Matthew — Page 16

I was a Judge at the NYU Annual Immigration Moot Court Competition

February 22, 2013 by Matthew

NYU is having its Annual Immigration Moot Court Competition. Once again, I was invited to be a judge at the competition. I’ve been invited to be a judge every year since the competition started in 2006. Last year, is the only year that I was not able to participate. I enjoy taking part in NYU’s Immigration Moot Court Competition. After the students finish, the judges get to provide them with comments on how they did and how they can improve in the future. I like being able to give advice to law students. Of course, I also enjoy playing judge.

Supreme Court Decision Will Result in Unfair Deportations

February 20, 2013 by Matthew

Today, the Supreme Court decided Chaidez v. United States. As a result of this decision, many people will be deported unfairly. Chaidez addresses issues that were left unresolved by Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Sixth Amendment for a criminal lawyer to fail to advise a non-citizen about the potential immigration consequences of a proposed plea agreement. After Padilla was decided, many non-citizens facing deportation because of convictions began to seek to have their convictions overturned on the basis that they pleaded guilty without being advised about the immigration consequences of their conviction. An issue arose as to whether or not Padilla could be applied retroactively – whether the decision could be applied to criminal cases that occurred prior to the Padilla decision. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that Padilla should not be applied retroactively.

The reason that I say that Chaidez will result in unfair deportations is that if a non-citizen pleaded guilty before Padilla without being advised of the immigration consequence of their conviction, they will no longer be able to benefit from Padilla. This means that even though non-citizens did not understand the full consequences of pleading guilty, they are bound by their guilty plea. Thus, they can be deported for their conviction, even though they did not understand that they could be deported for their conviction. For something the Supreme Court found to be constitutional, it is terribly unfair.

When I do consultations, I often meet people who are ineligible for relief from removal because of their convictions. I always advise people in this situation to consult with a criminal lawyer about the possibility of having their conviction vacated. If a criminal lawyer thinks that the conviction can be vacated, then I will usually be retained to request that the Immigration Judge delay issuing a deportation order until there is a decision on the motion to vacate the criminal conviction. As a result of Chaidez, there will be less people that will be able to do this.

Why I Do Free Consultations

February 15, 2013 by Matthew

A lot of people are often surprised that I do free consultations. Many immigration lawyers charge consultation fees. One of the reasons that I do free consultations is that I consider my consultations my pro bono work. Rather than take pro bono cases and helping only a couple of people, I provide free consultations to everyone. This permits me to help more people.

I do not look at consultations as just a means for me to obtain a new client. Many of my consultations result in my telling prospective clients that I am unable to help them. Due to the harshness of our immigration laws, many people do not have a means of remaining in the United States. People who enter the United States illegally usually cannot obtain a green card through marriage or any other means. Not all immigrants with convictions that subject them to deportation are eligible for relief. Sometimes people are fighting their removal case for years and do not realize that there is nothing left to do to fight the case.

I do not always make appointments for everyone that calls me for a consultation. Whenever, I get a call for someone looking for a consultation, I screen the call to see if their problem can be resolved over the phone without meeting in person. If I can answer the person’s questions over the phone without them making an appointment to meet me, I will.