Miami Immigration Lawyers Blog

DREAMer Benefits from Deferred Action for Young People

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:01:27 -0500

Revilla Law Firm is proud to announce that one of our clients has been offered - and has accepted - Deferred Action for Young People, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's policy announcement that it will offer Deferred Action to DREAMers.

The policy, which was announced in June, protects young, undocumented individuals from deportation if they meet certain criteria, such as attending school in the United States. Had it not been for this great opportunity, our client could have been separated from his parents, who are applicants for lawful permanent residency of the United States, and his sister, who is a United States citizen.

Our client was brought to the United States by his parents when he was 15 years old. Although he entered the country with a visitor's visa, his stay ultimately lapsed. As a result, our client was left without any status in the United States.

He was then placed in Removal Proceedings, where he faced deportation and the possibility of being apart from his family. At that time, he had absolutely no viable form of relief from removal. Based on prosecutorial discretion, his case was administratively closed in Court. Even though his case was administratively closed in Court and he no longer feared deportation, he was left in a position where he could not obtain residency, a work permit or a driver's license.

His situation looked dismal until his unfortunate circumstances were illuminated with a glimmer of hope when DHS announced its policy for Deferred Action for DREAMers. Upon a DHS review of eligible DREAMers, our client was offered and accepted Deferred Action for Young People. He will now be eligible to apply for work authorization and ultimately a driver's license.

Our client received his high school degree from Ronald Reagan High School in 2010, and is currently a student at Miami-Dade College, where he majors in Computer Information Systems and holds almost a 3.0 GPA. He is pursuing an Associate of Arts degree and is currently paying out-of-state tuition and fees for his studies. Because of this Deferred Action, he may ultimately become eligible to pay in-state tuition, which is considerably lower in cost, as he continues his studies.

Our firm received this amazing news today from the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor in Washington D.C. As it turns out, today is also our client's 21st birthday. We can't think of a better gift to receive or a more momentous occasion to celebrate. This is a compelling case that offers monumental hope for so many others looking to make the American Dream a reality.

As a firm dedicated to keeping families together, we look forward to helping others receive the same opportunity. Special thanks to Juliana Lamardo, Esq., who assisted Antonio Revilla, Esq., with this case.

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 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.

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Parts of Arizona Immigration Law

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:18:36 -0500

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision on Arizona's tough 2010 immigration law, upholding its most controversial provision but blocking the implementation of others.

The court unanimously sustained the law's centerpiece, the one critics have called its "show me your papers" provision. It requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.

The justices parted ways on three other provisions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for five members of the court, said the federal government's broad powers in setting immigration policy meant that other parts of the state law could not be enforced.

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Kennedy wrote. "With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse."

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Justice Kennedy added.

The decision was a partial victory for the Obama administration, which had sued to block several parts of the law.

In a statement released later on Monday, President Obama said that he was "pleased" with the Court's decision to strike down some aspects of the law, but he voiced his concern about the remaining provision.

"I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," Mr. Obama said. "Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans."

Monday's ruling was a partial rebuke for state officials who had argued that they were entitled to supplement federal efforts to address illegal immigration.

The administration's legal arguments were based on asserted conflicts between the state law and federal immigration laws and policies. The question for the justices, then, was whether federal immigration law trumped - pre-empted, in the legal jargon - the state efforts.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

The administration did not challenge the law based on equal protection principles. At the Supreme Court argument in the case in April, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the federal government, acknowledged that his case was not based on racial or ethnic profiling.

Monday's decision in Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, did not foreclose further lawsuits based on that argument. "This opinion," Justice Kennedy wrote, "does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."

In sustaining one provision and blocking others, the decision amounted to a road map for permissible state efforts in this area. Several other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, including ones patterned after the Arizona law, among them Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.

Lower courts have stayed the implementation of parts of those laws, and they will now revisit those decisions to bring them in line with the principles announced on Monday.

Three justice dissented. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have sustained all three of the blocked provisions. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. would have sustained two of them.

The three provisions blocked by the majority were: making it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law, making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work, and allowing the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe that they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law.

Justice Alito said the first of those three provisions conflicted with federal law.

Justice Scalia read a lengthy dissent from the bench that addressed recent developments.

"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," he said, "the secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants." This was a reference to the decision by the Obama administration this month to let younger immigrants -- the administration estimates the number as approximately 800,000 -- who came to the United States as children avoid deportation and receive working papers as long as they meet certain conditions.

"The president has said that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the immigration laws," Justice Scalia went on. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, presumably because she had worked on it as President Obama's solicitor general.

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.

Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:50:56 -0500

Washington (CNN) -- In an election-year policy change, the Obama administration said Friday it will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements.

The shift on the politically volatile issue of immigration policy prompted immediate praise from Latino leaders who have criticized Congress and the White House for inaction, while Republicans reacted with outrage that the move amounts to amnesty -- a negative buzz word among conservatives.

Those who might benefit from the change expressed joy and relief. Pedro Ramirez, a student who has campaigned for such a move, said he was "definitely speechless," then added: "It's great news."

President Barack Obama will make a White House statement about the policy change Friday afternoon. Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

Read the Napolitano memo (PDF)

It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.

The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said.

It "is not immunity, it is not amnesty," she told reporters, adding the shift is "well within the framework of existing laws" and "is simply the right thing to do." The move addresses a major concern of the Hispanic community and mimics some of the provisions of a Democratic proposal called the DREAM Act that has failed to win enough Republican support to gain congressional approval.

Obama has been criticized by Hispanic-American leaders for an overall increase in deportations of illegal aliens in recent years. Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency's history.

Friday's policy change is expected to potentially affect 800,000 people, an administration official told CNN on background. Napolitano emphasized the move does not provide a pathway to citizenship or permanent residency, and she called for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which would put into law similar steps for children of illegal immigrants to continue living and working in the country.

Republicans who have blocked Democratic efforts on immigration reform immediately condemned the move. In a Twitter post, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the decision "avoids dealing with Congress and the American people instead of fixing a broken immigration system once and for all." "This is a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership," Graham's tweet said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, called the change a "decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants." "Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true," Smith said in a statement. "And once these illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for a work permit, which the administration routinely grants 90% of the time."

However, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, welcomed the announcement that he said "will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they've ever called home."

Immigration shift sparks reaction from both sides. "These young people did not make the decision to come to this country, and it is not the American way to punish children for their parents' actions," Durbin said in a written statement.

Ramirez, the student activist, said the chance to live and work in the United States "gives us a chance to show the American people that we're not here to use your tax dollars, we're not here to take your jobs, we're here to contribute."

Hispanics make up the fastest growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election. A spokeswoman for a major Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, hailed the administration's move.

"In light of the congressional inaction on immigration reform, this is the right step for the administration to take at this time," said NCLR spokeswoman Laura Vazquez. Immigration lawyers also called the change a major step in the right direction. However, one immigration expert warned that the new policy does not guarantee the result sought by participants.

"I worry that the announcement will be implemented more stingily than the administration would like," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School.

For Jose Luis Zelaya, who came to the United States illegally from Honduras at age 14 to find his mother, also an illegal immigrant, the new policy means that "maybe I will be able to work without being afraid that someone may deport me." "There is no fear anymore," he said.

For more information, contact Antonio G. Revilla at (305) 858-2323.

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.

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.

Availability of Waivers for Aggravated Felonies in Certain Circuits

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:35:14 -0500

The Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E. W. Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012) issued a bright-line holding that in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits an aggravated felony conviction precludes the availability of a waiver under section 212(h) only if the conviction occurred after the person was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident after inspection at a port of entry.

This means that the persons before the Immigration Courts within the jurisdictions of the Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, who adjusted their status in the United States after entering in another status or without inspection, an aggravated felony does not preclude them from applying for a waiver under 212(h). The BIA clarified that the prohibition from eligibility under 212(h) remains intact in all the other circuits for all persons who are lawful permanent residents regardless of whether the persons adjusted their status in the United States or were admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents.

It appears from the BIA's decision in Matter of E.W. Rodriguez that the Respondent was applying for adjustment of status with a waiver for an aggravated felony conviction. The Immigration Judge erroneously found that the Respondent was ineligible, even though he adjusted status to that of a lawful permanent resident after already being present in the United States pursuant to an entry without inspection. It appears that the Respondent was required to reapply for adjustment of status instead of simply filing a stand-alone waiver.

Many Immigration Judges and Immigration Prosecutors have taken the position that a standalone waiver cannot be submitted. According to them, a waiver must be made in conjunction with an application for adjustment of status. This in complete contradiction to the interpretation of the Eleventh Circuit's position in Lanier v. U.S Attorney General, 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011). The Eleventh Circuit in Lanier citing to Yeung v. I.N.S., 76 F.3rd 337 (11th Cir. 1995) noted in footnote one that the waiver is available to individuals in removal proceedings.

This means that the waiver should be available as a stand-alone application. This is extremely important to argue in Immigration Court considering that many individuals may not have the ability to reapply for adjustment of status in removal proceedings where, for example, there is no longer an immediately available petitioner. These individuals will have no choice but to file a standalone waiver. This undoubtedly will be a heavily litigated issue since many Immigration Judges do not agree with the interpretation of the Eleventh Circuit's position.

For more information regarding waivers, contact Antonio G. Revilla at (305) 858-2323.

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.

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.

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.

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.