The Mexican migration has been one of the largest in the nation’s history. About 12 million Mexicans have crossed the border, more than half illegally. That flow not only stopped but may have actually have begun to reverse, an equally historic shift. The report found that from 2005 to 2010, “about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.” The drop is the first of any significance in more than two decades. There are 40 million immigrants in the U.S. today. Mexicans account for 58 percent of the illegal population and 30 percent of all U.S. immigrants. China is the next largest country of origin, but accounts for only 5 percent of the total number of immigrants.
A weekly discussion of issues and current trends in immigration law and specifically deportation cases. (510) 863-8058
Monday, April 23, 2012
New Report Released by Pew Foundation Cites Net Zero Migration from Mexico
According to a just released report from the Pew Foundation Hispanic Center, the net migration from Mexico has fallen to zero, meaning the largest immigration boom in the history of the United States may have just ended.
Labels:
border patrol,
Deportation,
ICE,
immigration,
Mexican migration
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Shocking New Video About Homicide at US Mexico Border
Just saw this video clip on Youtube that was quite shocking. I am not easily shocked by police violence, but this seems to be an egregious case by the US Border Patrol.
Here is the Link
Wow.
Here is the Link
Wow.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Major Win in Washington State - Mexican National Granted Withholding Relief
Our office had a major win last week. In an individual merits hearing in Washington State, our client, a Mexican National, was granted withholding relief by the Immigration Judge and the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel waived the appeal for the government. Our client, after spending almost 15 months in custody was released the next day.
A little background on the case, our client was an elected major of a small town in Mexico. He was trained as a lawyer and he won the election on a promise to clean up the town. Once in office, he had several thugs arrested when they disrupted a celebration and festival in the town. They were immediately released and came back to kidnap our client, held him for several days, and took him into the desert where they released him and threatened him with death if they ever saw him again.
He first was stopped at the border, where he was deported back to Mexico by the US Border Patrol. He entered the US on his second try and was later arrested in California during a traffic stop and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Because our client was previously ordered deported, he was not eligible for asylum protection and he was held under mandatory detention by immigration officials.
The immigration case had a previous individual hearing, which was conducted by local attorney in Washington State and our client was ordered deported. In the decision, the IJ did not find the requisite nexus between the persecution and one of the protected enumerated grounds, e.g., race, religion, nationality, political opinion, of membership in a particular social group.
I handled the case on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and won a remand where the Board ruled in our favor, holding that the IJ erred in this nexus determination.
The deportation case was again set for another Individual Merits Hearing, which was held last week. Mr. Ballout flew up to Washington State and conducted the hearing, which ended successfully. Not many Mexican Nationals obtain asylum, withholding relief in this country and this was one huge victory.
A little background on the case, our client was an elected major of a small town in Mexico. He was trained as a lawyer and he won the election on a promise to clean up the town. Once in office, he had several thugs arrested when they disrupted a celebration and festival in the town. They were immediately released and came back to kidnap our client, held him for several days, and took him into the desert where they released him and threatened him with death if they ever saw him again.
He first was stopped at the border, where he was deported back to Mexico by the US Border Patrol. He entered the US on his second try and was later arrested in California during a traffic stop and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Because our client was previously ordered deported, he was not eligible for asylum protection and he was held under mandatory detention by immigration officials.
The immigration case had a previous individual hearing, which was conducted by local attorney in Washington State and our client was ordered deported. In the decision, the IJ did not find the requisite nexus between the persecution and one of the protected enumerated grounds, e.g., race, religion, nationality, political opinion, of membership in a particular social group.
I handled the case on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and won a remand where the Board ruled in our favor, holding that the IJ erred in this nexus determination.
The deportation case was again set for another Individual Merits Hearing, which was held last week. Mr. Ballout flew up to Washington State and conducted the hearing, which ended successfully. Not many Mexican Nationals obtain asylum, withholding relief in this country and this was one huge victory.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Osama bin Laden's Widows Are Illegal Aliens in Pakistan
In a cruel twist of irony, the three widows of the once most-wanted man on Earth, Osama bin Laden, have been charged with being illegal aliens.
Pakistan has charged Osama bin Laden's three widows with illegally entering and living in the country, the interior minister said Thursday.
The three women have been in Pakistani detention since May last year, when U.S. commandos raided the house where they, bin Laden and several of their children were staying. The commandos shot and killed bin Laden, and then buried his body at sea.
Rehman said the three had been charged in court, but he did not say when. It was unclear if they had a lawyer.
He said their children were free to leave Pakistan, but could stay with their mothers for the duration of the trial.
A Pakistani legal expert contacted about the case, Hashmat Habib, said the maximum punishment the women could receive was five years in jail. One of their relatives has reportedly visited Pakistan recently to urge authorities to let them leave the country. The decision to charge them could be a formal part of that process.
One of the women is known to be from Yemen, another from Saudi Arabia. The nationality of the third woman is unclear.
Bin Laden, the subject of a massive international manhunt, had been living in the Pakistani army town of Abbottabad for around five years before the CIA traced his whereabouts. The unilateral American raid humiliated and angered the Pakistani army, which has also faced uncomfortable questions over why it wasn't aware of bin Laden's presence.
A government commission is investigating the affair, but few expect it to come up with many answers. Its members have interviewed the wives. Last month, the government destroyed the three-story compound the bin Laden clan was living in, removing a concrete reminder of the country's association with the world's most wanted man.
Pakistan has charged Osama bin Laden's three widows with illegally entering and living in the country, the interior minister said Thursday.
The three women have been in Pakistani detention since May last year, when U.S. commandos raided the house where they, bin Laden and several of their children were staying. The commandos shot and killed bin Laden, and then buried his body at sea.
Rehman said the three had been charged in court, but he did not say when. It was unclear if they had a lawyer.
He said their children were free to leave Pakistan, but could stay with their mothers for the duration of the trial.
A Pakistani legal expert contacted about the case, Hashmat Habib, said the maximum punishment the women could receive was five years in jail. One of their relatives has reportedly visited Pakistan recently to urge authorities to let them leave the country. The decision to charge them could be a formal part of that process.
One of the women is known to be from Yemen, another from Saudi Arabia. The nationality of the third woman is unclear.
Bin Laden, the subject of a massive international manhunt, had been living in the Pakistani army town of Abbottabad for around five years before the CIA traced his whereabouts. The unilateral American raid humiliated and angered the Pakistani army, which has also faced uncomfortable questions over why it wasn't aware of bin Laden's presence.
A government commission is investigating the affair, but few expect it to come up with many answers. Its members have interviewed the wives. Last month, the government destroyed the three-story compound the bin Laden clan was living in, removing a concrete reminder of the country's association with the world's most wanted man.
Monday, February 13, 2012
USCIS Issues Proposed New Rules Governing I-601 Hardship Waiver Petitions for Immediate Realtives
I have received numerous phone calls over the last few weeks regarding the publicity surrounding the announcement from Homeland Security and their proposed new rules governing the pre-adjudication of I-601 Hardship Waiver petitions and the granting of provisional waivers if the requirements are met.
What is critical to understand at the moment is that this is merely a notice of a proposed rule change and it will not take effect until it is approved and incorporated into the CFR's. (Code of Federal Regulations). Please find a link to the entire publication below.
Also, the proposal explicitly states "USCIS would grant a provisional waiver if the alien meets the eligibility requirements described in this Notice . . The provisional waiver, however, would not become effective unless and until the alien departs from the United States."
DHS Proposed Rules on Hardship Waivers
What is critical to understand at the moment is that this is merely a notice of a proposed rule change and it will not take effect until it is approved and incorporated into the CFR's. (Code of Federal Regulations). Please find a link to the entire publication below.
Also, the proposal explicitly states "USCIS would grant a provisional waiver if the alien meets the eligibility requirements described in this Notice . . The provisional waiver, however, would not become effective unless and until the alien departs from the United States."
DHS Proposed Rules on Hardship Waivers
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Update on Sustaire Case
Late last week, our office received the DHS Office of Chief Counsel's response to our motion to reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel in our Korean family's case. In a surprise to me, the local ACC (Assistant Chief Counsel) did not object to the reopening for the wife's motion, as she was not involved in the underlying fraud by Leland Sustaire at the USCIS San Jose Field Office.
This was welcome news as she has two minor children, born in the US, who can now stay with their mother in the US, if the BIA agrees to reopen and remand to the Immigration Court. We still have a good faith argument for the father, however, the ACC did object.
This was welcome news as she has two minor children, born in the US, who can now stay with their mother in the US, if the BIA agrees to reopen and remand to the Immigration Court. We still have a good faith argument for the father, however, the ACC did object.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
ICE Officials’ Sporadic Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
A recent survey conducted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, (AILA), to nobody's surprise, found that U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a spotty record of applying prosecutorial discretion.
The survey concluded that ICE officers and attorneys across the country are applying different standards on prosecutorial discretion despite the issuance of national policy memoranda this summer. The report, which includes information about all 28 ICE offices nationwide, shows that most ICE offices have not even implemented the two headquarters' memos. These discrepancies reflect a need for ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership to issue additional guidance to its rank and file.
"We felt that ICE's June 2011 memoranda about the use of prosecutorial discretion in certain types of immigration cases were clear and straightforward," said AILA President Eleanor Pelta. "But," Pelta continued, "These survey results show that ICE agents and attorneys are not willing to use the discretion they are responsible for implementing without further guidance. They are asking for more, and the agency's leadership should help them get it," said Pelta.
The June 17, 2011, memo outlines for ICE agents and attorneys the factors that would deem an immigration case a low priority for enforcement action. They include ties to America including service in the U.S. armed forces, schooling, contributions to the community, and other equities for enforcement officials to consider when deciding what course of action to take in a particular case.
What AILA seemingly found is an institutional aversion to applying any form of discretionary relief to the immigrant community. Many ICE officers and attorneys are actively resistant. Some officials said their jobs are "to arrest and deport." So the rank-and-file ICE officers are continuing unabated in their wholesale efforts to deport as many people and quickly as possible, even in the face of leadership that is telling them to slow down and not to tear families apart.
The survey concluded that ICE officers and attorneys across the country are applying different standards on prosecutorial discretion despite the issuance of national policy memoranda this summer. The report, which includes information about all 28 ICE offices nationwide, shows that most ICE offices have not even implemented the two headquarters' memos. These discrepancies reflect a need for ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership to issue additional guidance to its rank and file.
"We felt that ICE's June 2011 memoranda about the use of prosecutorial discretion in certain types of immigration cases were clear and straightforward," said AILA President Eleanor Pelta. "But," Pelta continued, "These survey results show that ICE agents and attorneys are not willing to use the discretion they are responsible for implementing without further guidance. They are asking for more, and the agency's leadership should help them get it," said Pelta.
The June 17, 2011, memo outlines for ICE agents and attorneys the factors that would deem an immigration case a low priority for enforcement action. They include ties to America including service in the U.S. armed forces, schooling, contributions to the community, and other equities for enforcement officials to consider when deciding what course of action to take in a particular case.
What AILA seemingly found is an institutional aversion to applying any form of discretionary relief to the immigrant community. Many ICE officers and attorneys are actively resistant. Some officials said their jobs are "to arrest and deport." So the rank-and-file ICE officers are continuing unabated in their wholesale efforts to deport as many people and quickly as possible, even in the face of leadership that is telling them to slow down and not to tear families apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)