Miami Immigration Lawyers Blog

Supreme Court Leans in Favor of Part of Arizona Law

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:01:50 -0500

By Associated Press

Supreme Court justices strongly suggested today that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court's term.

The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government's control.

Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not," Roberts said.

The administration challenged the law in federal court. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws, parts of which also are on hold pending the high court's decision.

The court hearing comes as presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney is trying to find a way to cut President Barack Obama's strong support among Latino voters. Romney was drawn to the right on issues like immigration as he fought off other Republicans in state GOP primary elections. On Monday, Romney signaled he was considering a wide range of immigration policies, including a proposal from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants a chance at visas to stay in the U.S.

A decision in the high-profile immigration case is expected in late June as both camps will be gearing up for the general election.

Arizona argues that with its 370-mile border with Mexico, it has paid a disproportionate price for illegal immigration. It says its 2010 law is consistent with federal immigration policy.

The administration says the law, and Arizona's approach of maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.

Civil rights groups that back the administration say Arizona's and the other states' measures encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping. California, New York and nine other states with significant immigrant populations support the Obama administration.

Florida, Michigan and 14 other states, many of which also are challenging Obama's health care overhaul, argue that Arizona's law does not conflict with federal law.

Justice Elena Kagan, who was Obama's first solicitor general, is not taking part in the case, presumably because she worked on it while in the Justice Department.

Mr. Revilla has almost 20 years of litigation experience and has dedicated his career to educating the public on the importance of immigration reform in our country. He has appeared on television to discuss various immigration issues and the benefits of passing bills such as the DREAM Act.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

DHS Approves Syria TPS Request

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:04:23 -0500

Reported in New York Times

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday granted temporary immigration status to Syrians in the United States, sparing them from having to return home, in a new sign that Washington believes security conditions in Syria are going from bad to worse.

Under the measure, Syrians already in the United States will be eligible for temporary protected status, which had previously been given to citizens of seven other countries who could not return home because of violent conflicts or natural disasters.

In a statement, Ms. Napolitano said Syrians "would face serious threats to their personal safety" if they were forced to go back.

Department of Homeland Security officials estimated that 2,500 to 3,000 Syrians in the United States would be eligible for the status. Most are in the United States legally, officials said. Based on the history of citizens of other countries designated for temporary protection, once the status is granted, officials are generally reluctant to cancel it.

Ms. Napolitano said Syrians would have to pass criminal and national security background checks to gain approval. "This is not a blanket waiver," a department official said.

Syria is one of the countries of the Middle East whose citizens receive heightened scrutiny when they travel to the United States.

The department will publish guidelines for Syrians early next week. Typically, the temporary status lasts for 18 months before it must be renewed.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported last week that about 30,000 people had fled the expanding civil warfare in Syria to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

Other countries whose citizens have received temporary protected status are El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and most recently Haiti, after they were devastated by earthquakes or hurricanes.

Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan are also designated for the status. The designation of Nicaraguans and Hondurans dates to 1999, but the status has been regularly renewed.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

Immigration News: Miami valedictorian will be allowed to stay 2 more years

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:17:10 -0500

The Associated Press

MIAMI -- The valedictorian of a Miami high school who had been ordered to leave the country will be allowed to stay for two more years.

Attorney Nera Shefer's office received notification from the Department of Homeland Security Tuesday that Daniela Pelaez was given a deferred action for two years.

Pelaez came to the United States from Colombia with her family when she was 4. She has applied to several Ivy League universities and wants to become a surgeon.

A judge denied her request for relief from deportation last Monday. Students at North Miami High School rallied around her, holding a protest and an online petition that collected thousands of signatures.

Pelaez says she is excited by the action but that it is also bittersweet because it is a temporary solution.

If you have any questions regarding Deferred Action, contact Miami immigration lawyer Antonio Revilla for more information (305) 858-2323.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

Miami Immigration News: Thousands Protest Ruling to Deport Top High School Student

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:59:04 -0500

Reported in Miami Herald 3/2/12

More than 2,600 students and teachers at North Miami Senior High took to the streets Friday morning to protest a decision by an immigration judge ordering their valedictorian, 18-year-old Daniela Pelaez of Colombia, to depart the country.

The demonstration, with placards and chanted slogans, was one of the biggest locally on the immigration issue since 2004 when President George W. Bush first proposed the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Although U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement already indicated that it has no plans to kick Daniela out of the country, students and teachers staged the protest to express solidarity with the bright student who wants to stay here and become a heart surgeon.

The demonstration also served as a stage for two prominent local officials, Superintendent of Miami-Dade Schools Alberto Carvalho and North Miami Mayor Andre Pierre, to voice sympathy for Daniela.

Both immigrants, Pierre and Carvalho, said it was time for politicians and policymakers in Washington to set aside differences so Congress can approve immigration reform, a step that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants.

Carvalho, who emigrated from Portugal, was visibly moved during the post-demonstration news conference when he and Pierre, originally from Haiti, appeared before television cameras with Pelaez and her sister Dayana.

Carvalho, in particular, said he identified closely with Pelaez because of his past as an immigrant in the United States, sometimes without papers.

"I can hardly find words to express what I feel right now as an immigrant," said Carvalho. "As one having gone through what Daniela is going through today, I cannot say that every moment of my life in this country, that I produced papers. But you know what, I labored, I cleaned tables, I was a waiter, I did roofing, I did construction work and today I'm superintendant of schools. That is the power of education, a power and a right that shall not be denied to Daniela."

Adding that the North Miami Senior High student was "an inspiration" to him and the nation, Carvalho said he would do everything in his power to prevent her removal from the United States.

"Over my dead body will this child be deported," Carvalho said moments before embracing Daniela. "Where is the shame of our nation when we pick on somebody like her. This is a community that cares. We are not a community that turns our back on immigrants, on our young, on the invisible, the fragile. We wrap our arms around them. We protect them."

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

How Bankruptcies and Foreclosures Can Affect Your Immigration Case

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:03:09 -0500

During these tough economic times, bankruptcies and foreclosures are a sad reality for many people. Unfortunately, bankruptcies and foreclosures could also seriously affect the adjudication of certain immigration benefits and certain applications for relief from removal. Many Immigration Judges, immigration prosecutors, and immigration officers are increasingly viewing bankruptcies and foreclosures as negative factors which can hurt a person's chances of being granted certain immigration benefits and applications to avoid deportation.

A point of clarification which should always be made to an adjudicating officer or an Immigration Judge is that a bankruptcy or foreclosure does not mean that a finding of lack of good moral character can be made as a matter of law or regulation. However, these financial issues may negatively affect the adjudication of an immigration benefit or application. A bankruptcy or foreclosure is not necessarily by any means fatal to an application or benefit, but many applications before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration Court are discretionary.

Since a bankruptcy or a foreclosure can be viewed as a negative factor, it may influence an adjudicator or Immigration Judge not to exercise discretion favorably. The main concern of adjudicators, prosecutors, and Immigration Judges is that a bankruptcy or foreclosure may not be legitimate. A person should be prepared to explain all the circumstances surrounding a bankruptcy or foreclosure before applying for any immigration benefit before the DHS or the Immigration Court.

An applicant should establish the legitimacy of the bankruptcy or foreclosure. There may be a need for an applicant or respondent to justify the necessity of the bankruptcy or the reason for the foreclosure. Positive factors should be strongly emphasized in order to outweigh any negative view of a bankruptcy or foreclosure. Much like certain crimes, these financial issues can indeed carry immigration consequences. The immigration consequences should be carefully analyzed so a person is fully prepared when applying for immigration benefits and relief from removal.

For more information about this issue, contact Miami immigration lawyer, Antonio Revilla, at (305) 858-2323 or via email: arevilla@immigrationmiami.com.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

Agents' Union Stalls Training on Deportation Rules

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:24:01 -0500

Reported in New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The federal agency in charge of deportations is conducting a far-reaching training course to push immigration enforcement officers and prosecutors nationwide to focus their efforts on removing immigrants convicted of crimes.

The training course is the clearest sign yet that administration officials want to transform the way immigration officers work, asking them to make nuanced decisions to speed deportations of high-risk offenders while halting those of illegal immigrants with clean records and strong ties to the country. The policy is President Obama's most ambitious immigration initiative before the November elections, senior administration officials said.

But in a new sign of the deep dissension over immigration, the union representing some 7,000 deportation officers of the agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, has so far not allowed its members to participate in the training. Without the formal assent of the union, the administration's strategy could be significantly slowed for months in labor negotiations.

Chris Crane, the president of the union, the National ICE Council, has fiercely criticized the strategy, saying it amounts to orders from ICE officials for agents not to enforce the law. In Congressional testimony, Mr. Crane accused the administration of tailoring its enforcement practices to win support from immigrant communities for Mr. Obama's re-election.

"Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups," Mr. Crane told a House Judiciary subcommittee in October.

Department of Homeland Security officials say the training seminar, although only half a day, is central to bringing all ICE officers on board for an effort that they say will significantly raise the numbers of convicted criminals among deportees and is expected to lead in coming months to unprecedented suspensions of deportations of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.

Virtually all ICE commanding officers and prosecutors have gone through the training course and are working on the new strategy, Homeland Security Department officials said. But because of the silence from the ICE Council, a local of the American Federation of Government Employees, the officials will miss their Jan. 13 goal for completing the nationwide training blitz, which began in November.

Mr. Crane has channeled his criticisms primarily through Republican leaders in Congress, working with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Calling the administration's plan "backdoor amnesty," Mr. Smith said last week that evidence Mr. Crane presented to the committee showed that directives from ICE officials for agents to use discretion in enforcement decisions had "undermined the agency's credibility and mission."

The National ICE Council faces a deadline late this month to say whether it will demand negotiations over the training, the officials said. Mr. Crane did not respond to repeated e-mail requests over several months for comment.

On another side, the administration is facing intense pressure from Latino leaders and immigrant organizations to begin halting deportations.

The cornerstone of the policy is a June 17 memorandum by John Morton, the director of ICE, in which he laid out a list of no fewer than 31 factors that ICE officers should weigh when deciding whether to proceed with a deportation. Peter S. Vincent, ICE's top lawyer, added further guidelines on Nov. 17.

With slide shows and chalk talks on a dozen hypothetical immigration cases, the training seminar challenges officers to decide which foreigners should be deported, using prosecutorial discretion to make more complex decisions than they have in decades. It instructs agents to focus on the worst offenders, including criminal convicts, gang members and foreigners who came back after being expelled. Other groups of immigrants -- elderly people, children, military veterans, college students and parents of young citizens -- are low priorities who can be allowed to stay, even if they are here illegally. A New York Times reporter sat through an abbreviated version of the seminar.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the policy was based on existing statutes and was intended to make good use of strained resources. With each deportation costing at least $23,000, she said, immigration agencies have money for 400,000 removals each year, a goal that the Obama administration has met in each of the past three years. But an estimated 11 million immigrants live here illegally.

CLICK HERE to continue reading this article.

If you wish to speak to an immigration attorney about the contents of this post, please contact Antonio Revilla at (305) 858-2323.

USCIS to Propose Changing the Process for Certain Waivers

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:19:24 -0500

Reported in Bender's Bulletin

On Jan. 6, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted a notice of intent in the Federal Register outlining its plan to reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances while those family members go through the process of becoming legal immigrants to the United States.

Currently, spouses and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States, and have to leave the country as part of the legal immigration process, are barred from returning to their families for as long as 3 or 10 years. They can receive a waiver to allow them to return to their families by showing that their U.S. citizen family member would face extreme hardship as a result of the separation.

This proposal would streamline the processing of these individuals' waiver applications based on unlawful presence; USCIS proposes to process their waiver applications in the United States before any American family faces separation. The process would only apply to immigrants who are eligible for a visa.

