Source: http://kolken.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2015-01-30 12:22:55
Document Index: 270946516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 110', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§844', '§150', '§844', '§844', '§922', '§150', '§844', '§101', '§241', '§120', '§120']

We demonstrated that our client’s wife and children would experience extreme hardship because of their close ties to this country; their lack of family ties outside the United States; the conditions in Nigeria; their lack of ties to Nigeria; the financial impact of departure from this country, and our client’s wife’s psychological condition. We also argued that the negative factors in his case – his criminal convictions – were outweighed by the extreme hardship that his wife and children would suffer. While the applications were being considered our client was granted employment authorization so that he was able to work and support his family. After consideration of our legal brief and supporting documentation, USCIS granted the Form I-601 waiver, and issued our client a Green Card!
I just won an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Immigration Court in Buffalo ordered my client's removal after trial speculating that he was ineligible to apply for his Green Card because he made a false claim to United States citizenship that never happened. On appeal I argued that the Immigration Court erred in ruling that my client was not statutorily eligible to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident because he was inspected and admitted to the United States, is married to a United States citizen and has an immigrant visa number immediately available to him, is not removable on any criminal related grounds. I further argued that the Court engaged in unlawful speculation that was not tethered to the evidentiary record by ruling that my client had made a false claim to United States citizenship.I further argued that my client was deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing because the Court’s impartiality was reasonably questioned during the course of proceedings. In my brief to the Board I established that the Court displayed a bias against our client, so much so that an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts would entertain significant doubt that justice would be done absent recusal.Thankfully, the BIA agreed with my arguments, ruled that my client is statutorily eligible to apply for his Green Card, and remanded the case back to the Court for assignment to a different Immigration Judge to determine if my client should be given his Green Card in the exercise of discretion.Click here to read the decision.
CNN reports that the Obama administration will soon undertake a review of the 300,000 pending deportation cases separating "high priority" criminal cases from "low priority" non criminal cases.In practice, I have seen very little if any favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion involving "low priority" noncriminal deportation cases. The few cases that I have seen the Department moving to administratively close proceedings involve individuals whose cases have garnered media attention. You certainly don't want any bad press in an election year.Needless to say, I predict that this most recent announcement will not add up to a hill of beans.Click here for more propaganda from the Obama administration.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has ruled that attempted arson in the third degree in violation of NYPL §§ 110 and 150.10 is an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(E)(i), despite the fact that the statute lacks the jurisdictional element in the applicable Federal arson offense. See Matter of Robert BAUTISTA, 25 I&N Dec. 616 (BIA 2011).The BIA used the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990), to determine if the offense of attempted arson in New York is a crime “described in” the aggravated felony provision of INA §101(a)(43)(E)(i), comparing the New York crime with the Federal crimes that Congress has designated as aggravated felonies.The BIA concluded that New York State arson is “described in” INA §101(a)(43)(E)(i) because the omission of the Federal jurisdictional element in §844(i) from the State statute is not dispositive, finding that the offense in NYPL §150.10 contains all of the other substantive elements contained in §844(i), rendering it an aggravated felony.The BIA saw no distinction between the Federal jurisdictional element in §844(i) and the Federal jurisdictional element in §922(g)(1) reasoning that interpreting NYPL §150.10 as not being “described in” §844(i) would render the "penultimate sentence" in INA §101(a)(43) meaningless, the exception clause in INA §241(a)(4)(B)(ii) "superfluous", and State (and foreign) arson crimes would therefore not be covered by section 101(a)(43)(E)(i).Click here to read the BIA's decision.
NPR has reported that Florida Marlins pitcher Leo Nunez has admitted that he is not Leo Nunez. His real name is Juan Carlos Oviedo. When he was 17, Mr. Oviedo assumed the identity of his then 16-year-old friend Leo Nunez for financial gain because in the Dominican Republic 16-year-old baseball players are more favorably compensated than 17-year-olds.Nunez/Oviedo recently came clean about his true identity when applying for naturalization in order to be able to bring his family to the United States.So the first question is: did the act of using the assumed name Leo Nunez when applying for a visa render Juan Carlos Oviedo inadmissible to the United States. I would argue no. If Juan Carlos Oviedo assumed the name Leo Nunez prior to applying for a visa to come to the United States, and if he was commonly known in the Dominican Republic as Leo Nunez, I would argue that he did not commit a fraud in his visa application that would have rendered him inadmissible. Moreover, if Juan Carlos Ovideo was otherwise admissible to the United States had he used his birth name when applying for his visa I would argue that his failure to disclose was not a material misrepresentation. So the next question we must ask is whether Juan Carlos Ovideo was otherwise admissible to the United States at the time of his initial visa application. I would assume the answer to this question is yes.The issue still remains whether Juan Carlos Oviedo's failure to disclose his true name when applying for adjustment of status once inside the United States constitutes a fraud that would subject him to removal.I would make the same arguments above, but from past experience I can tell you that if Juan Carlos Ovideo was not a rich and famous baseball player he would be served with a Notice to Appear seeking to take away his Green Card.Mr. Ovideo is a rich and famous baseball player, however, and as we all know the rules aren't always applied uniformly.I am VERY curious to see how this one plays out.Click here to listen to the NPR report.
We just saved our client's Green Card after a trial before the Immigration Court at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. Our client came to the United States approximately 15 years ago. Within five years of his arrival he was convicted of simple assault (Assault 3rd) in New York State. Historically, a simple assault conviction was not considered a crime involving moral turpitude, and as such when our client pled guilty he was not deportable.Then in 2007 the law changed. The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in Mater of Solon, 24 I&N Dec. 239 (BIA 2007) that subsection (1) of New York Penal law §120.00 (3rd degree assault), which requires specific intent and physical injury is a crime involving moral turpitude. Unfortunately, our client pled guilty to violating subsection (1) of NYPL §120.00. As a result, our client became deportable for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of his lawful entry. Immigration Court proceedings where instituted against him, and he was taken into custody. We were then retained.
We successfully argued that although our client was deportable, he remained eligible to apply for cancellation of removal as a lawful permanent resident. To be eligible for cancellation of removal if you are a Green Card holder you must establish that you have held your Green Card for five years, and have been in the United States continuously for a total of seven years in any status. If you are convicted of an offense within that seven year period time is "stopped" even if you have actually been in the United States for longer than the seven year cumulative period. We successfully argued that because our client's conviction was a petty offense the "stop-time" rule did not apply, and our client remained eligible for cancellation of removal. A conviction is considered a petty offense if the maximum penalty possible for the conviction does not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if convicted, you are not imprisoned for more than six months, regardless of what you are ultimately sentenced to.
Our client was released from custody within hours of the Court's decision, and he is now back with his family in time to celebrate his daughter's 7th birthday.Happy Birthday!
The Houston Chronicle reports that the Obama administration has done little, if anything, to clean up immigration detention centers, and that the inspection and monitoring system that was put in place fails to sufficiently protect immigrants from inhumane prison-like conditions.What I find most troubling about the report is that this administration continues to allow private contractors to house immigrants despite their knowledge of the existence of "flagrant violations of their own detention standards, including poor medical care and mistreatment of detainees, new internal records show."Internal reports from ICE's office of Detention Oversight "paint an often bleak picture of the inside of the nation's immigration detention system, with detainees in some facilities lacking access to quality medical care or even clean underwear."So much for creating a "truly civil" detention system.Click here to read more of the article.
"Many Hispanic students and workers have stayed home in response to Alabama’s tough new immigration law — and that’s the whole point of the measure, Rep. Mo Brooks said on Thursday.The Alabama Republican told POLITICO in an interview that he does not consider the above-average number of absences “unintended consequences” of the law.“Those are the intended consequences of Alabama’s legislation with respect to illegal aliens,” Brooks said. “We don’t have the money in America to keep paying for the education of everybody else’s children from around the world. We simply don’t have the financial resources to do that. Second, with respect to illegal aliens who are now leaving jobs in Alabama, that’s exactly what we want.”"
Ruth Ellen Wasem of Congressional Research Services has released a report entitled: "Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986."Here is the summary of the report:Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred to as illegal aliens) rose from 3.2 million in 1986 to 11.2 million in 2010. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Research Center, has been involved in making these estimations since he worked at the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 1980s. The estimated number of unauthorized aliens had dropped to 1.9 million in 1988 following passage of a 1986 law that legalized several million unauthorized aliens. The estimates of unauthorized aliens peaked at an estimated 12.4 million in 2007. About 39% of unauthorized alien residents in 2010 were estimated to have entered the United States in 2000 or later. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported an estimated 10.8 million unauthorized alien residents as of January 2010, up from 8.5 million in January 2000. The OIS estimated that 6.6 million of the unauthorized alien residents were from Mexico, an estimate comparable to Passel and D’Vera Cohn’s calculation of 6.5 million. The OIS based its estimates on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The OIS estimated that the unauthorized resident alien population in the United States increased by 37% over the period 2000 to 2008, then leveled off in 2009 and 2010. Research suggests that various factors have contributed to the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens, and that the increase is often attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in contrast to limited or nonexistent job opportunities in the sending countries. Accordingly, the economic recession that began in December 2007 may have curbed the migration of unauthorized aliens, particularly because sectors that traditionally rely on unauthorized aliens, such as construction, services, and hospitality, have been especially hard hit. Some researchers also suggest that the increased size of the unauthorized resident population during the late 1990s and early 2000s is an inadvertent consequence of border enforcement and immigration control policies. They posit that strengthened border security has curbed the fluid movement of seasonal workers. This interpretation, generally referred to as a caging effect, argues that these policies have raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay. The current system of legal immigration is cited as another factor contributing to unauthorized alien residents. The statutory ceilings that limit the type and number of immigrant visas issued each year create long waits for visas. According to this interpretation, many foreign nationals who would prefer to come to the United States legally resort to illegal avenues in frustration over the delays. It is difficult, however, to demonstrate a causal link or to guarantee that increased levels of legal migration would absorb the current flow of unauthorized migrants. Furthermore, some researchers speculate that the doubling in deportations since 2001 might also have had a chilling effect on family members weighing unauthorized residence in recent years. Some observers point to more elusive factors when assessing the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens—such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens, or discussions of possible “amnesty” legislation. This report does not track legislation and will be updated as needed.Click here to read the full report.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.comTaken from SCOTUSBlog.com Holder v. Gutierrez (Granted ) Docket: 10-1542 Issue(s): (1) Whether a parents year's of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying the requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; and (2) whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying the requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Cir.)
Local food supply shut off: Kids go to school in fear: video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player