Policy

President Announces expanded DACA Program and a new Deferred Action for Parents (DAP) Program

Published on: November 21, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

President Obama announced yesterday a vast expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and a new form of deferred action for parents (DAP) of lawful permanent residents and United States citizens who entered the United States without authorization or have overstayed their visas.

You may be able to obtain employment authorization and a driver’s license if you qualify. Deferred action will also give you the piece of mind that you will not be arrested by ICE or any law enforcement because you are not in lawful immigration status.

Details of the new deferred action program are still being finalized and applications will not be accepted immediately. However, we can begin the process of determining eligibility and preparing the application now.

U.S. Grants Temporary Protected Status for Liberia, Guinea & Sierra Leone

Published on: November 20, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

DHS Announces Temporary Protected Status Designations for Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

WASHINGTON- Due to the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has announced his decision to designate Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. As a result, eligible nationals of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone who are currently residing in the United States may apply for TPS with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Federal Register notices provide details and procedures for applying for TPS and are available at www.uscis.gov/tps.

The TPS designations for the three countries are effective Nov. 21, 2014 and will be in effect for 18 months. The designations mean that eligible nationals of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone (and people without nationality who last habitually resided in one of those three countries) will not be removed from the United States and are authorized to work and obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The 180-day TPS registration period begins Nov. 21, 2014 and runs through May 20, 2015.

Attorneys Jeremy Lasnetski and John Gihon of Lasnetski Gihon Law to speak at AILA Central Florida’s Annual Immigration Conference

Published on: October 16, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Jeremy Lasnetski and John Gihon, partners with Lasnetski Gihon Law, will be panelists on multiple topics this weekend at AILA Central Florida’s Annual Conference in Clearwater Beach, Florida. The 28th Annual Fall Conference, entitled, “Basics and Beyond at the Beach” is a two-day conference at the Hyatt Regency Clearwater Beach Resort and Spa and begins on October 17, 2014.

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49888#reg

Jeremy will be a panelist on the topics of U Visas, T Visas and VAWA benefits. U Visas are potentially available to any non-citizen who was the victim or witness to certain crimes here in the United States. VAWA benefits are potentially available for victims of domestic abuse by U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.

When Can I File a Motion to Terminate or Administratively Close My Removal Proceedings, Part II.

Published on: October 9, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Last time I discussed the situations where an immigrant in removal proceedings could seek to terminate proceedings to avoid removal from the United States. Today I will discuss motions to administratively close proceedings.

While a successful motion to terminate removal proceedings usually removes an alien from jeopardy of deportation, a successful motion to administratively close proceedings simply pauses a removal case indefinitely. However, the outcome is the same as a motion to terminate, you are no longer in imminent danger of being ordered removed from the United States.

While administratively closing removal proceedings pauses your case indefinitely, at any time you or the Government can ask the Court to put your case back in front of the Immigration Judge.

When Can I File a Motion to Terminate or Administratively Close My Removal Proceedings, Part I.

Published on: October 7, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

For the poor unfortunate immigrant who finds themselves in removal proceedings, the process can be scary, confusing, and heartbreaking. Many immigrants are so intimidated by the removal process that they purposely fail to appear for court. The worst thing you can do if you are an immigrant who finds yourself in removal proceedings is not to show up. The best thing that you can do is hire an experienced immigration attorney who can review your case, explain your rights, and fight for you to be able to stay in the United States.

Once your are in removal proceedings, two of the ways that an an experienced immigration attorney can protect you from removal are to terminate the removal proceedings against you, or to administratively close them. Each action has a different outcome and different reasons to chose that strategy; however, each one can protect you from removal.

There are two general reasons to pursue a motion to terminate removal proceedings. One, is because the law says you can, the other is because the Government has a policy that says you can.

I have an Order of Removal or Deportation, what can I do now?

Published on: September 30, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Many non-citizens find themselves in this exact position at some point in their lives. Sometimes, they do not even know they have an order of removal or deportation until they apply for a green card or other immigration benefit. When you have an order of removal or deportation the last thing you should do is nothing. The first thing you should do is call an experienced immigration attorney about your options. Depending on how and why you were ordered removed or deported, you many have many different options available to you.

One of the options if you have an order of removal or deportation is to file a motion to reopen your immigration case. If you were ordered removed or deported because you did not show up for Immigration Court, you may be able to reopen your case if you can show that you did not receive notice or were not told that you were suppose to be in court. Many times, non-citizens end up in removal or deportation proceedings without even knowing it. This may happen because they are tricked into filing immigration paperwork through a Notario. If you did not know you were in immigration court an attorney may be able to file a motion to reopen for you. In this case, filing a motion to reopen will automatically stop the government from removing or deporting you while that motion is pending.

