The Law Office of Matthew L. Guadagno

New York Immigration and Deportation Attorney

Call (212) 343-1373

  • Home
  • About Me
  • What I Do
    • Deportation Defense
    • Board of Immigration Appeals Cases
    • Petitions for Review
    • Detention Cases
    • Criminal Immigration
    • Citizenship
    • Adjustment of Status
    • Asylum
    • Consequences of a Plea Agreement
    • Mandamus Actions
    • Joint Motions to Reopen
    • Deferred Actions
  • My Successful Cases
  • Speaking Appearances
  • Articles
  • My Blog
  • Contact Me

My Amazing Experience with Justice Breyer

June 30, 2022 by Matthew

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer retired today. When I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Luna Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619 (2016), I had the most amazing experience with him. When the Assistant to the Solicitor General began to speak, Justice Breyer made comments that appeared to indicate that I changed his mind with my opening argument. He cited one of the government’s arguments and said, “I agreed with that when I came in.” He went on to comment on my opening statement to my oral argument and said, “So now, if that’s right, I’m left with only half the problem I thought I was left with.” While I lost that case, Justice Breyer joined in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. Since he said that he originally agreed with the government and he joined with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, it appears that I changed his mind with what I said in court.

There is a lot of debate among lawyers about whether oral argument in appellate cases is for “show” or whether judges actually change their minds based upon what is said in court during an oral argument. There are a lot of attorneys who think that judges make up their minds from reading the briefs so that oral argument is not important.  My personal experience is that what happened that day is very rare.  Usually, judges (or justices) hide their positions.  I have had cases where I’ve gone to court and it was clear that a judge was on my side or against me.  However, it’s not very often when a judge indicates that he or she is against you that you can change their mind.  It looks like I was able to change Justice Breyer’s mind. When he made those comments, it was one of the proudest moments that I have ever had in a courtroom.

I hope that Justice Breyer enjoys his retirement.

All

Prosecutorial Discretion Appears to Be Working

December 21, 2012 by Matthew

The Immigration Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released its year end removal numbers.  There were 409,849 people who were deported.  According to the ICE press release, “approximately 55 percent, or 225,390 of the people removed, were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors – almost double the removal of criminals in FY 2008.val numbers for fiscal year 2012.”  A lot of Republicans have criticized President Obama’s program for providing deferred action for DREAMers and other efforts at exercising prosecutorial discretion in enforcing immigration laws because they view him as not enforcing the immigration laws.  However, what President Obama is doing is prioritizing the limited resources of the ICE.  As a result of this prioritization, the Obama administration has deported double the number of non-citizens with criminal history from 2008.   Based upon these statistics, it would seem that President Obama’s plan is working.  By exercising prosecutorial discretion in non-priority cases, the ICE is able to focus on priority cases involving immigrants with criminal history.

All

Client’s Removal Proceedings Terminated

June 5, 2012 by Matthew

In February, I was retained to do an individual hearing for a lawful permanent resident with a criminal history who was in removal proceedings and seeking a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to INA § 212(h).  Since February, I have been preparing his deportation defense for immigration court in New York City.  Today, was his final hearing.  Instead of taking testimony, the proceedings were terminated by the Immigration Judge.  On March 30, 2012, I posted a blog about the Supreme Court’s decision in Vartelas v. Holder.  In Vartelas, the Supreme Court held that residents who were convicted before April 24, 1996 and are placed in removal proceedings after travelling abroad, may seek termination of their removal proceedings.  Because I was aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in Vartelas, I knew to make a motion to terminate my client’s proceedings.  My client’s case demonstrates how important it is that immigration attorneys keep up on changes in the law.  Because I keep myself updated on changes in immigration law and new immigration decisions, I was able to have my client’s removal proceedings terminated without him having to testify.

All, Success Stories

Recent Blogs

  • My Amazing Experience with Justice Breyer
  • My 10th Anniversary of Teaching at Brooklyn Law School!
  • My 25th Anniversary of Practicing Immigration Law!
  • My 10th Year Anniversary of Starting My Solo Practice!
  • Getting Back to Normal

From My Blog

  • All
  • Deferred Action for DREAMers
  • Immigration News
  • My Opinion
  • Success Stories
  • Things Clients Should Know
  • Updates About Me

The Law Office of
Matthew L. Guadagno

265 Canal Street, Suite 506
New York NY 10013
Tel:  (212) 343-1373
Fax: (212) 537-0019

The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer / client relationship. Prior success does not guarantee future results.

Sitemap

Matthew L. Guadagno
Rated by Super Lawyers


loading ...

Lawyer Website Design by AWebsiteForLawyers.com