ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal


  1. Sheriff Joe Arpaio on CNN's Rick Sanchez Show

    by , 10-20-2009 at 06:57 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)


  2. Immigration Point, Counterpoint: 287(g)

    by , 10-19-2009 at 07:39 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality act calls for a law enforcement partnership between State and Federal law enforcement agencies with respect to the performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees. Simply put, 287(g) delegates federal immigration enforcement authority to state and local agencies.

    The Obama administration has announced the recent expansion of the scope of the 287(g), issuing standardized Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) with 67 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships.

    This has caused an uproar from immigration rights groups. Opponents of 287(g) argue that the law results in racial profiling and violations of due process, and lacks sufficient oversight.

    Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel, has responded to Obama's announced expansion of 287(g) stating that:[INDENT][FONT=Arial]
    "ICE's announcement on 287(g) makes no mention of any oversight, monitoring, or accountability mechanisms to address racial profiling and other civil rights violations - and no commitment to address these very real problems.*Instead, ICE has actually re-authorized agencies that have abused their authority, including the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Disregarding civil rights, breaking bonds between immigrant communities and the police and failing to intelligently prioritize enforcement will only make all of us worse off. ICE should terminate the program immediately."

    Updated 04-12-2016 at 12:35 PM by MKolken

  3. Second Circuit Decision: Lin v. Holder (07-5791-ag)

    by , 10-16-2009 at 04:00 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has overturned the denial of an asylum application of maternity nurse that was previously employed in China by a state general hospital that performed forced abortions pursuant to China's family planning policy.  See Lin v. Holder, Oct. 14, 2009.
    From 2002 to 2005, Lin was employed in the obstetrics and gynecology department of the state-run "People's Number One Hospital" in China. Her duties did not include participation in forced abortion procedures, but she was charged with the responsibility for providing incidental care for the woman who were forced to abort their child. The record reflected that Lin merely participated in examinations to determine if a forced abortion could be performed without threatening the life of the mother. 
    The Immigration Judge denied asylum on the ground that Lin's employment in a hospital that performed forced abortions defined her as a "persecutor" and she was therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    The Second Circuit addressed the issue of whether Lin's employment as a nurse in China amounted to "assistance or participation" in persecution which would render her ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA's "persecutor bar."  The Court concluded that it did not.
  4. BIA Precedent Decision: Matter of Garcia-Garcia

    by , 10-15-2009 at 06:31 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has just issued a precedent decision, Matter of GARCIA-GARCIA, 25 I&N Dec. 93 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3657.  The case involves the issue of whether an Immigration Judge is authorized to ameliorate a condition placed on an individual by the DHS when the individual is released from immigration custody.  
    The Department argued that 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(d)(1) does not give an Immigration Judge authority to ameliorate the conditions placed by the DHS on an alien's release from custody, and that pursuant to the regulation, the Immigration Judge is only authorized "to detain the alien in custody, release the alien, and determine the amount of bond, if any, under which the respondent may be released."
    The Respondent countered with the argument in support of the IJ's decision that the final sentence in 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(d)(1) affords the Immigration Judge authority to ameliorate the terms of release imposed on an alien's release by the DHS.
    The Board ruled that:
    (1) An Immigration Judge has authority under section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(A) (2006), and 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(d)(1) (2009) to review and consider whether to modify the conditions of release imposed on an alien by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); and
    (2) Where the respondent filed an application with the Immigration Judge to ameliorate the terms of release within 7 days of his release from custody by the DHS, the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction to review and modify the condition placed on the respondent's release that he participate in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program.
  5. Padilla v. Kentucky oral argument transcript

    by , 10-14-2009 at 08:47 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The United States Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Padilla v. Kentucky.  The case invovles a lawful permanent resident of the United States who plead guilty to a drug trafficking offense on reliance on his attorney's advice that the guilty plea would have no adverse immigration consequences.
    The issue argued is whether a lawyer who is representing a non-United States citizen in a criminal matter has the affirmative responsibility to properly advise their client of any adverse immigration consequences that may stem from entering a plea of guilty to a criminal charge.  
    Stephen B. Kinnaird, Esq. argued the case for Padilla. Here is a link to the full transcript of the Padilla v. Kentucky oral argument. U.S. Supreme Court, Oct. 13, 2009. 
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: