ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




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. Federal Court Blocks Deportation of Iraqi Nationals

    by , 06-23-2017 at 08:13 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via the ACLU:

    June 22, 2017


    DETROIT — A federal court has blocked the immediate deportation of Iraqi nationals arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement earlier this month.

    The American Civil Liberties Union successfully sought the temporary restraining order, arguing those individuals should have an opportunity to prove their lives would be in danger if they were returned to Iraq.

    “The court took a life-saving action by blocking our clients from being immediately sent back to Iraq,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case. “They should have a chance to show that their lives are in jeopardy if forced to return.”

    The ACLU challenged the government after ICE agents arrested more than 100 Iraqis —including many who’ve been in the U.S. for decades — in recent raids throughout metropolitan Detroit. Those arrested include Christians and Muslims, all at risk of persecution in Iraq.

    “We are thankful and relieved that our clients will not be immediately sent to Iraq, where they face grave danger of persecution, torture or death. It would be unconstitutional and unconscionable to deport these individuals without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate the harm that awaits them in Iraq,” said Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan.

    The case was argued in the U.S. District Court/Eastern Michigan District.

    Updated 06-23-2017 at 10:05 AM by MKolken

  2. Criminal Prosecutions Referred by DHS Continue to Fall under Trump

    by , 06-22-2017 at 11:22 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Syracuse University's TRAC:

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during April 2017 the government reported 4,434 new criminal prosecutions as a result of referrals by the immigration and customs components in the Department of Homeland Security. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is down 17.5 percent over the previous month and down 42.9 percent from a year ago in April 2016. See Table 1.



    Table 1. Criminal Prosecutions Referred by
    Immigration and Customs Components of DHS
    Number April 2017 4,434
    Percent Change from previous month -17.5
    Percent Change from April 2016 -42.9
    Number December 2012 (peak) 10,708
    Percent Change from Peak -58.6

    The number of prosecutions include those referred by Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and joint task forces of DHS with state and local authorities. The long term trends, along with the month-to-month variation driven largely by seasonality in apprehensions along the southwest border, is shown more clearly in Figure 1.

    Since the latest data track prosecutions through April 2017 they do not as yet reflect the impact of the new priorities Attorney General Jeff Sessions promulgated in his April 11, 2017 memorandum to federal prosecutors calling for stepped up use of criminal sanctions in the immigration area.


    Click here for more of the report.

    Updated 06-22-2017 at 11:27 AM by MKolken

  3. SCOTUS Rules on When a Naturalized Citizen May Lose their Citizenship

    by , 06-22-2017 at 10:16 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The Supreme Court has issued a decision relating to when a naturalized citizen may be automatically stripped of their citizenship in the context of a criminal proceeding for fraud based on an immaterially false statement.

    Maslenjak v. United States
    :

    1. The text of §1425(a) makes clear that, to secure a conviction, the Government must establish that the defendant’s illegal act played a role in her acquisition of citizenship. To “procure . . . naturalization” means to obtain it. And the adverbial phrase “contrary to law” specifies how a person must procure naturalization so as to run afoul of the statute: illegally. Thus, someone “procure[s], contrary to law,naturalization” when she obtains citizenship illegally. As ordinary usage demonstrates, the most natural understanding of that phrase is that the illegal act must have somehow contributed to the obtaining of citizenship. To get citizenship unlawfully is to get it through an unlawful means—and that is just to say that an illegality played some role in its acquisition.

    The Government’s contrary view—that §1425(a) requires only a violation in the course of procuring naturalization—falters on the way language naturally works. Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag. She has violated the law against possessing a weapon in a federal building, and she has done so in the course of procuring citizenship, but nobody would say she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law.” That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship in that example are merely coincidental:The one has no causal relation to the other. Although the Government attempts to define such examples out of the statute, that effort falls short for multiple reasons. Most important, the Government’s attempted carve-out does nothing to alter the linguistic understanding that gives force to the examples the Government would exclude.Under ordinary rules of language usage, §1425(a) demands a causal or means-end connection between a legal violation and naturalization.

    The broader statutory context reinforces the point, because the Government’s reading would create a profound mismatch between the requirements for naturalization and those for denaturalization: Some legal violations that do not justify denying citizenship would nonetheless justify revoking it later. For example, lies told out of“embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy” (rather than “for the purpose of obtaining [immigration] benefits”) are not generally disqualifying under the statutory requirement of “good moral character.”Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 780; 8 U. S. C.§1101(f)(6). But under the Government’s reading of §1425(a), any lie told in the naturalization process would provide a basis for rescinding citizenship. The Government could thus take away on one day what it was required to give the day before. And by so unmooring the revocation of citizenship from its award, the Government opens the door to a world of disquieting consequences—which this Court would need far stronger textual support to believe Congress intended. The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization. Pp. 4–9.

    2. When the underlying illegality alleged in a §1425(a) prosecution is a false statement to government officials, a jury must decide whether the false statement so altered the naturalization process as to have influenced an award of citizenship. Because the entire naturalization process is set up to provide little room for subjective preferencesor personal whims, that inquiry is properly framed in objective terms: To decide whether a defendant acquired citizenship by means of a lie, a jury must evaluate how knowledge of the real facts would have affected a reasonable government official properly applying naturalization law.

    If the facts the defendant misrepresented are themselves legally disqualifying for citizenship, the jury can make quick work of that inquiry. In such a case, the defendant’s lie must have played a role in her naturalization. But that is not the only time a jury can find that a defendant’s lies had the requisite bearing on a naturalization decision, because lies can also throw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts. When relying on such an investigation-based theory, the Government must make a two-part showing. Initially,the Government must prove that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to a naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, “seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications,” to undertake further investigation. Kungys,485 U. S., at 774, n. 9. If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. The Government need not show definitively that its investigation would have unearthed a disqualifying fact. It need only establish that the investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification. Id., at 774. If that is so, the defendant’s misrepresentation contributed to the citizenship award in the way§1425(a) requires. This demanding but still practicable causal standard reflects the real-world attributes of cases premised on what an unhindered investigation would have found.

    When the Government can make its two-part showing, the defendant may overcome it by establishing that she was qualified for citizenship(even though she misrepresented facts that suggested the opposite). Thus, whatever the Government shows with respect to a thwarted investigation, qualification for citizenship is a complete defense to a prosecution under §1425(a). Pp. 10–15.3. Measured against this analysis, the jury instructions in this case were in error. The jury needed to find more than an unlawful false statement. However, it was not asked to—and so did not—make any of the necessary determinations. The Government’s assertion that any instructional error was harmless is left for resolution on remand.Pp. 15–16.821 F. 3d 675, vacated and remanded.

    KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

    Updated 06-22-2017 at 10:47 AM by MKolken

  4. ICE to testify at congressional hearing on MS-13

    by , 06-20-2017 at 04:02 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Executive Associate Director (EAD) Matthew T. Albence and ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Acting EAD Derek Benner will testify Wednesday, June 21, at 10 a.m. EDT before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at a hearing entitled, “The MS-13 Problem: Investigating Gang Membership, its Nexus to Illegal Immigration, and Federal Efforts to End the Threat.”

    WHO:

    Matthew Albence, ICE ERO Executive Associate Director
    Derek Benner, ICE HSI Acting Executive Associate Director
    Carla Provost, Acting Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    Kenneth Blanco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
    Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    WHEN: Wednesday, June 21, 2017, at 10 a.m. EST

    WHERE: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226, Washington, D.C.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A webcast of the hearing will be available here.
  5. ICE Confirms Detainer Issued on Salvadoran Immigrant Suspected of Murdering Muslim Teen

    by , 06-20-2017 at 08:06 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via the Daily Caller:

    A 22-year-old man accused of killing a 17-year-old Muslim girl in Virginia on Sunday morning is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, a spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tells The Daily Caller.

    The suspect, Darwin A. Martinez Torres, was arrested on Sunday in the death of Nabra Hassanen, a high school student from Reston, Va. Police say he beat Hassanen with a metal baseball bat in what is being described as a road rage incident.


    Click here for official statements from the Fairfax County Police Department.
Page 2 of 224 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... 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: