My Opinion — Page 2

Does Anyone Still Remember the TV Commercials from Syms???

March 23, 2015 by Matthew

When I am in immigration court and waiting for my case to be called, I often observe immigration attorneys that do not appear to know what they are doing. Whenever this happens, I wonder why it is that anyone would hire that immigration lawyer to represent them. However, based upon my own experiences with client intake, I know why this is. It is because people looking to hire an immigration lawyer do not educate themselves before hiring an immigration attorney.

There used to be a clothing company called, Syms. They used to advertise on television. Their motto was “an educated consumer is our best customer.” Basically, their point was that before you shop, you should educate yourself.

I am shocked by most of the calls and e-mails that I get at work.

I realize that most people who call me or e-mail me are doing so because I provide free consultations. I do not fault people for calling for a free consultation. However, someone should not call an immigration attorney just because they provide a free consultation. They should review the immigration attorney’s full website and educate themselves about the immigration lawyer before calling. Despite the fact that I have a very detailed website, most people do not educate themselves about me before calling.

Most people who call me will ask “to speak to one of the immigration lawyers.”

Believe it or not, the majority of people who call me do not know that they are calling Matthew Guadagno. In fact, most people do not even realize that they are calling a solo practitioner. Most of my calls are from people that think that they are calling a law firm (i.e., with many attorneys). The majority of my phone calls are from people who want to speak to an immigration lawyer, but do not know the name of the person that they are calling. From talking to these people, I know that they do a Google search about free consultations and call the first website that they see without looking at it.

Immigration law is a very broad area of law. Not all immigration lawyers handle every aspect of immigration law. My website is very clear with regards to what areas of immigration law I practice. My website was set up so that every page has a blue-green column entitled, “What I can help you with” and lists the areas of immigration law that I practice. There is also a tab at the top of every page, “What I do” that contains the same information. However, the majority of the calls and e-mails that I receive are from people asking about services that I do not provide and are not listed on my website. Whenever I ask people why they are asking about services that are not listed on my website, they tell me that they did not think to read my website.

Finally, my website has an “About me” tab that contains a detailed biography about me that describes my experience as an immigration lawyer. The “About me” page of my website explains my extensive experience as an immigration attorney. However, I regularly speak and meet with people who do not know anything about my experience as an immigration lawyer. It really shocks me that people would call a lawyer without knowing about their background and experience. I have detailed information about my background for a reason – I want people who are looking for an immigration attorney to be impressed with my background and be confident that I have the experience to help them with their problem. If you hire a lawyer without looking into their background, then you run the risk of hiring someone who does not know what they are doing.

Some of my reasons for posting this blog were to vent over annoying callers. However, my main reason for this blog is that I can educate people looking to hire an immigration lawyer that they need to look at the immigration attorney’s full website and learn about the lawyer before calling or e-mailing. The fact that an immigration attorney provides free consultations is nice. However, the immigration lawyer’s experience and ability to assist you with your problems is more important.

To paraphrase the people from Syms, an educated consumer is my best client.

Sequestration Shows That ICE Does Not Have to Detain Immigrants

February 26, 2013 by Matthew

Yesterday, it was in the news that because of the pending federal budget sequestration the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was releasing detainees. What ICE is doing is utilizing alternatives to detention such as supervised release and ankle bracelets. Today, ICE provided the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) with the following statement about the releases:

As fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE has reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE’s current budget. Over the last week, ICE has reviewed several hundred cases and placed these individuals on methods of supervision less costly than detention. All of these individuals remain in removal proceedings. Priority for detention remains on serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.

Ultimately, the question to be asked is why were these people placed on these methods of supervision that are less costly than detention in the first place? Obviously, since ICE is doing this, it believes that it has the legal authority to do so. Thus, why detain non-dangerous people at tax payer expense when they can be subjected to less costly methods of supervision. Hopefully, someone at ICE will realize that placing non-dangerous immigrants facing deportation on supervised release, instead of detention, is something that should happen all the time and not just when there are budget problems.

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.