Defenses to Deportation/Notice to Appear

Sandra Boogaard • Jul 22, 2013

Immigrants usually get alarmed when they are served with a Notice to Appear (NTA). There is definitely reason to be alarmed! A Notice to Appear means that the government wants to prove that you should be deported from the United States, and have an Immigration judge order you deported. If you are served with an NTA, you should contact an skillful Immigration Attorney who knows how to defend against these cases. There are many  defenses to deportation. #Immigration.

The most commonly used are (1) waivers of excludability and deportability; (2) cancellation of removal for permanent residents; (3) cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents; (4) suspension of deportation; (5) adjustment of status to permanent residence; (5) asylum and withholding of deportation; (6) legalization and registry, (7) voluntary departure and (8) Relief under the United Nations Convention against Torture.(CAT)

Waivers

T he immigration law lists various grounds by which an persons who are already in deportation proceedings may apply for a Waiver. All the waivers available require that the alien’s establish hardship to himself or to his close family members if he were to be removed from the U.S. For example a person who is being deported for certain criminal grounds may be eligible for a waiver under §212(h) if the failure to admit him to the U.S. would result in "extreme hardship" to his LPR or USC spouse, parent(s), son(s) or daughter(s)., Similarly a person who has committed fraud or a material misrepresentation may apply for a waiver under §212(i) if his deportation from the U.S. would result in "extreme hardship" to his lawful permanent resident (LPR) or U.S. citizen (USC) spouse or parents.

Cancellation of Removal for Permanent Residents

Cancellation Removal has the effect of "pardoning" or "forgiving" the basis for the alien's deportability and returning his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Only certain grounds of deportability may be waived by a grant of Cancellation of Removal. Moreover, under new immigration laws, an alien is only eligible for one (1) grant of such relief in a lifetime. A denial of an Application for Cancellation of Removal results in an administrative order returning the alien to his country of designation (citizenship, nationality, or last residence) through a forcible order effectuating his removal or deportation from the United States .

In making a decision, an Immigration Judge will weigh certain positive factors against negative factors in determining whether an alien should be permitted to remain in the United States. In the case of Permanent Residents, a granted application will have the effect of allowing the lawful permanent resident to maintain his status and remain in the United States. In the case of Illegal Aliens, a granted application will have the effect of allowing an undocumented alien or nonimmigrant to become a permanent resident of the United States. An Immigration Judge will consider such factors as family ties, history of employment, community service, long residency in the United States, property & assets, criminal record, immigration violations, rehabilitation & remorse, etc. Both types of applications for Cancellation of Removal are discretionary in nature, permitting an Immigration Judge to grant or deny the application as he deems fit. Even if an alien can demonstrate all of the above factors, this does not mean that an application will be granted, only that he has demonstrated prima facie (minimum standards for eligibility) eligibility.

This section of the law allows the Attorney General (usually an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals) to cancel the removal of a lawful permanent resident from the U.S. if:

1. He has been a Lawful Permanent Resident for a minimum of five years;
2. Has resided continuously in the U.S. for a minimum of seven years after being admitted to the U.S. in any status (prior to the institution of removal proceedings);
3. He has not been convicted of an aggravated felony;
4. He is not inadmissible from the U.S. on security grounds.

The following classes of persons are ineligible for cancellation of removal: (1) Certain crewmen; (2) Exchange visitors (in "J" status) who received medical training in the U.S.; (3) Persons who have persecuted others; (4) Persons who have previously been granted cancellation of removal, suspension of deportation (See below.) or relief under §212(c); and (5) Persons who committed certain criminal offenses prior to the accrual of the required seven years.

Positive factors include: (1) Close family ties within the U.S.; (2) Long time residency in the U.S.; (3) deep roots in the community (4) ill child (5) Hardship to person and immediate family; (6) Service in U.S. Armed Forces; (7) Employment history; (8) Ownership of property and business; (9) Service to the community; (9) payment of taxes (8) Rehabilitation (if criminal record exists).

Negative factors include: (1) failure to pay taxes (misrepresentation to the court (3) the nature and circumstances of the removal grounds; (4) Criminal record; and (4) other evidence of bad character.

Cancellation of Removal for Non Permanent Residents

Many people know this as the “10 year law.” It allows the Attorney General (usually an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals) to cancel the removal of a non-permanent resident from the U.S. if:

  1. He has been physically present in the U.S. for a continuous period of ten years prior to the institution of removal proceedings. (This requirement is not applicable to persons who have served a minimum of 24 months in the U.S. Armed Forces, was present in the U.S. during his enlistment or induction, and is either serving honorably or has received an honorable discharge.) "Continuous" means that the person can not be out of the U.S. for more than 90 days at a time, or 180 days in the aggregate, during the ten-year period.

  2. He has been a person of good moral character for ten years;

  3. He cannot be inadmissible under §212(a)(2) or (3) (criminal and security grounds) or deportable under §237(a)(1)(G) (marriage fraud), (2) (criminal grounds), (3) (failure to register and falsification of documents) or (4) (security and related grounds).

  4. He established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent or child. (Note: not hardship to the applicant).

Cancellation of Removal for Battered Spouse

A battered spouse must firstly be put into deportation (or "removal" under the new law) proceedings. She must demonstrate three years of continuous physical presence in the United States, instead of ten years as applicable to other individuals. Time toward the three-year period would accrue even after she received the notice to appear for the removal hearing. This is different than the one that applies to other individuals where physical presence in the United States terminates upon service of notice or commission of a criminal act.

The applicant for cancellation must demonstrate good moral character and must not be inadmissible under:

1. Section 212(a)(2) - criminal and related grounds
2. Section 212(a)(3) - security and related grounds
3. Section 237(a)(1)(G) - marriage fraud
4. Section 237(a)(2) - criminal offenses
5. Section 237(a)(3) - document fraud
6. Section 237(a)(4) - security and related grounds

The applicant, furthermore, must not have been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Most difficult is the requirement that the applicant demonstrate that removal would result in extreme hardship. While the battered spouse or child has to demonstrate "extreme hardship", others need to show "extreme and unusual hardship." Unlike in the cancellation of removal for other individuals who have to show "extreme and unusual hardship" to a citizen or resident relative, extreme hardship alone to the battered applicant would suffice.

Suspension of Deportation

A ny deportation proceedings commenced on or after April 1, 1997 are removal proceedings rather than deportation or exclusion proceedings.

However, persons who were placed in deportation proceedings prior to April 1, 1997 as well as NACARA applicants may still be eligible for suspension of deportation. The “seven year law” is more generous than Cancellation of Removal.

A deportable alien may apply for permanent residence through suspension of deportation if he is able to fulfill the following 3 conditions:
1. He must have been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least seven years. Absences, which are “brief, casual and innocent”, do not interrupt the continuity of the alien's physical presence.
2. He must be a person of good moral character.
3. It must be an extreme hardship upon the alien, or his spouse, children or parents who are citizens or residents of the United States if he were deported.

Adjustment of Status

A deportable alien who is the parent, spouse, widow or child of a U.S. citizen may be eligible to apply to the Judge to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident (Green Card). Also qualified to apply for adjustment of status are many aliens whose priority dates for permanent residence are "current". Aliens who obtained conditional permanent residence based upon their marriage, or the marriage of their alien parent, to a U.S. citizen who were unable to have their status adjusted from Conditional (temporary) resident to Permanent Resident may, once INS places them under deportation proceedings, have their application renewed before an Immigration Judge.

Asylum and Withholding of Deportation

Those who have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to their home country may apply for asylum if their fear is based on any of the following grounds:

1. Political opinion
2. Religious belief
3. Nationality
4. Race
5. Membership in a particular social group
If a person is granted asylum, after one year they may apply for permanent resident status.

Withholding of deportation is similar to asylum. However, it differs in 2 important respects: (1) It does not permit the alien to apply for permanent residence, and (2) it only prohibits the INS from deporting the alien to one particular country.

Legalization and Amnesty

O nce an illegal alien has been found qualified for legalization or "amnesty" by the INS, the deportation hearing will typically be closed since the alien will have attained the legal right to remain in the United States. Those who have filed for LULAC or Meese (Late Amnesty) may have their cases terminated.

Registry is another means of attaining lawful permanent residence in the United States. It is available to aliens who have resided continuously in the U.S. since prior to January 1, 1972, who are persons of good moral character, who are not deportable on certain aggravated grounds, and who are not ineligible to citizenship. This is very similar to Amnesty and still is available to this day.

Citizenship

A nyone that has fulfilled the requirements for naturalization may request that the case be either terminated or held in abeyance pending the results of the citizenship application.

Voluntary Departure

I n most case, if there is no special relief available that would stop the deportation, the alien may apply for Voluntary Departure. Once it is granted the alien will have 4 months to leave the United States. During this time they can get their life in order and prepare for their departure. Voluntary Departure avoids both the problems associated with a deportation and enable to enable the alien, in many cases, to eventually return to the U.S.

Voluntary departure is available to aliens who are not deportable on aggravated grounds, who have the ability to pay for their own airplane tickets, who agree to depart within a period of time granted by the Immigration Judge, and who can establish good moral character during the previous five-year period. The IIRIRA limited voluntary departure in several important ways. Extensions of voluntary departure are no longer possible. Nor may an alien granted voluntary departure obtain work authorization. This limits the usefulness of voluntary departure.

Understand that every application for relief form deportation is decided at the discretion of the Immigration Judge, except for Withholding of Deportation. A final order of an Immigration Judge may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and in some cases to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals.

CAT Relief/Temporary Deferral of Removal

If an individual will be subjected to Torture in their home country, the UN Convention states that they should not be "refoulered" or sent home. The burden of proof for CAT relief is extremely high and persons should probably not attempt this without the help of an experienced and thorough Immigration Attorney. There are no criminal ground bars to CAT, so almost anyone can apply for this kind of relief if they can prove their case.

 

Immigration News

President's Biden Immigration Bill Overview!

By Sandra Boogaard • 06 Feb, 2021
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere. President Biden is sending a bill to Congress on day one to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system. The bill provides hardworking people who enrich our communities every day and who have lived here for years, in some cases for decades, an opportunity to earn citizenship. The legislation modernizes our immigration system, and prioritizes keeping families together, growing our economy, responsibly managing the border with smart investments, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, and ensuring that the United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution. The bill will stimulate our economy while ensuring that every worker is protected. The bill creates an earned path to citizenship for our immigrant neighbors, colleagues, parishioners, community leaders, friends, and loved ones—including Dreamers and the essential workers who have risked their lives to serve and protect American communities. FEATURES OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT: PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO CITIZENSHIP & STRENGTHEN LABOR PROTECTIONS • Create an earned roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals. The bill allows undocumented individuals to apply for temporary legal status, with the ability to apply for green cards after five years if they pass criminal and national security background checks and pay their taxes. Dreamers, TPS holders, and immigrant farmworkers who meet specific requirements are eligible for green cards immediately under the legislation. After three years, all green card holders who pass additional background checks and demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics can apply to become citizens. Applicants must be physically present in the United States on or before January 1, 2021. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may waive the presence requirement for those deported on or after January 20, 2017 who were physically present for at least three years prior to removal for family unity and other humanitarian purposes. Lastly, the bill further recognizes America as a nation of immigrants by changing the word “alien” to “noncitizen” in our immigration laws. • Keep families together. The bill reforms the family-based immigration system by clearing backlogs, recapturing unused visas, eliminating lengthy wait times, and increasing per-country visa caps. It also eliminates the so-called “3 and 10-year bars,” and other provisions that keep families apart. The bill further supports families by more explicitly including permanent partnerships and eliminating discrimination facing LGBTQ+ families. It also provides protections for orphans, widows, children, and Filipino veterans who fought alongside the United States in World War II. Lastly, the bill allows immigrants with approved family-sponsorship petitions to join family in the United States on a temporary basis while they wait for green cards to become available. • Embrace diversity. The bill includes the NO BAN Act that prohibits discrimination based on religion and limits presidential authority to issue future bans. The bill also increases Diversity Visas to 80,000 from 55,000. • Promote immigrant and refugee integration and citizenship. The bill provides new funding to state and local governments, private organizations, educational institutions, community-based organizations, and not-for-profit organizations to expand programs to promote integration and inclusion, increase English-language instruction, and provide assistance to individuals seeking to become citizens. • Grow our economy. This bill clears employment-based visa backlogs, recaptures unused visas, reduces lengthy wait times, and eliminates per-country visa caps. The bill makes it easier for graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees to stay in the United States; improves access to green cards for workers in lower-wage sectors; and eliminates other unnecessary hurdles for employment-based green cards. The bill provides dependents of H-1B visa holders work authorization, and children are prevented from “aging out” of the system. The bill also creates a pilot program to stimulate regional economic development, gives DHS the authority to adjust green cards based on macroeconomic conditions, and incentivizes higher wages for non-immigrant, high-skilled visas to prevent unfair competition with American workers. • Protect workers from exploitation and improve the employment verification process. The bill requires that DHS and the Department of Labor establish a commission involving labor, employer, and civil rights organizations to make recommendations for improving the employment verification process. Workers who suffer serious labor violations and cooperate with worker protection agencies will be granted greater access to U visa relief. The bill protects workers who are victims of workplace retaliation from deportation in order to allow labor agencies to interview these workers. It also protects migrant and seasonal workers, and increases penalties for employers who violate labor laws. PRIORITIZE SMART BORDER CONTROLS • Supplement existing border resources with technology and infrastructure. The legislation builds on record budget allocations for immigration enforcement by authorizing additional funding for the Secretary of DHS to develop and implement a plan to deploy technology to expedite screening and enhance the ability to identify narcotics and other contraband at every land, air, and sea port of entry. This includes high-throughput scanning technologies to ensure that all commercial and passenger vehicles and freight rail traffic entering the United States at land ports of entry and rail-border crossings along the border undergo pre-primary scanning. It also authorizes and provides funding for plans to improve infrastructure at ports of entry to enhance the ability to process asylum seekers and detect, interdict, disrupt and prevent narcotics from entering the United States. It authorizes the DHS Secretary to develop and implement a strategy to manage and secure the southern border between ports of entry that focuses on flexible solutions and technologies that expand the ability to detect illicit activity, evaluate the effectiveness of border security operations, and be easily relocated and broken out by Border Patrol Sector. To protect privacy, the DHS Inspector General is authorized to conduct oversight to ensure that employed technology effectively serves legitimate agency purposes. • Manage the border and protect border communities. The bill provides funding for training and continuing education to promote agent and officer safety and professionalism. It also creates a Border Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee, provides more special agents at the DHS Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate criminal and administrative misconduct, and requires the issuance of department-wide policies governing the use of force. The bill directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the impact of DHS’s authority to waive environmental and state and federal laws to expedite the construction of barriers and roads near U.S. borders and provides for additional rescue beacons to prevent needless deaths along the border. The bill authorizes and provides funding for DHS, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and nongovernmental experts, to develop guidelines and protocols for standards of care for individuals, families, and children in CBP custody. • Crack down on criminal organizations. The bill enhances the ability to prosecute individuals involved in smuggling and trafficking networks who are responsible for the exploitation of migrants. It also expands investigations, intelligence collection and analysis pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to increase sanctions against foreign narcotics traffickers, their organizations and networks. The bill also requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and DHS, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to improve and expand transnational anti-gang task forces in Central America. ADDRESS ROOT CAUSES OF MIGRATION • Start from the source. The bill codifies and funds the President’s $4 billion four-year inter-agency plan to address the underlying causes of migration in the region, including by increasing assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, conditioned on their ability to reduce the endemic corruption, violence, and poverty that causes people to flee their home countries. It also creates safe and legal channels for people to seek protection, including by establishing Designated Processing Centers throughout Central America to register and process displaced persons for refugee resettlement and other lawful migration avenues—either to the United States or other partner countries. The bill also re-institutes the Central American Minors program to reunite children with U.S. relatives and creates a Central American Family Reunification Parole Program to more quickly unite families with approved family sponsorship petitions. • Improve the immigration courts and protect vulnerable individuals. The bill expands family case management programs, reduces immigration court backlogs, expands training for immigration judges, and improves technology for immigration courts. The bill also restores fairness and balance to our immigration system by providing judges and adjudicators with discretion to review cases and grant relief to deserving individuals. Funding is authorized for legal orientation programs and counsel for children, vulnerable individuals, and others when necessary to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of their claims. The bill also provides funding for school districts educating unaccompanied children, while clarifying sponsor responsibilities for such children. • Support asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. The bill eliminates the one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and provides funding to reduce asylum application backlogs. It also increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants, including by raising the cap on U visas from 10,000 to 30,000. The bill also expands protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops. NOTE THAT THIS BILL IS NOT YET LAW! IT WILL LIKELY TAKE A WHILE BEFORE ANY PART OF IT BECOMES LAW! YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR ANY OF THESE BENEFITS YET. What you can do is make sure that you are staying out of trouble, paying your taxes, gather documents such as birth certificates, marriage certificates etc. If you have questions about any part of this PROPOSED BILL, please speak with a reputable immigration attorney. Sandra Boogaard Law Office; Phone- (330) 329-7134 or (646) 588-2747 Email: sandra@sandraboogaardlaw.com
The New Public Charge

The New Public Charge Rule

By Sandra Boogaard • 11 Jun, 2020
If you are likely to become a “public charge” or become a financial burden to the U.S. government, your green card application could be denied!. Before you apply for immigration benefits, contact us to determine if you are jeopardizing your case! The new public charge rule applies to the specific adjustment of status (also known as green cards) candidates, as well as certain nonimmigrants looking to change their status or extending their stay.

ICE is about to track license plates across the US!

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
ICE is about to start tracking license plates across the US! Follow the law! The Department of Homeland Security, DHS has reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has procured query-based access to a vendor-owned commercial License Plate Reader (LPR) data service that stores recorded vehicle license plate data from cameras equipped with license plate reader technology. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to the DHS. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking. The commercial database receives data from a variety of governmental and private sources, including: • Toll road cameras; • Parking lot cameras; • Vehicle repossession companies; and • Law enforcement agencies.3 ICE agents would be able to query that database in two ways. A historical search would turn up every place a given license plate has been spotted in the last five years, a detailed record of the target’s movements. That data could be used to find a given subject’s residence or even identify associates if a given car is regularly spotted in a specific parking lot. ICE agents can also receive instantaneous email alerts whenever a new record of a particular plate is found — a system known internally as a “hot list.” Immigrants should ensure that they follow the law at all times to avoid being brought into deportation proceedings because the government now has access to even more technology that can invade your privacy. Call an attorney if you believe your due process rights are being infringed upon. By: Sandra Boogaard Esq. Phone: (330) 329-7134 Email: sandra@sandraboogaardlaw.comA

Do you qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Find out Here!

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
@DACAImmigration @Sboogaardlaw Have you applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) yet? Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Under this process, USCIS will consider requests on a case-by-case basis. While this process does not provide lawful status or a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship, individuals whose cases are deferred will not be removed from the United States for a two year period, subject to renewal, and may also receive employment authorization. To be considered for this process, you must show that: · You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday · You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time · You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012 · You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012 · You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States · You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat · You were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS If you meet the guidelines listed above and are ready to submit your requests to the USCIS, please collect documents as evidence you meet the guidelines including school records, proof of U.S. residency, expired I-94 card and birth certificate. You can then complete and submit I-821D , I-765 and I-765 Worksheet and pay a total fee of $465 to the USCIS. If you require assistance, Sandra Boogaard Law Office can help you to complete and file these documents right the first time! Our fees are extremely moderate.

Self Petition For Green Card - Do you qualify?

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
There are two classifications of Immigrant Workers who are not required to have a job offer and may self-petition for a green card to come to the United States to live and work permanently. These persons do not need an employer or sponsor to file nor will they need to go through the labor certification process.These categories include: *Individuals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics, (E11) *Individuals who were granted a National Interest Waiver (NIW), (E2) INDIVIDUALS OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILTY: These are people at the top of their field and are considered top priority and given first preference. Foreign nationals of “extraordinary ability” are considered “priority workers” of the 1st preference employment category, and do not need an employer/sponsor or labor certification. To qualify, the foreign national must show they are part of the “small percentage” of individuals who have “risen to the very top of the field of endeavor”, and will continue to work in the U.S. in their chosen area of expertise. The extraordinary ability standard is very difficult to meet by definition, and the foreign national must have either won a major, internationally respected award (the prime example being the Nobel Prize) or present extensive evidence of certain types showing extraordinary achievement in their field. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER: Individuals who may have restrictions waived due to a National Interest Waiver are considered 2nd preference workers, one category below extraordinary ability. Even if the foreign national is does not meet the restrictive “extraordinary ability” standard, they may still avoid labor certification and self-petition if they are in the 2nd preference employment category and show eligibility for a national interest waiver. 2nd preference workers must either have advanced degrees (Ph.D., Master’s, or in some cases a Bachelor’s with experience), or be of “exceptional ability”. Generally speaking, “exceptional ability” is defined as expertise significantly above the average that will be beneficial to the U.S. in particular, specified ways. To show eligibility for a national interest waiver, the 2nd preference worker must meet three additional criteria: their employment must be in an “area of substantial intrinsic merit”, their work must be “national in scope”, and this employment will present a “national benefit so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor certification process”. In other words, the foreign national must show that his or her work is so beneficial to the United States that it is worth risking replacing qualified and willing U.S. citizens workers in this field by skipping the labor certification process, and extensive documentation must be submitted. Advisory: You may NOT self petition based on employment, if you are not in one of these two categories. For other employment based green cards, there is the option of Green Card Through a Job Offer or “Green Card Through Investment. Sandra Boogaard Law Office can help you file a successful Self Petition Green Card Application. Contact us if you need further information or assistance. Phone (646) 688-2747. www.sandraboogaardlaw.com #Sboogaardlaw #Immigration #Self Petition
Stop and Frisk

