Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

At least one state has backed off from a plan to make local law enforcement handle immigration matters on top of their other duties. The Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission dropped a policy that would require jail employees to ask about the birthplace and citizenship of suspects after they are booked. The state had only begun implementing the policy two weeks earlier. The decision, reached unanimously by the Commission on January 13, came after a Nashville immigration advocate threatened a lawsuit over various alleged open meetings violations during the process of formulating the policy. The rules allegedly grew out of meetings that were not open to the public and did not include input from county sheriffs' departments.

The program, which only took effect on January 1, simply required jail employees to ask two questions of people once they were booked into the jail: where they were born, and whether they were United States citizens. Tennessee legislators passed a law last year that ordered the Commission to develop guidelines for handling immigration issues in the state's county jails. This policy was the result.

Rather than face the lawsuit, the Commission decided to eliminate the program. The state will instead participate in the federal Secure Communities Program, which allows local law enforcement to share fingerprints and other biometric information with federal immigration authorities. Federal officials have access to multiple databases from various agencies containing criminal and immigration background information. Why the state of Tennessee initially opted to run its own program rather than use the existing federal system is not clear.

The Secure Communities Program has its own share of critics and detractors, of course. It has led to numerous allegations of inaccuracy and incorrect identifications, and it raises privacy concerns. Perhaps most notoriously, the program contributed to the accidental deportation of an American citizen to Colombia, as we previously reported in this immigration blog.

Sheriffs in Tennessee seem relieved by the Commission's decision, according to the Tennessean. At least some sheriffs viewed the program as an additional burden, and they welcome the chance to turn responsibility for enforcing immigration laws over to federal officials. Authority over immigration policy and enforcement is placed with the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, so it is not at all unusual for state law enforcement not to deal with such issues.

Continue reading "State Police Board Drops Immigration Screening Program in County Jails" »

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" »

What types of cases will qualify for prosecutorial discretion in Ohio?

At the Ohio AILA Chapter monthly meeting in December 2011 with Ohio Immigration lawyers, Immigration and Customs Enforceemnt ("ICE") Deputy Chief Counsel Victoria Christian discussed how the Cleveland office is applying prosecutorial discretion for respondents in removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") will consider exercising prosecutorial discretion only in the most sympathetic humanitarian cases. Top priority cases, high enforcement cases, and even borderline cases, will not be considered for prosecutorial discretion and will proceed to hearing. Cases involving detention are still a top priority for DHS and are not considered for prosecutorial discretion.

What is the most likely form of prosecutorial discretion that DHS will apply?

The form of prosecutorial discretion being applied in most cases is to stop removal proceedings by administrative closure. When a case is administratively closed, it is not dismissed or terminated. Rather, the case is postponed indefinitely. However, DHS will consider termination without prejudice and remanding to USCIS or motions to reopen in cases where a person becomes eligible for an immigration benefit, such as adjustment of status to permanent residence due to an approved I-130 family-based petition. A respondent may request a continuance in cases where DHS has not yet made a determination, and DHS may be willing to agree to a continuance if the respondent could potentially qualify for administrative closure.

Another form is deferred action, which puts the case on an indefinite delay. If a respondent has a pending relief application such as asylum or non-LPR cancellation, that person may not want to administratively close their case because the relief application may have merit. In this situation, DHS may consider a deferred action request if the respondent agrees to accept a final order of removal. DHS will not consider deferred action requests without a final order of removal.

Which cases will DHS review?

DHS is conducting an affirmative review of every case before the immigration court regarding prosecutorial discretion in the following priority order. New NTA's in non-detained cases are being reviewed by the duty attorney before filing with the court. All individual hearings scheduled within the next six months are being reviewed. All master hearings scheduled within the next six months are being reviewed. Cases before the BIA are not currently being reviewed because DHS states it does not have enough time. Once DHS determines that a case is being reviewed for prosecutorial discretion, DHS will contact the respondent's attorney to request more information or to make an offer to administratively close the case. The offer to administratively close should be responded to promptly since this is a one-time offer.

Continue reading "Application of Prosecutorial Discretion in Ohio" »

We recently blogged about Jakadrien Turner, who ran away from home in the fall of 2010, reportedly because she was upset over the death of her grandfather and her parents' divorce.

This case presents many questions, the most obvious of which is how ICE managed to arrest, detain, and deport an American teenager who does not speak Spanish to a Latin American country without even confirming her identity. ICE issued a statement earlier this week saying they are investigating the matter and take the allegations "very seriously." According to WFAA in Dallas, an ICE official also commented that individuals sometimes provide false information about identity and immigration status for "ulterior motives." How that relates to Jakadrien's case is anyone's guess at this point. The statement suggests two issues in immigration law that often present problems for immigrants and are certainly in play here: inaccurate information in government databases and use of false information by individuals.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the reorganization of federal immigration authorities into new agencies like ICE, much of the enforcement of immigration laws has increasingly relied on a series of databases of information on immigrants, their immigration history, and any criminal history. As with any large collection of information, it is prone to error. It has also led to multiple instances of people being incorrectly identified and detained, including both immigrants and United State citizens. People have spent days or longer in detention until a mistake is spotted, and they have little recourse after release. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before authorities actually deported a U.S. citizen in error.

Continue reading "Legal Issues Raised by Accidental ICE Deportation of Missing Teenager to Colombia" »

Federal immigration officials said Wednesday that a United States born teenager was erroneously deported to Colombia from Houston last year. Jakadrien Larise Turner ran away from home in the fall of 2010 when she was just 14 years old. When the teen ran away, her grandmother said, she could not speak Spanish. The Texas teenager used an assumed identity, reinventing herself as Tika Lanay Cortez. When she was arrested for shoplifting last year, Tika lied to police about her identity and gave the fake name, and she claimed to be 21 years old. She had no documents to establish her identity, and authorities never suspected she was anyone other than who she claimed to be.

Unfortunately, her fake identity was the real identity of a 22 year old Colombian citizen who was in the United States illegally. The girl was sentenced as an adult to eight days in jail for the theft charge. Houston police ran her alias through ICE's Secure Communities program, which is designed to identify people in the country illegally, the name was flagged as belonging to an undocumented immigrant.

ICE officials state that they were contacted first by Houston authorities who told them they had an undocumented immigrant in their custody. ICE agents arrested Tika, who still claimed she was from Colombia, and federal immigration proceedings were held to deport her.

ICE said criminal database and fingerprint checks it carried out during the deportation process had ''revealed no information to invalidate'' the girl's claimed identity. In the weeks that followed, no one suspected she was anyone other than who she claimed to be, including the lawyer at her trial and the Colombian diplomat who met her before her deportation. During proceedings to have her removed from the U.S., Colombian officials interviewed her. Once she was in that country, she was given full Colombian citizenship. It is unclear when she learned to speak Spanish.

According to USCIS spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez, "As is standard protocol, criminal database searches and biometric verification [fingerprint checks] were conducted and revealed no information to invalidate her claims." Gonzalez said "She was ultimately ordered removed from the U.S. by a Department of Justice immigration judge."

Tika was then deported to Colombia, where she remains today. She is currently being held in a Colombian detention facility, and Colombian officials have refused to release her, even after the U.S. Embassy in Bagota asked police to return her to U.S. authorities. No reason for her detention was given.

A controversial procedure used by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and other immigration courts in deciding deportation cases did not withstand scrutiny by the Supreme Court. In a decision published on December 12, 2011 in Judulang v. Holder, a unanimous court ruled that the procedure used by the BIA in applying Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in certain deportation cases does not pass statutory scrutiny, and is improper and irrelevant to the process of determining whether a person should be deported. This is, of course, something that immigration attorneys have known for some time.

The INA, which contains most of the nation's immigration laws, establishes two categories of people who may be legally removed from the U.S., excludable (or inadmissible) aliens and deportable immigrants. Briefly stated, excludability affects people who allegedly did not have a legal basis for entering the country from the beginning, while deportation applies to people who have lost legal immigration status through a judicial process. Section 212(c) used to allow a person found to be excludable to request a waiver from the Attorney General, and the BIA long ago extended that relief to deportation cases as well. Congress repealed 212(c) in 1996, but it is still available to people whose deportation is based on criminal pleas entered before 1996.

Joel Judulang came to the U.S. from the Philippines at age 8 in 1974. He has lived here ever since. He pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1988 because of his involvement in a fight where someone was killed. Prosecutors had charged him as an accessory to the killing. He later pleaded guilty to theft in 2005, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to deport him based on the prior manslaughter plea. Because the plea was from before 212(c)'s repeal in 1996, Judulang could use it to request relief.

The BIA has applied a standard it calls "comparable grounds" in deciding whether to apply 212(c) in a deportation case. It reviews whether, in the statute defining grounds for deportability, there exists a ground that it deems sufficiently comparable to a ground for excludability found elsewhere in the INA. The immigration judge ordered Judulang deported, and the BIA affirmed, finding that the "crime of violence" ground of deportability did not have a comparable counterpart in the grounds for exclusion. The Supreme Court found the process used by the BIA to determine comparability to be arbitrary and meaningless. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, held this standard to be "arbitrary and capricious," "irrelevant to the alien's fitness to reside in the country," and essentially a "sport of chance."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Strikes Down "Abritrary and Capricious" Standards in Deportation Cases" »

Miriam Mendiola-Martinez, a foreign national of Mexico, filed a lawsuit in Arizona last week against Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio alleging that she was mistreated while she was pregnant as an inmate in the Sheriff's jail. She was six months pregnant when she was arrested in 2009 on charges of identity theft. The suit states that her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the MCSO's infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs, and disparate treatment. The lawsuit alleges that MCSO and Maricopa Medical Center's unconstitutional policies, practices, acts and omissions, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez suffered immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury and risk of death.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was undernourished at the jail due to what jail staff called a "special" pregnancy diet. These pregnancy meals consisted of items such as two slices of bread, two slices of cheese or ham, undistinguishable cooked vegetables, and an occasional piece of fruit. She was also given two small cartons of milk per day. This hardly seems to be enough food for a pregnant woman eating for two.

She was taken to the Maricopa Medical Center by MCSO officers when she began to go into labor. Ms. Mendiola-Martinez gave birth to her son via Cesarean section, and she was not allowed to nurse or even hold her son after he was delivered. Officers put shackles on her feet before and after the surgery, and she was shacked to the hospital bed. Wearing only a hospital gown, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was forced to walk through the hospital, with her hands and feet shackled. She began to bleed and could do nothing about it. She was not provided with a breast pump to safely and hygienically remove the breast milk she produced while she was separated from her infant son.

When she was discharged from the hospital, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was not given a wheelchair to assist her, even though she was in great pain and could hardly walk. A deputy took her so quickly from the hospital that she did not receive her pain medication and discharge paperwork. A deputy then chained Ms. Mendiola-Martinez again and forced her to walk back to the nurse's station. Then, while shackled at her hands and ankles, with a bleeding surgery wound, Ms. Mendiola-Martinez was returned to the Estrella Jail.

About September 2008, the Maricopa County jails lost their accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. On October 22, 2008, the Honorable Neil V. Wake found that the food given to inmates in the Maricopa County Jails constituted "current and ongoing violation of pretrial detainees' federal right to adequate nutrition."

On December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Justice issued the findings of the investigation it began in June 2008 in a letter addressed to Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery. In that, letter, the Justice Department stated: "MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against its limited English proficient ("LEP") Latino inmates. Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, detention officers, supervisory staff, and command staff, routinely punishes Latino LEP inmates for failing to understand commands given in English and denies them critical services provided to the other inmates, all in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations." The Department of Justice also noted: "MCSO fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, and accountability systems."

An Ohio federal judge denied a request by convicted Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk for renewed U.S. citizenship last week, citing false and inconsistent statements by Demjanjuk about his whereabouts during World War II. The new citizenship claim was based on supposedly "newly discovered" documents, according to the Associated Press, including some that allegedly called earlier documents used against Demjanjuk into question. Judge Dan Aaron Polster, however, looked at Demjanjuk's admittedly false statements in earlier visa and immigration applications, writing that Demjanjuk has never given a "single, consistent accounting of his whereabouts" during the war.

Demjanjuk was born in 1920 in Kiev, in what was then the Soviet Union. He first emigrated to the United States in 1952, gaining citizenship in 1958. After Holocaust survivors identified him as a guard at the Treblinka and Sobibor extermination camps known as "Ivan the Terrible," the U.S. deported him to Israel. He stood trial for crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death in 1988, but the sentence was overturned in 1993 because of evidence of possible mistaken identity. Specifically, some evidence suggested that, while he was a prison guard, he was not "Ivan the Terrible."

He returned to Ohio, but faced further charges in 2001, this time alleging that he served as a guard at two camps in Poland, Sobibor and Majdanek, and one in Germany, Flossenburg, during the war. After a lengthy legal process, he was deported to Germany in 2009 for his trial. A German court convicted him in May 2011 of being accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews in those prison camps. He received a five-year prison sentence, which is suspended while he appeals.

The 91 year-old Demjanjuk currently resides in a nursing home in Germany, where he has suffered from poor health for years. Since losing his U.S. citizenship, he has been unable to leave Germany. He has steadfastly denied the charges of war crimes made against him. Among the new evidence he presented to the Ohio court is a supposedly secret FBI report from 1985 that claims a Nazi ID card naming him as a camp guard was actually a Soviet forgery. The FBI agent who prepared the report has stated that it was based solely on speculation. The key issue for the judge was Demjanjuk's history of false or misleading information regarding where he was and what he was doing between 1942 and 1945, at the height to both World War II and the Holocaust in Europe.

Continue reading "Citizenship Denied by Ohio Judge for Convicted Nazi" »

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" »

A class action lawsuit was filed last week against US immigration agencies on behalf of many asylum applicants who were wrongly denied work authorization, A.B.T., K.M.-W., G.K., L.K.G., D.W. v. USCIS; EOIR (Case No. 2:11-cv-02108 A.B.T). The nationwide lawsuit was filed by the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the United States District Court in Seattle. The suit alleges that the USCIS and EOIR delays violate the Constitution, federal statutes, and governing regulations.

Asylum seekers are not eligible for work authorization during the 180-day period after the application is filed. But according to federal law, asylum applicants are to be granted work authorization after the application has been pending for 180 days. Due to unlawful and unfair practices and policies, U.S. immigration agencies have prevented asylum seekers from obtaining work authorization after the 180-day waiting period has elapsed. For example, one named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a man from China who filed his asylum application in 2003, and he has been pursuing work authorization for years without success.

In calculating the 180-day period, the USCIS relies on immigration judge determinations who work for the EOIR, which results in arbitrary policies on when the 180-day "clock" should start and stop. This, along with the increasing backlog in U.S. immigration courts, has unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working. According to the lawsuit, these unlawful policies and practices prevented asylum applicants from obtaining work authorization and forced them to rely on the goodwill of others to support themselves and their families while they await decisions on their asylum applications, and this process can take many months and sometimes years.

The 180-day period (or "asylum EAD clock") may be suspended, but only for applicant-requested or caused delay of the adjudication of their asylum application, according to the lawsuit. USCIS and EOIR policies result in EAD clocks being arbitrarily started and stopped, and even permanently stopped in some cases. Many asylum seekers have not received adequate notice that their EAD asylum clocks have stopped, and they are consequently deprived of a meaningful opportunity to remedy these determinations.

Continue reading "Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Asylum EAD Clock Is Unfair" »

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" »

A California man recently went from a bicycle ride in Livermore to a bus trip to Mexico in only a few days, thanks to the Secure Communities program. The Contra Costa Times tells the story of Eduardo Lopez-Reynoso, a Mexican immigrant who was stopped by police in late October after he ran a stop sign on his bicycle. A mere five days later, federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dropped him on the far side of the Mexican border.

Secure Communities, a program initiated by the Obama Administration, puts local law enforcement at the forefront in enforcing federal immigration laws. The program allows sharing of biometric and other identifying information between local law enforcement databases and databases maintained by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The program is intended to allow efficient removal of violent criminal immigrants, repeat immigration offenders, and others deemed the "worst of the worst" by the government.

Lopez, as an example of the implementation of the program, reportedly does not fit the general notion of the "worst of the worst." While he had a history of drug-related arrests, he had never been more than a nuisance to local police. He falls somewhere between the "worst" and the rest of the immigrant population, many of whom may nevertheless get caught up in Secure Communities' dragnet. Local law enforcement apparently rarely stay involved, or even informed, regarding cases referred to the system. ICE does not offer any breakdown of their arrest and deportation records based on specific criminal convictions. There is therefore no way to know how many immigrants ensnared by this program are truly dangerous criminals and how many are not.

Implementation of Secure Communities in Ohio has been gradual. Counties generally opt in to the program, according to ICE press releases. ICE last announced the new involvement of Ohio law enforcement in June 2011, when it announced that seven Ohio counties had begun participating in the program: Auglaize, Carroll, Columbiana, Erie, Holmes, Medina and Mercer. They join other counties who had already opted in.

Continue reading "Deportations Speed up with the Secure Communities Initiative" »

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" »