Under the proposed process, the spouses and children of U.S. citizens who are eligible for a visa to immigrate legally to the United States, but who need a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence in order to obtain that visa expeditiously, would apply for a provisional waiver before leaving the United States to have their immigrant visa application processed at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad (as they must pursuant to law).

The notice limits the streamlined process to those individuals who are inadmissible based solely on having accrued a period of unlawful presence and - pursuant to statutory requirements - who can demonstrate extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen relative. All individuals affected by this streamlined process would need to meet all legal requirements for admission to the United States, including the requirement that they process their visa application at a U.S. consulate abroad.

With the change outlined in the notice, individuals who currently qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility under the existing eligibility standards, and who can demonstrate that separation from their U.S. citizen spouse or parent would cause extreme hardship to that relative, would be allowed to apply for a waiver while still in the U.S.

By allowing these individuals to apply for waivers in the U.S. and making a provisional determination of waiver eligibility before the individuals must depart the country for visa processing, USCIS would provide a more predictable and transparent process and improved processing times, minimizing the separation of U.S. citizens from their families. The change would also streamline the process for both USCIS and the Department of State (DOS) when handling requests for these waivers. As a result, this change would encourage individuals who may be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility to seek lawful readmission to the United States by limiting the amount of time they would need to spend away from their U.S. citizen spouse or parent.

Following publication of this notice, USCIS will undertake further analysis and collaborate with the Department of State to develop the streamlined process in greater detail. USCIS plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the coming months that will provide additional details and allow the opportunity for public comment. A final rule will then be published to implement the streamlined process. The rule will not modify the underlying standard for assessing whether denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen spouse or parent of such individuals. It would modify only the process by which these applications may be filed and accepted by USCIS for processing.

Questions and Answers

Q. Why is USCIS proposing the change?

A. This proposed change will reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their spouses and children under certain circumstances while those family members are going through the process of obtaining visas to become legal immigrants to the United States. Under current policy, individuals who wish to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence must leave the U.S. and apply for a waiver at a U.S. consular office outside the United States. This process can be lengthy and discourages individuals who may be eligible for this waiver from applying, which delays their ability to lawfully reenter the U.S. The proposed change would reduce the amount of time that U.S. citizens would be separated from their spouses and children while the process to obtain a visa to immigrate takes place. This reflects the Administration's strong commitment to efficiency in the administration of immigration law and facilitation of legal immigration.

Q. How is the proposed process different from the current process?

A. Currently, U.S. citizens who petition for their spouses and children to become legal immigrants to the United States must petition for a visa, and in some circumstances, if the spouse or child has accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the U.S., that spouse or child must also petition for a waiver of a ground of inadmissibility in order to have his or her visa application processed. The proposed process does not change the requirements for obtaining a visa or the standards for obtaining a waiver. Nor does it change the requirement that the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen ultimately depart the United States to have his or her visa application processed at a consulate abroad. The only change contemplated by this proposal is that the spouse or child would be able to apply for a waiver with USCIS in the U.S. and receive a provisional decision on that waiver before departing the U.S. for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. Currently, applicants can only file for a waiver after having been determined inadmissible by the U.S. consular officer and must wait abroad for a decision, which significantly adds to the processing time for their case. The proposal limits the extent to which the process forces the lengthy separation of families.

Q. When will this streamlined process be implemented?

A. The process will be implemented only after USCIS issues a final rule. In the coming months, USCIS plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and will consider the comments received as part of that process before publishing a final rule. The current process will remain in place until a final rule goes into effect. No one should file an application with USCIS based on this proposed change in process. Any applications filed with USCIS based on this notice will be rejected and the application package returned to the applicant, including any fees until the final rule is issued and the change becomes effective.

Q. Who would be eligible for a provisional waiver?

A. Spouses and children of a U.S. citizen (1) who are seeking lawful permanent residence through an immigrant visa, (2) who are found inadmissible based on unlawful presence in the United States for more than 180 days, and (3) who meet the existing extreme hardship standard. Children under the age of 18 do not accrue unlawful presence and, as a result, are not required to obtain a waiver.

Q. Why is this proposed streamlined process limited to the spouses and children of U.S. citizens?

A. The policy objective of this proposed process change is to alleviate extreme hardship suffered by U.S. citizens. USCIS has thus identified immediate relatives of U.S. citizens as the class of aliens to consider for this procedural change. In addition, their immigrant visas, which are not subject to annual limitations, are always immediately available. The focus on U.S. citizens and their immediate relatives is consistent with Congress' prioritization in the immigration laws of family unification. This proposal meets the goals of both improving efficiency and reducing the length of time that American families are unnecessarily separated.

Q. How would the proposed process affect existing standards related to unlawful presence and the extreme hardship standard?

A. It would not. The proposed process retains all of the legal standards and policies related to unlawful presence determinations and establishing extreme hardship. It would simply provide for the processing of these waivers in the United States instead of abroad.

Q. Will individuals who recieve the waiver be able to adjust their status without leaving the United States?

A. No. The visa process itself is not changing. Individuals who receive a provisional wavier would still be required to depart the United States to apply for their immigrant visa.

Q. Is everyone who has accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence subject to a three- or 10-year bar from entering the U.S.?

A. Yes; however, some aliens do not accrue unlawful presence if they fall into certain categories. For example, children under the age of 18 do not accrue unlawful presence for any period of time before their 18th birthday. Similarly, under current law, certain victims of crime and aliens with pending asylum applications do not accrue unlawful presence while their application is pending.

Q. If an individual already filed a Form I-601 from outside the U.S., would the proposed process affect him or her?

A. No. It would only affect individuals who have not yet filed a Form I-601 and who will file a waiver request after a final rule is published.

Q. Would USCIS collect biometrics as part of the streamlined process?

A. Yes. It is contemplated that applicants in the United States would be scheduled for biometrics collection at a USCIS Application Support Center.

Q. Why does USCIS refer to the waiver as "provisional?"

A. In the proposed process, USCIS would grant the provisional waiver before the applicant departs the U.S. for consular processing of their immigrant visa applications. The provisional waiver, however, would not take effect until the individual departs from the United States and triggers the covered ground of inadmissibility. Moreover, the provisional waiver covers only the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility. If the consular officer finds during the immigrant visa interview that the individual is subject to another ground of inadmissibility, the individual would need to file another waiver application with USCIS.

Q. What would happen at the consular interview?

A. If DOS found the individual otherwise eligible for the immigrant visa, the consular officer would then issue the visa, allowing the individual to immigrate to the U.S.

Q. What would happen to individuals who are not eligible to file a waiver under the proposed process?

A. They would continue to follow current agency processes for filing waiver requests after a determination of inadmissibility is made by a U.S. consular officer overseas.

Q. What would happen to individuals who are denied waivers under the proposed process?

A. They would be subject to USCIS guidance and law enforcement priorities for issuing Notices to Appear (NTA). For example, convicted criminals, public safety threats, and those suspected of fraud will receive NTAs.

For more information on this immigration proposal, contact Antonio Revilla at (305) 858-2323 or via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com.

Mandatory Detention: Is there a way out?

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:57:45 -0500

Many removable non-citizens are subject to the draconian immigration law of mandatory detention because of their criminal convictions. A lot of people will actually spend more time detained by ICE than the time for which they were originally incarcerated or imprisoned for their criminal charges and convictions.

Immigration detention is not supposed to be a punishment. However, mandatory detention can turn into a form of punishment when ICE is not convinced to exercise its authority to parole individuals pending removal proceedings. A strong case should be made for ICE to make a determination that a person should be paroled because they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. A similar approach that is employed in requesting a bond with the Immigration Court should be made with ICE in the form of a request for parole.

A careful analysis of eligibility for relief from removal should be made and explained to ICE along with the traditional factors which demonstrate that an individual is not a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Carefully drafted and well-argued requests for parole may have an impact on ICE, which may very well result in the release of many people from mandatory detention.

