DACA Dreamers in Iowa will be denied driver's license

Iowa DOT Will Not Issue Driver’s Licenses or Nonoperator IDs to Persons Granted Deferred Actionfor Childhood Arrivals Status

AMES, Iowa – Dec. 27, 2012 – The Iowa Department of Transportation has determined it will not issue driver's licenses or nonoperator identification (ID) cards to persons granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, based on guidelines described by the U.S. Secretary of HomelandSecurity’s memorandum issued June 15, 2012. The Iowa DOT understands the exercising of this prosecutorial discretion by the U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity does not grant lawful status or a lawful immigration path to persons granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. Rather, it is prosecutorial discretion extended in a blanket fashion to persons who are not lawfullyauthorized to be present in the United States. Under Iowa Code §§ 321.182, 321.190 and 321.196, a driver’s license or nonoperator ID card shall only be issued toa foreign national authorized to be present in the United States. Therefore, the Iowa DOT does not have the legal authority under current Iowa law to issue a driver’s license or nonoperator ID card to a person granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status (indicated on Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document, category C33).

I-9 Immigration audits on the rise

Per the NY Times United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited more companies for illegal immigrants on their payrolls in the 2012 fiscal year than in previous years. Audits of employer I-9 forms increased to more than 3,000 in 2012 from 250 in the 2007 fiscal year. From fiscal 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million, ICE data showed. Employers are required to have workers fill out an I-9 form that declares them authorized to work in the country. An employer needs only to verify that identifying documents look real. The audits rely on ICE officers scouring payroll records to find names that do not match Social Security numbers and other identification databases. In the 2011 fiscal year, the most recent year reviewed by The Associated Press, the median fine was $11,000. The state with the most workplaces fined was Texas with 63, followed by New Jersey with 37. HIre a lawyer and do a self audit.. itwill save money in the long run.

Obama softens stance on Immigration enforcement

The Obama administration softened its enforcement immigration policies on Friday announced a policy change that — if it works — should lead to smarter enforcement of the immigration laws, with greater effort spent on deporting dangerous felons and less on minor offenders who pose no threat. The new policy places stricter conditions on when Immigration and Customs Enforcement sends requests, known as detainers, to local law-enforcement agencies asking them to hold suspected immigration violators in jail until the government can pick them up. Detainers will be issued for serious offenders — those who have been convicted or charged with a felony, who have three or more misdemeanor convictions, or have one conviction or charge for misdemeanor crimes like sexual abuse, drunken driving, weapons possession or drug trafficking. Those who illegally re-entered the country after having been deported or posing a national-security threat would also be detained. But there would be no detainers for those with no convictions or records of only petty offenses like traffic violations. John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, said this was a case of “setting priorities” to “maximize public safety.” But wait, you ask, shouldn’t ICE have been doing this all along? Didn’t Mr. Morton sayin a memo two years ago that ICE would use its “prosecutorial discretion” to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants? He did. But for nearly as long as President Obama has been in office, ICE has been vastly expanding its deportation efforts, enlistingstate and local agencies to expel people at a record pace of 400,000 a year — tens of thousands of them noncriminals or minor offenders. By outsourcing “discretion” to local cops through a fingerprinting program called Secure Communities, it has greatly increased the number of small fry caught in an ever-wider national dragnet. Some cities and states have resisted cooperating with ICE detainers for the very reasons of proportionality and public safety that Mr. Morton cited on Friday. California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, told her state’s law enforcement agencies this month that ICE had no authority to force them to jail minor offenders who pose no threat. From the NY Times

We all have to do better

Amazing speech from an unlikely source about the state of affairs in this country

Chinese Asylum fraud scheme in NYC leads to 26 people arrested including 6 Immigration Attorneys

USCIS and the FBI bust a Chinese fraud asylum ring in New York City . As alleged in the Indictments, at least 10 New York City area law firms created and submitted these fraudulent applications on behalf of alien applicants and coached them on how to lie to immigration authorities. Of the 26 defendants charged, 21 work at the various law firms, six as attorneys. Also charged are four translators who work at an asylum office in Queens, New York; and an employee at a church in Queens where she allegedly provides training in basic Christianity to asylum applicants falsely claiming to have been persecuted in China for their religious beliefs. Twenty-one defendants were taken into custody late this morning and will be presented and arraigned this afternoon and tomorrow before United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.

