Blog Topic

When You Sign to Be Removed from the United States with ICE then Change Your Mind
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
November 17, 2011

We often have detained clients who contact our office after signing to be removed from the United States. These clients have often been detained unexpectedly and are tired. Suddenly an ICE Officer appears advising client that their case may be "hopeless". The ICE officer then provides the option for the client to sign to be removed.

Detained individuals will typically be presented with two different documents when in immigration detention. An 826 Notice is presented and a 10 page document where a detained individual can agree to waive an attorney and select options including being removed from the United States. Often, the client signs to be removed, and later regrets this option and reaches out to immigration legal counsel to help them.

The purpose of this short blog article is to provide instructions on what to do when a detained individual in ICE custody seeks to withdraw and retract what he or she signed which has now caused them to be in the process of being physically removed and deported without any legal representation.

Fortunately, if you know anyone in this situation, it is NOT too late to retract and withdraw having signed to be removed from the United States. In order to withdraw what is now a signed Stipulated Order to be deported, however, one must engage an Immigration attorney to take very swift action.

An Immigration attorney may file a "Motion to Withdraw Stipulated Order" in U.S. Immigration Court. In order for the motion to be successfully granted, facts are important. Speaking with Immigration counsel and establishing the facts is essential for the attorney to prepare a well written Motion to Withdraw. Once the Judge agrees to withdraw the Stipulated Order, a detained or non detained foreign national may move forward in fighting against being removed or deported from the United States.

If you have any questions or concerns, our attorneys are available to meet with you, and you may contact us at info@scottcclaw.com. Or Visit our website at http://www.scottcclaw.com/ where our different office telephone numbers are listed for your convenience.

ScottMond Law Firm

http://www.scottcclaw.com/

Permalink

Finally, Some Relief for Clients and Respondents in Removal
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
October 17, 2011

On August 18^th, 2011, the current Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") announced the establishment of a high-level joint Department of Homeland Security along with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to determine which cases are high priority versus low priority. In distinguishing between these two categories, only high priority cases will cause individuals to be placed into removal proceedings, and low priority cases already in proceedings would be strongly considered for administrative closing by ICE/DHS attorneys. Closing an individual's case currently in deportation or removal proceedings would also result in the client becoming eligible for work authorization.

Factors in Determining High versus Low Priority

Two John Morton memorandums ("Morton Memo") issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 17^th 2011 lay out the detailed factors to be considered in a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion . Essentially, a favorable exercise of discretion would allow clients to terminate proceedings and receive work authorization eventually. A complex balancing test of factors will be used to determine eligibility. Daily as immigration attorneys, we are seeing how the following factors are being used to favor our clients with DHS. Below are some of the factors enumerated in the Morton Memo:

• Long time Permanent residents

• Minors and the Elderly

• Individuals who have Been Present Since Childhood

• Individuals with serious disabilities or health issues

• Women Who are Nursing or Pregnant

• Victims of Domestic Violence or other serious crimes

Again, DHS will be weighing the totality of the circumstances in each individual's case.

Clients with Criminal Record

It is good to know that there is no particular crime that makes any client ineligible for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. However, the following activities may cause an individual's case to be declined a favorable review of discretion:

• Serious felons

• Repeat Offenders

• Individuals with a lengthy criminal record of any kind

• Known Gang Members

Overall, the announcement is very recent. We are just beginning to see how ICE/DHS attorneys are deciding which cases they will close and cease removal and deportation proceedings against our clients. How long a favorable grant to terminate will last is not known by anyone, but maybe the Obama Administration. However, this is truly good news for our clients and anyone facing removal proceedings. An immigration attorney is essential to guide you through this complex but hopeful temporary relief from removal.

To contact our law office, you may contact us at info@scottcclaw.com or call us at our numbers conveniently listed on our website http://www.scottcclaw.com/.

ScottMond Law Firm

http://www.scottcclaw.com/

Permalink

My Immigration Case is Over, I Have Done My Part, Now How Do I Get Back Money Posted For Bond
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
September 19, 2011

Our clients often have questions about how to request their bond back from ICE-Department of Homeland Security after being in Deportation or Removal Immigration Proceedings. While the immigration attorney is not involved in this process nor influences it, the purpose of this article is to provide some guidance on the issue.

First, it is important to understand that a client will not be able to get back their bond until the their case is actually closed with the U.S. Immigration court AND all terms are complied with. There are a couple scenarios in which a bond will be granted by a U.S. immigration judge. First, in case of voluntary departure; and also in the case where a client has a plausible case (relief) in a U.S. immigration court, and the judge deems the client is not a flight risk. The judge in this instance, will grant bond during the litigation of the removal case. The rules for either of these scenarios slightly vary. However, below are some basic steps for clients to get their bond returned at the very end of an immigration case.
The detained Client or Voluntary Departure Client ("Client") had to have choosen an Obligor for their bond. (Client and Obligor are two different parties). The bond will be returned to the Obligor regardless of which party actually puts up the cash.

Next, Complete form I-210 with ICE/DHS. In the case of voluntary departure, when Client arrives back to his or her home country submit form I-210.

Finally, Client also sends a copy of the completed Form I-210 to the Obligor in the United States, if applicable. The Obligor will then go to ICE/DHS in the U.S. with the original receiptand completed from I-210 and any other form ICE may require.

Actually qualifying for bond in a U.S. Immigration Court is a complex legal qualification and requires a U.S. immigration attorney. However, the actual procedure of retrieving back bond monies, is best dealt with directly with ICE/DHS. The above is a general guide and will hopefully help assist in successfully retrieving back your bond paid to ICE/DHS.

If you have any questions you may contact us at info@scottcclaw.com or call any of our offices at our telephone numbers conveniently listed at www.scottcclaw.com

Permalink

I have lost my U.S. Immigration Court Case What Now!
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
July 22, 2011

The purpose of this brief article is to equip clients and individuals in removal/deportation proceedings with an understanding of their options in the event they lose their case in U.S. immigration court. All hope is not lost.

We understand that this is a devastating time for our clients. We have taken over several cases that were lost be prior attorneys or counsel and taken the next essential steps to give clients another chance to win a meritorious case in the U.S. Immigration court system.

Time is of the essence when someone loses their immigration case. The three main options are as follows: 1) file a motion to reopen the immigration case, 2) file a motion to reconsider, and/or 3) to file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). All three options must be completed within 30 days or less.

First, a motion to reopen requires that a new set of facts be introduced. The factors are very legally specific. One factor seriously considered by the court is prior ineffective counsel. This requires urgently having new independent immigration review the case. Other factors considered by the court involve the introduction of new evidence or a change in U.S.status.

A form called I-290B must be filed and accompanied by a legal brief in 30 days or less for the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order being entered. This deadline is very strict.

Second, a motion to reconsider is also an option and asks the IJ to reconsider the same set of facts based on a belief that the judge may not have clearly fully considered all factors in the case. The same strict deadlines above apply.

Finally, an appeal may be filed to the BIA within 30 days which is an appellate court. The filing requirements for the above are complex and require an experienced U.S. Immigration attorney. A second opinion by a new immigration counsel is always a very wise step.

If you need a consultation or have a question or may contact us at info@scottcclaw.com or our telephone numbers are listed at http://www.scottcclaw.com/ for your convenience.

Permalink

Digging Deeper and Deeper How Far Will They Go? When the Non-Citizen is in Deportation Proceedings..Challenging the Government on Removability
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
November 23, 2010

Categorical, Modified Categorical, Matter of Silva-Trevino-what does this all mean for someone who has been placed in removal based on past criminal convictions?

This brief article gives a simplified explanation of how someone, who is not a lawyer, may understand a couple critical ways to challenge ICE ("the government") if they are placed in removal based on past criminal convictions. However, as this is a highly complex area of the law, immigration counsel is an absolute necessity to win in removal or deportation proceedings.

If a non-citizen is convicted of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. ("CIMT"), they may be placed in removal proceedings sooner or later. A CIMT in very simple terms is doing something that hurts society and is "very bad". When someone is placed in removal proceedings first it should be determined whether the offense is really a CIMT deeming the non-citizen removable from the United States. If it is found that the non-citizen has indeed committed a CIMT, then determining the type of relief or defense is essential. This article only discusses whether a non-citizen is even removable, or has the government made a mistake in placing the non-citizen in removal proceedings.

When a non-citizen is placed in removal or deportation proceedings after they have already been tried in a court of law for their crime; he or she may feel they are on trial a second time. Federal and State law clearly prohibits double jeopardy and the retrying of a case. However, it is debatable under current litigation practices between the government and the non-citizen's attorney that a "retrial" is not actually taking place.

Over the past years, when a non-citizen was placed in removal, the only evidence that the judge could consider was the actual statute in which the non-citizen was convicted to determine removability. The government could try to introduce other evidence that proved what the actual "conduct" of the non-citizen was, but this evidence would not be considered. This method applied if the statute was not divided into small subparts.

If it was found that the statute incorporated removable and non removable offenses and the least "culpable" behavior did not meet the federal definition of a removable offense, the non-citizen would win. In simple terms, if the State statute that an individual is convicted of violating is so broad that no one can be sure by looking at the statute alone what the non-citizen was even convicted of, the non-citizen wins if the statute includes offenses in which a non-citizen may NOT be removed. It all depends on how the State decided to write the statute. It would not be fair to remove someone if they were convicted for only touching someone against their will in a battery situation, where a CIMT required hitting, or hurting and the non-citizen did not commit the behavior which renders him or her to have committed a CIMT and therefore be removable. It just so happens that the statute is written so broad no one can really tell. Under this categorical approach the Immigration judge or court is only allowed to look at the conviction which is the indictment, plea, verdict, and sentence. (sometimes jury instructions). This is only how far they can "dig" to determine which section of the statute has been violated. And if in this digging no one can really tell because the statute is written very broad- the non-citizen wins and they would not be removed from the United States.

However, if the statute is divisible meaning that it is written with subparts and very specific in itemizing different types of violations, the non-citizen's conviction is scrutinized much closer. The Immigration judge and court may allow the government to dig even further into the non-citizen's file, not to determine conduct- but to determine what part of the itemized statute the non-citizen was actually convicted of. This is referred to as the modified categorical approach. Now the evidence that can be looked at to determine what subpart of a divisible statue the non-citizen was convicted of includes, but may not be limited to, the factual basis for a plea, or the jury instructions in case of verdict.

Very recently, significant and dramatic changes have taken place that makes it tougher for the non-citizen in removal proceedings. Under the new case Matter of Silva-Trevino the world of "how to determine if a non-citizen committed a CIMT" has becomemore challenging. Now the court and judges can dig even deeper into the non-citizens criminal file. The new method claims to still focus on the elements of the state statute to see if it is a CIMT, and not look at the actual circumstances underlying the offense. However, now even police notes amongst other evidence is being used to determine if a crime is a CIMT, and the burden of proof has also shifted largely from the government to an alien that is removable. (At least one judge suggested that the police note would need to be admitted and attached as actual evidence to the record of conviction to be considered). Please note that some of the complex analysis has been left out here purposely to help the reader focus on the big picture.

One troublesome point to highlight is if a state statute is broad and involves removable and non-removable offenses then the burden is on the non-citizen to go and find a case or cases that show the criminal statute was used to prosecute and convict someone for conduct that did not involve moral turpitude (i.e. a CIMT) and then maybe the non-citizen will win.

Overall, the deeper digging where will it stop? Keeping abreast of current cases with your immigration counsel is critical as this issue may in the future reach the U.S. Supreme court and the law continues to evolve. The non-citizen needs to work with their Immigration attorney to find a way to use the "deeper digging" to their advantage. It is also important to argue that Matter of Silva-Trevino was wrongly decided if your immigration attorney sees this as advantageous and appropriate aggressive representation.

Please feel free to contact our office with any questions at info@scottcclaw.com . You may call us at 703.955.7998 or 202.296.0122. We have offices in Northern Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C.

ScottMond Law Firm

http://www.scottcclaw.com/

Permalink

HELPING THE REMOVAL PROCEEDING NIGHTMARE TO BE OVER SOONER!
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
August 30, 2010

On August 20 ^th , 2010 U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement ("ICE") issued a memorandum from Assistant Secretary John Morton that will make a non-citizen or alien who is placed in removal proceedings eligible for relief if they have a pending Petition for Alien Relative ("Form I-130 or petition").

Basically, ICE and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (" USCIS") will now work more efficiently together so that non-citizens placed in removal will either have his and/or her case expedited or dismissed without prejudice. This would occur once ICE verifies that the individual is indeed eligible for the relief.

Detained individuals or aliens eligible for I-130 relief would seek to complete the adjudication of all applications and petitions referred by ICE within 30 days for detained aliens. Once their are no adverse factors there should be prompt move to dismiss proceedings before the Executive Office of Immigration Review ( "EOIR").

Undetained individuals or aliens would have their cases adjudicated within 45 days. Where an underlying application or petition exists and ICE determines eligibility for relief from removal, the case should also be promptly dismissed with EOIR.

The memorandum sums up the standard of review as follows:

Only removal cases that meet the following criteria will be considered for dismissal:

• The alien must be the subject of an application or petition filed with USCIS to include a current priority date, if required, for adjust of status;
• The alien appears eligible for relief as a matter of law and in the exercise of discretion;
• The alien must preset a completed Application to register Permanent Residence or Adjust Stats (Form I-485), if required; and
• The alien beneficiary must be statutorily eligible for adjustment of status ( a waiver must be available for any ground of inadmissibility).

For more information you may contact our office at info@scottcclaw.com or call (703)955.7998.

ScottMond Law Firm

Permalink

What Do I Do? I or Someone I Know has been Detained by Immigration ICE Officals!
Posted by: ScottMond Law Firm
August 26, 2010

A knock at the door and the dreaded happens. All you can think of is why me? An Immigration ICE official is at the door searching for you or your family member/friend. You knew your visa had expired and with valid reason. You ran out of money for school, you can't return to your home country where it is hopeless, destitute and no future exists for you at this time. Plus all your family or friends may be here in the United States. Nonetheless, here you are caught with an ICE official at your door who wants you to surrender yourself and your travel plus visa documents. Although you may have a good reason, U.S. Immigration laws are very strict regarding overstaying visas or falling out of status.

Cooperating with the ICE official is the first essential step in resolving your immigration status problems. Do not resist them for any reason, but promptly retain good aggressive immigration counsel. Foreign Nationals are usually immediately detained, but can be released in as short as 24-48 hours with bond being arranged by immigration counsel.

Determining whether you have good immigration relief is the first step of immigration counsel. There are several immigration waivers and cancellation of removal may be available even if you have a criminal record or encounters with the law on your record.

The overall process starts with an ICE officer coming out. They usually ask that you appear the next morning, or may take you into custody the same day. Once they process you, your attorney through DRO or Immigration court will arrange for bond. Next a Notice to Appear (NTA) is issued and you may be detained at an Immigration Facility until bond is paid. In Virgina, Hampton Roads and Rappahannock Regional Jail are the standard facilities used. Others are currently being opened. Having an attorney enter there appearance through a G-28 helps to ensure you are not transferred to another state. Finally, a court date is set and an immigration judge will then set a date once your immigration relief is identified.

For further information and questions please call (703)955.7998 or email glendiar@scottcclaw.com

ScottMond Law Firm

Permalink