Matthew — Page 17

I’ve Been Given an A/V Rating by Martindale-Hubbell

December 14, 2012 by Matthew

Martindale-Hubbell is a lawyer directory. They have a peer review rating system for lawyers. Under the Martindale-Hubbell rating system, the highest rating that a lawyer can receive is an A/V rating. I recently requested a rating from Martindale-Hubbell. I have received an A/V rating. On a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being the highest), I received an average score of 4.9 from the lawyers that rated me. Some of the lawyers that rated me provided comments. Here are some of the actual comments that were provided:

Matthew is one of the foremost authorities on immigration law in the country. He is the one other lawyers turn to when they have a question they can’t answer.

Matthew’s knowledge of both law & procedure with respect to BIA Appeals & Federal immigration litigation are unparalleled.

Matthew is a great source of immigration law knowledge. I consider him my mentor.

Matthew Guadagno has continuously provided me with a source of expertise in Immigration Law.

Matthew has argued law changing cases before the second circuit!! but for him the law would not be changed.

Very competent immigration attorney, which is not that common to find.

Whenever I have a case that needs to go to Federal Court I send my clients to Mr. Guadagno. I trust him with them and I guess that is the best recommendation.

Matthew is a top notch immigration attorney.

Matthew is a real expert in Litigation of Immigration Matters, particularly in Appellate practice. He has many cited cases in Federal Courts which he researched and litigated, and he really knows the law as well as anyone.

Matthew is one the best immigration lawyers in this country. He trained me to be an immigration lawyer when he was my supervisor at Bretz & Coven, where I worked for 5 years. He is always ready and willing to help anyone who seeks him out. He is patient with clients and tells them the truth, no matter how difficult it may be to hear. He is creative, articulate, and expresses himself thoroughly and in a clear manner.

Republican Achieve Act is Too Complicated

November 30, 2012 by Matthew

This week, the Republicans came up with their alternative to the DREAM Act, which is called the Achieve Act. While I’m impressed that the Republicans have proposed an immigration law that would help people, I think it’s too complicated.

Here are the requirements:

1. Brought to the U.S. before age 14.

2. Not older than 28.

3. Has lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years.

4. No criminal history.

If you meet those requirements, then you can get a W visa to go to college or serve in the military.

If you complete a degree within 6 years or serve for 4 years in the military, then you can get a non-immigrant work visa.

After the 4 years, you could then get a permanent non-immigrant visa that would not enable you to become a U.S. citizen.

My biggest problem with the Achieve Act is that with 3 tiers, it’s too complicated. You really need to be a lawyer to figure this out. Of course, I’m not going to be too critical of the Republicans. At least, they are doing something about immigration. Now that the Republicans have put forth their proposal, it’s time for President Obama and the Democrats to push for the DREAM Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The Ridiculousness of Mandatory Detention

November 29, 2012 by Matthew

I was in immigration court yesterday for a detained client. The client has 2 misdemeanor drug convictions. She has been on probation for the last year. A couple of weeks ago, ICE detained her when she reported for probation and now she is facing deportation because of her misdemeanor convictions. Because she has a conviction for a controlled substance offense, she is subject to mandatory detention. By law, she cannot be released on bond. As a result of changes to the immigration law in 1996, many convictions result in people being placed in removal proceedings not being eligible for bond. This is called mandatory detention.

To me, a case like this demonstrates how ridiculous mandatory detention is. Her 2 convictions are for misdemeanors. She’s not a danger to anyone and she’s not a flight risk. She’s eligible for cancellation of removal. Since she’s eligible for relief from deportation, it’s in her best interest to appear for immigration court. Most of all, she has been on probation for the last year and was fully complying with her probation! However, due to mandatory detention, she will be detained by ICE for the duration of her case.

I hear lots of talk about the immigration reform, such as amnesty and the DREAM Act. Unfortunately, I don’t hear about immigration reform regarding mandatory detention. I think that mandatory detention should be limited to cases where individuals are ineligible for relief from removal. If someone is eligible for relief from removal, they should have the opportunity to have a hearing on bond to demonstrate why they should be released. If you are eligible for relief, you should have the opportunity to fight your case from home, rather than an ICE detention facility. Just having a bond hearing doesn’t mean that someone will be released. If they are a danger to the community or a flight risk, an immigration judge does not have to grant the individual bond. The current system that prevents immigration judges from considering bond for detained people in removal proceedings with almost any criminal history is wrong and should be changed.