Articles Posted in Deportation & Removal

Back in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security had instructed ICE enforcement agents to refrain from detaining individuals at sensitive locations. This 2011 memo required ICE agents to have prior approval before going to certain “sensitive locations”, including schools, churches, and hospitals. The list did not include courthouses among its list of sensitive locations. Recently, ICE has been making arrests at courthouses in and around the Bakersfield area.

The ACLU reported on the recent arrests made by ICE at the Kern County courthouses and noted that “ICE agents have repeatedly raided Kern County courthouses in recent years, rounding up residents waiting to pay fines, appear in court, get married, and even – in one case reported to the ACLU – get a domestic violence restraining order. ICE’s tactics are in tension with their own written policies, which state they will not conduct enforcement actions at “sensitive” locations. Ironically, the raids have kept people from paying tickets and attending court.”

In response to these arrests at courthouses, the ACLU wrote directly to ICE to address what they feel is a location that should be added to the “sensitive locations” list that was in the 2011 memo. The rationale for this is pretty clear, it is in the public interest for individuals that have court matters to be able to go to court without fearing being detained by ICE. Those with minor traffic offenses, seeking court orders for domestic violence matters and temporary restraining orders will be deterred from going to court if they fear being detained.

Federal immigration authorities have been advised to consider familial connections when they detain undocumented immigrant parents, according to an Obama administration directive released on Friday. While the document does not prevent the deportation of undocumented parents or high-priority criminal immigrants, it does allow detained individuals to make caregiver decisions for their children. This is a big step in helping keep families together instead of splitting them apart.

The directive specifically advises immigration agents to exercise prosecutorial discretion as early as possible during an immigrant’s detention, including finding out whether detained individuals are primary caretakers. It allows for the creation of a “field point of contact” in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents receive and address inquiries from both detained parents and their families. Agents are also guided to place detained parents in facilities that are within the “area of responsibility,” or somewhere closer to their children. It is clear from this directive that the care taking of U.S. citizen children remains a stronger priority than deporting the parents of U.S. citizen children who are not here legally.

A similar provision was included in the immigration bill that passed the Senate in May. That amendment, which was approved unanimously in committee, would provide detained parents the opportunity to figure out caretaker options for their children.

A federal judge has ruled that Immigration detainees in Southern California are entitled to bond hearings after remaining in custody for over six months. A preliminary injunction granting the bond hearings that had been in place for the past year are now going to be automatically granted. Senior U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. made the order permanent Wednesday and established that the hearings should be provided automatically rather than only at the detainee’s request.

The decision applies to more than 2,000 detainees in four Southern California facilities: Adelanto, James A. Musick, Theo Lacey and the Santa Ana City Jail. On an average day before the lawsuit, 400 to 500 people were in custody for more than six months as they contested their immigration cases, according to Kaufman.

Alejandro Rodriguez, one of the plaintiffs, was in immigration detention for more than three years while fighting his deportation. Two other plaintiffs were detained for more than a year. Such a long period of time without a bond hearing is a waste of government resources when the bond hearing might show that the person does not need to be detained during their deportation proceedings.

On June 11, 2013, AILA NBC Liaison Committee released a practice pointer, specified procedures to follow in filling and renewing an Adjustment of Status (I-485) application. When you are actually applying, make sure you check with your local immigration courts and USCIS field offices to see if there are case-specific variations to the following general procedures.

I. Initial filings

An adjustment of status (Form I-485) application can be filed by those who are in removal proceedings and are eligible, or become eligible, to have their status adjusted in one or two ways. Usually, the immigration court will determine the option applicant must follow.

As more and more immigrant families and communities are torn apart by current U.S. detention and deportation policies, it is crucial that that everyone concerned — citizens, community members, friends and family — stand up and speak out on these issues. Great action by the Detention Watch Network for Father’s Day:

Organize a teach-in or educational event about detention in your community

Organize a public action, vigil or march

A recent case from the 11th Circuit affirmed a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding departures from the U.S. and what is not considered a “departure” under the regulations. In 2012, the BIA decided Matter of Arrabally where they held “that an alien who has left and returned to the United States under a grant of advance parole has not made a ‘departure . . . from the United States’ within the meaning of [§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II)].”
In this recent decision by the 11 Circuit, the issue before them was whether the alien was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Under this statute, an immigrant who is not a lawful permanent resident, has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and seeks admission to the United States within ten years of the immigrant’s departure or removal from the United States is inadmissible. In this case, The Immigration Judge found that Malpica was removable under § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) because she had left the United States on July 18, 2003. However, she left pursuant to a grant of advance parole, and was paroled back into the United States on July 31, 2003. Under Matter of Arrabally, her exit pursuant to a grant of advance parole does not qualify as a “departure” within the meaning of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) and Malpica is, thus, not inadmissible under this section. Thus, this charge of removability cannot be sustained.

This decision by the 11th Circuit conforms with the BIA decision regarding the removability of an individual when they were admitted back to the U.S. pursuant to a grant of advanced parole. Before Matter of Arrabally had been decided, individuals who left the U.S. when they were removable under this provision were always at risk of being denied entry and removable from the U.S. Now, the BIA’s decision regarding this issue has been affirmed by one of the circuit courts. So long as the other circuit courts continue to decide the issue in this fashion, individuals who have been granted advanced parole, despite being removable under 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), will not have to worry about being denied reentry or being removed under that statute once they have been admitted.

Federal immigration law prohibits the attorney general from letting a noncitizen stay in the United States for any reason if he is convicted of an aggravated felony. The immigration system has held that every conviction for marijuana distribution is such a felony.

In a victory for common sense and fairness, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, 7 to 2, that a conviction for marijuana distribution under state law should not in all cases result in automatic deportation.

Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen who arrived legally in the United States in 1984 when he was 3 years old, was ordered deported by an immigration judge because he pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession of 1.3 grams of marijuana with intent to distribute under a Georgia law; that amount is enough to make about three marijuana cigarettes.

AILA recently shared an internal email communication between ICE and other agencies. The title of the attachment in the email is: “Prospective Criminal Apprehension Initiative”. The focus of course is on criminals, but more so, the need to meet certain numbers.

See the complete email report here: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/603861-ice-documents.html

Deportation numbers show that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is making good on its promise to focus on the more serious offenders in the undocumented immigrant population.

In a recent case from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the BIA has held that where an alien fails to appear for a hearing because he has departed the United States, termination of the pending proceedings is not appropriate if the alien received proper notice of the hearing and is removable as charged.

The alien departed the U.S. to Mexico once removal proceedings were instituted against him. His attorney filed a motion with the court to terminate the proceedings, since he left the country. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) objected to the motion and wanted to proceed in absentia (in absent) of the alien. The immigration judge sided with the alien and the case was terminated. DHS appealed this decision, wherein the BIA sided with DHS and concluded that it was an error to terminate the proceedings.

The BIA reasoned that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien does not need to be physically in the United States for the Immigration Judge to retain jurisdiction over pending proceedings and to conduct an in absentia hearing. In fact, the purpose of in absentia proceedings is to determine whether the DHS can meet its burden to establish that the alien, who did not appear, received proper notice and is removable as charged. If the DHS meets its burden, the Immigration Judge should issue an order of removal; if it cannot, the Immigration Judge should terminate proceedings.