OC Immigration Attorney

Immigration officials will soon have 1,300 additional beds to house detained aliens in Southern California who are suspected of being in the country illegally, according to news reports.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials announced an agreement to set up a detention center in Adelanto to create more bed space, The Associated Press reported. Adelanto is northeast of Orange County.

The latest move is part of an effort by immigration authorities to create more detention space in a region where there is a high demand for detention space.

Last year, immigration officials reached an agreement with Orange County to house about 830 immigration detainees at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange and James A. Musick Facility near Irvine.

The agreement made Orange County a vital partner in providing detention space for ICE detainees, officials said. Santa Ana has contracted with ICE, providing 200 beds annually since 2006.

If you have a loved one being detained in Theo Lacy or the Musick Facility, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to discuss your case and the options available to you.

California reached a milestone late last month when federal immigration officials quietly announced that all 58 counties in the state are now participating in Secure Communities, a controversial program created to track and deport dangerous criminals.

Unveiled in late 2008, Secure Communities is billed as a showpiece of immigration enforcement. Under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, state and local police must check the immigration status of people who have been arrested and booked into local jails by matching fingerprints against federal databases for criminal convictions and deportation orders.

But today, Secure Communities is mired in problems. About 60% of the 87,534 immigrants deported under the program had minor or no criminal convictions, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s statistics, even though the program was aimed at dangerous criminals.

Moreover, state and local law enforcement agencies are growing increasingly uneasy about participating in a program that they say thwarts their ability to work with communities with large immigrant populations. Police are concerned that taking on the role of enforcer makes it more difficult to build trust in immigrant communities that are already fearful of reporting crimes or providing crucial information. A report released last week by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington-based research group, found that police chiefs across the nation worry that checking suspects’ backgrounds against databases that include immigration warrants is blurring the lines between public safety and immigration enforcement.

This morning a Los Angeles Immigration Judge ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not meet its evidentiary burden in trying to deport one of our Irvine clients.

The Government Attorney charged our client, who is a lawful permanent resident, with being removable because he was convicted of possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana in 2001. Under U.S. immigration laws, a green card holder can be deported from the United States if s/he is convicted of possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana.

We argued that nothing in the criminal complaint, judgment of conviction or plea agreement proved that the amount of marijuana was anything over 28.5 grams. The government argued that a probation report authored 6 months after the conviction specified the amount of marijuana as more than 200 grams.

After hours of research, Partner at The Nunez Firm Haseeb Omar, wrote a compelling brief to the immigration court explaining why the probation report was hearsay and should not be considered under Supreme Court precedent or Ninth Circuit case law. We argued that the amount of marijuana in question was never determined by the criminal court judge and nothing in the admissible portions of the criminal record proved the amount of marijuana.

The immigration judge agreed and granted the motion to terminate. The client is extremely happy, and he intends to pursue naturalization in the future.

If you are currently in removal or deportation proceedings in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation. We can discuss your case with you during a free and confidential consultation.

With Arizona’s new immigration law going into effect, there is fear that a little known problem will get worse: Americans getting deported.

According to a Northeastern School of Law researcher, there are many cases in which U.S. citizens have been deported. In addition, with Arizona’s new immigration law it just might get worse.

On March 12, while Leslie Cocche stood at the Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail station awaiting the train to Miami, where she attends College, a U.S. Border Patrol agent suddenly began questioning her, and eventually discovered that the 18-year-old Peruvian was in the country illegally. Cocche then was arrested, handcuffed and handed over for deportation proceedings.

In contrast to the controversial Arizona state law that would allow police officers to request immigration papers from individuals, federal immigration agents are allowed to demand documents from any foreign national at any time.

Even after Homeland Security said that immigration authorities would focus on removing convicted foreign criminals, apparently the situation has not changed much.

Officials of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Homeland Security agency in charge of deportations, acknowledge that deportations of noncriminal immigration-law violators are continuing, but say the agency now views them as “low-priority.”

However, figures from Oct. 1 to June 7 show that the number of criminal and noncriminal removals are almost even. The number of noncriminal removals still exceeds that of criminal deportations, but only by 257 people.

According to Cheryl Little, executive director of the Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the ICE definition of criminal includes people found guilty of minor violations, such as expired driver’s license and illegal entry into the United States.

The Cocche case is particularly galling to immigrant rights advocates because she is in the country not by choice but because her parents brought her here when she was a child and legislation repeatedly introduced in Congress as the DREAM Act would grant young undocumented students green cards.

The U.S. Border Patrol’s assistant chief patrol agent for the Miami Sector, stated that she was found to be illegally in the US, arrested and placed in removal proceedings. Subsequently, her sister and parents were placed in deportation proceedings as well.

Cocche was detained for 11 days and eventually released with the promise that she and her family would report later to immigration court in Miami.

If they lose their case they could all be deported.

Mohammad Abdollahi was putting his life on the line when he lobbied for immigration reform in Arizona this week, experts say.

The undocumented Ann Arbor resident, along with three other students, was arrested Monday and later detained by immigration officials in Arizona when he refused to leave Sen. John McCain’s office. The incidents spawned a response across the country, including two vigils, a protest and hunger strike among some Michigan students.

Though the four have been released, they now face deportation hearings in immigration courts in their home states, officials said Wednesday.

But what makes Abdollahi’s case unique is he is gay, and deportation for him could mean death in his native country of Iran.

“His safety and well-being would be in immediate jeopardy if he is returned to Iran,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for Immigration Equality, a New York-based legal aid organization for gay immigrants. “It is a notorious homophobic country where lesbians and gays routinely face torture, violence and even execution. It is among the most dangerous countries on the globe for lesbian and gay people.”

But Abdollahi could seek asylum because of the violence in Iran, Ralls added. A policy in place since the mid-1990s requires that asylum seekers file paperwork within a year of their arrival in the U.S.

“His case presents some challenges,” Ralls said. “It is a high bar to meet but it is not an impossible one.”

Abdollahi, who came to the U.S. when he was 3 with his family, said he was aware of the risk he was taking when he refused to leave McCain’s office. But he thought it was critical to be part of civil disobedience to pressure lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act — federal legislation that would create citizenship for undocumented youths and give them higher education access — even if it means he could get deported to Iran.

“It’s a worry,” said Abdollahi, 24. “But if we can get the DREAM Act passed it would help so many lives, it would be worth it. I have seen too many friends get deported.”

Abdollahi’s father came to the U.S. on a student visa 21 years ago, and the family lost their legal status when Abdollahi was 8 or 9 years old, he said. He graduated from Huron High School, and went to Washtenaw Community College.

In 2007, he sought to transfer to Eastern Michigan University to train to be a social worker. A counselor gave him an acceptance letter, and five minutes later took it back after they became aware of his citizenship status, he said.

My client’s deportation proceedings were terminated by the Immigration Court in Los Angeles this morning, which means she will not be subject to removal and will not be forced to return to the Los Angeles Immigration Court again. The Immigration Judge terminated the deportation case because my client was approved for VAWA a few months ago, which entitles her to keep her green card and lawful permanent resident status.

My client was married to an abusive husband for several years. He was physically and emotionally abusive, and he manipulated her into staying in the relationship because he threatened to have her deported if she ever spoke to the police. We spent months preparing a comprehensive and convincing VAWA case. We filed for VAWA in late 2008, and the case was approved in early 2010.

Unfortunately, this scenario occurs all the time in the United States. A dramatic power imbalance exists if the US citizen spouse decides to take advantage of the non-citizen spouse’s situation. Many US citizen spouses treat their alien spouses as servants and order them to do anything and everything using threats of deportation. Many abusive spouses beat and emotionally abuse their spouses, and the alien victims are afraid to report the crimes to the police due to fear that they will be arrested and deported, or that the police will believe a US citizen over a foreigner.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides several immigration benefits to abused spouses and children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents. VAWA was passed into law in 1994. VAWA provides lawful permanent resident status to spouses and children that have been battered by or subjected to extreme cruelty from the US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse. Contrary to popular belief, abused male spouses are equally entitled to the immigration benefits provided by VAWA.

If you or someone you know is an alien victim of domestic violence, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally discuss your case with you during a confidential consultation. The Nunez Firm has helped countless domestic violence victims obtain green cards and break away from their dependence on their abusive spouses.

In Cruz Rendon v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Immigration Judge Anna Ho’s denial of a cancellation of removal application for non-lawful permanent residents. The Ninth Circuit found that Judge Ho’s refusal to grant a continuance for Cruz Rendon’s attorney to better prepare the cancellation case denied Cruz Rendon “a full and fair hearing.” Additionally, the Appeals Court found that Judge Ho was unreasonable in limiting Cruz Rendon’s testimony regarding her son’s learning disabilities.

Cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents is a form of relief from deportation that allows undocumented aliens to remain in the United States if they meet certain criteria. The alien must have been physically present in the United States for not less than 10 years. The alien must have good moral character during the ten year period. The alien must not have been convicted of certain offenses. Finally, the alien must prove that removal/deportation from the United States would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the alien’s US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent or child.

Cruz Rendon entered the United States at some time after January 1, 1990. She had a four year old son with ADHD. A psychologist provided a report regarding the son’s ADHD. During Ms. Cruz Rendon’s testimony, she tried to explain the child’s learning disability and the difficulties associated with it, but Judge Ho continuously cut her off and disallowed the testimony stating “I believe the psychologist’s evaluation is much better than what this lady has to tell me.”

The Ninth Circuit criticized Immigration Judge Ho for not allowing a continuance as well. Ms. Cruz Rendon appeared at her court hearing on December 16, 2004 with her attorney for the first time. Immigration Judge Ho scheduled the trial for January 14, 2005, which allowed counsel only one month to prepare for the trial. (Keep in mind that most attorneys are allowed 4-12 months to prepare for trial.)

In the end, the Ninth Circuit held “We have no difficulty concluding that the denial of the requested continuance, in conjunction with the limitations placed upon her testimony, prevented Cruz Rendon from fully and fairly presenting her case. We likewise conclude that the outcome of the hearing may have been affected by these procedural deficiencies. The IJ stated repeatedly that Jose was ‘only’ four years old, and apparently formed the opinion that Jose might simply outgrow his problems. Had Cruz Rendon been permitted to offer more detail about Jose’s medical and educational issues, and had a continuance been granted to permit the further evaluation recommended by Jose’s psychologist, the IJ’s conclusion might have been different. Moreover, had Cruz Rendon been afforded time to obtain evidence regarding the schools in Mexico, the IJ might not have relied impermissibly upon her own unsupported opinion that Mexico ‘is really trying very hard to work on [special education].’ ”

If you are currently in deportation proceedings in immigration court, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you personally and explain your immigration situation and options to you thoroughly.

A client was granted adjustment of status today during immigration court proceedings in Los Angeles, California. The client was previously approved for VAWA several years ago based on his marriage to his abusive wife. The couple was married for several years, and his wife regularly drank and used drugs and assaulted him on several occasions. Eventually he moved out and divorced her. 

His case was transferred to California after he moved from New York to Los Angeles. After several hearings in Los Angeles, the Immigration Judge approved the adjustment of status today.

VAWA cases are complicated and the difference between an approval and a denial often turns on how well the case is prepared and organized. The Nunez Firm has represented many VAWA clients, and our success rate is extremely high. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will meet with you during a free consultation in order to discuss your case fully and give you a better understanding of the options available to you.

We just found out that the motion to reopen that we filed in December 2009 will be granted for a client detained in Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster, California. The client was ordered deported in absentia in 2007. The notice of the hearing and notice to appear were sent to the wrong address, and my client was unaware that deportation proceedings had been instituted against him. Because my client did not attend the hearing, the Immigration Judge ordered him deported. My client did not find out about the deportation order until he was arrested by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers in August 2009.

In December 2009, we filed a motion to reopen his case arguing that ICE did not provide proper and reasonable notice regarding the deportation hearing. The immigration judge agreed and granted the motion to reopen. As of right now, the client is still being detained in Mira Loma even though the case has been reopened. We intend to file a motion for release from detention arguing that mandatory detention is not appropriate in this case. If he is released, his case will be transferred to the immigration court in Los Angeles, California.

If you or someone you know has been ordered deported in absentia for failing to appear at an immigration court proceeding, contact The Nunez Firm to discuss your case further. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will discuss your case thoroughly and help you understand the options available to you.