» Crimes and U.S. Immigration Archive | Nolo's Immigration Blog Justin Bieber’s Immigration Woes. Again. (Sorry.) Justin, please tell me you didn’t get into legal trouble again. I say that not because I’m in a moralizing mood, and not because I’m worried about what kind of example you’re setting for your fresh-faced, adoring fans. No, I say that for one, much simpler reason. I thought I was done writing about whether your various run-ins with U.S. law enforcement make you, as a non-citizen visa holder, deportable. Intellectually and emotionally, I am over it. But now readers are asking, “So, is he deportable this time? The LAPD are going after him for attempted robbery! How ‘bout it? ” Alright, here goes. Justin’s latest “oops” was apparently grabbing a woman’s cell phone in order to erase photos that he suspected she had taken of him. (‘Cause who wouldn’t want to snap photos of the Biebs?) If that doesn’t sound like robbery to you, read Nolo editor Micah Schwartzach’s analysis, “ Breaking Down Bieber’s Alleged Attempted Robbery .” Noncitizens of the U.S.

can be deported if they commit certain types of crimes, found in Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.). Although some crimes are named on that list, attempted robbery isn’t one of them (nor is regular robbery.) However, his lawyers would also want to look at whether the robbery conviction (if it indeed happens, and depending on the details) meets any of the following criteria for deportability found in the I.N.A.: a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed within five years ) after the date of U.S. admission and is punishable by a sentence of at least one year one of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude that took place at any time after U.S. admission, where the two crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct, or an aggravated felony committed at any time after U.S. admission. As explained further in the links provided above, the short answer is that, once again, he’s probably not deportable. Unless, that is, he gets a one-year sentence for grabbing a cell phone. Stay tuned! Wait, no, don’t stay tuned to hear it from me. That’s it. My last blog on Justin Bieber. I swear it.

Written on May 15, 2014 at 11:30 pm Bizarre New Enforcement Practice — Arresting Departing Nationals of Mexico I nearly drove my car off the road yesterday listening to NPR’s report on “ The Curious Practice Of Bringing Immigrants Back — To Deport Them .” This is truly something new in the world of immigration enforcement. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are not only questioning people coming into the U.S., but addressing questions in Spanish to those driving or riding buses out of the U.S. into Mexico. Their main goal is apparently to check for evidence of drug trafficking, such as transporting large sums of illegally obtained money. But apparently CBP officials have decided that, while they’re at it, they might as well arrest a few folks who were living in the U.S. without documents — even ones who’d committed no crimes and were minutes away from returning to Mexico anyway! No one interviewed for the report, regardless of political affiliation, thought this was anything more than a waste of money and time.

It’s especially bizarre at a time when — due to the government’s limited resources — the administration has specifically instructed immigration officials to follow a policy of “ prosecutorial discretion ,” focusing on deporting only those people who present the greatest risk to U.S. society. And there’s been plenty of political talk of promoting “self-deportation,” too, which it appears some of the departing Mexicans were in the very process of doing. Hard to say whether this new arrest pattern is misguided, mean-spirited, or simply motivated by some local CBP officers’ wish to get their arrest numbers up and then call it a day. Written on April 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm Do the Signers of the “Deport Justin Bieber” Petition Really Want the White House to Have Such Power? As widely reported, the petition to the White House to deport pop-singer Justin Bieber, which garnered over 273,00 signatures, recently received an official response.

The Administration said, in relevant part, that: The We the People terms of participation state that, “to avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition. According to the Washington Post article on the topic by Helena Andrews, the bottom line here is that “the buck has officially been passed.” No, the buck has not been passed. The buck was never with the White House in the first place. There is simply nothing in U.S. immigration law that allows the White House (or any other law enforcement authority for that matter), to deport a non-citizen simply because that person “is . . . a terrible influence on our nations [sic.] youth” and the “people” of the U.S. “would like to remove [him] from our society.” Before the U.S. deports someone, that person has to have done something that matches one of the grounds of deportability set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Just a little something called the “rule of law” in our democracy.

And the White House itself wouldn’t be the one to initiate the removal proceedings — that’s the job of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is, to be sure, an Executive Branch agency — but again, the White House’s basic policy is to not go meddling in the jurisdiction of such departments merely because a tiny portion of the U.S. population put their names on a petition. That’s not to say that Bieber’s recent antics and run-ins with the police and U.S. border officials haven’t skated dangerously close to making him deportable. (For more on that, see my earlier blogs, “ Justin Bieber: “Stuck in the Moment” of a Pending Removal Proceeding ,” “ Oh, and Justin Bieber’s Alleged Assault on a Limo Driver Probably Won’t Get Him Deported, Either ,” and “ The Justin Bieber Immigration Chronicles, Continued .”) But if non-Beliebers feel that Justin should be deported for those actions, then putting pressure on Congress to make the immigration laws even harsher than they already are would be the appropriate route. The idea that a petition to the White House could result in someone’s deportation, however, without reference to the legal grounds for it, is just plain scary.

Written on April 22, 2014 at 3:31 pm Horror Story About Seven-Minute Immigration Hearings Isn’t the Whole Story The Washington Post‘s recent article, “ In a crowded immigration court, seven minutes to decide a family’s future, ” exposes one of the many weaknesses of the U.S. immigration system: Undocumented and other immigrants caught violating the immigration laws receive no free legal representation (unless a sympathetic attorney steps in pro bono), have little idea of what their legal rights might be, and enter a system where little individual attention is possible before they’re, in many cases, escorted away. The Immigration Judge profiled in the article, Lawrence Burman of Virginia, had 26 cases on his morning hearing docket, or an average of seven minutes in which to make a decision on each case. The results of such a system can be tragic.

Let’s say, for example, that the person arrives at one of these hearings with no attorney, doesn’t realize that the bad experiences he fled from in his own country amount to persecution that might qualify him for asylum , and thus fails to convey this to the judge or attorney (assuming he’s even lucky enough to find an attorney serving pro bono and able to understand the person’s language). If the judge has no more than seven minutes to talk with such a person — and if the person misguidedly fills up the time assuring the judge that he loves this country and works hard and would do well if allowed to stay (common errors, which usually get the immigrant nowhere) — it could be all to easy for the judge to order the person to depart the United States. But let’s make one thing about the system clear: It is possible for immigrants facing deportation to have a full, private hearing before an immigration judge that lasts more than seven minutes. It’s a matter of knowing the procedural steps and what to ask for. What the article seems to have been describing was merely step one, the so-called “ master calendar ” hearing.

At a master calendar hearing, many people arrive all at once, and the judge decides which of them seem to have enough of a legal case for staying in the U.S. to be worth calendaring for a full, “merits” hearing. The merits hearing can last for hours, and be continued to future dates, with opportunities for testimony by the noncitizen as well as witnesses, introduction of documents and exhibits, and so on. Many people won’t have any case for staying in the U.S. at all — they are undocumented, and have no immediate family connections, no grounds upon which to request asylum or “ cancellation of removal ,” and no other plausible defense to deportation . But many will have some legal basis upon which to request either the long-term right to stay in the U.S., or at least “ prosecutorial discretion ” (meaning that the U.S. government agrees that the person is a low enforcement priority because of U.S. family ties and other equities, and will leave him or her alone for the moment). And they may not even know it. The judge will try to elicit such information, but as the article shows, has little time in which to do so.

The more that people called into removal proceedings can do to research their rights and find an attorney in advance, the lower the chance that their seven minutes will be wasted and lead to a hasty order of deportation. Written on February 6, 2014 at 10:26 pm If I blog about Justin Bieber for the third time in a row, does that make me a “Belieber?” (Nah, I still can’t hum a thing he’s recorded, sorry.) But he’s become the world’s best object lesson regarding U.S. immigration law and policy. In his latest kerfuffle, reported on by CNN , U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials searched his private plane, interviewed him for “several hours,” and brought in the trusty drug-sniffing dogs before letting him back into the U.S. from his recent trip to Canada. (CBP are the same folks who meet you at the airport or border, examine your passport or other entry documents, and ask whether you’re bringing in any drugs, snakes, explosives, and so on before they hopefully wave you in). Their reason for spending so many time on Bieber? To get autographs for their kids, of course!

Oh, no, the officials say that they’d “detected an odor of marijuana after [the plane] landed in New Jersey.” Uh oh, the dreaded weed. Maybe they’re getting into the spirit of the “let’s deport Justin” movement, because had drugs been found, that plus his earlier admission of having been smoking marijuana might very well be enough to have him removed from the U.S. as a drug abuser. (See my earlier blog, “ Justin Bieber “Stuck in the Moment” of a Pending Removal Proceeding? “) But either their sniffers were overactive that day or the Bieber entourage does a really, really good job of hiding its dope, because nothing was found. Justin was allowed into the U.S., with nary a stain on his record. That means he doesn’t get to join my list of “ International Celebrities Denied U.S.

Entry Visas .” (Then again, by the pilot’s description , they may have simply smoked it all.) Written on February 1, 2014 at 5:23 pm Oh, and Justin Bieber’s Alleged Assault on a Limo Driver Probably Won’t Get Him Deported, Either In yesterday’s blog , I took a look at whether Justin Bieber could realistically face deportation (removal) for various types of trouble he’s gotten into while living in the United States on an O-1 visa. But today’s headlines raise another question: If he’s convicted for assaulting a limo driver in Canada (as he’s been recently charged with by Toronto police), could that foreign conviction lead him to be deported from the United States? The first issue here is whether a foreign conviction can be held against someone in the U.S. and make them deportable. No one should be surprised to hear that the answer is, “Yes.” However, to protect people against being deported for something that’s not even illegal in the U.S.

(for example, depositing your chewing gum on the sidewalk, which I once read is illegal in Singapore, though you shouldn’t quote me on that), the foreign conviction has to parallel a crime on the books in the United States. Of course, assault is illegal here. Bieber is said to have been one of six passengers picked up by a limo driver on December 30 of last year, who got into an altercation that led to the limo driver being hit on the head several times. (The driver’s okay, but will probably never allow his children to see Bieber in concert.) So finding a parallel U.S. statute will not likely be an obstacle, were U.S. immigration officials inclined to try to deport the Biebs. The bigger issue is whether assault can be the basis for deportation of someone legally within the United States.

To constitute a “ crime of moral turpitude ” (one of the main criminal grounds for deportability, depending on length of sentence and number of offenses), it would likely have to be an “aggravated assault.” Given that the driver in this case was able to stop the limo, get out, and call the police, I’m going to hazard a guess that this won’t be seen as rising to the level of “aggravated.” But the analysis isn’t over yet: The next question is whether the assault is an “ aggravated felony ,” which is also a basis for deportation. Bieber’s lawyer says it’s likely to be treated as the equivalent of a misdemeanor in Canada — which doesn’t tell us much, because owing to the vagaries of U.S. immigration law, misdemeanors can be treated as felonies! Crimes of violence with a sentence of it least one year are considered aggravated felonies. Given the low level of injuries in this case, I doubt Bieber will get a year-long sentence — if he’s even convicted in the first place.

