Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Classifieds

Advertise

VIP Lawyer Network

EB-5

High Net Worth

Dubai Events

Campus Events

Overseas Events

RCs/Projects

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Careers

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE




ilw.com VIP


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal

description

  1. Obama Admin Still Not Targeting Serious Criminals

    by , 09-01-2015 at 05:56 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    From Syracuse University's TRAC Immigration:



    "According to ICE detainer-by-detainer records released to TRAC, during April 2015 only about one third (32%) of individuals on whom detainers were placed had been convicted of a crime. And only 19 percent had a felony conviction. Fully two-thirds had no criminal conviction of any type (see Figure 2). This contrasts sharply with the announced goal that, unless an individual "poses a demonstrable risk to national security," "ICE should only seek transfer of an alien in the custody of state or local laws enforcement" when that person had been "convicted of specifically enumerated [serious] crimes." [Emphasis supplied.]

    Data for April 2015 thus provide little evidence that ICE has begun to limit detainer requests to individuals with serious convictions, let alone to persons convicted of at least some minor offense. If anything, the trend has since moved opposite what might have been expected based on the new directive. Individuals with criminal convictions have become significantly less common among detainers issued during April 2015 than they were during the FY 2012 — FY 2013 period. As TRAC has reported, during that period half of detainers issued were for individuals with a criminal record, not just one third. An even smaller percentage — roughly one in five — had a felony conviction in either period. This seems to stand at odds to what is called for in Secretary Johnson's directives."

    TRAC also found that "fewer than one out of every five detainers seem to have met the 'special circumstances' set out under Secretary Johnson's directive; this is virtually unchanged from what was observed for the period from FY 2012 through the first four months of FY 2013."

    In sum, and as I predicted, the Obama administration's "deportation priorities" aren't worth the paper they are written on.
  2. Is this the Origin of Donald Trump's Position on Birthright Citizenship?

    by , 08-28-2015 at 09:31 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)


    "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant. No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to our public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of babies born at taxpayer expense at county run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?" ~Senator Harry Reid

    Updated 08-28-2015 at 09:34 AM by MKolken

  3. Decision Ordering Release of Immigrant Children from Deportation Jails

  4. Court Orders Prompt Release of Immigrant Children from Family Detention

    by , 08-24-2015 at 10:43 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    For Immediate Release

    August 24, 2015

    Washington, D.C.

    The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council (Council) welcome a decision released Friday evening by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Flores v. Lynch, No. 85-04544 (C.D.Ca.), which ruled that children should generally be released from detention within five days—preferably to a parent, including a parent with whom they were apprehended. The government must implement the Court’s ruling byOctober 23, 2015.

    “There is no denying that the government has breached the Flores settlement agreement. The status quo is unacceptable, and the government must take immediate and dramatic steps to end family detention,” said Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA President. “Our CARA Project* staff and volunteers submitted numerous declarations to the Court showing how the government is still detaining accompanied minors in secure, unlicensed facilities. It can no longer hide from the American people the ugly truth of how it treats children fleeing persecution,” said Nieblas. “Just as striking is how the Court condemned the ‘deplorable’ conditions in temporary border jails. They do not meet even minimal standards for safe and sanitary conditions,” said Nieblas.

    “This decision will bolster our efforts to end the inhumane practice of detaining children and their mothers,” according to Melissa Crow, Legal Director of the American Immigration Council. “The Court chastised the government for ‘unnecessarily dragging their feet’ in releasing children from family detention facilities and for repeating the same arguments they had raised in earlier briefing, which she had already rejected. Judge Gee also scoffed at government warnings that the swift release of children and mothers could spur another mass migration of Central American families, characterizing them as ‘speculative at best, and, at worse, fear mongering.’” Crow added, “Although the Court gives the government some latitude to exceed the five-day limit ‘in the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United States,’ the decision emphasizes that this should be the exception, not the rule. It’s time for the government to stop making excuses and harming innocent children and their mothers.”

    “AILA and the Council will be watching every step the government takes. We expect it to follow this federal court’s order with no less zeal than it did obeying the Texas district court’s DAPA decision,” said Nieblas, referring to the extraordinary efforts the government made to comply with the injunction against the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents process and the planned expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process.

    The recent ruling in Flores follows from a July 24, 2015, decision, in which the Court concluded that the government was in violation of the terms of the original Flores settlement, which was intended to ensure the proper care of children in immigration custody. In July, the Court had ordered the government to release children subject to the settlement agreement, but gave the government an opportunity to respond to the Court’s ordered remedy. The government’s response fell far short.


    ###

    Press inquiries, please contact:
    George Tzamaras, American Immigration Lawyers Association, 202-507-7649, gtzamaras@aila.org
    Wendy Feliz, American Immigration Council, 202-507-7524, wfeliz@immcouncil.org
  5. Electronic Devices banned in Immigration Courts by Public. Use by Lawyers Limited

    by , 08-24-2015 at 10:40 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    EOIR Security Directive 01-2015: Public Use of Electronic Devices in EOIR Space

    In Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) space in both federal and commercial facilities, use of electronic devices (including but not limited to cellular phones, smart phones,cameras, laptops, tablets, personal digital assistants (PDAs), MP3 players, and all other audio or visual recording/recording-capable devices, or broadcasting/broadcasting capable devices) by the public is prohibited. EOIR space is defined to include courtrooms, as well as all interior entrances/exits, corridors, conference rooms and waiting areas that are in direct view or control of security, immigration court, Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) or Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) personnel; and all interior entrances/exits, corridors,and waiting areas that are part of EOIR’s daily operations. All electronic devices must be turned off within EOIR space. Upon written request to the EOIR Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, EOIR can make available stock photographs and video of EOIR space.

    Attorneys or representatives of record, active members of a State Bar, and attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security representing the government in proceedings before EOIR will be permitted to use electronic devices in EOIR space for the limited purpose of conducting relevant court and business related activities (e.g. within the courtroom – scheduling; within pro bono rooms – client conferences). Electronic devices must be turned off in EOIR space when not in use, and must be set to silent/vibrate mode when in use in the courtroom; they may not be used to make audio or video recordings, or capture still images/photographs of any kind, in EOIR space. Where the Immigration Judge, Board Member, or Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may determine that business-related usage poses a disruption to ongoing proceedings in the courtroom, continued usage may be prohibited at the discretion of the Immigration Judge, Board Member or ALJ.

    The only recording equipment permitted in courtroom proceedings will be the equipment used to create the official record. No other photographic, video, audio, electronic, or similar recording device will be permitted to record any part of the proceeding, as per 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28. A sketch artist is permitted in the courtroom during proceedings provided he or she has properly coordinated in advance with EOIR’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs. Nothing in this directive should be construed to restrict or interfere with the reasonable use of adaptive technology by a person with a disability.

    Violators of this security directive are subject to possible penalties by authority of the Federal Protective Service, as per 40 U.S.C. § 1315 (see also 41 C.F.R. Sub part C, §§ 102-74.365 thru102-74.455). Furthermore, an Immigration Judge has discretion to impose other remedial measures to maintain proper order in the courtroom, pursuant to an Immigration Judge’s general statutory and regulatory authority to take any action that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of cases, as per 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Similar discretion lies with Board Members (see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii)) and the ALJ (see 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.28(a)(7) and (8)).

    Updated 08-25-2015 at 05:18 AM by MKolken

Page 1 of 173 1231151101 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: