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. Department of Homeland Security Finds that Domestic Violence Constitutes Sufficient Grounds for Asylum

    by , 10-30-2009 at 07:10 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The New York Times has reported that the Department of Homeland Security, in a one-paragraph document, has determined that spousal abuse is a sufficient ground for asylum eligibility.

    Department of Homeland Security spokesman Matthew Chandler has stated that the Department "continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum".  Mr. Chandler further advised that the Department is in the process of writing regulations to govern asylum claims based on domestic violence.

    Score one for the little guy.
  2. Board of Immigration Appeals Decision: Matter of Maria C. YAURI, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009).

    by , 10-29-2009 at 10:18 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The Board of Immigration Appeals has just issued a precedent decision: Matter of Maria C. YAURI, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009). 
     
    The case involves an individual that was subject to a final administrative order of removal as a result of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal. Approximately four years later, On March 24, 2008, an untimely motion to reopen was filed with the Board to enable Ms. Yauri to apply for adjustment of status, which motion was opposed by the Department. 
     
    Subsequent to the submission of the motion to reopen, DHS filed a separate motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings on the basis that USCIS had adjudicated the respondent's adjustment of status application and had granted her lawful permanent residency on February 25, 2009.  The Board granted the DHS motion to reopen and terminate, denying the Respondent's motion.
     
    The Board's ruling in the case is that:
     
    (1) With a narrow exception not applicable to this case, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate an arriving alien's application for adjustment of status under 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(1) (2009) and agrees that it retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the application even where an unexecuted administratively final order of removal remains outstanding.
     
    (2) The Board of Immigration Appeals generally lacks authority to reopen the proceedings of aliens under final orders of exclusion, deportation, or removal who seek to pursue relief over which the Board and the Immigration Judges have no jurisdiction, especially where reopening is sought simply as a mechanism to stay the final order while the collateral matter is resolved by the agency or court having jurisdiction to do so.
     
    (3) With regard to untimely or number-barred motions to reopen, the Board will not generally exercise its discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte for an arriving alien to pursue adjustment of status before the USCIS.
  3. Study Finds Immigration Enforcement Has Undermined Workers' Rights

    by , 10-28-2009 at 06:47 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The AFL-CIO, American Rights at Work and the National Employment Law Project has determined that the United States policy on immigration enforcement that utilizes workforce raids by "inadequately trained enforcement agents" has negatively impacted workers who were both born in the United States, and those who have been the target of the enforcement efforts.

    The report, ICED OUT: How Immigration Enforcement Has Interfered with Workers' Rights , examines the need for the Department of Labor to protect workers' rights in conjunction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's mandate to enforce immigration laws. The report points to ICE's failures that have exacerbated the problem contributing to the undermining of all workers' rights.
  4. Strife in San Francisco over handling of arrested undocumented immigrants

    by , 10-27-2009 at 06:52 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)




  5. Board of Immigration Appeals decision: Matter of Raul CARRILLO, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009)

    by , 10-22-2009 at 08:56 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The Board of Immigration Appeals has just ruled in Matter of Raul CARRILLO, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) that in determining whether an alien whose status was adjusted pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 1, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, is removable as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5 years after the alien's "date of admission," the admission date is calculated according to the rollback provision of section 1, rather than the date adjustment of status was granted.

     
    The case involves a Green Card holder from Cuba who initially came to the United States and was paroled into the country on March 4, 1999. He obtained his Green Card on January 30, 2001, through the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act.

     
    On June 6, 2005, Mr. Carrillo was convicted on four counts of grand theft, third degree, in the State of Florida.  His conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude that would render him deportable if it occurred within five years of his lawful admission to the United States. 

     
    The issue argued at trial was whether the conviction occurred less than five years after Mr. Carrillo's admission into the United States.  Mr. Carrillo's lawyer argued that the effective date of his admission to the United States was March 4, 1999, the date of his parole, rather than January 30, 2001, the date on which he was granted a Green Card through adjustment of status as a result of the "rollback" provision of the Cuban Adjustment Act.

     
    The Immigration Judge didn't buy the argument and ordered Mr. Carrillo's removal.  Mr. Carrillo appealed, and the Board overruled the Immigration Court finding that under the Cuban Adjustment Act the "date of admission" is calculated from the date of parole into the United States, and not the date of his adjustment. 

     
    Mr. Carrillo owes a debt of gratitude to his lawyer, Keith C. Williams, Esquire, Naples, Florida.  Great Job Mr. Williams! Now we can only hope that Mr. Carrillo won't stand before another Judge in the United States again.
     
    Matthew Kolken, Esq.
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: