Deportation (Removal) Proceedings

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:

PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED DEFERRED ENFORCED DEPARTURE FOR VENEZUELANS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

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

On his last full day as President, Donald Trump issued a “Memorandum on Deferred Enforced Departure for Certain Venezuelans.” There is much confusion about what this means for Venezuelan citizens in the United States. USCIS, the agency that handles applications for immigration benefits like Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), has not yet issued guidance or instructions for how to apply for Deferred Enforced Departure. However, other countries and regions have benefited from Deferred Enforced Departure in the past and that can provide guidance for how Venezuelan Deferred Enforced Departure will be rolled out by the Department of Homeland Security.

Flag_of_Venezuela_%28state%29
Here is what we do know about Venezuelan Deferred Enforced Departure:

It will last for at least 18 months and can be renewed;

False Claims to U.S. Citizenship do not need to be knowingly made to make a person deportable

Published on: April 24, 2020 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

adobe-spark-post-1
Few things have a more dramatic effect on a person’s immigration case than an allegation of False Claim to U.S. citizenship. A recent Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision and resulting policy change by USCIS further ensnare people into this ground of inadmissibility. Let’s take a look:

What is a False Claim to U.S. Citizenship?

Under §212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any person who falsely represents, or has falsely represented himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible. Under §237(a)(3)(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is deportable. This often comes up in the context of a non-citizen who registers to vote or checks a box on the I-9 form stating that they are a U.S. citizen in order to get a job or in some other non-immigration related situation where the person is asked for evidence that they are in the United States lawfully. Then when the person applies for a greencard or naturalization, the the issue comes up.

Cancellation of Removal Just Got A Little Bit Harder

Published on: April 3, 2020 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

adobe-spark-post-300x169
A new Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of J-J-G, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020) has made it more difficult for foreign nationals to obtain Cancellation of Removal. Cancellation of Removal is a form of relief from deportation where the foreign national, even if he or she entered the United States without any papers, has been in the United States for 10 years or more, has had good moral character for 10 years, has not been convicted of certain crimes, warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, and finally, has a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent or child that would incur exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the foreign national were deported. This form of relief is extremely valuable for many people who entered the United States a long time ago without papers. In fact, if the Immigration Judge grants the cancellation of removal, the foreign national will get a greencard. So, why did it just become more difficult to get Cancellation of Removal?

How do I get Cancellation of Removal?

Cancellation of removal is a form of relief from deportation only available in Immigration Court. That means that you can’t apply for it unless you are already in removal (deportation) proceedings. For many foreign nationals who have no options available to them to apply for affirmatively, cancellation of removal in immigration court can be a godsend. Once you are in Immigration Court, you would apply for Cancellation of Removal by submitting form EOIR-42B and applicable evidence. The Immigration Judge would schedule your case for an Individual Hearing, which would be like a bench trial before the judge where you would present witnesses and evidence. Lawful permanent residents would submit Form EOIR-42A and applicable evidence. Lawful permanent residents do not have to establish that their removal would result in Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, so this blog and the J-J-G case applies only to nonpermanent residents.