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



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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Victims of Immigration Crime Enforcement (VOICE) Quarterly Report

    by , 06-22-2018 at 09:57 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Take this for what it's worth:

    Overview

    U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protects America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. To carry out that mission, Ice focuses on smart immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism, and combating transnational criminal threats. The agency has an annual budget of approximately $6 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates—Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate—Management and Administration (M&A)—supports the three operational branches to advance the Ice mission.

    • ERO upholds U.S. immigration law at, within, and beyond our borders. ERO’s work is critical to the enforcement of immigration law against those who present a danger to our national security,are a threat to public safety, or who otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration system.
    • HSI is the principal investigative component within the Department of Homeland Security(DHS), which conducts transnational criminal investigations that protect the United States against threats to national security and brings to justice those seeking to exploit U.S. customs and immigration laws worldwide.
    • OPLA is the largest legal program in DHS and serves as the exclusive representative of DHS inimmigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, litigatingall removal cases including those against criminal aliens, terrorists, and human rights abusers.

    The Executive Order titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States directed Ice's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office (VOICE) to create quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States.

    This report provides anonymized case studies to depict the types of victims assisted by the VOICE Office since it launched on April 26, 2017, through September 30, 2017.The VOICE Office has several key objectives that include:

    • Using a victim-centered approach to acknowledge and support victims and their families;
    • Promoting awareness of available services to crime victims; and
    • Building collaborative partnerships with community stakeholders assisting victims.

    ICE established a toll-free hotline staffed with operators who triage calls to ensure victims receive the support they need. The number is 1-855-48-VOICE or 1-855-488-6423.

    The type of assistance the VOICE Office offers includes:

    • Establishing local contacts to help with unique victim requests;
    • Linking victims with ICE Community Relations Officers (CROs) who serve as local representatives to help victims understand the immigration enforcement and removal process;
    • Providing access to social service professionals who are able to refer victims to local resources and direct service providers;
    • Assisting individuals in signing up to receive automated custody status information through the DHS-Victim Information and Notification Exchange (DHS-VINE); and
    • To the extent permitted by law or policy, providing information about the offender, including the offender's immigration status and custody status, and answering questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement.

    Click here
    for the report.

    Updated 06-22-2018 at 10:22 AM by MKolken

  2. Immigrant Child Separation was Only Part of Trump's Agenda of Turning Back 50 Years of Progress in Racial Equality and Civil Rights. Roger Algase

    As the nation tries to recover from the shock of Trump's brutal treatment of immigrant children as punishment for their parents' "crime" of "EWL", i.e. attempting to enter the United States while Latino, and as the parents of more than 2,000 young children detained by ICE in the past month wonder if they will ever be reunited with their children

    https://theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ration/563264/

    media focus has, understandably, been on the strictly immigration-related aspect of this atrocity by the Trump-Sessions-Miller triumvirate. Some articles have focused on the narrowest issue of all - the question of whether this is effective border enforcement policy or not.

    The answer to that question is simple - no, separating tiny children from their parents at the border is probably not as effective as a deterrent to "illegal" immigration as hanging or shooting the families involved would be, but America doesn't do that, not even Donald Trump's America.

    Many other comments, including my own, have attempted to place Trump's child separation in the context larger war on immigrants from all parts of the world other than Europe, but this approach is also inadequate in the face of the enormity of the cruelty and sadism that America has just experienced in the adoption of this policy on such a large scale in the past month or so.

    (Yes I know - President Obama did it too - to the tune of about 6 or 7 immigrant children per month during his entire presidency, compared to almost 1,000 per month under Trump's inhuman "zero tolerance" policy announced in May of this year - does that excuse Trump from responsibility)?

    Therefore the only way we can fully understand the full horror of Trump's child separation policy, which more properly deserves to be called ethnic cleansing than immigration enforcement, is to look at it in the larger context of its effect on American society as a whole.

    I wrote about this in my June 21 Immigration Daily comment, which discusses how Trump's child separation policy, which deserves to be called ethnic cleansing more than immigration enforcement, is part of America's march toward dictatorship under a president who thinks that his brutality toward immigrant children made him look "strong" - like other "strongmen" the world over.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...619-story.html

    See:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10656

    But there is another, equally important and dangerous way in which Trump's entire immigration agenda, of which child separation was only the tip of the iceberg, is only part of a larger policy of taking America back to an earlier era of injustice and discrimination. Trump's administration is reverting to policies of open white supremacy, not only in the area of immigration though mass deportation and efforts to cut back or eliminate legal visas which Trump thinks are helping too many non-European immigrants, but in all aspects of American life.

    The Atlantic describes this policy in detail in a June 18 article

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ssions/563006/

    which I will have more to say about in a future comment. This article shows that almost every policy that has been bringing America closer to being a country of racial equality and justice in the past 50 years is now being undermined under the direction of Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who was also the chief enforcer and spokesman for Trump's vile child separation policy, which Trump is now replacing with an announced almost equally cruel and vicious (as well as illegal under current law, which Trump says he will try to have changed) indefinite family detention policy.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    algaselex@gmail.com


    Updated 06-22-2018 at 12:42 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. ICE Raids Continue with Raids at Fresh Mark in Ohio

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC



    In the third raid in the past two and a half months and the largest to date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on June 19, 2018, raided Fresh Mark, a large meat supplier. As many as 100 agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), descended upon Fresh Mark’s four facilities in Salem, Massillon and Canton, Ohio. This was the largest ICE raid in over 10 years.

    Although ICE raided four of Fresh Mark’s facilities with federal criminal search warrants, only the Salem facility was the site of arrests. The detained 146 workers are suspected of using stolen/fraudulent identification to gain employment and/or reentry into the United States after deportation.

    Steve Francis, special agent in charge of ICE's Homeland Security Investigations Michigan/Ohio unit, said the raid was the result of more than a year-long investigation into Fresh Mark and its employees, and whether the company knowingly hired and harbored undocumented workers. "It's important that companies know not to willingly participate in the hiring of illegal aliens," said Francis.

    According to Francis, some of the workers who were arrested were taken to detention centers in Michigan and Ohio, while others may be deported immediately. ICE said those who are detained will await removal proceedings. Other workers could potentially be released on humanitarian grounds and given a Notice to Appear (NTA) at an immigration court.

    Fresh Mark, a family-owned company, which employs more than 1,000 employees, sells meat products, such as bacon, deli ham, lunch meats and sausages to restaurants, delis, grocers and stadiums nationwide. The company said it participates in E-Verify, a federal program to ensure employees have proper documentation and conducts an annual internal audit of its I-9 forms. It should be noted if an employee engages in identity theft, E-Verify may not be able to detect the theft and will issue work-authorized verification.

    This raid is further evidence that ICE is dramatically increasing their enforcement actions through raids and ICE audits of employee’s I-9 forms. Furthermore, ICE is now arresting/detaining employees at the raids/audits. In December 2017, ICE's acting director Tom Homan said, "We're not just talking about arresting the aliens at these work sites, we are also talking about employers who knowingly hire people who are unauthorized to work." So far this year, ICE has arrested more than 600 workers that it alleges were working without proper authorization. That number far exceeds the 172 arrests made in 2017, according to ICE.

    To date in FY 2018, there have been 2,282 ICE audits of employers’ I-9 forms. Derek Benner, head of ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit, said another nationwide wave of audits, like the ICE audits of 7-Eleven in January 2018, planned this summer, would push the total number of audits to "well over" 5,000 by September 30, 2018. If so, that would be almost a 400% increase from fiscal year 2017 and the highest number of ICE audits ever. According to Brenner, ICE has developed a plan to conduct as many as 15,000 I-9 audits a year if it can receive appropriate funding and support from other areas of the Trump administration. The plan calls for creation of an Employer Compliance Inspection Center to perform employer audits at a single location instead of at regional offices around the country.

    It is clear that employer raids will be a frequent tool of ICE. Every employer should be vigilant in their immigration compliance. I would advise employers to meet with their immigration counsel, or obtain immigration counsel, to conduct an internal I-9 audit and draft or review an immigration compliance policy. Though it should be noted, Fresh Mark said it conducts annual I-9 audits.

    If you want to know more information on employer immigration compliance, I recommend you read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book I co-authored with Greg Siskind, and available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  4. European Union refugee application outcomes for 1st quarter 2018

    Name:  Europe refugee grants  2018 1st quarter.jpg
Views: 20
Size:  19.8 KB



    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...rter_2018_.png

    Posted by Nolan Rappaport

    Updated 06-21-2018 at 01:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  5. Supreme Court Rules For Immigrants in Statutory Eligibility Case

    by , 06-21-2018 at 10:28 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    PEREIRA v. SESSIONS, 585 U. S. ____ (2018): 8-1 Decision.

    Held: A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specifictime or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “noticeto appear under §1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.Pp. 7–20.

    (a) The Court need not resort to Chevron deference, for the unambiguous statutory text alone is enough to resolve this case. Under the stop-time rule, “any period of . . . continuous physical presence” is“deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).” 8 U. S. C. §1229b(d)(1). By expressly referencing§1229(a), the statute specifies where to look to find out what “notice to appear” means. Section 1229(a), in turn, clarifies that the type of notice “referred to as a ‘notice to appear’ ” throughout the statutory section is a “written notice . . . specifying,” as relevant here, “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.”§1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Thus, to trigger the stop-time rule, the Government must serve a notice to appear that, at the very least,“specif[ies]” the “time and place” of the removal hearing.

    The Government and dissent point out that the stop-time rule refers broadly to a notice to appear under “§1229(a)”—which includes paragraph (1), as well as paragraphs (2) and (3). But that does not matter, because only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a “notice to appear.” If anything, paragraph (2), which allows for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time and place,”§1229(a)(2)(A)(i), bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute because the provision presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear” that specified a time and place as required by §1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Another neighboring provision, §1229(b)(1),lends further support for the view that a “notice to appear” must specify the time and place of removal proceedings to trigger the stop time rule. Section 1229(b)(1) gives a noncitizen “the opportunity to secure counsel before the first [removal] hearing date” by mandating that such “hearing date shall not be scheduled earlier than 10 days after the service of the notice to appear.” For that provision to have any meaning, the “notice to appear” must specify the time and place that the noncitizen, and his counsel, must appear at the removal proceedings.Finally, common sense reinforces the conclusion that a notice that does not specify when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not a “notice to appear” that triggers the stop-time rule.After all, an essential function of a “notice to appear” is to provide noncitizens “notice” of the information (i.e., the “time” and “place”)that would enable them “to appear” at the removal hearing in the first place. Without conveying such information, the Government cannot reasonably expect noncitizens to appear for their removal proceedings.Pp. 7–13.

    (b) The Government and the dissent advance a litany of counterarguments,all of which are unpersuasive. To begin, the Government mistakenly argues that §1229(a) is not definitional. That is wrong.Section 1229(a) speaks in definitional terms, requiring that a notice to appear specify, among other things, the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” As such, the dissent is misguided in arguing that a defective notice to appear, which fails to specify time and-place information, is still a notice to appear for purposes of the stop-time rule. Equally unavailing is the Government’s (and the dissent’s)attempt to generate ambiguity in the statute based on the word “under.” In light of the plain language and statutory context,the word “under,” as used in the stop-time rule, clearly means “in accordance with” or “according to” because it connects the stop-time trigger in §1229b(d)(1) to a “notice to appear” that specifies the enumerated time-and-place information. The Government fares no better in arguing that surrounding statutory provisions reinforce its preferred reading of the stop-time rule, as none of those provisions supports its a textual interpretation. Unable to root its reading in the statutory text, the Government and dissent raise a number of practical concerns, but those concerns are meritless and do not justify de-parting from the statute’s clear text. In a final attempt to salvage itsa textual interpretation, the Government turns to the alleged statutory purpose and legislative history of the stop-time rule. Even for those who consider statutory purpose and legislative history, however,neither supports the Government’s position. Requiring the Government to furnish time-and-place information in a notice to appear is entirely consistent with Congress’ stated objective of preventing noncitizens from exploiting administrative delays to accumulate lengthier periods of continuous precedent. Pp. 13–20.

    866 F. 3d 1, reversed and remanded.

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

    Updated 06-21-2018 at 10:36 AM by MKolken

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: