Florida Immigration Lawyer Blog

Why the President’s Pledge to Send More Resources to the Southwest Border is Good for the Migrant Children and Families Coming to the U.S.

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

Last Monday, President Obama announced that he was sending additional resources to the Southwest Border to help with the growing humanitarian crisis involving tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and families migrating from Central American. The President vowed these resources in part, to more quickly return “unlawful migrants” to their home countries and discourage additional children and families from following in their same dangerous path to the U.S.

The President said regarding these expanded resources: the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS [Department of Homeland Security] are deploying additional enforcement resources — including immigration judges, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, and asylum officers — to focus on individuals and adults traveling with children from Central America and entering without authorization across the Southwest border. The DHS is working to secure additional space that satisfies applicable legal and humanitarian standards for detention of adults with children. This surge of resources will mean that cases are processed fairly and as quickly as possible, ensuring the protection of asylum seekers and refugees while enabling the prompt removal of individuals who do not qualify for asylum or other forms of relief from removal.

Many pro-immigration advocates have criticized the President’s decision. They argue that returning migrant children and families to their home countries is inhumane and in many cases we would be sending these migrants back to the crime and poverty that are the very reasons they fled to the U.S. However, this promise of expanded resources will actually help ensure that those migrants, many of whom are eligible for immigration benefits in this country, will receive a full and fair determination of their eligibility, rather than face lengthy detention and summary denials of benefits.

My loved one has been detained by immigration officers, what can an attorney do for us?

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

When U.S. immigration officers arrest someone, the hours, days and weeks that follow can be some of the most confusing, frightening but important times of their lives. The decisions that someone makes during this time can possibly mean the difference between staying in the U.S. with your loved ones or being deported and possibly never seeing them again.

When immigration officers encounter someone who they believe is in the U.S. in violation of the immigration laws, one of the first decisions they make is whether or not to detain the person in an immigration detention facility. If immigration officers decide not to detain the person, then this fortunate non-citizen is given an order of recognizance, or an Oreck (O-Reck) as the officers call it. When someone is on an ORec, they have to report periodically to immigration officers while their case is pending in immigration court.

If the immigration officers decide to detain someone, they first determine if the person is eligible for an immigration bond, and if so, they will decide how much the bond will be. An immigration bond can range anywhere from $1500 to $25,000 or more. If an immigration officer determines that you are not eligible for a bond, then you will be held in immigration detention until your cases is over, an immigration officer decides to release you or an immigration judge gives you a bond.

Expedited Removal, What is it and What can I do if the Government uses it Against Me?

Published on: June 27, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Expedited Removal is a way that officers from the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) primarily U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can order someone removed from the United States without taking them before and Immigration Judge. This is one of many “alternatives to removal proceedings” that the government can use to obtain an order of removal against a non-citizen while keeping them from seeing an immigration judge.

DHS defines Expedited \Removal as, “The statutory authority to order certain aliens removed from the United States without further hearing or interview, unless the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum, or expresses a fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her country.” The authority comes from Section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Government and DHS justify the use of this form of removal by arguing that the need to secure the border and curb human smuggling outweighs the limited due process afforded those subject to expedited removal.

DHS is allowed to apply expedited removal to two general types of people. 1) Arriving Aliens: If a person seeks admission to the U.S. at a land, sea or air border/port, and they are not a U.S. citizen and do not have a green card, they are generally arriving aliens. 2) Any non-citizen who does not have a green card who has entered the U.S. without admission or parole (illegally) and is caught within 100 miles of an international border and within 14 days of their entry.

Florida ‘Dream Act’ to soon benefit some kids of illegal immigrants

Published on: June 26, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

TAMPA —

A new state bill is about to go into effect granting in-state tuition to children of some illegal immigrants.

The law would allow undocumented students in Florida to pay in-state tuition to attend Florida colleges.

The Orlando Immigration Court handles cases for people detained at the Baker County Jail

Published on: June 23, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Orlando Immigration Court handles immigration cases for almost every non-citizen who lives in 57 of Florida’s 67 counties. Every person in removal proceedings who lives north of Charlotte County on the west coast of Florida and Martin County on the east coast, will likely have their immigration hearing in the Orlando Court. The Orlando Immigration Court is located at 3535 Lawton Road, Suite 200, Orlando, Florida. The Court is just north and east of downtown Orlando, near the Fashion Square Mall.

The Orlando Immigration Court currently has six Immigration Judges who each handle non-detained removal cases. Judge Rafael Ortiz-Segura is the senior judge, and there are five other judges in Orlando. They are, Victoria Ghartey, Daniel Lippman, Kevin Chapman, James Grim and Stuart Karden. Only one Immigration Judge currently handles detained immigration cases, that is, senior judge, Ortiz-Segura.

The Orlando Immigration Court handles primarily non-detained immigration cases, however, the Court handles detained immigration cases for people detained at the Baker County Jail, in MacClenny, Florida. The Baker County Jail is located about 30 minutes west of Jacksonville, Florida. The Baker county jail holds only non-citizens who have been arrested for, or convicted of crimes. The Orlando Immigration Court holds televideo hearings with detainees from the Baker County Jail appearing on a television screen in the courtroom in Orlando. Detainees at the Baker County Jail can have attorneys appear at the jail with them for all but the final individual hearing on any application for relief from removal. If a detainee has an individual hearing on an application for relief, their attorney and witnesses will need to appear live at the Orlando Immigration Court.

BIA Holds That a Parent’s Continuous Residence and Physical Presence Cannot Be Imputed To The Child For TPS Purposes

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

The BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) has recently held that a parent’s physical presence and continuous residence cannot be imputed to the parent’s child who later enters the United States and seeks TPS (Temporary Protected Status).

In Matter of Duarte-Luna, 26 I&N Dec. 325 (BIA 2014), the BIA relied on a recent United States Supreme Court decision, where SCOTUS held that a parent’s residence in the US could not be imputed to the child for cancellation of removal purposes. In other words, for non lawful permeant residents to be granted cancellation of removal, they must have been in the United States for a period of 10 continuous years. If a parent has been in the U.S. for 10 years, but his or her child came into the U.S. less than 10 years ago, the parent’s 10 years of continuous residence cannot be imputed to the child, thus making him eligible for cancellation of removal. The child must have accrued the 10 years of continuous presence on his or her own.

Expanding on this U.S. Supreme Court case, the BIA held in Duarte-Luna that continuous residence and physical presence must be accrued by the child independently of the parent’s physical presence and continuous residence to satisfy the requirements of TPS. In order to be eligible for TPS, a person must have been physicaly present in the United States by a date specified by the Attorney General and must have maintained continuous residence in the United States since that date. If the child does not independently satisfy those requirements, he or she will not be eligible for TPS.

Your Rights to Confidentiality when you Apply for Asylum and other forms of Protection.

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

The confidentiality of an asylum claim is a common concern for people in the United States who have filed an I-589 Application for Asylum. One person asked me if local law enforcement officers, who were interviewing him about a crime, would know that he applied for asylum and then use that information against him. Other asylum-seekers are worried that the government in their home countries, who is often the entity the person fears, will find out that they applied for asylum and harm them or their families.

The U.S. laws about to whom DHS (which includes USCIS, ICE, and CBP) can disclose that you have filed an asylum application is very strict. In addition, the consequences against a government official who illegally disclosed confidential asylum information are serious.

8 C.F.R. § 208.6 and 1208.6 regulate asylum-related confidentiality issues. These regulations forbid the disclosure by the U.S. government to a third party of any information or documents related to a number of different forms of immigration relief or “protection.” These include asylum claims and credible or reasonable fear reviews. By law and policy, the DHS has expanded this protection to include any application for asylum, withholding of removal (INA § 241), protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture, refugee status (INA § 209), and any claim of fear that is referred to USCIS for a credible fear or reasonable fear review.

My Spouse, Parent, Child, or Employee was arrested by ICE; What do I do now?

Published on: June 18, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

This is a common question for tens of thousands of people every year in the United States whose loved ones or employees are arrested by immigration officers. The question can come up in many different contexts: “my son was arrested for grand theft, but now he is detained by Immigration,” or “my dad was pulled over for not having a license, now Immigration has him,” or “my husband went to his immigration interview and ICE arrested him,” or “my employee was coming back from a short trip out of the country and they arrested him at the port.”

In Florida, if your loved one was arrested by Immigration Officers, they can be detained in one of multiple ICE detention facilities across the state. If ICE detainees the person in Central or North Florida, they will likely be detained in the Wakulla County Jail just south of Tallahassee or the Baker County Jail just west of Jacksonville. If your loved one was detained in South Florida, they will likely be sent to the Broward Transitional Center (BTC) just north of Ft. Lauderdale, the Kreme Service Processing Center (Krome SPC), west of Miami, or the Glades County Jail, southwest of Lake Okeechobee.

One way to find out where your loved one is detained by ICE is to check the ICE Online Detainee Locator System at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/homePage.do

ICE can remove you from the U.S. before you ever see an Immigration Judge.

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

The American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA) recently posted an article on what they referred to as “No-Process Removals.” Click here to read the article.

A “no-process” removal is one where an alien receives an order of removal (deportation) not from an Immigration Judge, but rather, from an Immigration Officer who works for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

These methods of removal can take many forms, including, but not limited to, expedited removal under INA § 235(1)(b); reinstatement of removal under INA § 241(a)(5); administrative removal under INA § 238(b); and visa waiver removal under INA § 217(b). When ICE decides to remove an alien through one of these methods, there is no neutral party (Immigration Judge) to review the evidence and determine if ICE has carried its burden to establish that the alien is removable from the United States by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, an alien’s family ties, work and educational history, ties to the community, hardship to the alien’s family if they are removed, and other positive discretionary factors are irrelevant.

Three BIA Cases Come Out on Adam Walsh Act

Published on: June 5, 2014 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The BIA recently released three separate decisions relating to the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act prevents certain United States citizens from petitioning to obtain a green card for their family members. Specifically, Section 402(a)(2) of the Act bars a United States citizen who has been convicted of certain acts against minors from having family based petitions approve unless it is determined that the US citizen petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary.

In Matter of Aceijas-Quiroz, 26 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2014), the BIA determined that the standard of proof to be applied to these cases is within the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which delegated the authority to USCIS. USCIS has applied a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, which is an extremely high standard. The BIA determined that it has no jurisdiction to review the standard used by USCIS. Furthermore, the BIA held that it had no jurisdiction to review whether the Petitioner proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she posed no risk to the beneficiary.

In Matter of Introcaso, 26 I&N Dec. 304 (BIA 2014), the BIA held that the categorical approach does not apply to a determination of the age of the victim and the conduct underlying the offense. This means that USCIS can look past the statute of conviction and determine whether the underlying facts establish that the victim was a minor and whether the offense was a “specified offense against a minor.”