priority." These immigrants included those who have been present in the U.S. for a long period of time with little to no criminal record and those who arrived here as children and remained. This policy, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, has faced criticism from both opponents and advocates of immigration rights. Advocates contend that the administration has not applied the policy consistently, causing frustration for immigrants facing deportation and their attorneys.

The change in policy came after last year's failure of the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act in the Senate, which would have provided a path to legal permanent residence for youth who came to the U.S. illegally as children and who fulfilled certain educational requirements. We previously reported on the highly partisan nature of the bill's failure, and what it might portend for immigrants' rights in the future. Immigration advocates therefore welcomed the new policy, hoping it would bring more compassion and common sense to the deportation system.

Since the new policy took effect in August, results have been mixed at best. Immigrant advocates now charge that the sort of deportation cases supposedly put on hold by the new policy have continued almost unabated. One person caught in the confused implementation of the new policy is Shamir Ali, originally from Bangladesh, who now faces deportation after living in the U.S. since he was seven years old. He apparently would have been eligible for DREAM Act relief had it passed. Another case involves Guatemalan Eulalia Barrientos, who has resided in the U.S. for almost twenty years and has two U.S. citizen children. On the verge of deportation, she suddenly received a one-year stay of deportation after her case received extensive media attention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) simply stated that her reprieve was a result of "prosecutorial discretion."

Continue reading "Obama Administration's New Policy on "Low Priority" Immigration Offenders Draws Criticism" »

Recent events have offered mixed news for immigrants and the attorneys who advocate for them, with some positive events occurring in the midst of an often-negative atmosphere for immigrants. Ohio is now experiencing the effects of the dispute between, on one side, those who support the rights of immigrants and tout the benefits immigration can have for local economies, and those who advocate greater restrictions on immigration at all levels.

We have previously reported on limits placed by the courts on some of the harsher provisions of anti-immigrant laws enacted in Arizona and Alabama, but the broader effect of those laws elsewhere in the nation remains to be seen. Last week saw the successful recall of Republican Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, the author of that state's controversial 2010 immigration law. Immigration advocates tout this as a victory for immigrant rights and a move towards a sensible immigration policy. Of course, many issues factored into Arizona voters' decision, but it is difficult not to see this as a major win for immigrants.

Ohio has also seen recent progress in immigrants' rights, with efforts from business leaders to attract immigrant investors and the decision by the city of Dayton to formally become "immigrant-friendly." A Chippewa Herald op-ed recently touted the importance of immigrants to Ohio's economy and the folly of blaming immigrants for the state's economic problems, noting recent efforts to attract immigrant investors and entrepreneurs to the area. The author makes the uncomfortable, but perhaps necessary, argument that immigrants will often perform jobs that others in Ohio will not, citing the example of Alabama farms that cannot attract non-immigrant labor.

At least one Ohio leader does not share this enthusiasm for immigrants, however. Sheriff Richard K. Jones of Butler County recently sent a letter to Governor John Kasich requesting assistance in creating stiffer penalties for immigrants and employers who hire undocumented labor. The sheriff's letter cites certain economic problems he associates with illegal immigration. He asks the governor to assist state legislators who are trying to pass legislation that would increase punishments for employers hiring undocumented workers and undocumented immigrants who break Ohio laws, as well as empower local law enforcement to make arrests for immigration violations. The similarities to the Arizona and Alabama laws are clear.

Continue reading "Controversy Over State Immigration Laws Comes to Ohio" »

Manuel Bartsch, a 23 year-old college student at Ohio's Heidelberg University, came to the United States from Germany as a child in 1997. After a brush with federal immigration authorities when he graduated from high school, he went on to college. He recently came to the attention of immigration agents again, as he was beginning his senior year at Heidelberg. He learned last week that authorities are deferring his case again, which is a reprieve, but hardly cause to rest easy.

Bartsch had no idea that he was not a legal resident of the United States until his senior year of high school. Bartsch had arrived in the United States on a temporary visa in 1997 with his step-grandfather, an American citizen, after his grandmother, who was his legal guardian, passed away in Germany. Although his step-grandfather took Bartsch in and cared for him, he never legally adopted him. Once the temporary visa expired, this child in need from Germany became an "illegal alien."

Bartsch's problems began when he applied to college. He needed a social security number, so he filed an application. He received a letter from the local immigration office telling him he had filled out the wrong form and asking him to come in for a meeting. Upon his arrival, he was handcuffed and taken to jail, where he stayed for sixteen days.

He received enormous support from friends and teachers, and even politicians rallied behind him. Ohio politicians across the state presented resolutions urging immigration authorities to allow him to stay in the U.S., and Ohio senator Mike DeWine introduced a special bill in Congress in April 2006 to let him to stay legally. The senator noted specifically that Bartsch's undocumented status was not his fault, since he had arrived here as a child. Bartsch got his first reprieve from deportation that year when Texas senator John Cornyn, who was chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, formally requested a report from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This meant that authorities could not deport him under any circumstances until the report was issued.

Legislators introduced a private bill in 2007, H.R. 738, "For the relief of Manuel Bartsch," which died in committee. The bill would have granted Bartsch permanent resident status. At the present time, Bartsch is still technically an "illegal alien," albeit a higher-profile one than most. His best chance for legal immigration status, given the media attention he has received, is still some form of waiver or legislative relief. He appeared at a press conference in 2007 with Illinois senator Dick Durbin in support of the DREAM Act, which would have helped undocumented students who arrived in the U.S. as children.

Continue reading "German-born College Student Who Considers Ohio His Home Gets Another Reprieve from Deportation" »

On May 26, 2011 the US Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's mandatory E-Verify law is constitutional and can go forward thereby requiring all businesses operating in the State of Arizona to use this federally created voluntary pilot system, on a mandatory basis. A month later, the Ohio Legislature introduced Senate Bill 286 which is an Arizona E-Verify copycat bill, purporting to also mandate Ohio businesses to use the E-Verify employment eligibility verification online system. This article will explain that the proposed Ohio E-Verify law is bad for Ohio's businesses and bad for Ohio's economy. The current E-Verify system is riddled with inaccuracies and a mandatory compliance law will cost Ohio employers and citizens millions of dollars in administrative overhead and down time.

The Arizona Case

The US Chamber of Commerce had sued the State claiming that federal immigration laws may not be enforced by any State and that such enforcement is exclusively reserved for the federal government. They cited the sweeping 1986 immigration reform which stripped the States from any ability to undertake any such enforcement actions. In reality, however, Congress did leave a clause in such laws allowing the states to legislate regarding "all licenses necessary to operate the business." It was from this narrow clause was that the State of Arizona able to successfully defeat the constitutional challenge to its E-Verify legislation.

In a 5-3 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion stating that Arizona had the authority to legislate enforcement provisions for its employment verification apparatus. "We hold that Arizona's licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states and therefore is not expressly preempted," the Chief Justice ruled.

The Ohio Mandatory E-Verify Proposal

Ohio's E-Verify copycat legislation was introduced in the Ohio Senate on Wednesday June 29, 2011. Representatives Combs and Bubp introduced this bill, which would require all Ohio employers - both public and private - to use the E-Verify system in ensuring the employment eligibility of new hires. The bill also outlines provisions for filing complaints and sanctions for employers that hire illegal aliens, which include firing all such workers, revocations of business license as well as criminal liability for violators. As of the date of this article, this proposed law was not referred to committee.

Why Ohio's Mandatory E-Verify Program is Bad for Ohio's Employers

A Mandatory E-Verify law in Ohio would cost Ohio employers millions of dollars in administrative cost plugging in data in the federal E-Verify system. Many rural employers do not have the skills or the high-speed Internet connectivity to do so. Furthermore, in many small businesses that do not have an HR department, the compliance will fall on the shoulders of the owner of the business herself which is not practical.

Errors in the E-Verify system itself will cost 800,000 workers nationally to lose their jobs and $3.6 million to correct such errors according to government data. The loss of such workers in today's high unemployment reality is certainly bad news for Ohio's workers and their employers. Such government data suggest that the error rate in E-Verify are even higher for employers who have a higher percentage of immigrant worker population as is the situation in many sectors of the workforce including high tech. and agricultural, and construction jobs. Green card holders and recently naturalized foreign nationals are ten times more apt to be erroneously identified by the system as ineligible to accept employment. Hence, Ohio's proposed mandatory E-Verify system will have the unintended consequence of discriminating against such workforce.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a mandatory E-Verify system will decrease national tax proceeds by $17 billion over a decade. Ohio's share of such proceeds will proportionally decrease as a result. Immigration lawyers in Columbus and Ohio as a whole have voiced their objection to this proposed legislation and plan to testify in opposition. Please join us in opposing this ill advised proposal.