For more information about mandatory detention, please contact Miami immigration lawyer Antonio Revilla at (305) 858-2323 or via email arevilla@immigrationmiami.com.

Mr. Revilla has over 18 years of litigation experience and has dedicated his career to educating the public on the importance of immigration reform in our country. He has appeared on television to discuss various immigration issues and the benefits of passing bills such as the DREAM Act.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

DHS Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:25:54 -0500

The chief legal office in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, released new guidance on the implementation of the Morton memo on prosecutorial discretion, which was issued in June 2011.

The guidance consists of a memo from Peter Vincent, the ICE Principal Legal Advisor, another memo reiterating key aspects of the Morton memo, and a "Next Steps" memo from ICE.

The memo from Peter Vincent indicates that his office will conduct a two month review of the cases being sent by each ICE office of chief counsel to the Justice Department. The review is said to last until January 13th, 2012, after which time the office of principal legal advisor will issue "a revised policy for the continuation of his review."

DHS in August announced that it would review deportations on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing the deportation of criminals over other illegal immigrants. On December 4th, the Justice Department and DHS will launch a six-week pilot program in two jurisdictions, Baltimore and Denver, to test run the process of reviewing cases currently pending in court, the department said in a statement.

ICE has also started scenario-based training for implementation of prosecutorial discretion, adding that the agency has a January 13th deadline for all ICE enforcement officers and attorneys nationwide to have gone through the training.

Guidance to ICE attorneys on implementing the prosecutorial discretion policy lists examples of illegal aliens who generally are not enforcement priorities. An example would be a child who is in the United States for more than five years, and is either in school or who has successfully completed high school.

Also not an enforcement priority is an illegal immigrant over the age of 65 who has been present in the United States for more than 10 years, or generally, anyone who has a "very long-term presence in the United States, has an immediate family member who is a United States citizen, and has established compelling ties and made compelling contributions to the United States," the guidance says.

However, the guidance tells attorneys that if they decide to exercise prosecutorial discretion, they must first vet the alien in question for national security and public safety concerns. "No exercise of discretion under this case review may proceed without this vetting," it says.

For more information about prosecutorial discretion, please contact Miami immigration lawyer, Antonio Revilla at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or (305) 858-2323.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.

U.S. Citizen Children of Immigrants Protest Higher Tuition Rates

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:08:14 -0500

Reported in The Miami Herald

The far-reaching immigration debate in Florida and the nation has been going on for years, but until last week, the plight of students like Wendy Ruiz -- an aspiring podiatrist -- had been largely invisible.

Born and raised in Miami, Ruiz is a U.S. citizen. But in the eyes of Florida's higher education system, she's a dependent student whose parents are undocumented immigrants -- and not considered legal Florida residents.

As such, Ruiz is charged higher-priced out-of-state tuition, even though she has a Florida birth certificate, Florida driver's license and is a registered Florida voter. One semester of in-state tuition at Miami Dade College costs about $1,200, while out-of-state students pay roughly $4,500.

Many students are simply unable to absorb the increased cost. Ruiz has been attending Miami Dade College and, so far, has a 3.7 GPA but must work multiple part-time jobs just to pay for one class. Other similarly-affected students have completely given up on college.

"As an American, and a lifelong Florida resident, I deserve the same opportunities," Ruiz said. "I know that I will be successful because I have never wanted something so bad in my life like I want this."

Last week, Ruiz and several other South Florida students emerged as the lead plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit challenging Florida's in-state residency guidelines. The same week, a Jacksonville state lawmaker filed a bill that would grant in-state tuition to students like Ruiz.

The lawsuit and the proposed legislation have focused attention on a little-known issue in Florida, where immigration activists have long concentrated on passage of a federal Dream Act.

The proposed Dream Act has languished in Congress for years. It would legalize certain undocumented immigrants who have been accepted into college or the military. These young people were typically brought to the United States illegally as children. Proponents argue they should not be penalized for the illegal actions of their parents.

