Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

Immigration reform used to be considered a third rail issue that political candidates would not touch, but after last November, this view has changed. Obama won 71 percent of the Latino vote in the last election, which may have been helped in part by the Obama administration's new program of Deferred Action for Childhood Rivals (DACA), which was announced just months prior to election day.

Since then, President Obama, House Speaker Boehner, as well as other leaders have announced plans to move toward some sort of immigration reform this year. It is believed that Obama and Democrats in the Senate may have an immigration reform plan ready hopefully as soon as April 2013. Other reports say we could see a bill passed as early as June. It is also rumored that some Republicans may be working on their own kind of bipartisan immigration bill as well.

We could see immigration reform that would make it easier to obtain green cards, an increase in work visa numbers, and possibly a guest-worker program. There has also been talk that Congress may produce a bill that would establish a path to citizenship for the projected 11 million undocumented immigrants living here in the United States.

Comprehensive immigration reform may have been considered too controversial for candidates to risk taking a stand on in the recent past, but now it seems it has become a political necessity. The last election may have been the game changer needed to finally achieve true reform.

Immigration reform was a hot topic in the past presidential election, albeit for a short period of time. Now that the election is over, many are looking ahead to the possible changes that could be taking place. There are several areas of possible reform where immigrants are eager to see changes. These areas include, people who entered without inspection, undocumented youth, highly educated immigrants and undocumented workers.

Obviously, the most important area of reform for those without status is legalization. It is estimated that there are about 11 million undocumented people currently in the United States. It will be interesting to see how difficult any path to citizenship will be, especially how long the undocumented person needs to be in the country before they can apply for the new hypothetical temporary status and for how long they must maintain that status before they can get their green card. The new roadmap to naturalization might be a long winding one, but many will probably be excited just to have a chance to become U.S. citizen, where before there was little legal recourse available to them and they were forced to live on the fringes of society.

Focusing specifically on the young undocumented people in the United States, they likely receive a special program specifically for them. Any path to citizenship for the young undocumented people will probably bear some resemblance to the current proposed federal DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was not the triumphant victory that many believed it would be, but it was far from a failure. A realistic expectation would be that the DACA program and the DREAM Act would merge, maybe even grandfather in the people already granted DACA, giving young people a path to citizenship that requires them to complete some college. The only complaint about the current version of the DREAM Act is that young immigrants were opposed to the military services route and it is likely that most will only choose that path if there is more incentives given for choosing or if they have no other choice.

Building on the education of immigrants, those highly educated professional workers will most likely have their number of temporary visas increased. There is a lot of pressure on Congress from large companies to increase the number of visas available to this class of immigrants. Most of the focus will be on the STEM fields, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. This high demand will provide those highly educated immigrants, those with Masters Degrees or P.h.D.'s, very few obstacles to obtaining visas or green cards in the future.

Finally, immigrant's ability to work and how employing undocumented workers will be enforced will be the last major area of change. Many businesses, big and small, will often employ undocumented workers in some capacity. The major issue they are facing is the E-Verify system. This system allows employers to check if an immigrant has authorization to work in this country. It is a very real possibility that this will be a mandatory requirement for all workers in the future, including harsher penalties for those that do not follow the new rule. Many have complained that the E-Verity system is too burdensome and would be more trouble than it's worth if made a mandatory requirement. It is a real possibility that if E-verify becomes mandatory, business that heavily rely on undocumented workers will go under because a replacement source of labor does not exist.

A Republican bill, named the STEM Jobs Act, will come to a vote today that would grant 55,000 US permanent resident visas, otherwise known as green cards, to foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges with advanced degrees in the technology fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The bill is expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. However, it seems likely the bill will die in the Democrat-led Senate. Democrats oppose the bill because they say it will offset the new STEM green cards by doing away with the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program that grants immigrant visas to foreign nationals of mostly African nations, which normally have low US immigration rates.

Republicans say the STEM Act is designed to stop foreign national graduates of US colleges from leaving the United States to take jobs abroad. The goal of the Act, Republicans say, is to keep highly skilled talent in the US in order to create jobs, spark innovation, and boost the ability of the US to compete in the world job market.

A similar STEM Act bill failed to pass the House in September since it required a two thirds majority vote. Today's bill was created to fall under a different procedure that requires only a simple majority to pass.

It would seem that the GOP Republican Party desperately wants to prove to the Latino community that it is pro-immigration and seeks to reach out to Hispanics. Republicans even introduced a newer DREAM Act bill in the Senate this week that in some ways looks similar to the Obama administration's new DACA policy.

It is readily apparent that in the few weeks leading up the presidential election, neither President Obama, nor former Governor Romney are willing to commit themselves to any firm and unequivocal stance on employment based, legal, immigration. This reluctance to take a stand further frustrates the thousands of Indian nationals and their employers who have undertaken the emotional, financial and time investment of who have placed themselves at the mercy of the USCIS, US Department of Labor and US Department of State though use of the current employment based preference system. However, while explicit pledges will not be forthcoming from either the current or the potential future president until the elections have passed, their subordinates continue to make the true stance of the candidates known through their actions and interactions with foreign dignitaries. Recent comments from Timothy Geithner, secretary of the treasury (and fifth in the line of succession to the president) to his counterpart in the cabinet of India are indicative of this phenomenon.

Indications of Future Executive Policy toward PERM and H-1B Visas for Indian Nationals.

Speaking at a joint press conference with the Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in New Delhi on October 9, 2012, Secretary Geithner commented on the future of bi-lateral investment between the two countries, stating that "...[Y]ou [will] see a significant expansion of the role played by Indians and Indian companies in the American economy." He went on to say "I think we're at the early stage, even acknowledging and recognizing the huge benefits to the American economy already of the scale of Indian investment and Indian talent in the United States."

Under current immigration law, the only way for US companies to invest in the Indian talent mentioned above on a permanent basis is to sponsor an Indian national for permanent immigration. This sponsorship in turn almost always requires the employer to triumph over the three headed monster known as the PERM process. However, due to the current policy only 140,000 per year, no more than 7% of this total going to any one country per year, there is a backlog of high skilled Indian Nationals who have reserved their place in line to receive a visa, but no visa is available for them because the demand exceeds the supply by thousands of visas per year.

H-1B visa applicants find themselves in a similar situation. Currently, only 65,000 H-1B visas for temporary-high skilled workers are made available per year, with an additional 20,000 made available to persons holding a US master's degree (colleges and Universities are given unlimited visas) In recent years, this quota has not been met few a few months after the date that applications are accepted, however, with the economy improving, it is anticipated that this quota could be met with over 85,000 applications on the first day that filing is available.

Simple Solutions to the Visa Backlog: Allocate More Visas

The simple translation of what Secretary Geithner has stated above in real policy change language is that the administration would like to see an increase of the total number of visas allocated per year. Only an increase in visas made available as a whole would allow for the investment in Indian talent that the secretary has pointed out. Recent proposals to do away with the per-country limitation of 7% on permanent visas per year would only serve to place every employment based visa preference category from every county into a backlog.

The same solution should be applied to the H-1B quota, which could be increased to allow more highly skilled Indian nationals into the county to meet the demands of US industry.

Continue reading "PERM and H-1B Visas for Indian Nationals: More Double Talk from the Executive Branch" »

State education officials are debating how to respond to a federal ruling that declared it unconstitutional for Florida colleges and universities to charge higher tuition to the dependent children of undocumented immigrants. The state could lose as much as $200 million a year if it has to offer lower tuition rates to all U.S. citizens whose parents are not legal residents, according to court documents filed by education officials.

Members of the state Board of Education, which oversees Florida's 28 community colleges, will meet Monday to discuss the lawsuit filed late last year by five South Florida students. Florida's public colleges and universities charge tuition based on a student's legal residency, or in the case of dependent children, the parent's residency. The state covers much of the cost of a public-college education for Florida residents and their dependents.

A federal judge ruled that is a violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause to charge higher tuition to American-born students who live in Florida but are the dependents of parents in the country illegally. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil-rights organization that filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the South Florida students, estimates that 8,000 to 10,000 Floridians aged 18 to 24 are U.S. citizens and dependents of undocumented immigrants.

If the ruling stands, it could have widespread financial and policy implications. Some state leaders predict it could prompt Florida to make other changes to college programs, including the popular Bright Futures scholarships, currently open only to legal Florida residents and their dependents.

The Board of Governors, which oversees the 12 state universities, has not yet scheduled a public discussion. Board of Governors spokeswoman Kim Wilmath said the group is waiting for U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore to issue a final judgment in the case, which should offer more details about his Aug. 31 ruling. Once the final judgment is released, colleges and universities will have 30 days to respond.

States such as Texas and California already allow children of undocumented immigrant parents to pay a lower amount.

Some in Florida believe that it is unrealistic and counterproductive to expect students to work hard and make good grades high school and then block them from receiving lower tuition rates and scholarships because of their parents' immigration status. Some can only afford to take a few classes at a time because out-of-state tuition is expensive: $686 per credit hour, on average, at state universities compared to $202 per credit hour for in-state tuition.

The counterargument from state education officials is that Florida's two-tiered tuition system does not unjustly penalize U.S. citizens who live in Florida. Citizens whose parents are undocumented immigrants can qualify for in-state tuition if they can prove that they have lived in Florida for at least 12 months and they apply on their own behalf. However, students who apply to college as dependents of parents who cannot show legal residency should be charged out-of-state tuition.

Florida also could be ordered to offer some sort of restitution to students who were required to pay the higher tuition.

A record number of Latinos are eligible to vote this November. Both President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have taken notice and targeted Hispanic voters in recent months. However, it is unclear if the extra attention will result in voter turnout at the polls.

According to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, "a record 23.7 million Latinos are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election." This is up by more than four million since 2008, when it was 19.5 million. There were nearly 52 million Latinos in the United States in 2011, about 16.7 % of the nation's population. While the Hispanics make up the largest minority group in the country, the turnout rate among eligible Latino voters lags behind that of whites and blacks by significant margins.

According to the Census Bureau data cited in the report, despite continued growth of the Latino population, the number of Latinos who said they are registered to vote dropped by about 600,000 between 2008 and 2010.

There are several guesses as to reasons behind this decline despite the growth of the population:

• Voter displacement - Latinos were hit hard by the foreclosure crisis, many had to move to different states, which may have impacted their voter registration;
• The Latino population is younger in general - young people vote less often than the older age groups and are less likely to hold citizenship than other groups. About a third of Latinos in the country are in the 18 to 29 age group;
• Almost half of the potential voters live in uncontested states - Latinos live in states that are either solid red like Texas, or solid blue like California and they believe that they will not be able to make an impact; and
• Economic recession, as well as dimmed political enthusiasm.

However, Latinos stand to play a key role in swing states. Two battleground states, Florida and South Carolina, have already published information that shows an increase in Latino voter registration from 2008. As the report points out, that may be due to an increase in the Latino populations of both states. In those states among Latino eligible voters, 58% are of Mexican origin, 14% are of Puerto Rican origin, 6% are of Cuban origin and 22% are of Central American, South American or other Hispanic origin, according to the Pew Hispanic analysis."

The report also notes that, "This differs from the overall Hispanic origin distribution of the general U.S. Hispanic population in which some 64% are of Mexican origin, 9% are Puerto Rican and 5% are Cuban origin." While the overall numbers might be disappointing, Latino voter registration is up in hotly contested states like Florida, where the presidential race could be decided. It comes as a surprise to not see higher voter registration overall, given that one of the major issues in this year's election is immigration reform.

Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, announced the new prosecutorial discretion policy on June 15 in a memo entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children." The new policy aims to give relief to certain undocumented immigrants by giving them permission to live and work in the United States.

U.S. House Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked several questions in a letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton on July 3 about how the Obama administration's new prosecutorial discretion policy will be implemented. Smith blasted the new policy as "blatantly political" and an "unprecedented breach of faith" that "ignores the rule of law" and labeled it as "amnesty."

Smith said that since there are no standards in place of how the agency will process prosecutorial discretion applications and what documentary evidence it will require of applicants in order for them to establish eligibility. The new prosecutorial discretion policy will encourage massive amounts of fraud, Smith said, stating that there will be a high demand for fraudulent documents that prove undocumented immigrants arrived in the United States and attended school before age 16.

"History has proven that amnesty is an open invitation to fraud" said Smith. He referenced the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program that was designed to help undocumented farmworkers and noted that Professor Phillip Martin of the University of California at Davis estimated that up to two-thirds of the applications for that program were fraudulent.

Smith suggested that certain requirements should be established for each application 1) each person must seek the relief in person 2) each person must submit a valid school transcript 3) each transcript must be verified as valid by the educational institution 4) each person must submit documentary evidence that demonstrates physical presence in the United States at the time the memo was issued, and 5) documentary evidence of physical presence in the United States for five years.

>Click here to see the entire letter

Undocumented immigrants who believe they may qualify for the new DREAM deferred action immigration policy recently announced by the Obama Administration should beware of notario scams. "Notarios" are so-called immigration experts who may use the recently announced deferred action plan as an opportunity to take advantage of unsuspecting foreign nationals by deceiving them into paying expensive fees for their assistance.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on June 15 of the new DREAM Deferred Action Process for Young People policy that would allow young undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States and get work authorization if they meet certain criteria. Secretary Napolitano said that the USCIS would have 60 days to create an application process to accept requests, and she urged people not to submit requests yet until a process is ready. There is no process set up at the present time

Notarios and other unscrupulous people may misrepresent DREAM deferred action as a "new law" or as a "path to immigration status" as a scam to prey on undocumented immigrants who are desperate for legal immigration status. This is not a new law, but rather it is an enforcement policy of the executive branch, which could easily be overturned by a new president. It also does not provide a path to legal status, a green card, or U.S. citizenship. Instead, it provides a shield against deportation and grants work authorization.

Foreign nationals who wish to apply for DREAM deferred action should avoid anyone who claims that they can submit a request to the USCIS before a process has officially been set up. Since notarios are not lawyers, it is against the law for them to give legal advice, and they are not permitted to represent foreign nationals and cannot talk to the government on their behalf.

Click here to read the Avoid Scams notice on the USCIS at this link.

Immigrants and advocates for immigrants' employment rights have had several victories in recent weeks, with many challenges remaining. First, the Obama administration announced a policy of "deferred action" for young undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and meet certain criteria for education or military service. Qualifying immigrants may obtain work authorization if the government approves an application for deferred action. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Arizona v. United States last week overturning several employment provisions in Arizona's immigration law. One provision struck down by the court would have made it a state crime for an immigrant to work without authorization. The court held that this infringed on the federal government's authority to regulate immigration. Now, a recent study suggests that the state of Ohio lags behind the rest of the country in its immigrant workforce, but that the state could benefit from more immigration. At the same time, some surveys suggest that public opinion is turning against further immigration.

A recent survey of immigration and employment statistics by the Dayton Daily News reportedly found that the rate of growth of immigrant groups in Ohio is slower than in other states. The rate of growth appears explosive over the past twenty years, with the total number of immigrant workers in the state doubling and an increase of over sixty percent in the number of immigrants owning small businesses. The rate of growth of the immigrant worker population, however, places Ohio in forty-second place nationally. Between 1990 and 2010, immigrant workers went from 2.5 percent of Ohio's workforce to 4.7 percent, but the national average is sixteen percent. In terms of immigrant small business owners, Ohio's growth rate puts it in thirty-seventh place among the thirty-nine states with available data.

Continue reading "Ohio Lags in Number of Immigrant Workers, While the State's Public Opinion May Oppose New Immigration Policies" »

Many undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children have graduated from US law schools, passed bar exams, and are seeking to practice law in the US as attorneys. Yet because they are undocumented immigrants, they are forbidden by the state bars from being admitted as attorneys to legally practice law.

Sergio Garcia was brought to the United States illegally by his parents when he was just a baby. He has since graduated from Cal Northern School of Law and passed the California state bar exam in 2009. The state bar told him he was ineligible to join the state bar because he was in the country illegally. The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing Garcia's case to decide whether the state bar must admit him as an attorney.

Jose Manuel Godinez-Samperio entered the United States illegally with his parents when he was only nine years old. He graduated from the Florida State University College of Law and passed the Florida bar exam. The state bar asked the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion to decide whether he should be allowed to practice law in Florida.

Experts say the courts are unlikely to rule in favor of Godinez-Samperio and Garcia. Employers are prohibited by Federal law from knowingly employing undocumented immigrants. However, those who hire independent contractors are not required by federal law to ask for proof of legal immigration status or work authorization. A law firm who hires an attorney who is not authorized to work in the US is breaking the law, but a client who hires the same attorney isn't breaking the law.

If the Court decides in favor of Garcia or Godinez-Samperio, such a ruling could be limited specifically to that person, but even if this happens, the decision would set an important precedent for other courts to follow and for other state bars to consider. A victory for them could mean a victory for others in their situation as well.

Undocumented immigrants should be breathing a sigh of relief after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the controversial Arizona immigration law, yet news media have been bombarding us with news stories that would probably scare them instead.

The Court issued its decision last Monday about the four-part Arizona law, in which the Court struck down the strongest three parts of the law and left only one part standing, the weakest part. Yet this does not seem to be what the news media is reporting. Many of these stories are incorrectly reporting the Court's decision for what may be political purposes to get Latino voters riled up in an election year.

There are two major ways in which these inaccuracies are being made. The first way news media incorrectly reported the Court's decision is by saying that the Court upheld the part of S.B.1070 that allows police to stop, question, and briefly detain immigrants if they have reason to believe they are in the country illegally. This is inaccurate. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Court quoted its previous holding in Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984) that "If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent." The Court said police can run an immigration check on people who they stop "on some other legitimate basis." The Court specifically struck down the provision of S.B.1070 that would allow police to stop people on the basis of suspicion of having illegal status.

The second way news reports incorrectly reported the Supreme Court's decision is by saying that the Court upheld the "show me your papers" provision of the Arizona law. News reports are giving this label to the upheld provision of the law, calling it the "show-me-your-papers" law. However, the fact is that the Court's decision does not require people to carry immigration papers with them nor does it require them to show immigration papers to police.

Referring to the Court's decision as the "show me your papers" decision is incorrect. News reports that use the "show me your papers" label when discussing the decision, give readers the impression that the Court's decision requires immigrants to carry papers, when the Court actually said the opposite. The Court specifically struck down the provision that would have required immigrants to carry immigration papers. Section 3 of the Arizona law S.B.1070 forbids the "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document," which the Court struck down on the basis that it preempts federal law.

Consequently, undocumented immigrants can feel free to breathe that sigh of relief. Click here to read the Supreme Court's entire decision.

The ink is still drying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding SB 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, where the Court invalidated several parts of the law while upholding one of the challenged provisions. The decision is already having an impact around the country. An immigration law passed in Indiana in 2011, and modeled on Arizona's law, is currently the subject of federal litigation. The Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued on behalf of three immigrants challenging the law's constitutionality. Much like in Arizona, a judge enjoined enforcement of parts of the law last year.

The decision in Arizona v. United States struck down three of the four challenged provisions in Arizona's law. It affirmed the constitutionality of the provision requiring police to inquire into a person's immigration status during a legal stop if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is undocumented. The Court put limitations on how the state may enforce the provision, holding, for example, that police cannot engage in racial profiling or otherwise violate the equal protection provisions of the Constitution. Whether the state will abide by that part of the ruling remains to be seen.

Indiana's statute, SB 590, became law on May 10, 2011. A similar provision to the one in Arizona would require police to inquire about immigration status upon reasonable suspicion. The law also gives police the authority to arrest someone if they suspect a person has an order of deportation or a notice of action from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It even allows police to arrest someone if they have probable cause to suspect the person has been indicted, not convicted, for an aggravated felony. The provision allowing police to arrest someone with a DHS notice of action came under criticism because the broad wording could allow police to arrest someone with any sort of notice from DHS, including for administrative matters like visa applications. An especially unusual provision bans the use of ID cards from foreign consulates.

Continue reading "Supreme Court's Arizona Decision Casts Doubt Over Indiana Immigration Law" »

In what both major sides of the national immigration debate are calling a victory, the Supreme Court ruled on the case challenging Arizona's controversial immigration law. The court struck down three of the four challenged provisions, but affirmed the constitutionality of the provision requiring state and local law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status if, during a legal stop, the officer has probable to cause to suspect that the person lacks legal status. This provision, along with the other three, raised questions about whether the state was infringing on areas of federal government authority. In striking down three of the questionable provisions of the law, the Supreme Court has mostly affirmed that the federal government has authority over matters pertaining to immigration law and policy. The provision that they upheld may cause problems for immigrants, immigration attorneys, and law enforcement for some time.

The Obama administration's lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Arizona's SB 1070, the comprehensive immigration law it passed in the summer of 2010. The provisions of the law reviewed by the Supreme Court have never gone into effect because of various court orders. The four challenged provisions would:
- Make it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to seek employment;
- Make it a state crime for any immigrant to not carry immigration documents;
- Allow police to arrest, without a warrant, someone they believe to have committed an offense that would render them deportable under federal immigration law; and
- Require police to investigate suspects' immigration status.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Mostly Affirms Federal Government's Supremacy over Immigration Law in Arizona Ruling" »

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a new policy towards certain undocumented immigrants, giving them an opportunity to obtain employment authorization and relief from deportation. The policy addresses many of the benefits that would have been available to young immigrants under the DREAM Act,. Critics say the policy oversteps the executive branch's authority, while supporters say it is a vital step in creating a sensible immigration system and improving the economy. The policy only exists at the executive level, enacted through "prosecutorial discretion." A future administration, or even this one, could change the policy again with little public input. It is a step in the right direction for thousands of immigrants, but it may not be a long-lasting solution.

The new policy, announced on June 15, 2012, creates a process of "deferred action" for qualifying immigrants. This means that, for so long as individual immigrants meet the policy's criteria, the government will not seek to deport them. Deferrals are available for two-year periods, with possible renewal. People receiving deferrals may also obtain employment authorization during the deferral period. The policy could affect up to 800,000 immigrants.

Continue reading "White House Announces New Policy Towards Young Undocumented Immigrants" »

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Civil Rights Division, filed a federal lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in Arizona and its sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO have been the subject of controversy for years, with numerous allegations of blatant racial profiling against Latinos, mistreatment Latinos in MCSO custody, harassment of the office's critics, and more.

This is far from the first legal action against Arpaio and the MCSO, but it is the first large-scale civil rights lawsuit brought by the federal government. The alleged tactics of the MCSO have a profound impact on immigrant communities in Arizona, regardless of whether they have documented immigration status, which affects immigrants around the nation.

The DOJ's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on May 10, 2012, accuses the MCSO of a wide array of acts violating the civil rights of Latinos and others in Maricopa County. The county is one of the largest in the country, with a population of almost four million people, most of whom live in the greater Phoenix area. It is also geographically large, covering over nine thousand square miles. The county's Latino population, according to the DOJ's complaint, grew by roughly forty-seven percent between 2000 and 2010 and comprises about thirty percent of the total.

Continue reading "Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Over Treatment of Immigrants and Others" »