At a time when Ohio is trying to lift itself out of an economic rut, a mandatory E-Verify system seems to take us deeper and deeper in the hole.

A federal court of appeals blocked some parts of Alabama's controversial new immigration law last week, but much of the law remains in effect. While this law only applies in the state of Alabama, it has influenced lawmakers and immigration reformers all over the country. Alabama's law pits the federal government, which has authority over immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution, against a state government seeking its own reform. The outcome of this dispute, and the enactment and enforcement of the Alabama law, will have nationwide impact on immigration matters.

The law affects many aspects of government operations, including law enforcement, education, and the civil court system. It also saddles Alabama law enforcement with a duty to check people's immigration statuses, and at times to determine whether a person is present in the United States legally. As any immigration attorney knows, this is a difficult determination to make, and law enforcement without specialized training in immigration laws may not be in the best position to do so. The Obama administration took Alabama to court to challenge its legal ability to legislate immigration matters, arguing that the Constitution grants that power exclusively to the federal government. A ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta last week gave partial victories to each side of the dispute.

The court's ruling blocks some of the law's more controversial provisions, but leaves many more in place. The court will review the constitutional questions presented in the case and make a more thorough ruling later. The court blocked the section requiring state officials to check the immigration status of public school students. It also blocked a provision creating a misdemeanor offense for immigrants who willfully fail "to complete or carry an alien registration card," something critics described as allowing law enforcement to demand papers from people they suspect of being undocumented, with few guidelines on how to make that determination.

Provisions of the law remaining in force include one that requires law enforcement, during lawful stops or arrests, to try to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is undocumented. Another provision still in force bars state courts from enforcing contracts that involve undocumented immigrants, and another makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into "business transactions" in the state. This last provision may make it illegal for someone to apply for a driver's license or even to hook up utility services.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Blocks Portions of Controversial Alabama Immigration Law" »

This article is the second installment following up and providing a conclusion to the first segment which provides the final techniques utilized by the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) responses. Again this article focuses on the RFE response, but its techniques are applicable to any written brief or statement made in response to USCIS.

Critique the Request for Evidence Itself
A major component of drafting the response to an RFE is the need to critique the request itself. The immigration officer may not have developed the facts in a complete and accurate manner. It is your job to comprehensively develop those facts (often by use of affidavits). By showing inconsistencies and other problems with the facts, as developed by the immigration officer, you begin to establish credibility to your case. The Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates are very experienced at analyzing the facts and respectfully presenting them correctly to the USCIS in an RFE response.

Secondly, you must scrutinize the quality and quantity of the legal research conducted by the immigration officer. Determine if the officer identified all the relevant legal authority. Often times, RFE's will present "biolerplate" legal authority. Did the immigration officer properly interpret the law? Did the officer correctly apply the law to the issue and the facts in the case at hand? Did the officer include legal authorities in the RFE, but not use them in the analysis or argument? Don't leave these questions unanswered. If there are flaws in the legal research conducted by the immigration officer, or flaws in the ways by which the officer cited legal authorities, point it out.

Finally, test the immigration officer's arguments. Has the officer adequately connected the issues with the facts and law? Have convincing analogies been developed by the officer? Has the officer adequately answered the questions asked? If there are flaws in the officer's arguments, point them out.

Revise, Revise, Revise....then Revise One More Time!
As Justice Louis Brandeis stated: "There is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting." Justice Brandeis often revised his writing 15 or more times before he was satisfied. While this is obviously extreme, it is suggested that you revise your writing at least three times, more if time and money permit. Excessive use of passive voice, timid phrasing, vague words and other examples of poor writing are often found in first drafts. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates spend the time to make sure your case is prepared with great diligence to grammer, form, substance and style.

As this article demonstrates, regardless of the inherent strengths or weaknesses of a given case, there is much that can be achieved by mastering the art of preparing a successful RFE response, Motion to Reopen/Reconsider brief or appeal. Our lawyers know this more than anyone!

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 2)" »