Matthew — Page 25

Client with Criminal Conviction Granted Adjustment of Status!

June 18, 2012 by Matthew

Last week, I attended an adjustment of status interview with a client and his wife. I’ve since received notice that he was approved for a green card. My client had a federal conviction for failure to provide currency reports pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a). He has been in the country illegally since the 1980’s, but was afraid to pursue a green card because of his conviction. Many convictions render aliens inadmissible, so that they are barred from getting a green card, unless they qualify for a waiver and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) grants the waiver. In this particular instance, I happened to know that this particular crime is not considered to be a crime involving moral turpitude, so that a waiver was not necessary. When I submitted the applications for my client, I included a short argument of why my client did not need a waiver for his conviction in the cover letter. At the interview, the officer from CIS read my cover letter and told me that he agreed with me. Now after all of these years, my client no longer has to worry about being deported because he is legal.

I Spoke at the AILA National Conference

June 17, 2012 by Matthew

I just got home from the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) National Conference in Nashville, Tennessee. On Friday, I spoke on a panel entitled, “Strategic and Evidentiary Issues in the Defense Against Removal.” My friends Joe Hohenstein and Philip Smith were on the panel with me. I spoke mostly about challenging forensic lab determinations and challenging port of entry and credible fear statements. I always enjoy attending the AILA National Conference. I was asked to be on AILA’s Amicus Committee again this year. The Amicus Committee writes briefs on behalf of AILA when AILA wishes to be heard in immigration cases that have important issues. The Amicus Committee had its first meeting of the year at the National Conference.

ICE Closure Rate of Immigration Court Removal Cases is Disappointing

June 13, 2012 by Matthew

On April 4, 2012, I blogged about how certain Immigration Judges would be canceling court, so that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could review cases for administrative closure. Last week, the New York Times reported on the results so far of the efforts of ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion by administratively closing cases. According to the article, 288,361 cases have been reviewed and only 4,403 cases have been administratively closed. That’s a rate of approximately 2%. The fact that such a low rate of cases has been administratively closed has been criticized by many organizations, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association. While this is very disappointing to immigration advocates, it also seems to be a tremendous waste of resources. The point of ICE reviewing files for administrative closure was to clear the Immigration Court’s overburdened docket. I was in in immigration court a few weeks ago and an Immigration Judge scheduled me for a hearing in 2014 because that was the earliest date the Immigration Judge had on her calendar. To shut the system down to review 288,361 cases and only administratively close 4,403 cases does not seem like it was worth the effort.

The article does not discuss deferred actions, but provides statistics about deferred actions. A deferred action is when an alien is subject to a final order of removal and requests not to be deported for humanitarian reasons. In 2010, there were only 486 grants of deferred actions or stays of removal. By comparison, 1,973 deferred actions were granted so far in fiscal year 2012. Unlike the administrative closure statistics, this dramatic increase in deferred actions is something to be optimistic about.