What do you think about the Stop and Frisk Law in New York?

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
Original post by Peter Moskowitz Two NYPD officers stop three people in the stairwell of 212 West 129th street. January 2013 NYPD Inspector Rodney Harrison, center, and with his driver Officer Jimmy Hughes, left, stop three individuals in the stairwell of 212 West 129th street. January 2013 Joe Marino/NY Daily News/Getty Images Last month, two police officers approached 26-year-old Kentrell Reed as he left his apartment complex in Brooklyn. One of them pulled out a gun and told him to put his hands in the air, Reed said. The officers then proceeded to search his pockets. “They told me there was a shooting in the area,” Reed said. “I wanted to ask more questions, but I figured it was best that I just mind my manners… We've always been the first one that they point their finger at.” Reed, who is black, said it was the seventh time he was stopped and searched without a warrant by police in the last year. For Reed and thousands of other young black and Latino men in New York City, the police tactic of stopping and searching people deemed suspicious – known as “stop-and-frisk” – has become a familiar routine. The New York Police Department makes hundreds of thousands of stops a year, primarily of young men of color. But that may change drastically in the wake of a ruling in two lawsuits Monday by federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, who said that the practice violates the privacy and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Saying stop-and-frisk amounts to “indirect racial profiling,” she appointed an independent monitor to oversee changes in the tactic. Mayor Michael Bloomberg denounced the District Court’s findings, saying anything that threatened police autonomy would lead to less safe streets. Candidates vying to succeed Bloomberg in November jostled to show black and Latino voters which contender is on their side when it comes to relations with the NYPD. Reed said he understands the practice "because they're trying to cut down on crime in the neighborhood. “But it's the way they approach people,” he said. “They have a way of making residents of the area feel like criminals.” "I'm used to it'' Reed is not alone in his nuanced opinion. Many say the way in which stop-and-frisk has been carried out – with seeming randomness, hostility and high frequency – is the biggest factor driving a wedge between the police and those they’re policing. “I wouldn't have a problem with it if they’d treat everyone the same, but that's not the case,” says Sudan Gilmore, 48, a resident of the Queensbridge housing projects in Queens. “I feel violated, but what am I going to do? I'm black, so I'm used to it.” Gilmore said he has been stopped about seven times, once in the last year. On the blocks surrounding the Gilmore’s housing complex, home to roughly 7,000 people, police made about 1,600 stops in 2012, according to city data. That is out of 532,000 citywide, down from an all-time high of nearly 700,000 in 2011. While defenders of stop-and-frisk say it makes sense there are more stops in high-crime areas, critics counter that the stops are often based on race and appearance, rather than any likelihood police will find evidence of criminal activity. Many of New York’s residents seem to agree the practice needs to be reformed. “In this neighborhood, crime has been unbelievably high, so I think stopping people is good sometimes,” said Sherly Rivera, 29, a mother of three who lives in a public housing project on the east side of Manhattan. Rivera said she fears for her kids’ safety but also fears they’ll be harassed. “[Cops] have pushed it too far,” she said. “They need to fix that.” But when and how stop-and-frisk is reformed relies in large part on who becomes the next mayor of New York. Mayoral candidates respond On Monday, several Democratic candidates for mayor released statements saying the court’s decision proved what many already knew: that the NYPD was unfairly targeting minorities. But details are scant about what the hopefuls actually would do with stop-and-frisk if elected, with the exception of Comptroller John Liu. Liu said in a press release in response to Monday’s ruling he has been “clear and consistent in calling for its complete end based on stop-and-frisk being the biggest form of systemic racial profiling anywhere in the country.” Front-runner Christine Quinn and progressive Bill de Blasio have called for a permanent inspector general to oversee the police force. But Quinn has signaled she would retain police Commissioner Ray Kelly, an ardent supporter of stop-and-frisk. Other Democratic candidates were more measured in their critiques. Anthony Weiner wants the court to wait until the next mayor is elected to implement any new policies. And both he and Bill Thompson, the only black candidate in the race, oppose the idea of an inspector general. Whoever becomes mayor, one thing is clear: reforming the NYPD will take a long time. “For a practice that has been in effect for so long to change overnight, that’s unrealistic at best,” said Delores Jones Brown, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a supporter of Scheindlin’s decision. “The real issues involved with this debate – race and ethnicity, socio-economic conditions, and the embedded beliefs that many have about who criminals are and are not … those would need to change before we can see a real change in the practice.” On the streets On New York’s streets, people held a similar view. Earl Mapp, a 44-year-old construction worker and Brooklyn native, says he thinks of cops less as protectors than predators, standing on a hill and picking prey from the housing projects at random. He carries his construction helmet and bag with him whenever he can because he says cops are less likely to stop someone who looks like he’s on his way to work. Mapp hopes Scheindlin’s ruling will help mend the dynamic between cops and communities. But he’s not holding his breath. “You can't change the heart and minds of people, at least overnight,” he said. “But it's a good place to start.” @Sboogaardlw Join the Conversation
Sandra Boogaard Immigration Law Office

Senate Judiciary Committee Strikes Deal On H-1B Visas

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
The Senate Judiciary Committee struck a deal on visas for high-skilled workers---one of the issues that at some point threatened the effort to draft a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a path to legalization for 11 million undocumented individuals. The agreement represents a settlement between the high-tech industry, which relies increasingly on foreigners with a high education level, and unions that represent American workers---the Associated Press reported. H-1B visas are used primarily by the technology sector which employs most of the 65,000 workers who apply for them. The compromise reached Tuesday is attributed to Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who had been working on the agreement during the last few weeks. The agreement between Senators modifies the conditions of workers using the H1-B visa. But it is still unclear whether the AFL-CIO, one of the country's most influential unions, will support the changes. During the second week of May, the H-1B was at the center of public debate because it is a weak point that during the drafting of the bill forced intense negotiations between unions and employers who were on opposing sides of the debate. Senators rejected several amendments, including one from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), asking to increase the number of annual H-1B visas from 65,000 to 325,000. The Group of Eight's plan includes modifying the current quota of H-1B visas that ranges from 65,000 to 110,000 to a number closer to 180,000 depending on labor supply and the economic climate. The Committee also rejected an amendment that required audit companies to use workers with H-1B visas. The H-1B visas are mainly intended for foreign professionals with university degrees who perform specialized jobs that require theoretical knowledge or technical expertise. The list of professionals eligible for H-1B visas includes scientists, engineers, journalists and computer programmers, among others. Before the financial crisis of 2008, high-tech companies complained about the visa system and indicated that the quota allocated by Congress was inadequate and too small, so much so that between 2004 and 2007 the quota was exhausted every year within a few hours of opening the window for applications. And in 2007, the window was open less than 24 hours. The H1B visa program requires that U.S. employers pay foreign workers the competitive wage in their field of expertise. In April of this year, the immigration service closed the window of H-1B visas for 2014 during the first week of receiving requests---something not seen since 2008.

Effects of Comprehensive Immigration Reform on the Caribbean

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
Proposed US immigration reforms could have positive implications not only for Caribbean nationals living in the United States, but also for countries of the region, asserted a former cabinet minister in the Bahamas. "The reforms that offer a pathway to citizenship might be applicable to thousands of Caribbean nationals who have spent years living and working in the US and might be deemed entitled to regularization as citizens," said economist Zhivargo Laing. Laing surmised "the not insignificant Caribbean diaspora in the US, estimated at more than 20 million, can influence US policymakers to take account of their realities in their reform efforts." If successful, a bipartisan bill, introduced by eight senators, would allow people living in the US illegally - who arrived before December 31, 2011 - to become citizens after passing background checks, obtaining jobs and paying back taxes and penalties. The process is estimated to take 13 years; estimates place the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States at 11 million. The former finance minister of the Bahamas said "not only will the lives and livelihoods of Caribbean nationals be changed by the immigration reform in the US but so will their home countries, as many of them rely on the repatriation of earned US dollars to assist their foreign reserve earnings. For some, these remittances significantly aid economic viability." Laing, a financial specialist, warned however that "with the proposed crackdown on businesses employing undocumented immigrants, large numbers of undocumented Caribbean nationals may find their work prospects curbed by more than a tentative US economy." Laing also saw other effects: "Policy changes do not have just legal consequences but there are psychological ones as well. Any tightening of immigration law at the state level might lead businesses, educational institutions as well as medical facilities to take a more cautionary approach to dealing with foreign nationals. As such, Caribbean nationals who are employees and patrons of all of these institutions might also find a less accommodating environment going forward." "Immigrants have demonstrated their power at the polls ... and I think America is moving in the right direction on immigration reform. What happens next? Time will tell," he concluded.

President Obama is hopeful about Immigration Reform!!

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
"I'm very optimistic that we get immigration reform done in the next few months," he said . He compared the chances of passing immigration reform favorably to the chances of passing new gun control measures, but considering the opposition those face in Congress, that's not saying much. Let's hope that the republican corporate and help make this happen! Both houses on Congress seem to be making steady progress toward similar but competing bills that would offer a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. The bills also called for increased border security and an easing of restrictions on foreign workers, though the bills and their proponents differ on the exact specifications of any of those measures.

Legislation on Immigration Reform

By Sandra Boogaard • 24 Feb, 2020
Word continues to filter out that the "Gang of Eight" — four Republican senators and four Democratic senators — are soon going to introduce legislation on immigration reform, an issue which President Barack Obama has made a priority. Details of the proposed legislation have yet to be finalized, but it looks like those immigrants who are here illegally would be allowed to stay in the U.S. and be given a pathway to citizenship. However, they would have to go to the "back of the line" — a phrase used by many in the immigration reform debate, including President Barack Obama and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). This phrase is key, because many people worry that "comprehensive immigration reform" (as it's come to be called) will reward those who broke the law. The concern is that immigrants who illegally crossed the border or overstayed their visas will gain an advantage over those immigrants who came here legally. With this in mind, President Obama and the current legislation in the works call for illegal immigrants to get in line behind those who are already applying for permanent legal residence (i.e., a green card) and citizenship. But does this address the line-jumping concern? No, it doesn't, because the immigration reform proposed by President Obama and by the Gang of Eight would give illegal immigrants a provisional, probationary status before they become permanent residents. That status would allow them to hold on to their jobs, jobs that they claimed ahead of immigrants legally applying to come to the U.S. (and even ahead of U.S. citizens). Illegal immigrants would still be profiting from law-breaking on the employment front. And getting a job, of course, is one of the main reasons people emigrate to the U.S. If we're truly going to make illegal immigrants go to the back of the line, we should insist that they apply to come here from their country of citizenship. Or we should crack down on illegal hiring and demand that employers only hire immigrants who are already here legally. I'll grant that neither of these things is likely to happen, since there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the idea that illegal immigrants should (or will) self-deport, or for tougher enforcement on employers. But the alternative is to allow people to hold on to an advantage they gained unfairly by breaking the law. Maybe there are other considerations that outweigh that unfairness. But it's troubling that most of the people advocating immigration reform don't even acknowledge that there's any unfairness in it at all. And I never hear any illegal immigrants expressing remorse or embarrassment for asking that their line-jumping with respect to jobs be codified into law. Would we allow a business that ignored health and safety regulations to hold on to the advantage it gained over other businesses? Would we allow an employee who falsified their resume to hold on to the advantage they gained over others? Would we just give up on enforcing the rules because so many people are breaking them, and because it would be too disruptive and break up too many families? I doubt that such excuses would fly, given that we all know ahead of time that breaking the law sometimes results in a disruption of your life and being separated from your family. Under the Gang of Eight immigration reform proposal, illegal immigrants won't be going to the back of the job line: immigration reform will instead validate their act of cutting to the front of the line, ahead of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. And, when people once again see others benefit from breaking U.S. immigration and border security law, they will have yet another incentive to ignore those "reformed" laws in the future. Advocates of immigration reform need to explain why we should certify line-jumping and allow those who broke the law to come out ahead of those who obeyed it.
More Posts
Share by: