Lawful Permanent Residents

Published on: November 5, 2015

Whether you are a Defendant in State or Federal Court, if you are not a U.S. Citizen, you need an Immigration Attorney Immediately.

Finding yourself in handcuffs and under arrest is a traumatic experience for everyone. Many thoughts run through your mind, where will they take me, will I be able to get out of jail, can I afford a criminal defense attorney? One thought that should also be at the forefront for everyone arrested who is not a U.S. citizen is, how will this arrest affect my immigration status and will I be deported?

For non-citizens who are arrested, hiring a criminal defense attorney is just the first step in protecting your rights. While criminal defense attorneys in both state and federal court are charged by the U.S. Constitution with providing accurate immigration advice to their clients, in reality, this often does not happen. Criminal defense attorneys are often unable to give accurate immigration advice because they do not practice immigration law and have no idea what the effects of a given criminal charge will be for a client.

This is true because the criminal aspects of immigration law, or crimmigration is a very nuisanced, complicated, ever-changing and inconsistent area of law that even the most experienced immigration attorneys are often fearful of practicing. If immigration attorneys don’t know the immigration consequences of criminal prosecutions, how can your criminal defense attorney be expected to know them?

Published on: October 14, 2015

SLG Attorneys Speak at the 2015 AILA Central Florida Annual Conference

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

This Friday and Saturday, October 16th & 17th, the Central Florida Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) will host its 2015 Annual Immigration Law Conference in Orlando. This conference will feature leading immigration experts from across the United States and a sitting U.S. Congressman. The venue is the beautiful Omni Champions Gate Resort.

SLG has the honor of having two of its partners, Jeremy Lasnetski and John Gihon, selected to be panelists at the conference.

Jeremy was chosen to be the discussion leader on the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization panel. This panel will cover topics including the acquisition of citizenship by birth abroad, derivation of citizenship through a naturalizing parent and the requirements and procedure for naturalization.

Published on: October 12, 2015

Collaboration between AILA Central Florida and AILA Georgia-Alabama brings you Federal Court Summaries Part 3.

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Over the last few months I had the opportunity to work with some fantastic immigration attorneys across the Southeast United States on a collaborative project. Our goal was to find, review and summarize every immigration-related and useful District Court and Circuit Court Case from the Eleventh Circuit and put them together in a newsletter. This was an enjoyable and educational experience. We expect to send out this newsletter every quarter and it will contain published and unpublished District Court cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This would not be possible without the hard work of our multi-state team composed of Marshall Cohen, Roberta Cooper, Bruce Buchanan and myself, John Gihon. Here is an excerpt of the 11th Circuit Cases. If anyone reading this newsletter has any suggestions, please contact me at John@slgattorneys.com or our editor, Bruce Buchanan at bbuchanan@visalaw.com

District Court Opinions

Published on: October 9, 2015

Collaboration between AILA Central Florida and AILA Georgia-Alabama brings you Federal Court Summaries Part 2.

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Over the last few months I had the opportunity to work with some fantastic immigration attorneys across the Southeast United States on a collaborative project. Our goal was to find, review and summarize every immigration-related and useful District Court and Circuit Court Case from the Eleventh Circuit and put them together in a newsletter. This was an enjoyable and educational experience. We expect to send out this newsletter every quarter and it will contain published and unpublished District Court cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This would not be possible without the hard work of our multi-state team composed of Marshall Cohen, Roberta Cooper, Bruce Buchanan and myself, John Gihon. Here is an excerpt of the 11th Circuit Cases. If anyone reading this newsletter has any suggestions, please contact me at John@slgattorneys.com or our editor, Bruce Buchanan at bbuchanan@visalaw.com

11th Circuit Decisions (September)

Published on: October 7, 2015

Collaboration between AILA Central Florida and AILA Georgia-Alabama brings you Federal Court Summaries Part 1.

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Over the last few months I had the opportunity to work with some fantastic immigration attorneys across the Southeast United States on a collaborative project. Our goal was to find, review and summarize every immigration-related and useful District Court and Circuit Court Case from the Eleventh Circuit and put them together in a newsletter. This was an enjoyable and educational experience. We expect to send out this newsletter every quarter and it will contain published and unpublished District Court cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This would not be possible without the hard work of our multi-state team composed of Marshall Cohen, Roberta Cooper, Bruce Buchanan and myself, John Gihon. Here is an excerpt of the 11th Circuit Cases. If anyone reading this newsletter has any suggestions, please contact me at John@slgattorneys.com or our editor, Bruce Buchanan at bbuchanan@visalaw.com

11th Circuit Decisions (June through August)

Published on: September 28, 2015

A Law Pending in the Florida Legislature Unfairly Targets Immigrants for Prosecution for Something they Cannot Control.

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Recently a concerned colleague sent a me a link to a bill that is under consideration in both the Florida House of Representatives and the Senate.

The crux of the bill is to make it illegal for immigrants to be in the State of Florida after they have a final order of deportation. For a copy of the bill follow these links:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/0118/BillText/__/PDF

Published on: September 21, 2015

New Rule in Immigration Court will Give More Access to Attorneys for Detained Immigrants

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has money to detain approximately 34,000 immigrants at any give time across the United States. Many of the ICE detainees are poor, uneducated immigrants with no hope to stay in the country legally, attorney or not. But many detainees, with or without legal status, have been educated in the U.S., have jobs, families and clear eligibility for relief from deportation. They are not flight risks or dangers to the community and will show up in Immigration Court because they want to stay in the country.

Many detained immigrants are eligible to be released on a bond, however, some are subject to mandatory detention and are not eligible for release. Either way, every detainee should have an attorney look over their case to makes sure the ICE officers and attorneys have brought the right charges, filed the right documents and can prove the case.

Unfortunately, many detained immigrants cannot afford to hire an immigration attorney to represent them during the entirety of a removal case. That is because a complete removal case, which includes bond proceedings, removability arguments and relief from deportation trials, is time-consuming, complicated and expensive.

Published on: September 14, 2015

Summaries of Recent Publish Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Matter of D-M-C-P-, 26 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2015); The Board decided that neither the Board, nor the Immigration Courts have jurisdiction to determine if a respondent was properly placed into Asylum-Only Proceedings pursuant to INA § 217. Once an immigration officer determined that an alien was subject to removal as a visa waiver violator, the only issue the Immigration Court or the Board could review is whether the alien qualified for asylum or withholding or deferral of removal. In addition, the Immigration Judge cannot dismiss properly-filed applications for relief from removal due to an alien’s failure to comply with the biometrics requirement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d), unless the respondent was advised of the biometrics requirement, provided a deadline for complying and advised of the consequences for failing to comply.

Matter of M-A-F- et al., 26 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 2015); The Board held that where a respondent has filed a second or substantially amended asylum application, it will be considered a new application, and the filing date of the later application is operative for determining if the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 apply and if an asylum applicant has met the one-year filing deadline. The Court will conduct a case-by-case factual analysis to make this determination, however a second or amended asylum application that raises a new basis for asylum or amends a prior fraudulent application will be considered a new application rather than an amendment of the old one.

Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015); The Board held that an Immigration Judge may rely on documents and statements from another asylum case while making an adverse credibility determination. The Department may provide applications and evidence from another case in order to impeach the credibility of an applicant. The Immigration Judge may then rely on the similarities between the evidence in the two different cases to make an adverse credibility finding, so long as the Court: 1) gives the applicant meaningful notice of the similarities that are considered to be significant; 2) gives the applicant a reasonable opportunity to explain the similarities; and 3) considers the totality of the circumstances when making the credibility finding.

Published on: September 8, 2015

Immigrants to the U.S. should never “wait to see what happens” in their criminal case before hiring an Immigration Attorney

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

When you are not a U.S. citizen and you are in criminal court facing criminal prosecution, why you should never wait to see what happens in your criminal case and then hire an immigration attorney.

I have spoken to many non-citizen clients who are facing criminal prosecution. When I let them know that they need to be concerned about the immigration consequences of their criminal prosecution before their case is over, many ignore my advice. Often times they are so worried about going to jail, that their immigration status is not at the top of the list on their concerns. I always tell them, “you need to be concerned about how this criminal case is going to affect your immigration status now, before the case is over, do not wait until it is too late.”

Many clients ignore my advice and they use a criminal defense attorney who doesn’t know about immigration, or they do not hire our firm or another experienced immigration attorney to help before the criminal case is over. Those same clients often are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as soon as they are released from criminal custody, or they are arrested by ICE while reporting to probation after their criminal case is over.

Published on: August 11, 2015

How the President’s New Priority Enforcement Program can help solve the Sanctuary City Problem

by Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon

Recently, the media and politicians have used the term “sanctuary city” as both a sword and a shield, both as a standard to strive for and as a pejorative. But much like the term “amnesty” that has been used very similarly of late, “sanctuary city” has no fixed and agreed upon definition. What is commonly accepted is that a “sanctuary city” refers to a state or local government that has policies that in one way or another refuse to fully cooperate with the efforts and requests of federal immigration officials. Some of these cities will refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in any form or fashion (San Francisco) and others simply ban their employees from inquiring about a resident’s immigration status.

The philosophy behind sanctuary city policies are both fiscal and ideological, emotional and detached. Should local law enforcement care about enforcing federal immigration laws over which they have no jurisdiction? Should local governments care about the immigration status of a child enrolling in school when they will accept the child regardless of their status? These are all issues ripe for debate, but one thing is clear, these policies come about in localities where there is a distrust of and poor communication between federal immigration officers and local officials.

State and local budgets are tight enough without having locals take on the additional responsibilities and costs associated with enforcing immigration laws and proactively assisting federal immigration officers. Undocumented and even legal residents are apprehensive about interacting with local law enforcement when the locals start asking questions about immigration status.