The Dream Act remains a hot-button political issue. Advocates for a stricter, hard-line immigration policy say passage would reward those who entered the country illegally.
At a recent Republican presidential primary debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry got hammered for his support of a state law that allowed undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition.

Unlike those who would benefit from the Dream Act, the issue for students like Ruiz is radically different because they are, in fact, U.S. citizens.

How Immigration Reform will Help the Economy

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:37:43 -0500

At the outset it has to be made clear that Immigration Reform is not amnesty. It is a concept that involves the reforming of immigration enforcement as well as creating a path to residency for nearly 11 million people who do not have the benefit of adjusting status in the U.S. by virtue of how they entered the country.

The path to residency would entail strict requirements that must be met. The majority of these 11 million individuals entered the U.S. without documents, which means that they cannot adjust their status from that of undocumented to that of legal status in the U.S. On the other hand, individuals who entered the U.S. and overstayed their authorized stay can adjust their status in the U.S. if they are beneficiaries of an immediate relative visa petition.

The inability to adjust status for such a large number of people only hurts the U.S. economy. For starters, many of these individuals do not file income tax returns due to the misplaced fear that the IRS will report them to immigration. The job opportunities are limited for the majority of individuals due to the lack of work authorization. The inability of so many individuals to seek diverse job opportunities creates stagnation in the overall economic progress of the nation. This is due in large part to a decline in or lack of competition in the job market.

A strong economy requires competition in the work place to spur new ideas and innovation which stimulates the economy. Finally, the spending habits of undocumented individuals are generally overly conservative. They tend to spend on bare minimum consumer goods due to the prospect of an uncertain future of living permanently in the U.S. The majority of these individuals have a tendency not to make larger purchases or make investments in their future because of the uncertainty in their lives.

While the economic conditions would improve with the ultimate legalization of so many people, these individuals, as it stands now, are certainly not a drain on the economy as many pundits have inaccurately espoused. These are individuals seeking a better life and are eager to be part of the American community. They are also human beings, complete with the need for shelter, clothing, and food. This means that they are spending money in America on items necessary for these needs which in and of itself is a strong contribution to the economy.

Contrary to public misconceptions, these individuals are the least likely to receive government benefits. The inability of our politicians and the American electorate to support Immigration Reform is attributed to underlying bigotry and fear mongering which has no place in the American discussion. Anybody who is serious about improving our economy and making America more competitive should give Immigration Reform serious consideration.

Renewed Hope for Deportation Defense - Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:43:21 -0500

On October 12, 2011, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sanchez Fajardo v. U.S. Attorney General effectively overturned the BIA Decision of Silva-Trevino. The 11th Circuit held that the Immigration Court cannot look beyond the record of conviction when applying the modified categorical approach in determining whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Silva-Trevino held that an Immigration Judge can go beyond the record of conviction if the record of conviction does not resolve the question of whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude. This had left the door open for the Immigration Court to consider evidence that was not part of what constitutes admissible evidence used to prove a criminal charge in a criminal court.

Now, in light of Sanchez Fajardo, the Immigration Court should not consider evidence beyond the record of conviction in determining whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude. This means that when the Immigration Court is making a crime involving moral turpitude determination, immigration attorneys should always be ready to object to any evidence considered by the Immigration Court which is beyond the admissible portions of the record of conviction.

This objection especially applies to an arrest form or complaint which is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy, as it is inadmissible hearsay and is not an admissible portion of a record of conviction.

Obama Vows to Keep Pressing for Immigration Law Overhaul

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:14:05 -0500

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama told a Hispanic audience that he would continue to "push hard" for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws even as his administration steps up border security and deportations.

Answering questions at a White House roundtable discussion, Obama said he has consistently supported revamping laws that regulate immigration and creating a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally. Support for such changes has declined in Congress, particularly among Republicans, stalling attempts to pass legislation, he said.

"We're a nation of laws, but we're also a nation of immigrants," Obama said at the forum for readers of Yahoo! en Espanol, MSN Latino, AOL Latino and Huffington Post Latino Voices.

In the 2008 presidential election, 67 percent of Hispanic voters supported Obama and 31 percent backed the Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, according to the Pew Research Center in Washington. As the 2012 vote approaches, Obama's support has been waning because of the sluggish economy and an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent.

The jobless rate among Hispanics was 11.3 percent in August, according to the Labor Department.

Obama's approval rating among Hispanics sank to 48 percent in August from 60 percent in January, according to a Gallup Organization analysis of daily tracking poll data from Aug. 1-31.

Still, Gallup said that more Hispanics approve of his job performance than disapprove, 48 percent to 37 percent. By comparison, Obama's approval rating among the general public was at 42 percent in Gallup's Sept. 24-26 tracking poll.

More Deportations
Obama also defended his administration's tightening of border security and stepped-up deportations.

The U.S. arrested 2,900 illegal immigrants with prior criminal convictions over seven days in the largest such nationwide crackdown, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said today.

"What we've been doing is, with stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back," Obama said.

The event was streamed live at the White House website in English and dubbed into Spanish, the White House said.

Supreme Court Justices Will Hear Appeals on Immigrants' Residence

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:58:47 -0500

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether the length of immigrants' lawful residence in the United States should be considered in determining whether their children may be deported.

The court also agreed to hear six other cases from among the hundreds of appeals that had piled up over the summer. The new cases mostly concern technical questions in low-profile areas of the law like tax shelters and workers' compensation.

The immigration case is probably the most consequential of the new additions to the docket.

Federal immigration law allows people who have been lawful permanent residents for at least five years and have lived continuously in the United States for at least seven years to ask the government for leniency if they are threatened with deportation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has ruled in a series of cases that immigrants who entered the United States as children may count their parents' years here to satisfy the residency requirements.

The court accepted two appeals from such rulings, consolidating them into a single case.

One of the appeals, Holder v. Gutierrez, No. 10-1542, concerns Carlos M. Gutierrez, a Mexican citizen who became a legal permanent resident of the United States in 2003, when he was 19. Two years later, the government sought to deport him after catching him trying to drive across the border from Mexico with three undocumented minors in his car.

The other appeal, Holder v. Sawyers, No. 10-1543, involved Damien A. Sawyers, a Jamaican citizen whom the government sought to deport after he was convicted of "maintaining a dwelling for keeping a controlled substance." The conviction came 6 years and 10 months after Mr. Sawyers became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1995 at the age of 15.

Neither man could himself satisfy the criteria that would have allowed him to seek leniency. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the time their parents had spent in the United States could be imputed to them.

In its briefs urging the justices to hear the case, the Obama administration said the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the law was wrong and at odds with those of other appeals courts. The Ninth Circuit's approach, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote in one of the briefs, "impedes the government's high-priority efforts to remove criminal aliens."

Lawyers for the two men, in briefs urging the justices not to hear their cases, said the government had ignored a Congressional policy favoring keeping families intact. They also noted that the attorney general remained free to deny leniency however the math was computed.

Source: New York Times
By: Adam Liptak
Published: September 27, 2011

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

Mr. Revilla has over 18 years of litigation experience and has dedicated his career to educating the public on the importance of immigration reform in our country. He has appeared on television to discuss various immigration issues and the benefits of passing bills such as the DREAM Act.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.

I-751 Petitions to Remove the Conditions on Residence, New BIA Precedent Decision

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:29:48 -0500

The Board of Immigration Appeals held in a precedent decision that additional evidence may be submitted in removal proceedings when an Immigration Judge reviews an I-751 petition that was previously denied by DHS because it did not meet the general joint filing requirements.

The Court held that when an Immigration Court reviews the denial of an I-751 petition, an individual may introduce additional evidence that was not previously introduced with DHS.

See the full case at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3726.pdf

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

Mr. Revilla has over 18 years of litigation experience and has dedicated his career to educating the public on the importance of immigration reform in our country. He has appeared on television to discuss various immigration issues and the benefits of passing bills such as the DREAM Act.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.