If you were ordered removed or deported and your attorney did something wrong, or failed to do something right in your immigration case, you may be able to file a motion to reopen and argue that your attorney was ineffective. You will need to be able to show that had your attorney been better, you would not have been ordered removed.

Administrative Removal?: Object Now or Forever Hold Your Peace (and get Deported)

Published on: September 11, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Administrative Removal can be used to obtain an order of removal against almost any non-citizen, non-lawful permanent resident who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Administrative removal can even be used against a condition lawful permanent resident, unless and until that person has the conditions of their permanent residency removed.

The administrative removal process almost always takes place without an Immigration Judge. If an Immigration Officer, who works for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), believes that you qualify for administrative removal, then you will likely be detained and receive an order of removal without ever seeing an Immigration Judge.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued a publish decision regarding administrative removal in the case of Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2014 WL 4073115. In that case, a non-citizen was subjected to administrative removal after ICE officers determined that she was an aggravated felon and she was not a lawful permanent resident. ICE issued an order of removal against Ms. Malu, and she petitioned to the Court of Appeals saying that she was not an aggravated felon.

New Immigration Case May Open the Door to Asylum for Battered Spouses

Published on: September 9, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Board of Immigration Appeals delivered a published decision recently finding that certain female victims of domestic violence may be eligible for asylum in the United States. The Board’s decision in Matter of A-R-C-G, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014) held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship,” constitute a legally cognizable “particular social group,” (PSG) and under the right circumstances, could be considered refugees and granted asylum in the United States.

Early this year, the Board clarified its position on what constitutes a PSG in two published decisions. In Matter of W-G-R- and Matter of M-E-V-G-, The Board held that an applicant seeking asylum based on his or her membership in a “particular social group” must establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.

For the first time under this new PSG analysis, the Board has found that a victim of domestic violence, who because of religious, social or cultural norms, find it difficult to end a marital relationship, can seek protection in the United States in the form of asylum. The Board did not create a bright-line rule that all married women in Guatemala who were the victims of domestic violence are eligible for asylum. The Board also did not say that married women in other countries could not qualify for asylum.

When are the Immigration Consequences of a Criminal Conviction, “Truly Clear?”

Published on: September 2, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) that defendants have a Constitutional right to receive accurate advice from their criminal attorneys about the immigration consequences of any criminal conviction. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that where the immigration consequences of a particular conviction are “truly clear”, “Padilla requires effective counsel to provide more than equivocal advice concerning those consequences . . . [and] in those circumstances, an equivocal warning from the trial court is less than what is required from counsel and therefore cannot, by itself, remove prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficiency.” Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d at 763.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida courts have not defined with any specificity what it means when immigration consequences are “truly clear.” However, the most prudent course of action for any criminal attorney is to consider the consequences “truly clear” when a plea to a crime would subject a non-citizen defendant to any ground of removability under INA § 237(a)(2) or a ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2). The problem with this approach is that under the current state of immigration law and policy, any plea to any crime, even the most minor misdemeanor can have definite and “truly clear” negative immigration consequences.

The courts have recognized that a conviction for a crime that is considered an aggravated felony mandates the Defendant’s deportation and also bars his eligibility for discretionary relief from removal. See Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757, 760 (Fla. 2013). This is certainly the type of plea to a crime that has “truly clear” consequences. In addition, any plea to any controlled substance offense (with one very narrow exception related to simple possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis or the paraphernalia related thereto and only for certain non-citizens) has “truly clear” negative immigration consequences and will subject almost every non-citizen to deportation. Any plea to any crime involving a firearm likely has “truly clear” negative immigration consequences. After that, the immigration jurisprudence becomes quite murky and there are few “truly clear” immigration consequences related to crimes of domestic violence, child abuse, child neglect, violations of protective orders or injunctions, stalking, and crimes involving moral turpitude.

What Can and Should President Obama do about Immigration without Congress?

Published on: August 13, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

President Obama has said that if Congress failed to act to pass comprehensive immigration reform before the August Summer recess, he would be forced to take action on the matter. Many legal scholars and activists have chimed in on what they think the President should do and what they think he legally could do unilaterally about immigration.

The President has provide mixed messages over the years about what he wants to do compared to what he thinks he can legally do. The President has been quite clear that he wants to sign the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate in the summer of 2013. This bill would immediately give millions of immigrants eligibility for lawful status. This bill would provide millions with a pathway to a green card (lawful permanent residence) and a pathway to citizenship.

Nothing the President has talked about, and nothing argued for by immigration activists can do what Congress can do through comprehensive immigration reform. What the President is currently contemplating is to expand deferred action to a much larger group of immigrants currently without status. The President first provided deferred action through DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), back in 2012, to a limited number of young immigrants who met certain criteria. Deferred action is not a legal status like having a green card, or having a work or student visa. Deferred action is simply a temporary, revocable promise that the government will not seek to remove you, and will allow you to work, so long as you don’t break certain rules.