Martin Immigration Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Publications
    • Privacy Policy
    • Texas Lawyer's Creed
  • Blog
  • Services
  • FAQs and Videos
  • Contact
  • Useful Links

Supreme Court Grants Huge Win to Immigrants

6/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
On June 21, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided a case (Pereira v. Sessions) that could effect hundreds of thousands of people in the United States.

The case concerned a man from Brazil who entered the US in 2000 and overstayed his visa.  He was arrested in 2006 for driving while intoxicated, and then placed into immigration proceedings.

​Immigration proceedings are started when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) to the immigrant. If the government succeeds in its claim, the noncitizen is removed (deported) from the US.


As a defense to removal, a noncitizen may apply for "cancellation of removal."  One of the requirements for cancellation is that the applicant have “been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of [an] application” for cancellation." 8 U. S. C. §1229(b)(1)(A). 

However, the issuance of an NTA stops the 10-year clock from running. So, for example, a person who entered in 2000 and finally appeared before an immigration judge in 2014 would only have 6 years of continuous physical presence if the NTA was issued in 2006.

Regulations state that the NTA must state “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.” Due to the huge backlog of cases in immigration court, the vast majority of NTAs don't list a date, and simply list "TBD," instead of a specific date. This happened to the plaintiff, Pereira. Later, in 2007, a more specific NTA was sent to Pereira. However, it was sent to the wrong address and he didn't receive it (it was returned as "undeliverable").

In 2013, Pereira was arrested for a minor traffic violation and detained by DHS.  In proceedings, he requested cancellation of removal and claimed that the initial NTA didn't stop the clock on his continuous physical presence because it didn't specify the time and date of his court appearance.

The Supreme Court agreed, holding that "A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under §1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule."

Why is this ruling so important?

As a result of this decision, eligible immigrants living in the country without authorization who have received incomplete "notices to appear" can now explore applying for a 10-year cancellation of removal.​ Many (probably most people) currently in immigration proceedings may get their cases terminated because the NTA was never properly filed. This would certainly eliminate a lot of the immigration court backlog, but DHS would restart proceedings, using a correct NTA (with date, time, etc). This may benefit a client who needs more time to gather the evidence for a cancellation of removal case. Immigration lawyers are already reporting that judges in some jurisdictions are terminating cases based on the Pereira decision, just one day after the ruling.

Immigration lawyers are also considering reopening cases for people whose cases have ended, on the grounds that the original hearings were defective because there was never a properly-filed NTA.  

This is a very important case for clients, and we will be monitoring the effect closely. For more information, please call Elaine Martin, Immigration Lawyer 

0 Comments

US Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Travel Ban

6/26/2017

0 Comments

 
protestsPhoto from cnn.com
The US Supreme Court today decided to reinstate the second travel ban created by Executive order from President Trump.  The ban halted any immigration to the US from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and was to last for 90 days, while the government reviewed its procedures for vetting immigrants. Refugees were barred from the US for 120 days.

The ban was quickly stayed by lower courts in Hawaii and Maryland, following lawsuits. Today, however, the Supreme Court lifted the stays and said that it would hear full arguments when it reconvenes in the fall.  By that point, of course, the issue may be moot as the 90 days will have expired. 

The Supreme Court made an exception to the ban for “..... foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” In addition, "...the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the travel ban]" One question being raised by immigration lawyers is: who will decide whether there is a "bona fide relationship"? 

In the unsigned opinion, the court said that a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries who were admitted to a U.S. university. The court also included workers with an offer of employment in the US, thereby allowing workers applying for H-1B, L-1, and other visas to come to the US.

We will monitor the implementation of this ban very closely. If you have any questions, please contact us directly.

More details here.
Full decision here.



0 Comments

Supreme Court Makes it Harder to Revoke US Citizenship

6/22/2017

0 Comments

 
PassportUS Passport
On June 22, 2017, the US Supreme Court issued a decision that prevents a person from having their citizenship revoked because of a false statement, when that falsehood was to relevant to eligibility for citizenship.

In the case of Maslenjak v. U.S., the plaintiff - Divna Maslenjak - was originally from Bosnia and because a US citizen in 2007.  It emerged that, in earlier immigration application, she had lied about her husband's involvement in the Bosnian conflict. When she completed the N-400, applying for US citizenship, she said "no" in response to the question about whether she had ever misrepresented anything to gain an immigration benefit.

The government argued that this lie justified revoking her citizenship, even though her telling the truth would have prevented her getting citizenship. In advocating for a very strict interpretation of the law, the government lawyers even agreed that minor falsehood, e.g. not disclosing a speeding ticket or membership in a legal, but potentially embarrassing group, was grounds to revoke citizenship.

The justices unanimously rejected the government’s position that it could revoke the citizenship of Americans who made even trivial misstatements in their naturalization proceedings. Justice Kagan wrote "We hold that the Government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result."

There is no guarantee that Maslenjak will be able to regain citizenship. The case goes back to the lower courts which must decide whether her lies were, in fact, material to her citizenship approval. The significance of this case is that the Supreme Court has stated that the lies must be relevant, whereas the government argued that any misstatement, no matter how insignificant, was enough to revoke citizenship.

Full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
​

0 Comments
    Lawyer Elaine Martin | Top Attorney Immigration
    View my profile on LinkedIn

        Author

    Elaine Martin has been practising US and global immigration law since 1997. She is an immigrant herself (from Ireland), so has a special understanding of the legal and emotional challenges involved in relocating to a new country.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All
    Adjustment Of Status
    Affidavit Of Support
    Africa
    Algeria
    B-1 In Lieu Of H-1B
    #borderwall
    Cameroon
    Cancellation Of Removal
    Chad
    China
    Citizenship
    Conditional Permanent Residence
    Corruption
    Cuba
    DACA
    DAPA
    Department Of Labor
    Department Of State
    Deportation
    Diversity Visa
    Donald Trump
    DOS Travel Warning
    E-2
    EAD
    EB-5
    El Salvador
    Entrepreneur
    Environment
    FAQ
    FCPA
    FIFA
    Filing Fees
    Green Card
    H 1B
    H-1B
    H-1B Portability
    H 2
    H-2
    H-4
    Haiti
    Honduras
    I-407
    #immigrationaction
    Infographic
    Investor
    Iran
    Iraq
    L 1
    L-1
    L-1B
    Labor Condition Application
    LCA
    Libya
    Marriage Based
    Marriage-based
    Mexico
    Muslim
    Naturalization
    Nepal
    Nigeria
    North Korea
    Notice To Appear
    Obama
    Overstay
    Permanant Residence
    Portability
    Poverty Guidelines
    Preference Categories
    Premium Processing
    Priority Dates
    Reentry Permit
    Religious Workers
    Removal
    Returning Resident Visa
    Scam
    Shutdown
    Somalia
    Statistics
    Success Stories
    Sudan
    Supreme Court
    Syria
    TPS
    Travel Ban
    Undocumented
    Venezuela
    Video
    Visa Bulletin
    Visa-bulletin
    Visa Waiver
    Yemen
    YouTube

    RSS Feed

Disclaimer
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice from Dallas lawyer Elaine Martin. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until an attorney-client relationship has been established.
© 2014-2018 by Martin Immigration Law, Dallas. All rights reserved.  Privacy Policy
Photos used under Creative Commons from andryn2006, susivinh, Simon & His Camera, lwpkommunikacio, NazionaleCalcio, RussBowling, Phillip Pessar, Hichem Merouche, Lars Plougmann, Colby Stopa, superscheeli, miguel.discart, Asian Development Bank, Tim simpson1, eurleif
  • Home
  • About
    • Publications
    • Privacy Policy
    • Texas Lawyer's Creed
  • Blog
  • Services
  • FAQs and Videos
  • Contact
  • Useful Links