(Let’s not forget, these are all allegations at this point, plus a lot of media hype.) So, to the more than 200,000 petition signers who say that “We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing, Justin Bieber deported,” don’t hold your collective breath. Solid legal grounds upon which to do seem not to have actually arisen yet. (And BTW, the headline on your petition is inaccurate: He doesn’t have a green card . It’s a temporary work visa.) Written on January 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm After years of exploring immigration law’s darkest corners, I can say with some certainty that: throwing eggs at your neighbor’s house is not on the list of grounds of deportability, and nor is being the subject of a petition to the White House alleging that you have “ wrongly represented ” the U.S. “in the world of pop culture.” I hope that’s of some comfort to Justin Bieber fans.

If you’re unfamiliar with the hoopla, CNN did a fine job of outlining both what Canadian-born pop singer Justin Bieber is currently suspected of (felony vandalism, so far, based on the egg-throwing incident; with possible charges for driving while under the influence of drugs, though it’s not clear that he was doing the driving). See CNN’s “ Could Justin Bieber be deported? ” and “ Justin Bieber egg probe ‘tightening up’; prosecutor wants more investigation .” The CNN articles also discuss what these accusations might mean for Bieber’s immigration status. He’s apparently in the U.S. on an O visa , for people with “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.” People who are legally in the U.S., like Bieber, can be deported for committing a crime that’s listed on the grounds of deportability within U.S. immigration law.

(Juvenile crimes are sometimes an exception, but contrary to appearances, the Biebs is already 19.) Nothing Bieber is alleged to have done so far seems to make experienced immigration attorneys think he fits either of the main two criminal grounds of deportability, namely a “ crime of moral turpitude ” (one that shocks the public conscience) or an “ aggravated felony (which doesn’t have to have “felony” in the name, but can include various types of misdemeanors). Bieber could, however, face removal proceedings if he has drug issues. The immigration law contains two separate grounds of deportability for drug use: one that makes people deportable if they’ve been convicted of a drug crime (or an attempt), with an exception for a single offense involving possession for personal use of 30 grams or less of marijuana; and another for being a drug abuser or addict. Notice that no actual court conviction is needed to be deportable under the drug abuse/addict section. The person’s own confession to drug use could be enough. Bieber appears to have already told the police who pulled him over in a traffic stop that he’d been drinking, using marijuana, and taking prescription pills. (Oops.

It’s never a good idea to drink so much that you get into a confessional mood like that.) Of course, one could face worse fates than being deported to Canada. But, depending how all this plays out, Bieber could face a bar on returning to the U.S. for a long time after deportation — long enough to lose those baby cheeks. P.S. Should we be shocked or impressed that he poses for a mugshot like it’s just another publicity still? Written on January 29, 2014 at 10:12 pm How Much SHOULD a Diplomat’s Maid Be Paid? If you’ve been following the headlines about the deputy consul general from India, Devyani Khobragade, whose arrest in New York over having submitted false documents to the U.S. government regarding the amount she was paying her housekeeper is sparking an international incident, you may have wondered: How much SHOULD she, by law, have been paying her maid? If all that went by too fast, here’s a little more background: The deputy consul came to the U.S. on a diplomatic visa called an A-1.

This visa allows its holders to bring along domestic staff from their home country — on the condition that they pay them the higher of: the prevailing wage in that region, or the federal or state minimum wage. (Read more about this visa on the State Department’s page describing “ Visas for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials .”) Ms. Khobragade brought a housekeeper along, and despite her apparent promises to the U.S. government that she would pay her housekeeper $4,500 a month, allegedly paid her a mere $573 a month, for work far in excess of 40 hours per week. So, back to the original question regarding appropriate payment. For starters, the deputy consul obviously should have paid the amount promised in the visa application on behalf of the housekeeper, namely $4,500 a month. Making false statements on U.S. immigration applications is grounds for becoming inadmissible , that is, unable to receive future U.S. visas or immigration benefits. As for the minimum the deputy consul should have offered, one must determine this by going to the Department of Labor’s “ Foreign Labor Certification Data Center ” website.

For the New York Metro area, and the position of “Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners,” my search came up with a minimum figure of $10.32 per hour or $21,466 a year, which works out to $1,789 per month. Since that figure is higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, that’s what the housekeeper likely should have received at the very least — less than the amount originally promised, but far more than the amount apparently paid! Obviously there are major questions about the way this case was handled, with an arrest outside the deputy consul’s daughter’s school, and alleged strip searches (looking for what?! the missing wages?). But setting that aside, should the deputy consul be allowed to claim diplomatic immunity to avoid meeting basic (and not overly generous) U.S. immigration and labor laws? According to journalist Sandip Roy, India’s diplomats have a history of flouting U.S. labor laws. Roy concludes, “As consular staff member representing India abroad, Ms Khobragade enjoys many rights.

The right to a domestic help at cut-rate wages however is not one of them.” Written on December 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm Foreign Student Numbers Recovered Since 9/11 One of the unpredictable consequences of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. was that the number of foreign students coming to the U.S. plummeted — and remained low for several years thereafter. The reason was, in no small part, rumors indicating that many of the hijackers had come to the U.S. on student visas. Only one of them did, actually, as detailed by FactCheck.org. The rest of the 19 hijackers mostly used business or tourist visas. But that fact did not slow down efforts to add security checks to the student visa application process and to the monitoring of students after arrival in the U.S. — efforts which went a little haywire and led, for a time, to massive delays, denials, and discouragement facing would-be foreign students. Why should we care? Well, there’s the fact that foreign students tend to learn about the U.S.

and adjust their preexisting stereotypes, — and vice versa as they meet U.S. students — potentially leading to greater worldwide understanding. Foreign students also contribute financially, starting, but not ending, with their payments of tuition (out-of-state, in many cases). See this report from the American Immigration Council: “ Record Number of International Students Add $24 billion to U.S. Economy .” Also, the “bait and switch” aspects of American immigration law have always bothered me. We offer various visas and benefits, but then frequently treat the people who would like to take advantage of them as criminals, regardless of whether they’ve done the slightest thing to warrant suspicion. In any case, things seem to have calmed down a bit, and statistics collected by the Institute of International Education show that, since approximately 2007, the numbers of foreign students in the U.S. have steadily risen. In 2013, the U.S. reached a record 819,644 foreign students, most of them from China, India, and South Korea. See the “ Open Doors Data ” portal for details.

And if you’re interested in studying in the U.S., the Nolo site offers a wealth of information in its “ Student and Exchange Visitor Visas ” section. Written on November 15, 2013 at 11:09 pm California Lawmakers Take Practical Approach to Treatment of Undocumented Immigrants An estimated two-million plus undocumented immigrants live, work, study, and otherwise make their home in California. So perhaps it’s fitting that the California legislature recently passed a number of bills (subsequently signed by Governor Jerry Brown) that seem designed to make sure that, as long as they’re here, the undocumented are not treated in ways that are either grossly unfair or lead to unfortunate or dangerous unintended consequences. Here’s a brief summary of the new laws (click the links for details): AB 4, which forbids law enforcement officials from detaining noncitizens beyond their release date on the basis of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold, unless the person has actually been convicted of one of various crimes or meets certain specified conditions.

(This seems designed to put a stop to the expense and absurdity of local law enforcement agencies serving as detention units for the federal government by holding undocumented immigrants even if the criminal charges against them were dismissed or were minor in nature.) AB 35 , which says that no one can charge fees for serving people applying for the immigration program known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (or DACA) unless they are either immigration consultants, attorneys, notaries public, or organizations that have received accreditation from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A.); and even those who have received such accreditation cannot engage in price gouging. AB 60 , which makes undocumented California residents eligible for a drivers’ license upon providing satisfactory proof of identity and state residency. The license will contain a notation stating that it “does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits,” and will contain the initials “DP” (Drivers Privilege) instead of “DL” (Drivers’ License). AB 524 , which specifies that threatening to report the immigration status or suspected immigration status of an person or family may be considered an inducement of fear sufficient to constitute extortion, and thus punishable under the California Penal Code.

AB 1024 , which allows undocumented persons to be admitted to the California State Bar Association as attorneys, and therefore to practice law in this state. AB 1159 , which attempts to crack down on the practice of immigration law without a license, by imposing financial penalties on people who pose as attorneys, in particular by calling themselves “notarios” or other terms which have a more elevated meaning in other countries. The law specifies that the proceeds shall be used to help people damaged by such con artists, as well as to provide free legal advice concerning federal immigration reform. SB 141 , which requires community colleges and universities within the California state system to charge in-state, resident tuition to U.S. citizens who live in a foreign country because their parent or guardian was deported or voluntarily departed from the U. S., so long as they will be entering in their first year as matriculated students, can demonstrate financial need, lived in California immediately before moving abroad, attended a secondary school in California for at least three years, and intend to establish residency in California.

SB 150 , which authorizes community college districts to charge only in-state, resident tuition to certain special part-time students, namely high schoolers who would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work, if they are non-citizens in financial need, or students from other states who had to move due to Hurricane Katrina. SB 666 , which creates criminal and civil penalties for attorneys and businesses that retaliate against employees and others on the basis of citizenship and immigration status or who report or threaten to report the suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a lawsuit because the person exercises a right related to employment. In related news , San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors recently passed an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement officials from holding for deportation noncitizens who have not been convicted of felonies or deemed public safety risks. (It’s called the “ Due Process Ordinance for All on Civil Immigration Detainers .”) Mayor Lee is expected to sign it.

Written on October 7, 2013 at 11:09 pm Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House | FOX31 Denver Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House Posted 3:40 pm, January 29, 2014, by CNN Wire , Updated at 03:42PM, January 29, 2014 Email This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated. An expert on Anne Frank came to pop star Justin Bieber's defense Monday about what the singer wrote in the Anne Frank House guest book. (Credit: CNN) × Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House An expert on Anne Frank came to pop star Justin Bieber's defense Monday about what the singer wrote in the Anne Frank House guest book. (Credit: CNN) WASHINGTON — It looks like the White House may have to weigh in on the Biebs.

A petition calling for the deportation of Canadian-born Justin Bieber surpassed the 100,000 signature threshold, meaning the White House must, by its own rules, issue a response. Titled, “ Deport Justin Bieber and revoke his green card ,” was created less than a week ago and quickly amassed the required signatures long before the 30 day deadline for the “We the People” petition program. “We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture,” the petition states. “We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing, Justin Bieber deported and his green card revoked. He is not only threatening the safety of our people but he is also a terrible influence on our nation’s youth. We the people would like to remove Justin Bieber from our society.” As of 2 p.m. Wednesday, it had nearly 121,000 signatures. (Photo: Miami Beach Police Department) Bieber, 19, was arrested last week in Miami Beach and charged with drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license after police saw the pop start street racing.

Miami Beach Police Chief Raymond Martinez told reporters that Bieber “made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication.” Will the White House actually look at it? State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked about the issue Wednesday in the daily press briefing. She said the petition program doesn’t necessarily mean action would be taken but it’s rather “an opportunity for the voices of the American people” to be heard. But the terms of the program, as stated on the White House website, says if a petition meets the 100,000 signature threshold, “it will be reviewed by the administration and we will issue a response.” Psaki said she would check and see what the criteria was for violating a visa, but noted that individual visa cases are confidential. The White House has drastically cut back on the number of responses it actually issued in the past year. The Washington Times reports that in the final six months of 2013, only one new petition received a response. Other petitions, with far fewer signatures than 100,000, have popped up on the website, both supporting and opposing Bieber’s deportation.

A competing petition, created on January 25, calls for keeping Beiber in the United States. It has about 1,800 signatures, and at this rate, would need more than 98,000 more by February 24. In addition to the charges he faces in Florida, investigators in California are also weighing whether Bieber will face a felony vandalism charge tied to an egg attack there. Immigration lawyers say convictions on those charges wouldn’t generally lead to deportation for someone like Bieber, who has a visa allowing him to legally live in the United States because of his “extraordinary ability” in the arts. That’s because those charges aren’t considered to be aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude — the two types of crimes that federal law defines as grounds for the deportation of non-citizen immigrants. And according to federal law, only violent crimes and sentences longer than a year result in a re-evaluation of a person’s visa status. Translation for those of you who aren’t legal eagles: Bieber’s probably not going anywhere.

White House and Bieber–they go way back Not long after Bieber was discovered, he got a high-profile gig to sing alongside Usher at the 2009 “Christmas in Washington,” which the President attends each year. Bieber also performed at the event in 2011. And Bieber sang his hit song at the White House Easter Egg Roll in 2010. President Obama once recalled a story about mispronouncing the young singer’s name at the 2009 Christmas performance. “There was this little guy who really sang well, great entertainer. And I was sort of acknowledging all the crowd, and I said, “And give it up for Justin ‘Biber’,” Obama said at a DNC event in April 2011. “I didn’t know him at the time.

And everybody yelled, ‘It’s ‘Beeber’.” He added that his two young daughters, Malia and Sasha, were “mortified when they heard that I had mispronounced his name.” He also teased Arne Duncan, his secretary of education, for playing basketball at a celebrity tournament, “where he was outscored by Justin Bieber.” “I’m just saying, Justin is, like, about 5’2″, so please give him a hard time for that if you get a chance,” Obama said in March, 2011 at an event in Boston. A look through White House transcripts shows that the President also publicly mentioned Bieber just days before his re-election victory in 2012, Obama took the stage at an event in Ohio, where he thanked one of the attendees, named Erin. “She was pretty excited about meeting me, but she saw Justin Bieber the other day,” he said, to laughter.

“So I’m like the second-most exciting person she’s met in the last few days.” He was asked by an Australian student in November 2011 whether he would consider “teaming up with a high-profile celebrity such as Justin Bieber to appeal to more people.” “You know, that’s an interesting question,” Obama said in response. “I interact a lot with celebrities…But generally speaking, hopefully if I’m going to be successful, it’s going to be because of the ideas I put forward and not because I’m hanging out with Justin Bieber.” As the audience laughed, he added: “Although he is a very nice young man, and I’ll tell him you said hi.” (Note: This was before Bieber veered off into his current downward spiral) ™ & © 2014 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. » Removal Proceedings Archive | Nolo's Immigration Blog Diane Guerrero’s Story of Parents Being Deported Represents Experience of Thousands of Children Actress Diane Guerrero (“Orange Is the New Black,” “Jane the Virgin”) recently described her traumatic experience, at age 14, of coming home to find that her parents had been picked up by U.S. immigration authorities.

They were detained and ultimately deported. (See “ Op-Ed ‘Orange is the New Black’ actress: My parents were deported .”) She literally came home to an empty house, receiving no communication, much less help, from U.S. authorities. Only by relying on help from friends was she able to keep her life together and ultimately achieve the success that she did. (Many others aren’t so lucky.) If that sounds like a script worthy of a movie, realize that it happens every day — no exaggeration. As described in the Huffington Post‘s article by Elise Foley, “ Deportation Separated Thousands Of U.S.-Born Children From Parents In 2013 ,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] last year carried out more than 72,000 deportations of parents who said they had U.S.-born children.” That’s despite the supposedly active policy of “ prosecutorial discretion ,” under which ICE agents are expected to follow specific guidelines in choosing who to spend precious government resources on prosecuting, giving lower priority to cases where the undocumented immigrant is law-abiding and has ties to the U.S. such as U.S. citizen children and other family members.

In fact, Diane may have been lucky to escape U.S. government workers’ notice. The all-too-common scenario when a parent is deported is for the child to be placed into the foster care system, lose contact with the parents, and ultimately have the parents’ legal rights and relationship to them terminated. (See, “ Thousands of Kids Lost From Parents In U.S. Deportation System ,” by Seth Freed Wessler, Colorlines, November 2 2011.) So, on top of using U.S. government resources to break up families, this misused exercise of discretion is costing the foster care system untold amounts. It’s a problem that could be solved without waiting for immigration reform, with more rational behavior by ICE in following its own guidelines, and attention to maintaining family ties within the foster care system. Let’s hope Diane Guerrero’s story, by putting a face on this crisis, will spur efforts in this direction. Written on November 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm Need to Find Relative Arrested by Immigration? See Online Detainee Locator Sometimes what’s going in in the headlines becomes all too personal.

That’s what happened for me recently, when a friend called to say that her cleaning woman from El Salvador was in a panic, having received word that her sisters had been arrested by immigration authorities after crossing the border into Texas. They’re apparently part of the flood of young people fleeing countries beset by violence, attempting to cross the Mexican border into the United States. The first question then becomes, “Where are they?” Back when I was actively practicing immigration law, this question could take days of calling detention centers and desperately begging information out of disinterested guards and officials. But now there’s an “ Online Detainee Locator ” provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Would it work? At first, no. (Probably not too surprising — data entry may not be the first thing on the to-do list after an immigrant is arrested.) But within about 15 hours, voila — we entered a name and birth date and received the name of the detention facility where one sister was being held, as well as a phone number for reaching that facility. The U.S.-based sister was able to call the facility and get more information about the status of her sister’s case. Whether the online system is always this workable, I can’t say.

It’s easy to imagine situations where the name might be misspelled, or a birth date taken down inaccurately, leading to a complete info void. And an even more difficult aspect of the system is that it’s mostly in English. Yes, you can choose other languages from a dropdown menu when you first perform the search, but as far as I could tell, this doesn’t lead to any different screens when it’s time for the results. Still, it was immensely satisfying to see the name pop up and know that, as alarming as the news of the arrest was, the sister hadn’t just disappeared into the system. Now, if Congress would only come up with an intelligent and humane way to deal with this influx. Written on July 31, 2014 at 5:10 pm Justin Bieber’s Immigration Woes. Again. (Sorry.) Justin, please tell me you didn’t get into legal trouble again. I say that not because I’m in a moralizing mood, and not because I’m worried about what kind of example you’re setting for your fresh-faced, adoring fans. No, I say that for one, much simpler reason. I thought I was done writing about whether your various run-ins with U.S.

law enforcement make you, as a non-citizen visa holder, deportable. Intellectually and emotionally, I am over it. But now readers are asking, “So, is he deportable this time? The LAPD are going after him for attempted robbery! How ‘bout it? ” Alright, here goes. Justin’s latest “oops” was apparently grabbing a woman’s cell phone in order to erase photos that he suspected she had taken of him. (‘Cause who wouldn’t want to snap photos of the Biebs?) If that doesn’t sound like robbery to you, read Nolo editor Micah Schwartzach’s analysis, “ Breaking Down Bieber’s Alleged Attempted Robbery .” Noncitizens of the U.S. can be deported if they commit certain types of crimes, found in Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.).

Although some crimes are named on that list, attempted robbery isn’t one of them (nor is regular robbery.) However, his lawyers would also want to look at whether the robbery conviction (if it indeed happens, and depending on the details) meets any of the following criteria for deportability found in the I.N.A.: a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed within five years ) after the date of U.S. admission and is punishable by a sentence of at least one year one of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude that took place at any time after U.S. admission, where the two crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct, or an aggravated felony committed at any time after U.S. admission. As explained further in the links provided above, the short answer is that, once again, he’s probably not deportable. Unless, that is, he gets a one-year sentence for grabbing a cell phone. Stay tuned! Wait, no, don’t stay tuned to hear it from me. That’s it. My last blog on Justin Bieber. I swear it.

Written on May 15, 2014 at 11:30 pm Bizarre New Enforcement Practice — Arresting Departing Nationals of Mexico I nearly drove my car off the road yesterday listening to NPR’s report on “ The Curious Practice Of Bringing Immigrants Back — To Deport Them .” This is truly something new in the world of immigration enforcement. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are not only questioning people coming into the U.S., but addressing questions in Spanish to those driving or riding buses out of the U.S. into Mexico. Their main goal is apparently to check for evidence of drug trafficking, such as transporting large sums of illegally obtained money. But apparently CBP officials have decided that, while they’re at it, they might as well arrest a few folks who were living in the U.S. without documents — even ones who’d committed no crimes and were minutes away from returning to Mexico anyway! No one interviewed for the report, regardless of political affiliation, thought this was anything more than a waste of money and time.

It’s especially bizarre at a time when — due to the government’s limited resources — the administration has specifically instructed immigration officials to follow a policy of “ prosecutorial discretion ,” focusing on deporting only those people who present the greatest risk to U.S. society. And there’s been plenty of political talk of promoting “self-deportation,” too, which it appears some of the departing Mexicans were in the very process of doing. Hard to say whether this new arrest pattern is misguided, mean-spirited, or simply motivated by some local CBP officers’ wish to get their arrest numbers up and then call it a day. Written on April 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm Horror Story About Seven-Minute Immigration Hearings Isn’t the Whole Story The Washington Post‘s recent article, “ In a crowded immigration court, seven minutes to decide a family’s future, ” exposes one of the many weaknesses of the U.S.

immigration system: Undocumented and other immigrants caught violating the immigration laws receive no free legal representation (unless a sympathetic attorney steps in pro bono), have little idea of what their legal rights might be, and enter a system where little individual attention is possible before they’re, in many cases, escorted away. The Immigration Judge profiled in the article, Lawrence Burman of Virginia, had 26 cases on his morning hearing docket, or an average of seven minutes in which to make a decision on each case. The results of such a system can be tragic. Let’s say, for example, that the person arrives at one of these hearings with no attorney, doesn’t realize that the bad experiences he fled from in his own country amount to persecution that might qualify him for asylum , and thus fails to convey this to the judge or attorney (assuming he’s even lucky enough to find an attorney serving pro bono and able to understand the person’s language).

If the judge has no more than seven minutes to talk with such a person — and if the person misguidedly fills up the time assuring the judge that he loves this country and works hard and would do well if allowed to stay (common errors, which usually get the immigrant nowhere) — it could be all to easy for the judge to order the person to depart the United States. But let’s make one thing about the system clear: It is possible for immigrants facing deportation to have a full, private hearing before an immigration judge that lasts more than seven minutes. It’s a matter of knowing the procedural steps and what to ask for. What the article seems to have been describing was merely step one, the so-called “ master calendar ” hearing. At a master calendar hearing, many people arrive all at once, and the judge decides which of them seem to have enough of a legal case for staying in the U.S. to be worth calendaring for a full, “merits” hearing. The merits hearing can last for hours, and be continued to future dates, with opportunities for testimony by the noncitizen as well as witnesses, introduction of documents and exhibits, and so on. Many people won’t have any case for staying in the U.S.

at all — they are undocumented, and have no immediate family connections, no grounds upon which to request asylum or “ cancellation of removal ,” and no other plausible defense to deportation . But many will have some legal basis upon which to request either the long-term right to stay in the U.S., or at least “ prosecutorial discretion ” (meaning that the U.S. government agrees that the person is a low enforcement priority because of U.S. family ties and other equities, and will leave him or her alone for the moment). And they may not even know it. The judge will try to elicit such information, but as the article shows, has little time in which to do so. The more that people called into removal proceedings can do to research their rights and find an attorney in advance, the lower the chance that their seven minutes will be wasted and lead to a hasty order of deportation. Written on February 6, 2014 at 10:26 pm If I blog about Justin Bieber for the third time in a row, does that make me a “Belieber?” (Nah, I still can’t hum a thing he’s recorded, sorry.) But he’s become the world’s best object lesson regarding U.S.

immigration law and policy. In his latest kerfuffle, reported on by CNN , U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials searched his private plane, interviewed him for “several hours,” and brought in the trusty drug-sniffing dogs before letting him back into the U.S. from his recent trip to Canada. (CBP are the same folks who meet you at the airport or border, examine your passport or other entry documents, and ask whether you’re bringing in any drugs, snakes, explosives, and so on before they hopefully wave you in). Their reason for spending so many time on Bieber? To get autographs for their kids, of course! Oh, no, the officials say that they’d “detected an odor of marijuana after [the plane] landed in New Jersey.” Uh oh, the dreaded weed. Maybe they’re getting into the spirit of the “let’s deport Justin” movement, because had drugs been found, that plus his earlier admission of having been smoking marijuana might very well be enough to have him removed from the U.S. as a drug abuser. (See my earlier blog, “ Justin Bieber “Stuck in the Moment” of a Pending Removal Proceeding?

“) But either their sniffers were overactive that day or the Bieber entourage does a really, really good job of hiding its dope, because nothing was found. Justin was allowed into the U.S., with nary a stain on his record. That means he doesn’t get to join my list of “ International Celebrities Denied U.S. Entry Visas .” (Then again, by the pilot’s description , they may have simply smoked it all.) Written on February 1, 2014 at 5:23 pm Oh, and Justin Bieber’s Alleged Assault on a Limo Driver Probably Won’t Get Him Deported, Either In yesterday’s blog , I took a look at whether Justin Bieber could realistically face deportation (removal) for various types of trouble he’s gotten into while living in the United States on an O-1 visa. But today’s headlines raise another question: If he’s convicted for assaulting a limo driver in Canada (as he’s been recently charged with by Toronto police), could that foreign conviction lead him to be deported from the United States? The first issue here is whether a foreign conviction can be held against someone in the U.S. and make them deportable.

No one should be surprised to hear that the answer is, “Yes.” However, to protect people against being deported for something that’s not even illegal in the U.S. (for example, depositing your chewing gum on the sidewalk, which I once read is illegal in Singapore, though you shouldn’t quote me on that), the foreign conviction has to parallel a crime on the books in the United States. Of course, assault is illegal here. Bieber is said to have been one of six passengers picked up by a limo driver on December 30 of last year, who got into an altercation that led to the limo driver being hit on the head several times. (The driver’s okay, but will probably never allow his children to see Bieber in concert.) So finding a parallel U.S. statute will not likely be an obstacle, were U.S. immigration officials inclined to try to deport the Biebs. The bigger issue is whether assault can be the basis for deportation of someone legally within the United States.

To constitute a “ crime of moral turpitude ” (one of the main criminal grounds for deportability, depending on length of sentence and number of offenses), it would likely have to be an “aggravated assault.” Given that the driver in this case was able to stop the limo, get out, and call the police, I’m going to hazard a guess that this won’t be seen as rising to the level of “aggravated.” But the analysis isn’t over yet: The next question is whether the assault is an “ aggravated felony ,” which is also a basis for deportation. Bieber’s lawyer says it’s likely to be treated as the equivalent of a misdemeanor in Canada — which doesn’t tell us much, because owing to the vagaries of U.S. immigration law, misdemeanors can be treated as felonies! Crimes of violence with a sentence of it least one year are considered aggravated felonies. Given the low level of injuries in this case, I doubt Bieber will get a year-long sentence — if he’s even convicted in the first place.

(Let’s not forget, these are all allegations at this point, plus a lot of media hype.) So, to the more than 200,000 petition signers who say that “We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing, Justin Bieber deported,” don’t hold your collective breath. Solid legal grounds upon which to do seem not to have actually arisen yet. (And BTW, the headline on your petition is inaccurate: He doesn’t have a green card . It’s a temporary work visa.) Written on January 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm After years of exploring immigration law’s darkest corners, I can say with some certainty that: throwing eggs at your neighbor’s house is not on the list of grounds of deportability, and nor is being the subject of a petition to the White House alleging that you have “ wrongly represented ” the U.S. “in the world of pop culture.” I hope that’s of some comfort to Justin Bieber fans.

If you’re unfamiliar with the hoopla, CNN did a fine job of outlining both what Canadian-born pop singer Justin Bieber is currently suspected of (felony vandalism, so far, based on the egg-throwing incident; with possible charges for driving while under the influence of drugs, though it’s not clear that he was doing the driving). See CNN’s “ Could Justin Bieber be deported? ” and “ Justin Bieber egg probe ‘tightening up’; prosecutor wants more investigation .” The CNN articles also discuss what these accusations might mean for Bieber’s immigration status. He’s apparently in the U.S. on an O visa , for people with “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.” People who are legally in the U.S., like Bieber, can be deported for committing a crime that’s listed on the grounds of deportability within U.S. immigration law.

(Juvenile crimes are sometimes an exception, but contrary to appearances, the Biebs is already 19.) Nothing Bieber is alleged to have done so far seems to make experienced immigration attorneys think he fits either of the main two criminal grounds of deportability, namely a “ crime of moral turpitude ” (one that shocks the public conscience) or an “ aggravated felony (which doesn’t have to have “felony” in the name, but can include various types of misdemeanors). Bieber could, however, face removal proceedings if he has drug issues. The immigration law contains two separate grounds of deportability for drug use: one that makes people deportable if they’ve been convicted of a drug crime (or an attempt), with an exception for a single offense involving possession for personal use of 30 grams or less of marijuana; and another for being a drug abuser or addict. Notice that no actual court conviction is needed to be deportable under the drug abuse/addict section. The person’s own confession to drug use could be enough. Bieber appears to have already told the police who pulled him over in a traffic stop that he’d been drinking, using marijuana, and taking prescription pills. (Oops.

It’s never a good idea to drink so much that you get into a confessional mood like that.) Of course, one could face worse fates than being deported to Canada. But, depending how all this plays out, Bieber could face a bar on returning to the U.S. for a long time after deportation — long enough to lose those baby cheeks. P.S. Should we be shocked or impressed that he poses for a mugshot like it’s just another publicity still? Written on January 29, 2014 at 10:12 pm What Will Happen If Dozens of Immigration Judges Retire? According to a recent report by Laura Wides-Munoz for ABC News, nearly half of the nation’s 220 immigration judges (IJs) will be eligible for retirement next year, in 2014. I’ve got to confess, my first reaction upon reading that was to think “Phew, I know of one or two judges who should have found themselves a sunny beach in Florida years ago.” (More on that, I shall not say.) But apparently, clearing away deadwood comes at a price.

Wides-Munoz identifies a number of foreseeable problems if even the average number of judges retire next year (which would be 11), and quotes the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges as saying that the increasing difficulty of the job may push that number up higher. It’s a burnout job. IJs deal with a complex law, a high number of unrepresented noncitizens, a lack of support staff to deal with an often overwhelming caseload, the emotional toll of issuing what may be life-or-death decisions, and so on. The main issue to do with coming retirements that Wides-Munoz discusses is the inevitable increased delay for hearings to be scheduled and conclude. (Many hearings last for more than one session.) This will lead to deserving cases being harder to present convincingly, and undeserving cases consuming resources if the noncitizen is in detention. Another possible issue is that, even in the best-case scenario, in which many of the vacant positions are filled (which doesn’t look likely to happen quickly), the immigration courts will be increasingly populated by judges who don’t really understand immigration law all that well. Sure, the government will pick qualified candidates, but most immigration practitioners specialize in one area, and may be unfamiliar with others.

So, I officially withdraw my initial reaction. Don’t go! Retirement is overrated! Excessive sun exposure is dangerous! Written on December 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm Got Immigration Court Oct. 18? BE THERE! As you may have heard, the U.S. federal government shutdown has been brought to an end (at least for this year). We can probably expect that immigration-related operations by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will pick up slowly, with some delays as workers who were furloughed get back to the piles on their desks. In the case of Immigration Court proceedings, however (which are run by the Department of Justice), things are already moving quickly. While court hearings that were scheduled for today (October 17, 2013) in non-detained cases will not go forward, anyone with a hearing set for tomorrow, October 18, 2013, needs to be there! If you haven’t heard from your attorney about this, give him or her a call.

The “ EOIR Operations for October 17, 2013 ” page of the Department of Justice website provides details.EEOIR Operations for October 17, 2013OIR Operations for October 17, 2013 Written on October 17, 2013 at 3:13 pm

Question: According to over 250,000 online petition signers, what singer should be deported to Canada?
Answer: Justin Bieber