Skip to content

Front Cover of New York Times Article on Alternatives to Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals

Since the announcement of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, we at Amoachi and Johnson have repeatedly and sometime stridently stressed the importance of educating young immigrants about alternative forms of permanent immigration relief.

Kirk Semple of the New York Times took the time to listen to us and others regarding this important issue and wrote an excellent article in today’s paper, “Finding a Path To a U.S. Visa, Often by Luck.” 

An excerpt:

When Angy Rivera, an illegal immigrant, was a young girl in New York City, she was sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriend. He was eventually convicted and imprisoned, but only recently did Ms. Rivera find out that her cooperation with investigators had qualified her for a special benefit: a visa for victims of serious crimes.

Many young illegal immigrants across the country have similarly learned in recent months that they could be eligible for little-known visas that would allow them to put years of worrying about deportation behind them, immigration lawyers said.

These discoveries have come about as an unintended consequence of an immigration policy adopted last June by President Obama that allows young illegal immigrants, under certain conditions, to apply for the right to remain in the country temporarily and work.

The policy, called deferred action, has spurred hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to seek legal help, often for the first time in their lives. During these consultations, many have learned that they are eligible for other, more permanent, forms of immigration relief, like special visas for crime victims.

More than a dozen immigration lawyers around the country — from private practice, advocacy organizations and university law clinics — said that as many as a quarter of the young immigrants who have consulted with them about deferred action since last summer appeared to be eligible for visas or other relief.

“This whole time I had been in the system already and no one had said anything to me or my mom,” said Ms. Rivera, 22, who was born in Colombia and entered the United States on false immigration documents when she was 4. “It was out of the blue for me.”

The unexpected visa eligibility for so many young people highlights a defining facet of illegal immigration and of the debate over immigration reform. Many illegal immigrants are so fearful of contact with the authorities, or thwarted by language and economic barriers, that they live in a kind of isolation that often prevents them from taking advantage of opportunities or services to which they are entitled under the law.

It is a measure of this isolation that not even Ms. Rivera knew that she was a candidate for a special visa — even though she is an immigration advocate and writes a popular online advice column for young illegal immigrants.

She found out about her eligibility for the crime-victims visa, called a U visa, only last fall when she met with a lawyer at Atlas: DIY, a nonprofit group in New York City that works with young immigrants.

Her lawyer, Lauren Burke, said advocacy groups and government agencies had not always done an adequate job of informing illegal immigrants about their rights under the nation’s complex immigration laws.

“The onus is on the immigrant for him or her to find out the information,” Ms. Burke said. “But if you say, ‘I need immigration help,’ you are exposing so much about yourself and putting yourself at such risk.”

Deferred action allows recipients to work legally and live openly without fear of deportation. But it must be renewed after two years, and the program could be canceled by President Obama or his successors. As a result, illegal immigrants would generally prefer to obtain a green card or a visa that would open the door to permanent residency…

Read the rest here.

ICE ADMITS THAT DESTROYING IMMIGRANT FAMILIES IS A PRIORITY

Yesterday, we held a protest for three of our detained clients who face imminent removal. The story garnered significant press coverage on Telemundo’s “Al Rojo Vivo” and on New York Telemundo’s “Noticiero” program.

Why? Because none of the three immigrants who face removal have a criminal past and the families of these immigrants would be destroyed by the deportation of their loved ones.

ICE headquarters’ response to the press inquiry on behalf of our clients is a public admission by the Obama administration that destroying immigrant families is a priority:

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) targets illegal aliens based on our stated immigration enforcement priorities. Werner Arreaga Garcia, Oscar Jimenez and Juan Marcelino are enforcement priorities for the agency.

“ICE is focused on smart and effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, recent border crossers and repeat immigration law violators. The following three individuals fall into these priority categories:

*Garcia was ordered deported by a federal immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) July 8, 2002. ICE effectuated the removal July 22, 2002. Garcia returned to the United States unlawfully. Garcia, being a repeat immigration law violator, is a priority for removal by ICE.

*Jimenez is an immigration fugitive, a priority for removal by ICE. Jimenez was ordered removed from the United States by a federal immigration judge Sept. 20, 2005, and failed to comply with the order of the federal immigration judge.

*Marcelino is an immigration fugitive, a priority for removal by ICE. Marcelino was most recently encountered by ICE after being arrested on a felony criminal charge. Marcelino was granted voluntary departure, and was required to leave the United States by July 7, 2003. He failed to comply with the judge’s orders.

“Over the past four years, ICE has dramatically changed the way it conducts immigration enforcement. ICE implemented clear priorities, enhanced the use of prosecutorial discretion, and implemented a sustained focus on the identification and removal of criminal aliens and other priority individuals.”

PRESS RELEASE: PROTEST AT 26 FEDERAL PLAZA IN NEW YORK TOMORROW TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER BY STOPPING LOW-PRIORITY DEPORTATIONS

At 11:30 am tomorrow at 26 Federal Plaza, our office will be hosting a protest on behalf of our clients and all immigrants who are detained and at risk of imminent removal from the United States even though their families will be destroyed and they are low priority as defined by the Obama administration.

The families of the three clients will be present at the protest and available for interviews to demonstrate how the Obama administration is destroying immigrant families while at the same time he promises comprehensive reform to keep these families together.

The administration manages to deport such large numbers of low-priority immigrants by reclassifying non-criminal, family men and women as “fugitives” or “egregious immigration violators” although these immigrants are only here because U.S. immigration laws are so draconian that they have left them with no other way to be with their children, spouses, or parents in the United States.

The stories of our three clients are below.

ICE’s New York Office of Enforcement of Removal has already denied  one of our client’s request for prosecutorial discretion. The letter is inserted below.

Werner Arreaga (A # 098-897-297). Werner has been married to Nora, a U.S. citizen, since 2007. He has no criminal history and has widespread support from his community. He also has a U.S. citizen stepdaughter, Cindy, who is 12-years-old. His wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is from Chile and Werner is from Guatemala. If he is removed, Werner’s family will be permanently separated. Werner returned to the United States in 2006 because of gang violence. He was previously removed from from the U.S. in 2002.

Werner ended up in ICE custody when the NYPD pulled him over for an illegal U-turn. A search of his name showed that he has an outstanding order of removal. Even though all criminal charges against him were dismissed, New York City honored ICE’s detainer and turned this non-criminal, low-priority individual over to ICE custody for removal. He has been detained by ICE since February at the Bergen County Jail located in Hackensack, New Jersey.

On March 8, 2013, ICE’s New York Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations denied Werner’s request for prosecutorial discretion to remain in the United States with his family, even with the help of a petition from Dreamactivist. He may be removed any day now.

Werner 1

Werner Denial Of stay letter.

2. Oscar Jimenez (A # 098-897-297.) Oscar is the father of two beautiful 8-month-old U.S. citizen daughters, Ashley and Astrid. He is the sole financial provider for his girls. His wife does not work because she has to take care of her children. Oscar has no criminal history. He was picked up by ICE after the NYPD stopped him on his way home from work for having an open beer container. The police told Oscar that they would only issue him a ticket and asked for identification. Oscar only had his Honduras consular ID card. The police officers said that they had to bring him in because the foreign ID was not enough. When the police brought him to the station and ran his fingerprints, they discovered an outstanding ICE removal order from 2005. New York City honored ICE’s detainer even though all charges against Oscar were dismissed.

Oscar has been detained since February at Bergen County Jail and faces removal at any moment. If he is removed, his little girls will be without a father for their entire lives.

Jimenez photo

 

Oscar Jimenez with his twin baby daughters in the U.S.

Oscar Jimenez with his twin baby daughters in the U.S.

 

Juan Marcelino A # 077-753-369. Juan Marcelino is the father two to U.S. citizen children, Kelly and Stephen Marcelino Delgado, who are 11 and 9-years-old respectively. He is married to Rhina Delgado, who has Temporary Protected Status in the United States. Juan was arrested after it was discovered that the Bodega in which he worked was not properly selling cigarettes. Ultimately, Juan was only convicted of disorderly conduct, a non-criminal violation. Juan has been detained for months now pending a motion to reopen filed by a prior attorney that has little chance of success. Juan has an outstanding order of removal from 2003 and may be removed in the imminent future. He is currently detained at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, New Jersey.

These three cases are a sobering snapshot into the world of the Obama administration’s removal machine.  Although Mr. Obama has consistently purported to support immigrant families, his administration’s actions have proven his words to be lies.

This protest is to help stop the Obama administration’s coercive destruction of these three families and all others unfortunate enough to be ensnared by this arbitrary and unjust system.

Please come out and support them at 11:30 am at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278.

 

 

Post-Deportation Order: Obtaining a Stay of Removal

As I have previously written, immigrants with a prior deportation order, even those who are unable to reopen their case, may have hope for temporarily stopping their removal from the United States.  If you are in this situation, you can file a Stay of Removal with the Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) or the deportation office.  The Stay of Removal must be well-documented and you will need an experienced lawyer for this process, but this is a brief overview of the process.

1.   Who can apply for a Stay of Removal?

A Stay of Removal is available to immigrants who currently are detained, as well as those that were released on an Order of Supervision.  This also includes the detainees who recently were released across the country pursuant to an Order of Supervision due to the sequester.  Immigrants who are reporting on an Order of Supervision have a much higher chance of being granted a Stay of Removal, because ERO already made the decision that their case is low priority and that they should be released due to the humanitarian factors in their cases.

2.   If my Stay of Removal is granted, how long will it last?

If the Stay of Removal is granted, the removal will temporarily be suspended for a period of three months to one year.  Most of the time, the stay is granted for one year.  When the stay expires, the immigrant will have the opportunity to make another request to stay his/her removal.  While the stay is in effect, the immigrant will continue to report to ERO, but the reporting times will usually be less frequent.  The immigrant will continue to be eligible for work authorization throughout this period of time.

3.  Am I eligible for a Stay of Removal?

ERO does a balancing test between the positive factors in your case, and the negative factors, in order to decide whether to grant a Stay of Removal.  Positive factors include, but are not limited to, the length of time living in the United States, whether you have a U.S. Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident spouse, parent, or child, whether you are the primary caretaker for a disabled or sick person or a child, your educational background in the U.S., your age, with special consideration to children and the elderly, your ties to your native country and the conditions in that country, whether you or a family member suffers from a mental or physical illness, and whether you or your spouse is pregnant or nursing.  Negative factors include criminal history, whether you pose a danger to national security or public safety, border entry, and immigration history, including evidence of fraud.

4.  How much does a Stay of Removal cost?

The immigration fee for a Stay of Removal is $155, which must be paid in person at the local ERO office along with the Stay and all the required paperwork.

5.  How do I file a Stay of Removal?

A Stay of Removal is filed in person at the local ERO office.  You or your attorney must complete Form I-246, Stay of Removal.  If ERO does not have your original passport on file, you must submit the application with your original, valid passport.

The stay should include identification documents, including a translated birth certificate, your marriage license and birth certificates of children, if any, proof of legal status of family members, documentation of medical illness, your and your children’s school records, church letter, letters of good moral character from members of the community, documentation of country conditions in your native country, documentation of your entry, documentation of your criminal record, if any.

The Stay of Removal should also include affidavits from you and immediate family members.  When we prepare the application for our clients, I also prepare a brief that outlines the equities and argues why the case should be approved.

6. How is the decision made?

ERO must decide a Stay of Removal only after receiving the written motion, they should not be allowed to orally deny the application.  When your deportation officer receives the Stay of Removal, he will make a recommendation to his supervisor about whether the stay should be approved or denied.  He may tell you what he plans to do, or ask you additional questions if he is unsure whether to recommend an approval. The ultimate decision rests with the ERO Field Office Director.

7. Do I need an attorney for this?

Yes, you absolutely need an attorney for this process.  First, your attorney needs to review your case and tell you whether there are any other options, besides a Stay of Removal.  If there are no other options and you have good equities in your case, your attorney should prepare the Stay of Removal, take declarations and tell you what evidence to obtain, and attend your appointment at ERO with you to submit the stay personally.  ERO will then communicate with your attorney regarding your case.

I strongly advise against filing a Stay of Removal without an attorney.  This is a post-deportation order relief, it is essentially your last chance to stop your deportation for a temporary period of time.  It is extremely important that it is done properly.  Appearing before the deportation office can be a very frightening and confusing experience.  This short guide is here for the purpose of explaining the general process so that you can be better informed about your case.

Will The Real Prison Profiteers Please Stand Up?

F. William Mcnabb II, CEO and Chairman of The Vanguard Group, which owns close to $590 million private prison shares.

F. William Mcnabb II, CEO and Chairman of The Vanguard Group, which owns close to $590 million in private prison shares.

Abigail Johnson, leader of Fidelity Investments, which owns over $520 million in private prison shares.

Abigail Johnson, leader of Fidelity Investments, which owns over $520 million in private prison shares.

The GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) have been active in the press as of late. Most recently, Florida Atlantic University announced that it would name its new stadium the “GEO Group Stadium” in recognition of a $6 million donation from the private prison giant.

The CEO of CCA recently assured investors that there was no need to worry about immigration reform, as Colorlines reported: 

There is always going to be strong demand regardless of what is being done at the national level as far as immigration reform.

Although it is tempting to apportion the moral outrage of immigration detention upon ostensibly evil entities such as CCA, GEO, or ICE, one must be vigilant in following the money.

Who really owns GEO and CCA? A handful of the biggest investment funds in the world. You might even have a stake in one of the companies if you invest in mutual funds.

Fidelity Investments, one of the largest mutual funds and financial services groups in the world, owns over $520 million in shares between CCA and GEO.

The Vanguard Group, another giant investment fund that manages close to $2 trillion in total assets, owns over $580 million in shares between CCA and GEO.

There are several other investment funds and banks that have a substantial amount of money invested in private prisons. For example, Scopia Capital Management, which manages a more modest $3.5 billion in total assets, owns $299,518,488 in GEO shares. That is a staggering 8 percent of their entire holdings.

Scopia would have a lot to lose if immigration reform drastically reduced the need for the detention of human beings  unlucky enough to not be endowed with the golden ticket of U.S. citizenship.

Money corrupts. It creates an impermeable barrier between those that profit and those that the profit is made off of. Profiting off of detaining immigrants is particularly pernicious. The shareholders of GEO and CCA are earning money off of the destruction of immigrant families. They are earning money by contributing to a child losing her father or mother or both forever.

Moreover, the shareholders are earning money from the systematic violation of immigrants’ human rights, which includes but is not limited to the illegal detention of U.S. citizens , rapeundernourishment, and inadequate healthcare of the detainees.

We should not let these profiteers ignore the harm that their profits are causing. Let the public know. Below are the leaders of the funds with the most invested in GEO and CCA. The groups listed below have at least $50 million in ownership of GEO and/or CCA.

F. William Mcnabb II is the CEO and Chairman of Vanguard.

Abigail Johnson leads Fidelity along with her father, Edward C. Johnson III.

Matt Sirovich and Jeremy Mindich run Scopia Capital Management.

Richard McGuire heads Marcato Capital Management.

Stephen M. Goddard is the founder and CFA of London Company of Virginia.

Kenneth M. Jacobs is the Chairman and CEO of Lazard Asset Management.

Keith A. Meister is the founder of Corvex Management LP.

Chris Wallis is the CEO president and CEO of Vaughan Nelson.

Paul Trowbridge Gillepsie Jr. is Co-founder, principal, and president of New South Capital Management, Inc.

Guy Monson is the Managing Partner, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Investment Officer of Sarasin & Partners LLP.

Joseph L. Hooley is the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of State Street Corporation.

Richard Rossi is the President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of Eagle Asset Management, Inc.

R. Andrew Beck is the President and CEO of River Road Asset Management LLC.

David G. Booth is Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Dimensional Fund Advisors LP.

Jay B. Abramson is the CEO of Cramer Rosenthal Mcglynn LLC/Adv.

John G. Stumpf is Chairman, President, and CEO of Wells Fargo & Company.

Lawrence D. Fink is Chairman Chief Executive Officer of Blackrock Fund Advisors.

Latinos at Higher Risk From Domestic Violence in Suffolk County

On immigration,  Suffolk County is probably best known for the hate crime murder of Marcel Lucero.

Many have commented on how the political leadership of then-County Executive Steve Levy, which was routinely racist and anti-immigrant, contributed to a climate of hate against Latinos in the County. The problem was so serious that the Justice Department launched an investigation into the Suffolk County Police Department’s handling of Latino hate crime complaints.

The Justice Department focused on the SCPD’s handling of hate crime reports and when it was permissible for officers to ask a suspect or victim about their immigration status.

The SCPD was not investigated for its severe deficiency in protecting Spanish-speaking victims of domestic violence.

A first-hand account  provides a vivid illustration of a system that endangers the lives of Latina/o domestic violence victims.

A woman was grabbed and violently pushed to the ground by her live-in boyfriend. She was in pain from the fall and scared for her life. She called 911 to ask for help.

Several officers responded to the woman’s call. However, none of the officers spoke Spanish and the woman did not speak English. Her boyfriend spoke English. The police officers did not offer to provide a professional interpreter. The police did not arrest the boyfriend that night. Further, the police report made no mention of the woman’s allegations of physical abuse.

The boyfriend returned hours later to again threaten and physically abuse the woman.

She called the police a second time. This time, however, she insisted that an interpreter be available over the phone. Despite having an interpreter, and despite her wish to have him arrested, the police left a second time and wrote up another report that made no mention of physical abuse. The police did not even bother to separate the boyfriend from the woman.

Again, the boyfriend piled on the physical and verbal abuse. Again, the woman called the police. Again, the police did nothing. Actually, they did do something: they told her that if she wanted her boyfriend to be arrested, they would have to arrest her as well.

Scared and ignored by the police, the woman turned to me (I’m not a police officer or have I ever been)  for help. I, too, was ignored. The woman was told that she had to go to the same department of police officers who had just hours ago told her that she would be arrested if she pressed charges against her boyfriend.

The police would not make the trip to my office because they were in a different geographical region in the County although they still belong to the same entity: The Suffolk County Police Department. Given that the police already did not do their job properly and even contributed to the fear underlying the abuse, it is unreasonable to require a domestic violence victim to ask them for help.

Yes, there is a family offense protection order available. However, a victim whose life is in imminent danger may not know or have the option to avail themselves of this protection. There should be an immediate law enforcement alternative for victims of domestic violence if there is reasonable suspicion that the police improperly failed to take action at the original point of contact with the complainant.

An example of when an alternative should be available is when the police did not have a Spanish-speaking officer available to speak to a complainant who only spoke Spanish.

Who should be the alternative? The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. As the Suffolk County DA’s office  policy stands now, a victim cannot press charges through their office.  The DA will only prosecute a crime if it is sent to them by the SCPD. This policy is dangerous and exposes the most vulnerable victims to police officer errors or misconduct.

Nassau, the bordering county, already has a system in place where victims and others can lodge a complaint directly with the District Attorney’s Office. This system prioritizes the public’s safety over that of police misconduct or mistakes.

The policy of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office gives far too much power to the police. It  appoints them as sole arbiter of whether a suspect should be arrested and charged with a crime.

Steve Bellone, the new County Executive, promised to change Suffolk’s anti-immigrant and anti-Latino/a culture. He should start by advocating for a policy where the community’s most vulnerable victims can report crimes directly to  the District Attorney’s Office.

Why President Obama Can Implement Deferred Action For Immigrant Families

Yesterday, Celia Munoz of the Obama administration repeated a by now familiar justification for steaming along the deportation track: 

The duty of the government is to do what Congress has instructed it to do. The congress, under the current immigration laws, obligates us to deport persons who are “deportable” and gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), frankly, a great quantity of resources to do this work.

Munoz’s comments echoed the response of the President when he said he was not a King and that there would still “be stories that are heartbreaking with respect to deportations until we get comprehensive immigration reform.”

According to the representations of President Obama, he cannot legally put a halt to deportations that would result in the destruction of immigrant families.

Déjà vu 

On March 28, 2011, Jorge Ramos asked President Obama the following question:

With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students?

President Obama adamantly declared that he could not stop the deportations of students with an executive order for essentially the same reason that he is declaring today that he cannot put a stop the deportations of immigrants that would result in family separation. Read closely: 

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed…The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that he would suspend the deportation of students through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which, as you can see, he previously said was impossible.

When asked about this about-face, DHS secretary Janet Napolitano awkwardly took the fall:

During Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, Napolitano admitted to Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes that Obama’s March 2011 statement was inaccurate. “Could he have issued an executive order to do what you did?” Forbes asked her.

“Yes,” Napolitano responded.

The Daily Caller was generous in stating that Napolitano found Obama’s statement to be inaccurate. It should really read as: “Obama’s March 2011 statement was a lie.”

Obama was a constitutional law professor. He knew what he was saying in March of 2011 was not true.

This is the same lie that is currently being spread to the public when the President laments that we will continue to see heartbreaking stories and he is just “enforcing” the laws as he is required to.

The President and his defenders will say that DACA was permissible because it allowed DHS to redirect enforcement resources to higher priority removals. They will say that a broader Deferred Action will be different from DACA because it will then run afoul of the Executive’s obligation to use the resources appropriated to it by Congress for immigration enforcement.

This defense is preposterous because there is no way to verify if it is true.

No one knows whether DHS has ever prioritized removals as they purport to have done. Under the Obama administration, DHS has refused to corroborate its deportations statistics.

Furthermore,  as far as anyone knows, DACA did nothing to cause higher priority immigrants to be removed from the United States.

President Obama could use the same justification behind DACA for a wider Deferred Action.

Prioritization. By suspending the deportations of immigrants that would result in the separation of families, DHS would be able to focus more of its limited resources on the mythical and monstrous criminal aliens.

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.