Recent DACA statistics

USCIS statistics on DACA cases from 8/15/12 to 12/13/12 which shows a total of 355,889 accepted DACA requests for processing, 336,464 biometric services appointments scheduled, 157,151 requests under review, and 102,965 requests approved.

Former INS Agent indicted for Marrriage Fraud Scheme

Sham Marriage ring busted by ICE. SAN FRANCISCO – A past applications-adjudicator for the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been indicted by a Bay Area grand jury on nine criminal counts stemming from his alleged role in a marriage fraud scheme. Andrew Chojecki, 61, a naturalized U.S. citizen who most recently resided in Poland, is charged in an indictment handed down Dec. 6 with conspiracy to commit marriage and visa fraud, marriage fraud, and alien harboring. The charges are the result of a two year probe by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and its partner agencies on the San Francisco Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's Fraud Detection and National Security Unit. Six additional defendants are accused of conspiring with Chojecki to commit the fraud. According to the indictment, unsealed Monday, Chojecki allegedly facilitated fraudulent marriages in exchange for cash payments from at least April 2010 through November of this year. Each count of conspiracy to commit marriage and visa fraud, and marriage fraud carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of alien harboring is 10 years in prison. The government is also seeking forfeiture of assets arising out of the conspiracy and alien harboring counts.

Cap reached for Suspension and Cancellation Cases

The cap for Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal and Suspension grants was reached on 12/05/12 for the current fiscal year. Below you will find a link to the OPPM previously published by EOIR describing how these cases will be handled by the Immigration Judges. http://www.justice.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm12/12-01.pdf If a new OPPM is published for this fiscal year or I receive any further information I will certainly share it with the chapter. As was the case last year, the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Judges will still proceed with the Individual Hearings on these cases as currently scheduled; however, the Immigration Judges will reserve decision on the case until the new fiscal year has begun, after October 1, 2013, unless reserved grants become available sooner. It is my understanding some grants have been reserved for detained cases.

Can you file a N-400 application for Naturalization too early?

file a N-400 application for Naturalization too early?Is it INA § 334 permits a naturalization applicant to file a Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, up to 3 months before the date the applicant would first meet the 5-year or 3-year continuous residence requirement. See INA §§ 316(a), 319(a); 8 C.F.R. §334.2(b). While the application can be filed within this 3 month time period, the applicant cannot be naturalized until he or she has met the 5-year or 3-year continuous residence requirement, in addition to meeting the other statutory requirements for naturalization. See INA §§ 316, 319. The National Benefits Center (NBC) conducts preliminary processing of N-400s. When an applicant files a Form N-400 within the 90 day period prior to meeting the continuous residence requirement, the NBC places the application on a “Residence Date Hold.” Only when the continuous residence requirement is met will the NBC place the application in the field office interview scheduling queue. The field office then provides the interview date and time to the NBC and the NBC sends out the appointment notice and transfers the file to the field office. Form N-400 processing times are a function of field office resources and staffing, and therefore, vary from office to office. When preparing an N-400 application, one should consider whether filing the N-400 during the 90-day period prior to meeting the continuous residence requirement is really beneficial Since the naturalization interview will not be scheduled until the applicant has met the 5-year or 3-year continuous residence requirement, waiting to file the N-400 until the applicant has met the requirement may effectively shorten the overall processing time from date of filing to interview.

Juarez Embassy no longer accepting Form I-601 for waivers

Effective Dec. 5, 2012, applicants in Mexico may no longer file Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility at the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office or any associated Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal. Applicants in Mexico must now file Form I-601 and associated Form I-212 with the

USCIS Phoenix Lockbox.

Sean Hannity and the Conservatives changing view on Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

After the election and the overwhelming support of the of the Democratic party by Latino, it seems like there is a change in view of Conservatives for comprehensive immigration reform

First DACA Approvals are in

I received my first two DACA approvals today. I guarantee these DREAMERS make the US a better place for you an me . #DREAM ACT #immigration

While Illegal immigration is down, this shows they will not stop trying

While Illegal immigration is down, this shows they will not stop trying .

Yuma, Ariz. — U.S. Border Patrol agents from Yuma Sector’s Yuma Station foiled a smuggling attempt today when suspects attempting to drive a vehicle over the border fence fell prey to their own devices.

Most East Coast USCIS offices still closed due to Hurricane Sandy including NYC USCIS Field office

Most East Coast USCIS offices closed due to Hurrican Sandy . Hang in there East Coast , a return to normal schedule will be back soon

UPDATED: Some Offices Remain Closed from Storm Damage All applicants appointments will be rescheduled to the next available appointment date; applicants do not need to do anything to request a rescheduled date. However walk-ins will be processed on a case-by-case basis. Applicants that were scheduled to appear at an ASC that was closed on Monday, October 29 and Tuesday, October 30, will be rescheduled. If you are an applicant that was processed at an ASC after your previously scheduled date of Monday, October 29 and Tuesday, October 30, you do not need to report to the ASC for a second time and can disregard this rescheduling appointment. If you are scheduled to appear at an ASC that continues to be closed, please refer to the list of office closures on the USCIS public site and continue to monitor for updates on rescheduling of these appointments. If you plan to visit a USCIS office in an area affected by the severe weather or you believe may be affected by severe weather, please call the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) 1-800-375-5283 to ensure the office is open for business and for further instructions on rescheduling your appointment if the office is closed. Please continue to monitor this page for changes.

My Guest Blog piece for www.CRimmigration.com

SYMPOSIUM: RETROACTIVITY MEANS RELIEF FROM INCOMPETENT COUNSEL By Neil I. Fleischer As the son of an immigration attorney, I would often accompany my father to various speeches he would give regarding United States immigration law. He begins every speech by “stating that US immigration is the most complex law in our country. At any one time you can deal with three to five government agencies: the Department of Labor, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of State, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the US customs and Border Protection.” [Click here to see a list of all the symposium contributions.] He would always go on to talk about the “draconian” immigration reform of 1996 called “IIRAIRA.” When I was a student, I did not comprehend the catastrophic results of the this law that can subject foreign nationals and long time permanent residents of the United States to removal/deportation without judicial review or eligibility for bond because of the immigration consequences of their criminal convictions. Minor or “low level” offenses, even those involving no jail time, can subject a noncitizen to deportation, regardless of whether they are lawfully present in the United States. Today, as a practicing immigration attorney, I confront the “draconian” effects of my clients’ criminal convictions. Practicing primarily in Ohio, I am fortunate to have available Ohio Revised Code § 2943.031(A) that provides in part that: [P]rior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest … the court shall address the defendant personally, provide the following advisement to the defendant that shall be entered in the record of the court, and determine that the defendant understands the advisement: “If you are not a citizen of the United States you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense to which you are pleading guilty (or no contest, when applicable) may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” If the judge or magistrate fails to warn a non-citizen of the consequences of his/her plea, in Ohio these convictions can be overturned. However, with the influx of immigrants and enforcement measures, judges are now routinely giving these statutory warnings. Consequently, a non-citizen’s defense counsel has a heightened duty and responsibility to make sure their clients are advised of the immigration consequences of his/her plea deal. This is because, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that attorneys are required, as a matter of law, to inform a client that entering into a plea agreement in a criminal case carries a risk of deportation. Currently, federal district courts are split on whether Padilla applies retroactively, but in the Southern District of Ohio, the U.S. District Court recently held that Padilla does apply retroactively as an extension of the Strickland rule. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Strickland rule is a two-part test that requires a defendant to show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and demonstrate sufficient prejudice to meet the requirements for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 688, 694. In United States v. Reid, decided in August of 2011, in the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Arthur Spiegel held that Reid, a lawful permanent resident at the time of his conviction, was given ineffective counsel that led to deportation proceedings being instituted against him, and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla applied retroactively to Reid’s case. I filed a writ of coram nobis on behalf of Mr. Reid, and we successfully argued that Padilla did not announce a “new rule” that imposes new obligations on the states and federal government, and thus Padilla should be applied retroactively. In November 1997, Reid was indicted on eight counts of bank embezzlement, and his first attorney advised him that he and his family would be subject to deportation proceedings if he were convicted at trial. His attorney also told Reid that he would not be exposed to deportation proceedings if he entered a plea agreement. Reid entered the plea agreement based on this grossly inaccurate advice, and was convicted on one of the eight counts of bank embezzlement, sentenced to sixty days in jail, sixty days in a community treatment center, and three years of supervised release. In July 1999, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Reid with violation of INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), claiming that he was deportable as a result of his conviction for an aggravated felony. Reid was a long-time permanent resident of the United Sates and his entire family, including his children, was now living in the United States. Aliens in a situation such as Reid, who are rendered deportable because of incorrect legal advice regarding the immigration consequences of entering into a plea bargain, have limited options for relief. The holdings of Padilla and Reid made it possible for zealous immigration attorneys to argue that their client’s former defense counsel did not give the correct advise regarding their criminal plea, and could have these convictions vacated or, alternatively, “re-plea” to an offense which would not result in removal from the United States. The cumulative effect of Padilla is that immigration attorneys, such as myself in Reid, have filed motions to vacate convictions prior to 2010 under the Padilla holding. The federal appellate courts have split whether or not Padilla should be applied retroactively. Thus, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 30, 2012 in Chaidez v. United States. The issue in Chaidez is whether the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement. As an attorney who has litigated this issue, and who frequently must counsel clients about the immigration consequences of their plea, I believe it is absolutely critical that the Supreme Court rule that Padilla applies retroactively in order to ensure that criminal defense attorneys’ errors falling below the prevailing “professional norms of representation” standard do not lead to removal of non-citizens. Without Padilla retroactivity, those non-citizens who may have received a “good deal” keeping them from incarceration in state and federal prisons, but who were exposed to ineffective assistance of counsel before Padilla was issued will be at risk of possible mandatory detention and removal. As I learned a long time ago, U.S. immigration law is the most complex law in the land. Misdemeanors are considered “aggravated felonies;” in other words, “low level” crimes can render a noncitizen subject to mandatory detention and removable. In Padilla, the Supreme Court mandated that criminal defense counsel have a heightened duty and responsibility to make sure their clients are advised of the immigration consequences of his/her plea deal. However, the damage to many noncitizens has already been done. Many attorneys were ignorant of the draconian immigration laws, or misguided and uninformed. It is in the interest of justice that the Supreme Court rule that Padilla is retroactive. Neil I. Fleischer is an attorney at The Fleischer Law Firm LLC in Cincinnati. Posted by Cesar at 10/31/2012 4:01 AM Categories: right to counsel, Scholars Sidebar, Chaidez, Padilla v. Kentucky, commentaries, Symposium, guest blogger, U.S. Supreme Court, post-conviction relief Tags: Chaidez Padilla v. Kentucky right to counsel post-conviction relief Scholars Sidebar commentaries guest blogger U.S. Supreme Court Symposium Previous Post Next Post http://crimmigration.com/2012/10/31/symposium-retroactivity-means-relief-from-incompetent-counsel.aspx