By BERTRAND M. GUTIERREZ
Winston Salem Journal
Published: July 24, 2011
Erick Velazquillo, who was brought by his parents illegally into the United States from Mexico when he was 2, will not be deported.
Not for now.
At an immigration court hearing last week in Charlotte, Velazquillo, 22, heard that his deportation proceeding would be continued until Sept. 6, a request submitted by his attorney.
The continuance merely delays the possibility that Velazquillo might be deported. What he really wants is deferred action, a measure that immigration officials can exercise in certain cases to halt deportation proceedings, said Domenic Powell, one of the founders of the Dream Team, a Charlotte-based immigrant advocacy group.
"It is like living in the United States on probation," Powell said. "It gives him more time to find a path to legalization."
Because Velazquillo has graduated from high school, received an associate degree from a community college and has no criminal record except for some vehicular violations, according to his attorney, his case has become a testing ground for a shift in focus recently set forth by John Morton, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In a letter dated June 17, Morton advised the agency's field office directors, special agents and chief counsel to concentrate more on deporting those who are threats to national security and public safety.
"Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise 'prosecutorial discretion' if it is to prioritize its efforts," Morton said in the letter.
"When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case," he said.
Nearly half of the immigrants processed by an immigration court in the United States were not convicted of criminal offenses, according to statistics provided by ICE officials for federal fiscal year 2011, which started Oct. 1.
From that date to July 4, ICE has removed 289,386 immigrants. Of that number, 148,182 were convicted criminals and 141,204 were noncriminal immigration violators, according to ICE officials. Being in the U.S. without authorization is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
Through the Atlanta regional hub, which includes Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, ICE has removed 16,978 immigrants during the same period. Of that number, 10,518 were convicted criminals and 6,460 were noncriminal immigration violators.
Morton's letter to his field offices suggests that the number of criminal cases should increase more than noncriminal cases, such as Velazquillo's. Instead, priority should be given to cases involving threats to national security and public safety, the letter said. In fact, Morton listed several factors that ICE officials can weigh while exercising prosecutorial discretion.
Among them are "the circumstances of the person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child."
In addition, ICE officials may consider "the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States."
Velazquillo, who has lived in the United States for 20 years, has gotten an associate of arts degree from Central Piedmont Community College and has an acceptance letter from UNC Charlotte.
* * * * *
Velazquillo's deportation proceedings began in October, when he was going home from a gym in Matthews. A police officer stopped him for driving with high beams on.
Velazquillo was arrested on charges that he was driving with an expired license, among other vehicular infractions, which have been resolved.
In immigration court this week, his attorney asked for the continuance of the deportation proceedings because his attorney wants more time for Velazquillo to gain legal status.
"It's upsetting. It's kind of hard not to know what your future will be, but we're going to keep on fighting. We have to," Velazquillo said.
In the lead-up to the court hearing, the NAACP sided with the Dream Team to support Velazquillo.
"Whenever anyone attacks our Latino and undocumented brothers and sisters, they attack our NAACP members; they attack all people of color; and they attack all people of good will who believe we must repair the breach in the human race caused by racism, not widen it," said the Rev. William Barber, who is the president of North Carolina's NAACP.
He also urged the two U.S. senators from North Carolina, Richard Burr and Kay Hagan, to intervene on Velazquillo's behalf.
"I am not aware of any attempt by Mr. Velazquillo to contact Senator Burr's office for assistance, but regardless, the senator and his staff are unable to interfere with ongoing legal proceedings," David Ward, a spokesman for Burr, a Republican, said in an email.
A spokesman for Hagan, a Democrat, said the senator does not comment on specific cases. But a recent letter dated July 15 obtained by the Winston-Salem Journal from Hagan to Morton, the ICE director, does shed light on her stance regarding prosecutorial discretion and seems to support Velazquillo's case.
"I … urge the agency to focus its limited resources on individuals who pose a risk to national security or public safety and to use discretion in expending precious resources on individuals who may fall within the guidelines put forward in your memo, which include criteria such as strong family and community ties, no criminal record, a history of sustained pursuit of education, and entry into this country at an age that suggests the decision to enter was controlled by others," Hagan said in the letter.
* * * * *
Velazquillo's case highlights the complex nature of the immigration issue in the United States. There are an estimated 11.2 million immigrants who are not authorized to be in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
While there is agreement about enforcing border security, different opinions exist on what to do with those who are already in the United States — particularly those who, like Velazquillo, played no part in the initial decision of entering the country.
One of the possible remedies is legislation commonly known as the Dream Act, or the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011.
The federal proposal would give conditional permanent residency to immigrants who entered the United States illegally on or before his 15th birthday, have not been convicted of certain offenses under federal or state law, have been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States or earned a high school diploma or general education development certificate.
Hagan and Burr have opposed similar legislation.
James Carafano, a homeland-security expert for the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said the legislation is bad policy.
"It basically incentivizes people to do illegal activity. Everybody is dissatisfied with the unlawful population in the United States, and I don't understand why people want to pass a law which essentially encourages people to do exactly the same thing," he said.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was enacted under the Reagan administration, gave amnesty to about 3 million people.
And that did not work, he said.
"Every modern country that has tried an amnesty as a solution to immigration reform has found that this only incentivizes more illegal entry and unlawful presence. How many times do you have to go down this road to find out that as a public policy it just doesn't work?" Carafano asked.
Velazquillo's situation, or similar ones involving immigrants who were brought to the United States at a young age by their parents, does not present a compelling case for the Dream Act, according to Carafano.
"We didn't create the situation," he said. "Their parents did."
Dan Griswold, a trade and immigration expert at the Cato Institute, disagreed with that point of view.
"The Dream Act makes the best of a bad situation. These kids came here through no fault of their own. They were just obeying and following their parents.
"By definition, they have assimilated. They were here during their teen years. They speak English fluently. They're headed off to college or military service. It's a virtually zero-risk, high payoff group of potential legal immigrants. We should embrace them as workers and future American citizens," Griswold said.
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/jul/24/wsmet01-deportation-policies-debated-in-charlotte--ar-1234115/
Showing posts with label Deportation Cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deportation Cases. Show all posts
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Enforcement and deportation costs skyrocket
Dispatch investigation: Deportation Nation (Part 3/3)
By Stephanie Czekalinski
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
December 28, 2010
It would cost each U.S. taxpayer about $500 to deport all 11.1 million immigrants estimated to be living here without permission.
By Stephanie Czekalinski
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
December 28, 2010
It would cost each U.S. taxpayer about $500 to deport all 11.1 million immigrants estimated to be living here without permission.
On average, each deportation cost taxpayers more than $6,000 in 2010, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget numbers.
The amount Americans spend annually to detain and deport immigrants increased by more than 100 percent since 2005, to $2.55 billion in 2010. During the same period, the number of people deported more than doubled, to more than 390,000.
The Department of Homeland Security says the investment to step up enforcement of federal immigration laws has been worth it.
The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States has dropped from 12 million in March 2007 to 11.1 million in March 2009, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, D.C.
Homeland Security officials say the decrease is because of increased deportations and more funding for agents, investigators and prosecutors. But others say the national economic downturn has slowed the flow of illegal immigration.
Immigrant-rights activists question whether the mass deportations are money well spent. Most illegal immigrants are here to build productive lives and contribute to the economy, said Ruben Castilla Herrera of the Ohio Action Circle, a statewide grass-roots immigration-rights coalition.
Studies disagree about whether illegal immigrants are a net benefit to or drain on the U.S. economy.
According to the conservative research group the Heritage Foundation, $100billion in annual welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high-school degrees or less. If illegal immigrants were given a path to citizenship, the welfare system would be flooded with new recipients, the Heritage Foundation says.
On the other side, the Immigration Policy Center, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., says legalizing the 11.1 million undocumented immigrants would increase the country's gross domestic product by $1.5trillion over 10 years.
No one disagrees that it costs money to deport someone. In some cases, taxpayers pay to repeatedly deport the same individuals, who keep sneaking back into the U.S.
Stepped-up prosecution
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws, has been referring re-entry cases to prosecutors in the hope that the prospect of prison time will send illegal immigrants a message: Don't come back.
Prosecuting and imprisoning illegal immigrants takes up much of the federal court system's time.
Almost half the cases prosecuted in federal courts during the first 11months of 2010 were immigration-related, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, which gathers and analyzes data from public agencies.
Federal courts heard more cases that involved illegally entering the country, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail for the first offense, than for any other crime, including drug offenses.
In February, Judge Sam Sparks of U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, questioned prosecutors about the value of prosecuting people with no "significant criminal history" for immigration-law violations. His docket, like many others in federal courts across the country, was awash in immigration-related cases.
The cost of prosecuting immigrants with no criminal history other than re-entering the country, rather than deporting them again, "is simply mind-boggling," Sparks wrote."The U.S. Attorney's policy of prosecuting all aliens presents a cost to the American taxpayer at this time that is neither meritorious nor reasonable."
The increased prosecutions have not put a burden on prosecutors in southern Ohio, said Vipal J. Patel, district criminal chief for the U.S. attorney's office.
Nationwide, the number of criminal immigration convictions in federal courts in August was up more than 60 percent over the same period five years ago, according to TRAC. The No. 1 charge was sneaking back into the country after being deported.
Immigrants with no criminal history face a maximum of two years in prison if convicted of re-entry. Those who have committed significant crimes can face a maximum of 20 years.
In November, about 11 percent of people serving time in federal prisons had been convicted of immigration-law violations, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
It costs about $24,000 annually to hold someone in federal prison, according to a budget released by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 2009. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction says it cost about the same to keep someone for a year in Ohio prisons in 2010.
The lure of family
Ten-year-old Jamie Aristigue stood in front of about 150 people on the Statehouse lawn one afternoon in July and cried.
Her father, Fernando Aristigue, had "been taken away from us and is in jail," she said.
Jamie, her sister, Frida, 5, and her mother, Magali Cruz, 29, were participating in a faith-based rally that pushed for immigration reform.
ICE agents had detained Fernando Aristigue at the family's Westerville apartment in June.
He has been deported six times since 2005. He has returned each time.
Instead of simply deporting Aristigue a seventh time, federal prosecutors charged him with illegally re-entering the country, a felony.
Aristigue, 36, had never been convicted of breaking immigration law or any other law, according to court documents.
While taxpayers are footing the bill for deportations and imprisonment, illegal immigrants and their families, including their U.S. citizen children, also pay a price.
In November, the Aristigues' apartment was vacant. A clerk in a nearby Latino grocery remembered the family.
"It was a very sad case," said the clerk, who asked not to be identified. "There are a lot of very sad cases."
It's easy to understand why Aristigue risked federal prosecution, he said. Since Aristigue's arrest, his wife and daughters have returned to Mexico.
But there will be no reunion anytime soon. If a U.S. judge gives Aristigue the maximum sentence, it will be two years before he can join his family.
Cost beyond dollars
About 10 years ago, W. Tom Large was involved in a vehicle crash with an illegal immigrant. Both are still paying the price.
"It was like being in an explosion," said Large, 65, a lifelong Ohio resident.
Luis Valente De La Paz-Flores was driving north on Sawmill Parkway in a Chevrolet Astro van when he ran a red light and struck Large's Ford Expedition, which was heading west on Powell Road, Large said.
Valente, who prosecutors said was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and was deported to Mexico in 2001 after spending nine months in jail.
Large struggled but was able to keep his special-event business afloat while he recuperated. His SUV was totaled in the crash, and he battled his insurance company to cover his medical bills, he said.
But Large hadn't heard the last of Valente.
"He's back?" Large said after a Dispatch reporter told him that Valente had been arrested this summer in the University District.
"I figured he was going to be back," Large said.
Federal immigration authorities found Valente, now 33, in August and charged him with re-entering the country after being deported, a felony punishable by up to a $250,000 fine and 20 years in prison.
Valente is in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, awaiting trial. His attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
Although Large said he harbors no animosity toward Valente, he's reminded of him often.
Before the accident, Large, who has a black belt in karate, lived a life full of physical activity. Today, his joints ache and stiffen when he sits, and he walks with a limp.
"I've had nothing but pain since," he said.
Comprehensive fix
Police, activists on both sides, immigration lawyers and citizens of the United States and countries around the world have been begging legislators for years to reform the broken, contradictory and complex system of laws that govern immigration to the United States.
Attempts by some states to define how local law-enforcement agencies and ICE work together have become flashpoints in the national brawl over illegal immigration.
In July, a federal judge blocked some of the most controversial sections of an immigration law in Arizona - considered among the strictest in the nation - which required police to ask suspected illegal immigrants for their immigration papers in the course of enforcing other laws.
Legislators in Ohio are closely watching what's going on in Arizona.
Rep. Courtney Eric Combs, a Republican from Hamilton, said he plans to approach other members of the legislature about passing a law that would incorporate the elements of Arizona's law that were deemed constitutional.
If the Ohio legislature won't act, he said, there are plans to put the issue on the statewide ballot.
In Ohio and across the country, local and state law-enforcement officers routinely arrest illegal immigrants for various offenses, then turn them over to immigration authorities for deportation.
Since 2002, almost 2,000 people have been transferred from the Franklin County jail to ICE custody.
Those opposed to illegal immigration say it's necessary to root out dangerous criminals, and to find and remove immigrants living illegally in the United States. Immigrants-rights advocates say the practice is outside the jurisdiction of local law enforcement, begets racial profiling and breeds distrust of police within ethnic communities.
What's needed is federal immigration reform, said David Leopold, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
"We need a comprehensive fix, and Congress needs to do it," he said.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/12/28/enforcement-and-deportation-costs-skyrocket.html?sid=101
Thursday, November 4, 2010
More deportation cases being dismissed
Standard Examiner
Thursday, November 4, 2010 - 11:23am
MIAMI -- Immigration judges are dismissing deportation cases in greater numbers around the country.
In August and September, for example, judges at Miami immigration court dismissed 631 deportation cases compared with 449 in June and July.
In fact, the 324 cases immigration judges dismissed in August was the highest monthly case termination figure in the last 12 months, according to statistics the Justice Department's immigration court system released last week.
Gerda Pierre, 22, was among the hundreds of immigrants in deportation proceedings whose cases were recently dismissed in Miami immigration court.
Pierre, a Bahamian-born Haitian, learned Oct. 7 when she appeared in immigration court that she no longer faced deportation and would be allowed instead to apply for a green card.
"I felt like a heavy weight was lifted off my shoulders," said Pierre, who had been in proceedings since 2006. "I felt free."
While immigration court officials would not speculate on why judges are terminating more cases than before, some attorneys said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trial attorneys now seem more willing to drop deportation cases against certain foreign nationals.
But other attorneys in Miami said they had not noticed any change in ICE attitude and that any increase may be tied to the federal government's decision to grant Temporary Protected Status or TPS to undocumented Haitian immigrants.
"We haven't seen any significant change and have heard that some ICE officials believe the Morton memo simply reiterated existing policy," said Cheryl Little, executive director of Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "We've had some cases terminated lately, but that likely would have happened regardless."
Still, some say ICE trial attorneys are more willing to apply recent guidelines by ICE chief John Morton that allow them to drop deportation cases against immigrants who have pending or approved petitions, known as I-130s, filed on their behalf by a U.S. relative.
"They are terminating cases of people with pending or approved I-130s; that's what's going on," said Wilfredo Allen, a prominent Miami immigration attorney. "If you have people who can adjust status through family, why keep them in court? We are seeing this on a more systematic basis, while before it was more sporadic."
Morton issued a memorandum in August outlining a new ICE policy under which trial attorneys were ordered to "promptly dismiss proceedings" against foreign nationals facing deportation who had a petition filed on their behalf by a relative.
Foreign nationals whose deportation cases are dismissed because they qualify for permanent residence through an I-130 can then seek a green card through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency that oversees immigration benefits.
Gillian M. Brigham, an ICE spokeswoman, said case terminations derived from multiple factors, not just ICE trial attorneys filing motions to dismiss.
"It is important to note that administrative immigration cases can be terminated for a variety of reasons other than ICE filing a motion to dismiss," she said.
Of the cases terminated in Miami in August and September, only a few were the result of ICE motions to dismiss, she said.
"In August, approximately 26 cases in Miami were terminated based on an ICE motion to dismiss," Brigham said. "In September, approximately 30 cases in Miami were terminated based on an ICE motion to dismiss. These cases only account for a percentage of the total immigration court cases that were terminated in Miami in August and September."
http://www.standard.net/topics/courts/2010/11/04/more-deportation-cases-being-dismissed
Thursday, November 4, 2010 - 11:23am
MIAMI -- Immigration judges are dismissing deportation cases in greater numbers around the country.
In August and September, for example, judges at Miami immigration court dismissed 631 deportation cases compared with 449 in June and July.
In fact, the 324 cases immigration judges dismissed in August was the highest monthly case termination figure in the last 12 months, according to statistics the Justice Department's immigration court system released last week.
Gerda Pierre, 22, was among the hundreds of immigrants in deportation proceedings whose cases were recently dismissed in Miami immigration court.
Pierre, a Bahamian-born Haitian, learned Oct. 7 when she appeared in immigration court that she no longer faced deportation and would be allowed instead to apply for a green card.
"I felt like a heavy weight was lifted off my shoulders," said Pierre, who had been in proceedings since 2006. "I felt free."
While immigration court officials would not speculate on why judges are terminating more cases than before, some attorneys said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trial attorneys now seem more willing to drop deportation cases against certain foreign nationals.
But other attorneys in Miami said they had not noticed any change in ICE attitude and that any increase may be tied to the federal government's decision to grant Temporary Protected Status or TPS to undocumented Haitian immigrants.
"We haven't seen any significant change and have heard that some ICE officials believe the Morton memo simply reiterated existing policy," said Cheryl Little, executive director of Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "We've had some cases terminated lately, but that likely would have happened regardless."
Still, some say ICE trial attorneys are more willing to apply recent guidelines by ICE chief John Morton that allow them to drop deportation cases against immigrants who have pending or approved petitions, known as I-130s, filed on their behalf by a U.S. relative.
"They are terminating cases of people with pending or approved I-130s; that's what's going on," said Wilfredo Allen, a prominent Miami immigration attorney. "If you have people who can adjust status through family, why keep them in court? We are seeing this on a more systematic basis, while before it was more sporadic."
Morton issued a memorandum in August outlining a new ICE policy under which trial attorneys were ordered to "promptly dismiss proceedings" against foreign nationals facing deportation who had a petition filed on their behalf by a relative.
Foreign nationals whose deportation cases are dismissed because they qualify for permanent residence through an I-130 can then seek a green card through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency that oversees immigration benefits.
Gillian M. Brigham, an ICE spokeswoman, said case terminations derived from multiple factors, not just ICE trial attorneys filing motions to dismiss.
"It is important to note that administrative immigration cases can be terminated for a variety of reasons other than ICE filing a motion to dismiss," she said.
Of the cases terminated in Miami in August and September, only a few were the result of ICE motions to dismiss, she said.
"In August, approximately 26 cases in Miami were terminated based on an ICE motion to dismiss," Brigham said. "In September, approximately 30 cases in Miami were terminated based on an ICE motion to dismiss. These cases only account for a percentage of the total immigration court cases that were terminated in Miami in August and September."
http://www.standard.net/topics/courts/2010/11/04/more-deportation-cases-being-dismissed
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Houston native wrongly deported for 85 days
Immigration attorney says his client 'is not an anchor baby'
By SUSAN CARROLL
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Sept. 13, 2010
Nearly three months after U.S. immigration officials dumped Luis Alberto Delgado in Mexico despite his insistence that he is a U.S. citizen, the 19-year-old was permitted to re-enter the country last weekend with the U.S. government's blessing.
Delgado said U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents cleared him to return to the United States on Friday, roughly 85 days after he was detained by immigration officials and pressured to sign papers that cleared the way for his removal to Mexico.
Steven Cribby, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, declined to comment on Delgado's case.
On Monday in Houston, Delgado said he was pondering a lawsuit against the U.S. government, calling his case "an injustice."
U.S. Border Patrol agents detained Delgado after a traffic stop in South Texas on June 17 and held him for eight hours, questioning him about his citizenship.
Delgado said he gave immigration agents a copy of his birth certificate showing he was born at Houston's Ben Taub Hospital, a state of Texas identification card and a Social Security card.
Lack of fluency
But Delgado, who was raised in Mexico after his parents divorced, said immigration agents were suspicious of him because he did not speak English well, and insisted the paperwork he carried belonged to someone else.
Delgado said he eventually signed paperwork that resulted in his removal to Mexico because he wanted to be released from immigration custody, and thought he could fight his case from Houston.
"I believe (the agents) discriminated against me because I didn't speak English," he said. "If you don't speak very well, I think they just assume you're Mexican."
Isaias Torres, a Houston immigration attorney who took Delgado's case pro bono, said he believes the U.S. government was "at best, very negligent" in its handling of the case.
U.S. immigration officials have faced scrutiny in recent years over allegations that they have deported U.S. citizens, including a high-profile case of a mentally disabled Los Angeles man who was lost for months in Mexico in 2007.
Estimates of the number of U.S. citizens deported from the U.S. vary widely, and such statistics are not officially tracked by U.S. immigration officials, who recently adopted guidelines designed to prevent such deportations.
Torres said the government should not tolerate discrimination against U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who do not speak English fluently.
"I don't believe this is an isolated incident," Torres said.
He said such cases will become increasingly common because the U.S. government is deporting parents with U.S.-born children. Between 1998 and 2007, the United States removed 108,434 illegal immigrants with U.S. citizen children, according to a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report.
Delgado said he does not speak English well because he and his brother moved to Mexico with their mother after she divorced their father, who lived in Dallas. Delgado moved back to Houston about three years ago.
"This is not an anchor baby," Torres said. "He was born here and his mother moved back to Mexico."
Mother interviewed
Torres said he decided not to file a formal lawsuit after Delgado was removed in June because he was concerned that it would slow down the case. Instead, Torres and attorney Lionel Perez worked with U.S. officials to resolve the case administratively.
Delgado's mother, who lives in Michoacan, Mexico, came up to the border on Thursday for an interview with U.S. immigration officials and provided them with extra paperwork, including a copy of her own Mexican birth certificate.
Job is lost
Delgado said immigration officials told him Friday that he was cleared to return to the United States.
The next day, he packed up his clothes at his cousin's home in Reynosa and crossed the border through the Hidalgo port of entry.
He arrived at the Houston apartment he shares with his brother to learn that his construction job is gone, he said.
Now Delgado is searching for work, he said, and hoping to take classes to improve his English.
susan.carroll@chron.com
By SUSAN CARROLL
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Sept. 13, 2010
Nearly three months after U.S. immigration officials dumped Luis Alberto Delgado in Mexico despite his insistence that he is a U.S. citizen, the 19-year-old was permitted to re-enter the country last weekend with the U.S. government's blessing.
Delgado said U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents cleared him to return to the United States on Friday, roughly 85 days after he was detained by immigration officials and pressured to sign papers that cleared the way for his removal to Mexico.
Steven Cribby, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, declined to comment on Delgado's case.
On Monday in Houston, Delgado said he was pondering a lawsuit against the U.S. government, calling his case "an injustice."
U.S. Border Patrol agents detained Delgado after a traffic stop in South Texas on June 17 and held him for eight hours, questioning him about his citizenship.
Delgado said he gave immigration agents a copy of his birth certificate showing he was born at Houston's Ben Taub Hospital, a state of Texas identification card and a Social Security card.
Lack of fluency
But Delgado, who was raised in Mexico after his parents divorced, said immigration agents were suspicious of him because he did not speak English well, and insisted the paperwork he carried belonged to someone else.
Delgado said he eventually signed paperwork that resulted in his removal to Mexico because he wanted to be released from immigration custody, and thought he could fight his case from Houston.
"I believe (the agents) discriminated against me because I didn't speak English," he said. "If you don't speak very well, I think they just assume you're Mexican."
Isaias Torres, a Houston immigration attorney who took Delgado's case pro bono, said he believes the U.S. government was "at best, very negligent" in its handling of the case.
U.S. immigration officials have faced scrutiny in recent years over allegations that they have deported U.S. citizens, including a high-profile case of a mentally disabled Los Angeles man who was lost for months in Mexico in 2007.
Estimates of the number of U.S. citizens deported from the U.S. vary widely, and such statistics are not officially tracked by U.S. immigration officials, who recently adopted guidelines designed to prevent such deportations.
Torres said the government should not tolerate discrimination against U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who do not speak English fluently.
"I don't believe this is an isolated incident," Torres said.
He said such cases will become increasingly common because the U.S. government is deporting parents with U.S.-born children. Between 1998 and 2007, the United States removed 108,434 illegal immigrants with U.S. citizen children, according to a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report.
Delgado said he does not speak English well because he and his brother moved to Mexico with their mother after she divorced their father, who lived in Dallas. Delgado moved back to Houston about three years ago.
"This is not an anchor baby," Torres said. "He was born here and his mother moved back to Mexico."
Mother interviewed
Torres said he decided not to file a formal lawsuit after Delgado was removed in June because he was concerned that it would slow down the case. Instead, Torres and attorney Lionel Perez worked with U.S. officials to resolve the case administratively.
Delgado's mother, who lives in Michoacan, Mexico, came up to the border on Thursday for an interview with U.S. immigration officials and provided them with extra paperwork, including a copy of her own Mexican birth certificate.
Job is lost
Delgado said immigration officials told him Friday that he was cleared to return to the United States.
The next day, he packed up his clothes at his cousin's home in Reynosa and crossed the border through the Hidalgo port of entry.
He arrived at the Houston apartment he shares with his brother to learn that his construction job is gone, he said.
Now Delgado is searching for work, he said, and hoping to take classes to improve his English.
susan.carroll@chron.com
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Immigration Agency Ends Some Deportations
By JULIA PRESTON
The New York Times
August 26, 2010
Immigration enforcement officials have started to cancel the deportations of thousands of immigrants they have detained, a policy they said would pare huge case backlogs in the immigration courts.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the new approach was part of a broad shift in priorities at the agency, to focus its efforts on catching and deporting immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a national security threat. The policy — announced in an Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency — drew praise from immigrant advocates, who called it a common-sense strategy, and was denounced by several Republicans as evidence that the Obama administration was weakening enforcement and making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
The change in emphasis at the immigration agency, which represents a significant break with longstanding practices, has awakened resistance among agents and detention officers on the ground, according to officials of the agency, which is known as ICE, and of the union representing those employees.
Mr. Morton’s memorandum refers to a particular group of illegal immigrants: those who have been detained in ICE operations because they did not have legal status, but who have active applications in the system to become legal residents. The memo encourages ICE officers and lawyers to use their authority to dismiss those cases, canceling the deportation proceedings, if they determine that the immigrants have no criminal records and stand a strong chance of having their residence applications approved.
The policy is intended to address a “major inefficiency” that has led to an unnecessary pileup of cases in the immigration courts, Mr. Morton said. The courts have reported at least 17,000 cases that could be eliminated from their docket if ICE dismissed deportations of immigrants, like those married to United States citizens, who were very likely to win legal status, the memo says.
To resolve that number of deportation cases, officials will have to fix persistent breakdowns in coordination between two federal agencies that oversee the nation’s overburdened and troubled immigration system, ICE officials acknowledged. On one hand, ICE enforces immigration law. Another agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is in charge of approving applications for immigration documents. When ICE opens a deportation case against an immigrant, it is heard in immigration court.
The courts are swamped under a backlog that reached a record in June of 247,922 cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University that analyzes federal data. The average waiting time for cases in those courts was 459 days.
But immigration lawyers said they are currently waiting as long as two years to get a hearing date in some especially crowded immigration courts.
The new policy “is a pretty basic, common-sense thing to do,” said Helen Harnett, policy director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. She said that if an immigrant’s application for legal residence was ultimately denied, ICE could reinstate the deportation.
“This is for people who do have a path to legalize their status,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the justice center. “This does not create a new path to legalization for anyone.”
But Republican lawmakers said the Obama administration was moving toward a de facto legalization program by allowing some illegal immigrants to remain here despite their violations of the law.
“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”
Mr. Morton’s memorandum was first reported this week in The Houston Chronicle, which found that some immigrants in Texas had already seen their deportations canceled.
ICE officials said they arrived at the policy after conferring with immigration court officials. “This is not a backdoor amnesty,” said Beth Gibson, assistant deputy director of ICE. “It is really about efficient use of docket space and smart use of everybody’s scarce resources.”
The agency has deported a record number of 167,000 immigrants with criminal convictions in the past year, ICE officials said, an increase of about 43 percent over the previous year.
However, dissension in the ranks at ICE surfaced on June 25, when a local of the American Federation of Government Employees representing some enforcement and detention officers announced that it had taken a vote of no confidence in Mr. Morton.
The director and other senior ICE officials had “abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws,” the local said in a news release, undertaking “reckless and misguided initiatives” while failing to alert Congress to the need for more manpower and funds for ICE.
Chris Crane, the president of the local, did not respond to an e-mail message on Thursday.
The national president of the federation, John Gage, said the union had not yet taken a position on the issues raised by the local. Mr. Gage said after several ICE locals had complained, he called a meeting next week of representatives of all of the federation’s locals that represent ICE employees.
“I really would like to get some facts,” Mr. Gage said Thursday. “Our ICE officers have real concerns, but there is conflicting information. If there is any increased risk to our people, we will be all over it,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27immig.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
The New York Times
August 26, 2010
Immigration enforcement officials have started to cancel the deportations of thousands of immigrants they have detained, a policy they said would pare huge case backlogs in the immigration courts.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the new approach was part of a broad shift in priorities at the agency, to focus its efforts on catching and deporting immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a national security threat. The policy — announced in an Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency — drew praise from immigrant advocates, who called it a common-sense strategy, and was denounced by several Republicans as evidence that the Obama administration was weakening enforcement and making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
The change in emphasis at the immigration agency, which represents a significant break with longstanding practices, has awakened resistance among agents and detention officers on the ground, according to officials of the agency, which is known as ICE, and of the union representing those employees.
Mr. Morton’s memorandum refers to a particular group of illegal immigrants: those who have been detained in ICE operations because they did not have legal status, but who have active applications in the system to become legal residents. The memo encourages ICE officers and lawyers to use their authority to dismiss those cases, canceling the deportation proceedings, if they determine that the immigrants have no criminal records and stand a strong chance of having their residence applications approved.
The policy is intended to address a “major inefficiency” that has led to an unnecessary pileup of cases in the immigration courts, Mr. Morton said. The courts have reported at least 17,000 cases that could be eliminated from their docket if ICE dismissed deportations of immigrants, like those married to United States citizens, who were very likely to win legal status, the memo says.
To resolve that number of deportation cases, officials will have to fix persistent breakdowns in coordination between two federal agencies that oversee the nation’s overburdened and troubled immigration system, ICE officials acknowledged. On one hand, ICE enforces immigration law. Another agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is in charge of approving applications for immigration documents. When ICE opens a deportation case against an immigrant, it is heard in immigration court.
The courts are swamped under a backlog that reached a record in June of 247,922 cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University that analyzes federal data. The average waiting time for cases in those courts was 459 days.
But immigration lawyers said they are currently waiting as long as two years to get a hearing date in some especially crowded immigration courts.
The new policy “is a pretty basic, common-sense thing to do,” said Helen Harnett, policy director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. She said that if an immigrant’s application for legal residence was ultimately denied, ICE could reinstate the deportation.
“This is for people who do have a path to legalize their status,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the justice center. “This does not create a new path to legalization for anyone.”
But Republican lawmakers said the Obama administration was moving toward a de facto legalization program by allowing some illegal immigrants to remain here despite their violations of the law.
“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”
Mr. Morton’s memorandum was first reported this week in The Houston Chronicle, which found that some immigrants in Texas had already seen their deportations canceled.
ICE officials said they arrived at the policy after conferring with immigration court officials. “This is not a backdoor amnesty,” said Beth Gibson, assistant deputy director of ICE. “It is really about efficient use of docket space and smart use of everybody’s scarce resources.”
The agency has deported a record number of 167,000 immigrants with criminal convictions in the past year, ICE officials said, an increase of about 43 percent over the previous year.
However, dissension in the ranks at ICE surfaced on June 25, when a local of the American Federation of Government Employees representing some enforcement and detention officers announced that it had taken a vote of no confidence in Mr. Morton.
The director and other senior ICE officials had “abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws,” the local said in a news release, undertaking “reckless and misguided initiatives” while failing to alert Congress to the need for more manpower and funds for ICE.
Chris Crane, the president of the local, did not respond to an e-mail message on Thursday.
The national president of the federation, John Gage, said the union had not yet taken a position on the issues raised by the local. Mr. Gage said after several ICE locals had complained, he called a meeting next week of representatives of all of the federation’s locals that represent ICE employees.
“I really would like to get some facts,” Mr. Gage said Thursday. “Our ICE officers have real concerns, but there is conflicting information. If there is any increased risk to our people, we will be all over it,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27immig.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Under Obama Number of Pending Deportations Reach an All-Time High
By Matthew Kolken
Ground Report
May 24, 2010
Obama's 1,000 deportations per day mandate is being felt in our Nation's immigration Courts.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research and data distribution organization at Syracuse University, has reported that at the end of March 2010 there are 242,776 unresolved immigration court cases, a new all-time high.
An analysis of the data reveals that the immigration court backlog is growing by 6.3 percent since TRAC’s last report at the end of 2009. This number is 30.4% higher than it was 18 months ago prior to Obama's election.
The added pressure on our immigration courts has resulted in the increase of the average length of time an individual must wait to have their matter resolved to up to 443 days.
Is this the Change you believed in?
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Under-Obama-Number-of-Pending-Deportations-Reach-a/2923814
Ground Report
May 24, 2010
Obama's 1,000 deportations per day mandate is being felt in our Nation's immigration Courts.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research and data distribution organization at Syracuse University, has reported that at the end of March 2010 there are 242,776 unresolved immigration court cases, a new all-time high.
An analysis of the data reveals that the immigration court backlog is growing by 6.3 percent since TRAC’s last report at the end of 2009. This number is 30.4% higher than it was 18 months ago prior to Obama's election.
The added pressure on our immigration courts has resulted in the increase of the average length of time an individual must wait to have their matter resolved to up to 443 days.
Is this the Change you believed in?
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Under-Obama-Number-of-Pending-Deportations-Reach-a/2923814
Monday, May 24, 2010
Immigration Case Backlog Still Growing
TRAC Immigration
TRAC Reports, Inc
The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 242,776 at the end of March 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The case backlog has continued to grow — up 6.3 percent — since TRAC's last report four months ago, and nearly a third higher (30.4%) than levels a mere 18 months ago (see Figure 1).
Wait times have also continued to inch upward. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 443 days.
Full details — by state, nationality, Immigration Court and hearing locations — can be viewed in TRAC's backlog application, now updated with data through March 2010.
Selected Highlights
Wait Times by State
Wait times continue to be longest in California with 627 days, up from 619 days four months ago. Massachusetts average wait times inched up from 612 days to 616 days over the same time period. Nebraska moved up to third place, with an average time of 513 days pending cases have been waiting in the Omaha Immigration Court — up from 498 days four months ago.
Wait Times by Nationality
Among nationalities, and limiting comparisons to the 50 countries with the most individuals in queue, Armenians with cases pending before the Immigration Courts currently had the longest wait times of 938 days — more than twice the national average of 443 days. Other nationalities within the top five in terms of the length their cases had been pending were Indonesia (731 days), Lebanon (688 days), Albania (830 days), and Iran (594 days).
Highest Growth Rates in Pending Cases
Among individual Immigration Courts, and considering only those with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the fastest buildup during the first six months of FY 2010 was the San Antonio Immigration Court where pending cases jumped by 45 percent. The Las Vegas court ranked second, with a growth spurt of 38 percent during this year. Chicago (up 32 percent), El Paso (up 28 percent), and Portland (up 27 percent) made up the remaining top five locations experiencing the highest growth rates in case backlogs. Phoenix just missed out being included in these ranks with a growth rate of 26 percent.
Courts With Declining Case Backlogs
Some courts, however, saw a decline in their number of pending cases during FY 2010. Again considering only courts with at least 1,000 pending cases at the end of last year, the court with the sharpest decline was in Oakdale, Louisiana. That court saw its backlog reduced by 35 percent. This was followed by the Orlando, Florida court where the pending caseload dropped by 10 percent during the last six months. The Hartford, Connecticut court also saw a drop of 5 percent. Atlanta saw its backlog of pending cases reduced by 2.4 percent because of the transfer of some of its caseload to the new Stewart Immigration Court in Lumpkin, Georgia which opened in January 2010. Courts in Buffalo, New York and Guaynabo, San Juan, each saw pending caseloads decline by 1.8 percent.
Available Immigration Judges versus Arriving Cases
The backlogs of pending cases are driven by numerous factors. Chief among them is the number of available judges in the country or in a particular locality relative to how many cases the courts receive, the complexity of the cases and the time required to resolve them. Caseloads may be going up in one region or part of the country, and going down in another due to changes in the enforcement strategies of the Department of Homeland Security. Last year saw the influx of new proceedings and other matters received by the Immigration Courts reach an all time high.
While pending case backlogs continued to rise during the first six months of FY 2010, the number of new proceedings filed in the Immigration Courts has fallen slightly from the levels experienced during FY 2009. New proceedings received by the Immigration Court were down 2 percent during the first six months of 2010 (156,403) as compared with the same six month period in 2009 (159,358).
Another factor that may be involved in the growing number of backlogged cases is the increased time required to decide some of them because of new requirements imposed by Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions.
What accounts then for the continued rise in case backlogs? Clearly a piece of the puzzle is that the number of Immigration Judges declined by two judges over this same period. Further, hiring has not kept pace with judge turnover for an extended period of time, leaving one out of every six judge positions vacant (see TRAC's March 2010 report).
Looking ahead, the Executive Office for Immigration Review just swore in four new Immigration Judges May 14. While not yet announced, a fifth new Immigration Judge was also recently appointed. But EOIR still has a very long way to go to fill existing judge vacancies. These include vacancies that have remained unfilled for more than four years.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/232/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Groups try to delay deportations of illegal students
By Emily Bazar
USA TODAY
Rigoberto Padilla, 21, came to the USA from Mexico when he was 6.
He went to school in Chicago, joined the honor society and dreamed of becoming a lawyer — all while living here illegally.
Padilla's status wasn't a problem until he applied for college and couldn't qualify for financial aid without a Social Security number, he says.
In January, the University of Illinois-Chicago junior was charged with drunken driving. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, paid a fine and got court supervision, but that brought him to the attention of immigration officials and triggered deportation proceedings. "It was one mistake in my life," he says.
Padilla's impending deportation, originally set for today, catapulted him into a campaign to stop the deportation of college students and recent graduates. Lawmakers, students, members of the clergy and other activists hope to buy the students time and use their stories to push for laws that would allow them, and perhaps millions of other illegal immigrants, to earn legal status, says Joshua Hoyt of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agreed last week to delay Padilla's deportation for a year, making him one of at least seven young illegal immigrants who have had their deportations delayed since June, according to DreamActivist, one of the groups spearheading the campaign. Family ties and community standing are among the factors ICE considers when asked to delay a deportation, says ICE spokesman Richard Rocha.
"I want to graduate college and give back to this country," Padilla says.
His supporters flooded the Department of Homeland Security with thousands of faxes and designed a Facebook page telling 2,800 members how to help. The Chicago City Council passed a resolution in his behalf, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., introduced a bill specifically for him that would allow him to stay. "Why would we deprive ourselves of outstanding students and future leaders?" she asks. "They had no part in the decision to come here."
Efforts toward overhaul
There are 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA. Activists call for an overhaul of immigration law that would offer them a way to earn legal status. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced a bill Tuesday that would give illegal immigrants who pay fines, pass background checks and meet other requirements a path toward legal residency.
College students who are illegal immigrants fall under a separate proposal called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act — the DREAM Act. Requirements would include arrival in the USA at 15 or younger, a five-year residency or more, and at least two years of college or military service. Versions of the act have been introduced since 2001 without success.
Each year, 65,000 illegal immigrants who have been here at least five years graduate from high school, says Jeffrey Passel of the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center.
Deportation delays are rare, Rocha says; 400 were granted last year.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates less immigration, calls the DREAM Act amnesty, or "rewarding people who have broken the law with immigration benefits."
People in the country illegally "should be held responsible for the consequences to their children," he says.
Flexibility in the law is important, says Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which also calls for reduced immigration. "But delaying everybody's deportation because you hope the DREAM Act is going to happen does not make sense."
Other cases
Padilla and others hope for passage:
•Herta Llusho, 20, of Detroit came to the USA from Albania on a tourist visa when she was 11. Her mother applied for asylum, she says, but it was denied, leaving them both with a deportation date of Aug. 19.
After supporters faxed more than 5,000 letters to ICE, she says, the University of Detroit Mercy sophomore and her mother won two delays. Their deportation was set for Feb. 1. Llusho hopes for another delay or for a lawmaker to introduce a bill on her behalf. "All we want is to work hard and keep at it and give back to the country that we believe has given so much to us," she says.
•Alonso Chehade, 22, of Poulsbo, Wash., arrived from Peru with his family on a tourist visa when he was 14. They stayed after it expired, he says. He was detained at the Canadian border in March when he says he crossed into Canada after going the wrong direction on the freeway.
Chehade, who received a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Washington this year, faced deportation on Sept. 25. He created a website and Facebook page to gather support. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., introduced a bill on his behalf, and his deportation was pushed to Jan. 5. Chehade hopes for another delay or a special bill. "My life is here, my family is here, my friends are here," he says.
In Chicago, Padilla, who came to the USA illegally with family, is trying to figure out how to pay for his next semester of college and competing with his sister for a title: He says, "I want to be the first one in my family to graduate from college."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-15-deport_N.htm
USA TODAY
Rigoberto Padilla, 21, came to the USA from Mexico when he was 6.
He went to school in Chicago, joined the honor society and dreamed of becoming a lawyer — all while living here illegally.
Padilla's status wasn't a problem until he applied for college and couldn't qualify for financial aid without a Social Security number, he says.
In January, the University of Illinois-Chicago junior was charged with drunken driving. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, paid a fine and got court supervision, but that brought him to the attention of immigration officials and triggered deportation proceedings. "It was one mistake in my life," he says.
Padilla's impending deportation, originally set for today, catapulted him into a campaign to stop the deportation of college students and recent graduates. Lawmakers, students, members of the clergy and other activists hope to buy the students time and use their stories to push for laws that would allow them, and perhaps millions of other illegal immigrants, to earn legal status, says Joshua Hoyt of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agreed last week to delay Padilla's deportation for a year, making him one of at least seven young illegal immigrants who have had their deportations delayed since June, according to DreamActivist, one of the groups spearheading the campaign. Family ties and community standing are among the factors ICE considers when asked to delay a deportation, says ICE spokesman Richard Rocha.
"I want to graduate college and give back to this country," Padilla says.
His supporters flooded the Department of Homeland Security with thousands of faxes and designed a Facebook page telling 2,800 members how to help. The Chicago City Council passed a resolution in his behalf, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., introduced a bill specifically for him that would allow him to stay. "Why would we deprive ourselves of outstanding students and future leaders?" she asks. "They had no part in the decision to come here."
Efforts toward overhaul
There are 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA. Activists call for an overhaul of immigration law that would offer them a way to earn legal status. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced a bill Tuesday that would give illegal immigrants who pay fines, pass background checks and meet other requirements a path toward legal residency.
College students who are illegal immigrants fall under a separate proposal called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act — the DREAM Act. Requirements would include arrival in the USA at 15 or younger, a five-year residency or more, and at least two years of college or military service. Versions of the act have been introduced since 2001 without success.
Each year, 65,000 illegal immigrants who have been here at least five years graduate from high school, says Jeffrey Passel of the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center.
Deportation delays are rare, Rocha says; 400 were granted last year.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates less immigration, calls the DREAM Act amnesty, or "rewarding people who have broken the law with immigration benefits."
People in the country illegally "should be held responsible for the consequences to their children," he says.
Flexibility in the law is important, says Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which also calls for reduced immigration. "But delaying everybody's deportation because you hope the DREAM Act is going to happen does not make sense."
Other cases
Padilla and others hope for passage:
•Herta Llusho, 20, of Detroit came to the USA from Albania on a tourist visa when she was 11. Her mother applied for asylum, she says, but it was denied, leaving them both with a deportation date of Aug. 19.
After supporters faxed more than 5,000 letters to ICE, she says, the University of Detroit Mercy sophomore and her mother won two delays. Their deportation was set for Feb. 1. Llusho hopes for another delay or for a lawmaker to introduce a bill on her behalf. "All we want is to work hard and keep at it and give back to the country that we believe has given so much to us," she says.
•Alonso Chehade, 22, of Poulsbo, Wash., arrived from Peru with his family on a tourist visa when he was 14. They stayed after it expired, he says. He was detained at the Canadian border in March when he says he crossed into Canada after going the wrong direction on the freeway.
Chehade, who received a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Washington this year, faced deportation on Sept. 25. He created a website and Facebook page to gather support. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., introduced a bill on his behalf, and his deportation was pushed to Jan. 5. Chehade hopes for another delay or a special bill. "My life is here, my family is here, my friends are here," he says.
In Chicago, Padilla, who came to the USA illegally with family, is trying to figure out how to pay for his next semester of college and competing with his sister for a title: He says, "I want to be the first one in my family to graduate from college."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-15-deport_N.htm
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ICE raids Ketchum coffee shop
Two workers arrested for deportation to Peru
Todd Rippo, The Idaho Mountain Express
May 27, 2009
A Ketchum coffee shop found itself short two workers last week after federal immigration officers took two of its bakers into custody for deportation to Peru.
"Both are Peruvian nationals and both are what we call immigration fugitives," said Lorie Dankers, a spokeswoman in Seattle for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
An ICE Fugitive Operations Team made the arrests at Java on Fourth on Wednesday, May 20, around 2:30 p.m.
"It's kind of upsetting, just before Memorial Day weekend," Java owner Todd Rippo said Friday. "All I know is they took two of my bakers, people I've had for a decade.
"They had everything the law requires them to have and you show up at work and they're gone. I don't know why it would happen now and not nine years ago. They've worked at restaurants around the valley. It's not just me. I've employed their families for years."
Neither Rippo nor Dankers would release the women's names. One of them was known as Carmen.
Dankers said both women have been "immigration fugitives" since 2003, when they appeared before a federal judge and were ordered out of the United States.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005126237
Todd Rippo, The Idaho Mountain Express
May 27, 2009
A Ketchum coffee shop found itself short two workers last week after federal immigration officers took two of its bakers into custody for deportation to Peru.
"Both are Peruvian nationals and both are what we call immigration fugitives," said Lorie Dankers, a spokeswoman in Seattle for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
An ICE Fugitive Operations Team made the arrests at Java on Fourth on Wednesday, May 20, around 2:30 p.m.
"It's kind of upsetting, just before Memorial Day weekend," Java owner Todd Rippo said Friday. "All I know is they took two of my bakers, people I've had for a decade.
"They had everything the law requires them to have and you show up at work and they're gone. I don't know why it would happen now and not nine years ago. They've worked at restaurants around the valley. It's not just me. I've employed their families for years."
Neither Rippo nor Dankers would release the women's names. One of them was known as Carmen.
Dankers said both women have been "immigration fugitives" since 2003, when they appeared before a federal judge and were ordered out of the United States.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005126237
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Deportations carried out in the middle of immigration cases
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
May 22, 2009
Agents have arrested people at Immigration Court in downtown L.A. and expelled them. Authorities say they're reinstating previous orders. Lawyers say the legal process is being flouted.
Fernando Arteaga appeared last week in Immigration Court as part of a lengthy battle to stay in the United States. But just before the hearing began, immigration officers removed him from the courtroom, arrested him and took him into custody.
Several hours later, agents deported him to Mexico -- even though his court case was still underway.
Arteaga, 44, is among a small number of immigrants picked up in recent weeks by immigration agents at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse. All of the people arrested there had been previously deported and all had criminal records, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
Immigration agents are reinstating previous orders of deportation, Kice said, which "enables the nation's immigration judges to focus on the cases of those aliens who have not had their day in court."
"People arrested for being in the United States illegally have access to due process," she said. "However, those who exercise their rights, then willfully ignore the immigration judge's decision or willfully reenter the United States after being previously removed . . . must understand there are consequences for those actions."
The arrests have angered immigration attorneys, who argue that once an immigrant is in court, the judge should make the final decision -- not the immigration agency.
Immigration agents have a choice when they encounter someone with a previous deportation order: They can either reinstate the order or issue a charging document and start a new court case, said Stacy Tolchin, a Los Angeles immigration attorney. If they choose to send the illegal immigrant to court, she said, case precedent holds that the previous order can't be reinstated until the judge terminates the case.
"Once they start that case, only the immigration judge can end it," said Tolchin, of the law firm Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP. "It is really up to the judge's authority."
Retired Los Angeles immigration judge Gilbert T. Gembacz said immigration agents are "asserting power and authority they do not have" by arresting immigrants in the courthouse before proceedings are completed.
"They are acting in a way that demonstrates contempt toward the Immigration Court," he said. "They are acting like immigration judges have no purpose."
Arteaga, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was deported in 1988 based on an assault conviction and sneaked back across the border soon after. In 2003, he was arrested by immigration officials but was released from detention after paying a bond. The immigration agency gave him a notice to appear in court. For the last six years, he had been fighting to stay in the country based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The couple have three U.S.-born children.
Arteaga's attorney, Mario Acosta Jr., said that moments after his client was arrested May 11, he went into the courtroom and explained what had happened. The judge issued a stay of deportation, Acosta said, but the immigration agency ignored the order and deported Arteaga anyway.
"It's mind-boggling," the lawyer said. "To basically arbitrarily decide that you don't want to wait and just deport him, even though his case is still pending before an immigration judge, just screams abuse of power."
Acosta said he is trying to find a legal way to bring his client back to the U.S. to continue with the case.
Arteaga's wife, Rocio, said she was shocked by her husband's arrest, because he had already been allowed out of detention on bond and was doing everything the judge and the government asked.
"My family wants answers," she said. "We want an explanation. Isn't it the judge who has the final word?"
In another case, Salvadoran immigrant Victoria Alfaro was arrested in early May at the Los Angeles immigration courthouse, even though her case wasn't over. She had been deported in 1990 because of a drug conviction and returned illegally. She was placed in immigration proceedings after applying to the government for protected legal status.
Now, she is in immigration custody and her attorney, Gregory Olive, is trying to get her released on bond so she can continue with her case.
Olive said he questions why the government has been moving forward with her court case over the last three years if it planned to arrest and deport her before it was over. "It's a waste of resources," he said.
Olive also said that arresting people in the courthouse is "bad public policy."
"Are people really going to come to court if they think they can be arrested?" he said.
Kice said agents decide where to arrest immigrants depending on several factors, including the availability of information about their whereabouts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigcourt22-2009may22,0,4704874.story
The Los Angeles Times
May 22, 2009
Agents have arrested people at Immigration Court in downtown L.A. and expelled them. Authorities say they're reinstating previous orders. Lawyers say the legal process is being flouted.
Fernando Arteaga appeared last week in Immigration Court as part of a lengthy battle to stay in the United States. But just before the hearing began, immigration officers removed him from the courtroom, arrested him and took him into custody.
Several hours later, agents deported him to Mexico -- even though his court case was still underway.
Arteaga, 44, is among a small number of immigrants picked up in recent weeks by immigration agents at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse. All of the people arrested there had been previously deported and all had criminal records, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
Immigration agents are reinstating previous orders of deportation, Kice said, which "enables the nation's immigration judges to focus on the cases of those aliens who have not had their day in court."
"People arrested for being in the United States illegally have access to due process," she said. "However, those who exercise their rights, then willfully ignore the immigration judge's decision or willfully reenter the United States after being previously removed . . . must understand there are consequences for those actions."
The arrests have angered immigration attorneys, who argue that once an immigrant is in court, the judge should make the final decision -- not the immigration agency.
Immigration agents have a choice when they encounter someone with a previous deportation order: They can either reinstate the order or issue a charging document and start a new court case, said Stacy Tolchin, a Los Angeles immigration attorney. If they choose to send the illegal immigrant to court, she said, case precedent holds that the previous order can't be reinstated until the judge terminates the case.
"Once they start that case, only the immigration judge can end it," said Tolchin, of the law firm Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP. "It is really up to the judge's authority."
Retired Los Angeles immigration judge Gilbert T. Gembacz said immigration agents are "asserting power and authority they do not have" by arresting immigrants in the courthouse before proceedings are completed.
"They are acting in a way that demonstrates contempt toward the Immigration Court," he said. "They are acting like immigration judges have no purpose."
Arteaga, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was deported in 1988 based on an assault conviction and sneaked back across the border soon after. In 2003, he was arrested by immigration officials but was released from detention after paying a bond. The immigration agency gave him a notice to appear in court. For the last six years, he had been fighting to stay in the country based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The couple have three U.S.-born children.
Arteaga's attorney, Mario Acosta Jr., said that moments after his client was arrested May 11, he went into the courtroom and explained what had happened. The judge issued a stay of deportation, Acosta said, but the immigration agency ignored the order and deported Arteaga anyway.
"It's mind-boggling," the lawyer said. "To basically arbitrarily decide that you don't want to wait and just deport him, even though his case is still pending before an immigration judge, just screams abuse of power."
Acosta said he is trying to find a legal way to bring his client back to the U.S. to continue with the case.
Arteaga's wife, Rocio, said she was shocked by her husband's arrest, because he had already been allowed out of detention on bond and was doing everything the judge and the government asked.
"My family wants answers," she said. "We want an explanation. Isn't it the judge who has the final word?"
In another case, Salvadoran immigrant Victoria Alfaro was arrested in early May at the Los Angeles immigration courthouse, even though her case wasn't over. She had been deported in 1990 because of a drug conviction and returned illegally. She was placed in immigration proceedings after applying to the government for protected legal status.
Now, she is in immigration custody and her attorney, Gregory Olive, is trying to get her released on bond so she can continue with her case.
Olive said he questions why the government has been moving forward with her court case over the last three years if it planned to arrest and deport her before it was over. "It's a waste of resources," he said.
Olive also said that arresting people in the courthouse is "bad public policy."
"Are people really going to come to court if they think they can be arrested?" he said.
Kice said agents decide where to arrest immigrants depending on several factors, including the availability of information about their whereabouts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigcourt22-2009may22,0,4704874.story
Friday, April 24, 2009
US Supreme Court ruling ray of hope for undocumented immigrants
Merco Press , South Atlantic News Agency
April 24, 2009
The United States Supreme Court made it easier this week for undocumented immigrants seeking to avoid deportation to get another chance at a court hearing. The decision came in the case of Jean Marc Nken, from Cameroon, who came to the United States in 2001 and did not leave when his visa expired.
Nken has since applied for asylum, married a US citizen and had a child, who also is an American. But immigration authorities and federal courts have repeatedly rejected asylum claims, which allegedly include the prospect of persecution if he is sent back to the African nation of Cameroon, where he says he was detained and beaten for participating in anti-government protests.
The Federal Appeals courts have split on what standard to apply to requests to temporarily block deportation while taking another look at immigration cases. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia applied a very tough standard to Nken's request for a stay and rejected it.
But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the 7-2 decision, overturned the appeals court and sent it back for reconsideration, saying courts should use a less stringent standard. "The whole idea is to hold the matter under review in abeyance because the appellate court lacks sufficient time to decide the merits," Roberts said. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
However the ruling also warned the courts not to start routinely offering stays in deportation cases.
"The alien must show both irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, in addition to establishing that the interest of the parties and the public weigh in his or her favour," Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
And the threat of deportation isn't enough to show irreparable injury, Roberts said. "Aliens who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review, and those who prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return," Roberts said.
Nevertheless the ruling could become a chance for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants that live and work in the US, most of them from Latinamerica.
President Barack Obama is expected to launch next month a public opinion debate on migration reform with the purpose that Congress discuss a bill that contemplates the situation of the millions of undocumented living in the US.
As a Senator, Obama voted twice in favour of the migration reform although he also supported building the wall along the border with Mexico.
However since taking office he has ordered a temporary halt in the illegal migrants raids, which under former president George Bush rounded up hundreds of thousands.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/23/us-supreme-court-ruling-ray-of-hope-for-undocumented-immigrants
April 24, 2009
The United States Supreme Court made it easier this week for undocumented immigrants seeking to avoid deportation to get another chance at a court hearing. The decision came in the case of Jean Marc Nken, from Cameroon, who came to the United States in 2001 and did not leave when his visa expired.
Nken has since applied for asylum, married a US citizen and had a child, who also is an American. But immigration authorities and federal courts have repeatedly rejected asylum claims, which allegedly include the prospect of persecution if he is sent back to the African nation of Cameroon, where he says he was detained and beaten for participating in anti-government protests.
The Federal Appeals courts have split on what standard to apply to requests to temporarily block deportation while taking another look at immigration cases. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia applied a very tough standard to Nken's request for a stay and rejected it.
But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the 7-2 decision, overturned the appeals court and sent it back for reconsideration, saying courts should use a less stringent standard. "The whole idea is to hold the matter under review in abeyance because the appellate court lacks sufficient time to decide the merits," Roberts said. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
However the ruling also warned the courts not to start routinely offering stays in deportation cases.
"The alien must show both irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, in addition to establishing that the interest of the parties and the public weigh in his or her favour," Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
And the threat of deportation isn't enough to show irreparable injury, Roberts said. "Aliens who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review, and those who prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return," Roberts said.
Nevertheless the ruling could become a chance for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants that live and work in the US, most of them from Latinamerica.
President Barack Obama is expected to launch next month a public opinion debate on migration reform with the purpose that Congress discuss a bill that contemplates the situation of the millions of undocumented living in the US.
As a Senator, Obama voted twice in favour of the migration reform although he also supported building the wall along the border with Mexico.
However since taking office he has ordered a temporary halt in the illegal migrants raids, which under former president George Bush rounded up hundreds of thousands.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/23/us-supreme-court-ruling-ray-of-hope-for-undocumented-immigrants
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors
Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
January 9, 2009
The New York Times
The Bush administration has issued a ruling that illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to effective legal representation in deportation hearings, closing off one of the most common avenues for appealing deportation decisions.
The ruling, by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, concerns three appeals by people ordered to be deported who said their cases had been hurt by mistakes by their lawyers. Mr. Mukasey wrote in an opinion released late Wednesday that “neither the Constitution nor any statutory or regulatory provision entitles an alien to a do-over if his initial removal proceeding is prejudiced by the mistakes of a privately retained lawyer.”
Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts. Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they expected the ruling to be appealed.
A long line of decisions in the federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, a unit of the executive branch that reviews the rulings of immigration courts, had found that immigrants whose lawyers had failed them could ask that their cases be reopened on constitutional grounds, including in a case, In re Assaad, decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals five years ago.
The Bush administration, however, has argued successfully in several more-recent cases in federal appeals courts that there is no constitutional right to have a deportation case reopened because of ineffective legal representation.
“The law was settled until the Bush administration came in,” said Lucas Guttentag, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of several groups that had urged Mr. Mukasey to take more time to decide the matter.
Angelo A. Paparelli, an immigration lawyer who practices in New York and California, said it was “shocking and outrageous that the attorney general, in the twilight of his holding that position, reaches out and usurps from the Obama administration an opportunity to render a judgment to affirm that aliens in removal proceedings have truly robust constitutional protections.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09immig.html?ref=us
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
January 9, 2009
The New York Times
The Bush administration has issued a ruling that illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to effective legal representation in deportation hearings, closing off one of the most common avenues for appealing deportation decisions.
The ruling, by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, concerns three appeals by people ordered to be deported who said their cases had been hurt by mistakes by their lawyers. Mr. Mukasey wrote in an opinion released late Wednesday that “neither the Constitution nor any statutory or regulatory provision entitles an alien to a do-over if his initial removal proceeding is prejudiced by the mistakes of a privately retained lawyer.”
Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts. Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they expected the ruling to be appealed.
A long line of decisions in the federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, a unit of the executive branch that reviews the rulings of immigration courts, had found that immigrants whose lawyers had failed them could ask that their cases be reopened on constitutional grounds, including in a case, In re Assaad, decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals five years ago.
The Bush administration, however, has argued successfully in several more-recent cases in federal appeals courts that there is no constitutional right to have a deportation case reopened because of ineffective legal representation.
“The law was settled until the Bush administration came in,” said Lucas Guttentag, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of several groups that had urged Mr. Mukasey to take more time to decide the matter.
Angelo A. Paparelli, an immigration lawyer who practices in New York and California, said it was “shocking and outrageous that the attorney general, in the twilight of his holding that position, reaches out and usurps from the Obama administration an opportunity to render a judgment to affirm that aliens in removal proceedings have truly robust constitutional protections.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09immig.html?ref=us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)