January 29, 2009: Many immigrant workers living in Southern California send a percentage of the money they earn back to their families in their home countries. The money is used to support their families in their home countries. These money transfers are generally referred to as remittances. Remittances from the United States have become a huge source of revenue for many countries all over the world. Mexico is one country that relies heavily on remittances, and revenue from remittances is the second largest source of revenue for Mexico (after oil exports).
For the first time ever, the annual amount of remittances fell from 2007 to 2008. Click here for more.
January 27, 2009: 9th Circuit Case Law – The 9th Circuit issued an opinion, Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, holding that an Alien conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under CA Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) qualifies as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. This decision is important because any alien convicted of an aggravated felony is much more likely to be deported, and has far fewer options available to him/her in terms of avoiding deportation. Aliens with convictions for possession of firearms are not affected by this decision, and a simple possession of a firearm conviction (without having a prior felony conviction) is not an aggravated felony. Full text of the opinion is available here.
To discuss your deportation proceedings and the options available to you, contact The Nunez Firm at 949-903-0088.
January 26, 2009: In the recently published paper, Economic Stimulus through Legalization, Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda argues that legalizing the undocumented population in the United States would provide a tremendous economic boom for individual states and the country as a whole. Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda estimates that legalization of the 10-12 million undocumented workers would result in $30-36 billion in personal income, 750,000-900,000 new jobs and 4.5 to 5.4 billion in net tax revenue. He points out that the immigration reform passed in the mid-1980s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) helped to quell the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Wage growth, increased consumption and increased tax revenues resulted from IRCA, and the middle class saw significant gains. Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda argues that substantial expenditures for the border wall along the Mexican border are not necessary if a proper legalization and immigration reform package is signed into law. He argues that the IRCA-based legalization reduced the demand for exploitable undocumented immigrants, which reduced the amount of illegal crossings.
Economic Stimulus from Legalizing Undocumented Worker
Although I agree with many of Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda’s arguments, I believe that the only way Congress will pass a significant immigration reform and legalization bill is if the bill contains substantial funds for the border wall. This will be necessary in order for the bill to achieve bipartisan support.
January 20, 2009: The 9th Circuit Court issued an opinion regarding immigration law, and more specifically asylum law – Minasyan v. Mukasey, January 20, 2009. The one year rule for asylum applications lay at the heart of the decision. The Petitioner, Mushegh Minasyan, arrived in the United States from Armenia on April 9, 2001. On April 9, 2002, Mr. Minasyan filed his asylum application. Immigration law’s one year rule pertaining to asylum states that an alien seeking asylum must file the application for asylum within one year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the year began running the day Mr. Minasyan arrived in the United States; therefore, the Board ruled that the year ended on April 8, 2002, the day before he filed his asylum application. The 9th Circuit reversed holding that the year ended on April 9, 2002. Mr. Minasyan’s asylum application was valid, and it did not violate the one year rule.
January 19, 2009: New York Times Dual Citizenship Article – Multiple passports are no longer the sole province of people who grew up in more than one country. Today, millions of American citizens qualify for multiple passports for various reasons. The New York Times’ Michael T. Luongo explains – Who Qualifies as a Multiple Citizen: Dual Citizenships
If you are seeking to naturalize as a US Citizen, call The Nunez Firm – 949-903-0088.
January 15, 2009: According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) attorneys, ICE has agreed to release a memo regarding the recent 9th Circuit opinion in Abebe v. Mukasey. In Abebe, the 9th Circuit overturned well-established precedent and held that individuals in deportation proceedings (as opposed to exclusion proceedings) were not eligible for INA § 212(c) relief. The longstanding interpretation of INA § 212(c), prior to Abebe, was that INA § 212(c) was available to individuals in deportation proceedings if the ground of deportation was substantially identical to a ground of inadmissibility. Komarenko v. INS, 35 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1994).
When the Abebe decision was first published, many immigration attorneys were shocked. ICE had not even pursued the argument that Abebe should be overturned; yet, the 9th Circuit overturned Abebe on its own. The decision had widespread effects on countless cases, and immigration attorneys quickly began developing arguments and strategies in order to avoid Abebe’s disastrous effects on many individuals’ cases.
Recently, ICE has announced that it will not pursue the enforcement of Abebe. Essentially, ICE attorneys will not argue during trials that INA § 212(c) is only available to individuals in exclusion proceedings. ICE will continue to follow the Komarenko decision, and allow INA § 212(c) eligibility if the deportation ground is substantially identical to a ground of inadmissibility. This was a monumental and unexpected announcement from ICE.
The Nuñez Firm handles all types of removal proceedings whether they are deportation or exclusion cases. We represent clients in Los Angeles, Orange County, Inland Empire and San Diego.
January 14, 2009: Today, I represented one of my deportation clients in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was pursuing deportation against my client for a theft crime he committed in 1996. My client, who was originally from Vietnam but now lives in Garden Grove, has married a U.S. Citizen and has a U.S. Citizen son. I was able to stop the U.S. Government from deporting my client. The Immigration Judge ruled that my client should be given a second chance and allowed to remain in the United States. My client and his family were overjoyed with the result. The deportation proceedings were difficult and stressful for them, and they were pleased to be finished with the Los Angeles immigration court. Now, my client and his family can return to their lives in Garden Grove in Orange County to raise their 11 month old son and move on with their lives.
To discuss your deportation case, call The Nunez Firm today – 949-903-0088.
