Deportation (Removal) Proceedings

LA ICE Protests: A Look into the Upcoming Legal Fallout

Published on: June 18, 2025 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Over the past weekend, Los Angeles was rocked by riots and protests sparked by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. What began as peaceful demonstrations against aggressive immigration enforcement escalated into violent unrest– looting, burning cars, throwing bricks at squad vehicles, and even riding a motorcycle into a line of officers. By Sunday night, Los Angeles police declared all of downtown an unlawful assembly area, ordering protesters to disperse after three days of demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

In response to the turmoil, President Trump made the extraordinary decision to “federalize” the California National Guard and deploy troops in Los Angeles. This move came over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who condemned the federal intervention as overreach. Nevertheless, on June 7, President Trump issued an executive memorandum calling National Guard units into federal service under 10 U.S.C. §12406, citing the wave of violent protests as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the United States.” By Sunday, 2,000 National Guard personnel were ordered to assist the LA police department, however many seem to question if this move is what turned the LA ICE protests into full blown riots. Further fueling the unrest, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deployed 700 marines to aid the national guard in their protection of federal buildings early Tuesday (June 10th) morning.

Federal vs. State Authority: Was This a Legal Move?

THE NEW ORLANDO IMMIGRATION COURT HAS OPENED, I WENT THERE AND HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED.

Published on: March 27, 2024 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The Orlando Immigration Court has finally moved to the new space in downtown Orlando! This move was years in the making and is a welcome expansion and modernization from the old building where the court has been for over a decade. The address for the new building is 500 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1100, Orlando, Florida 32801. The new building is shared with the Social Security Administration and the SSA signage on the building is very prominent. But do not be fooled, the Orlando Immigration Court and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA-the ICE attorneys) are both located in the building.

Finding the Orlando Immigration Court and Parking

The entrance to the Orlando Immigration Court is on the southeast corner of the building on North Orange Avenue and the entrance doors have multiple DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) Emblems on the doors so you know where to enter. The Immigration Court is administered by the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) which is part of the Department of Justice, just in case you are wondering why there are DOJ signs on the door. Parking is an issue. There is a small surface lot with an entrance off of Amelia Street just west of Orange Avenue. That lot has about 20 or so spaces and there is a fee to park there. I am told there are additional paid spaces in the parking garage attached to the building, but they may be hard to locate. Luckily, there are parking meters on both sides of Orange Avenue with a two-hour time limit that provides for additional parking in front of the court. The meters accept credit cards, but some are not working. There is a large vacant lot across from the court in between Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and it is fenced but has multiple entrances. There is no fee to park in that lot (at least for now) and there is an exit from that lot onto Orange Avenue so that you can walk directly to the immigration court from the lot.

I APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP OR A GREEN CARD AND FOUND OUT I HAVE AN ORDER OF REMOVAL OR DEPORTATION, WHAT DO I DO NOW?

Published on: December 18, 2023 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

It happens way more often than you would think. A person applies for lawful permanent resident status (also known as a green card) and during the process they find out they are not eligible because there is an order of removal or deportation in their file. Sometimes, a person with an order of removal can obtain lawful permanent resident status because of an oversight by USCIS, but when the same person applies for U.S. citizenship, they are denied because of the old order of removal. Most of the time, the person has no idea they were in immigration court removal proceedings or that they had an order of removal. Many times, that order of removal was issued by an immigration judge because the person did not show up for court, usually because they had no idea they were scheduled to appear for court. In either scenario, there is a solution . . .a motion to reopen.

Failure-to-appear-750-1280x720-1024x576-1
We are contacted all the time by people who had I-485 Applications to Adjust Status denied or closed because of an outstanding removal order. Sometimes the caller knows they had the order of removal already, but many times they had no idea. We also receive calls from people who have green cards for years and then applied for citizenship and were denied because USCIS sees an old order of removal in their file. The good news is, there is a solution.

51RpqFAZwL
We have been successful in numerous cases going back to reopen and terminate or dismissing the old immigration court cases. Once the old case is reopened, the order of removal is gone and if the case is terminated or dismissed, we refile for lawful permanent residence or citizenship and the path is now clear for success.

WHAT DOES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S RECENT IMMIGRATION DECISION IN U.S. V. TEXAS MEAN FOR NON-CITIZENS?

Published on: July 13, 2023 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

On June 23, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited immigration opinion in the case of U.S. v. Texas. The justices agreed 8-1 that the states who filed the lawsuit against the federal government over what the states perceived as the non-enforcement of immigration laws could not sue the government in this case. The eight justices disagreed on exactly why the federal courts could not handle this case and give the states what they wanted, but all eight agreed that the lower courts were wrong in getting involved in this matter.

So, what was U.S. v. Texas about and how does this decision affect non-citizens in the United States? In 2021, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, issued a memo regarding what types of cases the federal immigration officers should focus their efforts on for detention and removal from the United States. By listing groups of non-citizens who immigration officers were to focus on, this automatically created a group of non-citizens who became “non-priorities.” Multiple states like Texas did not like the “Mayorkas Memo” and sued in federal court to stop the federal immigration officers from using this memo in making detention and removal decisions. The first two federal courts who heard the case agreed that states like Texas were harmed by immigration officers prioritizing certain non-citizens for removal and thereby potentially ignoring other non-citizens who were subject to detention and removal but were not priorities. The courts initially stopped the Department of Homeland Security from using the memo in immigration enforcement decisions.

The Mayorkas memo remained sidelined until the Supreme Court decided that NO court has jurisdiction to even hear this case, let alone strike down the Mayorkas Memo. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts were not the place for states to sue the federal government to force them to use their “prosecutorial discretion” to detain and deport every non-citizen they could. The Supreme Court listed multiple other ways that this perceived non-enforcement or prosecutorial discretion issue could be addressed, including through elections and in the Congressional oversight and funding context.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Certain Noncitizens With Removal Orders Are Not Entitled To A Bond Hearing After Prolonged Detention

Published on: June 14, 2022 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

5BE4E053-A779-4BA9-AC75-AD273202E118 The United States Supreme Court recently released a decision on June 13th, 2022 that will allow for prolonged detention of certain noncitizens who have a removal order, without the benefit of judicial review. This decision is an unwelcome blow to those that have been held in custody for periods longer than six months because they will not be able to obtain a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge. The decision whether to continue detention or to release them on terms of supervision will remain with ICE.

§241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the detention of noncitizens who have deportation orders against them. Under that provision, the noncitizen is supposed to be detained and removed within a period of 90 days. This is known as the “removal period.” §241(a)(6) provides that after the 90 day removal period, certain noncitizens may be detained or released on terms of supervision. Any noncitizen not enumerated under §241(a)(6) that has not been removed within 90 days must be released.

§241(a)(6) allows the continued detention of noncitizens who (1) are inadmissible on certain grounds, (2) are removable on certain grounds, (3) are a risk to the community, or (4) are unlikely to comply with an order of removal. The problem with this provision is that it does not state how long a noncitizen can be detained past the 90 day removal period. Six months? A year? Ten years? Some courts have dealt with this issue by authorizing a bond hearing after six months in custody. Such was the case here, in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez.

Florida Marijuana Convictions May No Longer Be Deportable Offenses

Published on: March 24, 2022 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

AdobeStock_398838474-300x225 Today, the Eleventh Circuit released what looks like may be a landmark decision in Said v. U.S. Atty Gen’l. This court opinion affects all non-citizens who have or will have Florida marijuana convictions. Under §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien who commits a violation of any state law or regulation relating to a controlled substance, as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802, is inadmissible. Under §237(a)(2)(B), any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of any law or regulation of a State…relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana is deportable. So, prior to this decision, most non-citizens with marijuana convictions were deportable and/or inadmissible with the only possible exception being for a single possession of 30 grams of marijuana or less.

But in order for a marijuana conviction to qualify as a deportable offense or a crime of inadmissibility, marijuana, as defined under Florida law must qualify as a controlled substance, as defined under Federal law in 21 U.S.C. §802. And that is exactly what the Eleventh Circuit analyzed in Said. In Said, the Court looked at the definition of marijuana (or cannabis, as it is referred to in the Florida Statute) in Fla. Stat. §893.02(3) and the definition of marijuana under Federal law in 21 U.S.C. §802(16) to determine whether they were a match.

The Eleventh Circuit determined that the Florida definition of marijuana is broader than the federal definition. Florida includes the mature stalk of the marijuana AdobeStock_348186656-Converted-300x176 plant in its definition. Federal law does not. Therefore, a person could be convicted of a marijuana offense in Florida that involved only the mature stalk of the plant. However, that same person could not be convicted under Federal Law. So, it appears that a violation of Florida’s law relating to a controlled substance (marijuana) is not “as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802.”

Florida Immigration Law Racially Motivated According to Federal Judge; Sanctuary Cities; Florida Deportation

Published on: December 13, 2021 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Florida Immigration Law Racially Motivated, According to Federal Judge

Portions of Florida’s immigration enforcement law that was a priority for Republican governor Ron DeSantis has been struck down by a federal judge, according to a report published by the Associated Press (AP). U.S. Federal Judge Beth Bloom rejected the sections of the law banning local government sanctuary policies as well as those requiring local law enforcement to make best efforts to coordinate with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill, which was pushed as a priority for his administration, into law in 2019. The governor’s office told news outlets that it would appeal Judge Bloom’s decision.

This is not the first time DeSantis has been challenged on laws passed during his administration. Others include state orders to ban mask mandates in schools, new election rules making vote-by-mail more difficult, and limits on contributions to groups seeking to change the Florida constitution, among others.

A New Asylum Office has opened in Tampa, Florida

Published on: July 27, 2021 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

USCIS—the government agency that receives most of the country’s asylum applications—has opened a new office in Tampa, Florida. Before this happened, everyone who was not in immigration court and who applied for asylum in the entire state of Florida had to go to Miami for their asylum interview. Sure there were exceptions, on occasion, asylum officers would go to Jacksonville, Florida to conduct interviews, but those interviews were few and far between.

Now, people from Pensacola to Jacksonville to Tampa no longer have to make the long and expensive trip to Miami for an asylum interview. Now, people from the Tampa Bay area, parts of Central and all of North Florida will head to Tampa for their interviews to see if they will be granted asylum. This is great news for everyone involved. This will make it easier for asylum applicants to travel to their interviews, this will make asylum interviews happen more frequently for all Floridians as there are now two offices and more officers conducting interviews. This will also make it more cost-effective for asylum applicants to bring their attorneys to their asylum interviews.

tampa-suburbs
USCIS has not yet released all the details or the exact geographical boundaries for the Tampa asylum office. What we do know is they are already open as of June, 2021 and they are already conducting interviews. The office is in the same building as ICE, so if you have been reporting to the Tampa ICE office for check-ins and you are called for an asylum interview, you will go to the same building. The address of the office is 524 W Cypress St, Tampa, Florida, 33607 right near the Tampa International Airport.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez could mean new hope for thousands of long-term residents who are out of status.

Published on: May 20, 2021 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland that could help thousands of people who have been in the U.S. for over a decade and who do not have lawful immigration status. The exact people who are helped by this decision are people who are or were in immigration court removal proceedings and are eligible for a form of relief called Cancellation of Removal for Certain Non-Permanent Residents. This decision can help people who have been in the U.S. for more than a decade, have good moral character and who have a close relative who has lawful immigration status and who will suffer greatly if they are deported. There are other requirements for Cancellation of Removal which are outlined below.

WHO WILL BE HELPED BY THIS DECISION?

If you are or were in immigration court removal proceedings and you would be eligible for Cancellation of Removal, but immigration officers sent you a document called a Notice to Appear less than 10 years after you entered the U.S., this decision could be a game changer for your case. Why? Because in 2018, the Supreme Court said in a decision called Pereira v. Sessions that if the Notice to Appear you received does not have the time, date and location of your first Court hearing, then it is legally deficient. Why is that important? Because of something called the stop time rule. The stop time rule says that if you are otherwise eligible for Cancellation of Removal, but you are sent an NTA before you have been then the U.S. for the required 10 years, then you are not eligible for Cancellation of Removal. That is because receiving an NTA stops the clock on your 10 years of physical presence in the U.S., which is required to qualify for Cancellation.

TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELANS IS COMING!

Published on: March 8, 2021 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

It has finally happened, President Biden is set to announce that as of Monday, March 8, 2021, Venezuelans in the United States may qualify for Temporary Protected Status, also known as TPS.

WHO WILL QUALIFY FOR VENEZUELAN TPS?

The exact requirements for Venezuelan TPS have not yet been published (they should be soon), but based upon the TPS law and past TPS announcements, here is what I anticipate will be the TPS requirement for Venezuelans: