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

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. Trump ends 20-year policy of hosting Muslim End of Ramadan Dinner at W.H. More Evidence of Religious "Animus" for Courts to Consider? Roger Algase

    The Washington Post reports that Donald Trump has terminated a 20-year White House policy of hosting a dinner to celebrate the Eid, ending the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, and has issued a short, perfunctory statement marking this important Muslim holiday instead.

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...g-11244746.php

    Holding a White House dinner to celebrate this event dates from the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and had been revived under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama.

    While of course, the current president has no legal or other obligation to mark this celebration, canceling this event can be read as one more indication that this president does not feel a great deal of empathy or respect for Americans who practice this particular faith.

    There can be little doubt that the president, by cancelling the Eid celebration, intended to send the 3 or 4 million American citizens and permanent residents who practice this religion a clear message about his own personal feelings toward all people who belong to this religious group, not just to citizens of the six countries on his latest entry ban list.

    Could this be additional evidence for the Supreme Court and/or other federal courts to consider of what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined was Trump's clear pattern of "animus" and religious discrimination in general against Muslims as the real motive for his entry ban orders?

    It would not be unreasonable for the courts to reach such a conclusion.

    While extending best wishes to all Muslims for this holiday, it is important to bear in mind that their struggle against religious prejudice and discrimination in America, including but not limited to immigration policy, but also including an appalling increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in this country (and the U.K.) which our nation's 45th President has done little or nothing to speak out against, is a struggle for justice and equality on behalf of Jews, Christians and all the diverse people of America, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of same.

    As Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, and Reverend Bertram Johnson of New York's Riverside Church, two of America's best known and most respected religious organizations, wrote recently in The Hill:

    Jews and Christians must oppose Trump's 'Muslim ban'. Again.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...slim-ban-again

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-25-2017 at 04:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  2. Ninth Circuit gives green light for much larger travel ban. by Nolan Rappaport




    © Getty Images

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a new decision on President Donald Trump’s March 6 Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

    The court affirmed the portions of the district court injunction that apply to the 90-day, six-country travel ban, but it vacated the portions of the injunction that relate to the government doing an internal review of its vetting procedures, which could lead to a much larger ban based on a different criterion.

    The Trump exception

    According to University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner, the courts are creating a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers by ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition in Kleindienst v. Mandel that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” when the president exercises immigration authority.

    The Ninth Circuit does mention the Supreme Court’s admonition in Mandel, but gives it only cursory attention (see footnote 9 on page 33 of the decision).

    If the Supreme Court does not intervene, Trump may be faced ultimately with the constitutional crisis of not being able to meet his national security responsibilities as the chief of the executive branch with respect to terrorism coming from Muslim countries, unless he defies the orders of the judicial branch.

    Tip of the iceberg

    The six-country travel ban is just the tip of the iceberg. The internal reviews the court has given approval to can lead to far more serious consequences.

    Read more at --
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...witch=standard

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author.

    Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.



  3. Judge Sanctions Kobach for Misrepresenting Content of Memo to President. Should Courts do the Same With Trump's Muslim Ban Arguments? Roger Algase

    Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State who has achieved notoriety for his authorship of Arizona's S.B. 1070 immigration law and other state immigration laws which have been in large part rejected by the courts, as well as authoring numerous state voter suppression laws targeting minority U.S. citizens which have met a similar fate in various state and federal courts, has been fined $1,000 by a U.S. Magistrate for the District of Kansas for misrepresenting the contents of a memo which he prepared for the president relating to possible suggested changes in the Voting Rights Act (NVRA).

    While the case involved, Fish v. Kobach, is not directly related to immigration, the facts leading to the imposition of this sanction against Kobach, who is one of the president's behind the scenes immigration advisers, and who has also been appointed by the president to head a commission whose obvious purpose is only to provide a cover for more attempts to disenfranchise minority, pro-immigrant voters, have much in common with the conduct of Trump's DOJ lawyers in the various Muslim country entry ban ("Muslim ban") cases now proceeding through the federal court system, including the Supreme Court.

    The rationale used by the federal magistrate to sanction Kobach in the above case may also, very arguably, justify sanctions against DOJ lawyers for making the deceptive and bad faith claim in the various federal court Muslim ban lawsuits that Trump's executive orders at issue in those cases were motivated entirely by factors other than religious prejudice against Muslims, and a desire to deprive Muslim U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and to protection against establishment of religion.

    The full text of the judge's order can be accessed by going to the following POLITICO story and following the link to the full 24-page order in that story.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...mp-memo-239910

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 06-23-2017 at 10:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. IER Stays Busy Under Its New Name

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DOJ PNG New.jpg 
Views:	3 
Size:	20.8 KB 
ID:	1198

    On January 18, 2017, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) changed its name to Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The newly – named government agency has been busy in its first months of existence.

    Since January 18, 2017, the IER has entered into seven settlement agreements and collected over $300,000 in penalties and $75,000 in backpay.

    Besides these settlement agreements, IER has issued 11 Letters of Resolution to employers. IER issues a Letter of Resolution when after an investigation of a charge, there is insufficient evidence of a violation of the anti-discrimination provision, but there is evidence of the employer having deficiencies in their I-9 form and/or E-Verify compliance. Letters of Resolution may also be issued when an employer quickly resolves an issue by hiring or reinstating the individual in question with backpay. In resolving these investigations, employer often agree to participate in IER-sponsored training and to ensure their Human Resources Staff becomes better trained on I-9 and E-Verify compliance.
  5. SCOTUS Rules on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

    by , 06-23-2017 at 10:00 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    JAE LEE v. UNITED STATES, 582 U. S. ____ (2017)

    Held: Lee has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s erroneous advice. Pp. 5–13.(a) When a defendant claims that his counsel’s deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S.52, 59.

    Lee contends that he can make this showing because he never would have accepted a guilty plea had he known the result would be deportation. The Government contends that Lee cannot show prejudice from accepting a plea where his only hope at trial was that something unexpected and unpredictable might occur that would lead to acquittal. Pp. 5–8.

    (b) The Government makes two errors in urging the adoption of a per se rule that a defendant with no viable defense cannot show prejudice from the denial of his right to trial. First, it forgets that categorical rules are ill suited to an inquiry that demands a “case-by-case examination” of the “totality of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor,529 U. S. 362, 391 (internal quotation marks omitted); Strickland,466 U. S., at 695. More fundamentally, it overlooks that the Hill v. Lockhart inquiry focuses on a defendant’s decisionmaking, which may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial.

    The decision whether to plead guilty also involves assessing the respective consequences of a conviction after trial and by plea. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 322–323. When those consequences are,from the defendant’s perspective, similarly dire, even the smallest chance of success at trial may look attractive. For Lee, deportation after some time in prison was not meaningfully different from deportation after somewhat less time; he says he accordingly would have rejected any plea leading to deportation in favor of throwing a “Hail Mary” at trial. Pointing to Strickland, the Government urges that “[a] defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decision maker.”466 U. S., at 695. That statement, however, was made in the context of discussing the presumption of reliability applied to judicial proceedings, which has no place where, as here, a defendant was deprived of a proceeding altogether. When the inquiry is focused on what an individual defendant would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be pertinent to the extent it would have affected the defendant’s decision making. Pp. 8–10.

    (c) Courts should not upset a plea solely because of post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies. Rather, they should look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant’s expressed preferences. In the unusual circumstances of this case, Lee has adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation: Both Lee and his attorney testified that “deportation was the determinative issue” to Lee; his responses during his plea colloquy confirmed the importance he placed on deportation; and he had strong connections to the United States, while he had no ties to South Korea.

    The Government argues that Lee cannot “convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances,” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 372, since deportation would almost certainly result from a trial. Unlike the Government,this Court cannot say that it would be irrational for someone in Lee’s position to risk additional prison time in exchange for holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation. Pp. 10–13.825 F. 3d 311, reversed and remanded.

    ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY,GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined except as to Part I. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

    Updated 06-23-2017 at 10:06 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: