First Group of Approval Notices for "Dreamers" Sent

After approximately three weeks of accepting applications from young undocumented immigrants seeking to avoid deportation and get a work permit, ("Dreamers") the government already has approved some of the roughly 72,000 applications the government has received. The Homeland Security Department said Tuesday that a small group of applications has been approved and those immigrants are being notified this week about the decision. The department did not say how many applications had been approved. The first wave of approvals comes months head of DHS' own internal estimates of how long the application process for the administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program could take – and less than 60 days before the Nov. 6 elections. According to an internal DHS document obtained by The Associated Press, the department's Citizenship and Immigration Services had estimated that each application could take several months to be completed. "Following a thorough, individualized case review, USCIS has now begun notifying individuals of the determination on their deferral requests," DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard said in a statement. He said about 72,000 applications have been received since the program's Aug. 15 start. DHS said background checks, including finger prints checks, are being conducted on each immigrant before an application can be approved. The average wait time for approval is expected to be about four months to six months. Most applications for immigration benefits take several months for to process. In certain circumstances, people can pay extra fees to speed up the process. There currently is no such option for deferred action applications. President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on June 15 that young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. before they turned 16, are 30 or younger, are high school graduates or are in college or have served in the military would be eligible to apply to avoid deportation for up to two years and get a work permit. The immigrants also could not have a serious criminal record. Applicants for deferred deportation must pay a $465 paperwork fee that is expected to cover the cost of processing the work permit and for finger printing. DHS has estimated that as many as 1.04 million immigrants could apply to avoid being deported in the program's first year, with about 890,000 being eligible immediately. According to the DHS document, it could cost between $467 million and $585 million to process applications in the first two years of the program, with revenues from fees estimate at $484 million. That means the cost to the government could range from a gain of $17 million to a loss of more than $101 million.

DHS Secretary Napolitano Announces "Dream Act" Defered Action Process

Today, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the broad outlines of the deferred action program for "Dream Act" eligible aliens. The Press Release is attached below, however, the announcement is shy of specific details. More will be forthcoming from DHS.

USCIS to begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action on August 15, 2012.

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today provided additional information on the deferred action for childhood arrivals process during a national media call in preparation for the August 15 implementation date.

On June 15, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced that certain young people who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines may be eligible, on a case-by-case basis, to receive deferred action. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is finalizing a process by which potentially eligible individuals may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

USCIS expects to make all forms, instructions, and additional information relevant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process available on August 15, 2012. USCIS will then immediately begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals.

Information shared during today’s call includes the following highlights:

Requestors – those in removal proceedings, those with final orders, and those who have never been in removal proceedings – will be able to affirmatively request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals with USCIS. Requestors will use a form developed for this specific purpose. Requestors will mail their deferred action request together with an application for an employment authorization document and all applicable fees to the USCIS lockbox. All requestors must provide biometrics and undergo background checks. Fee waivers cannot be requested for the application for employment authorization and biometric collection. However, fee exemptions will be available in limited circumstances.

The four USCIS Service Centers will review requests.

It is important to note that this process is not yet in effect and individuals who believe they meet the guidelines of this new process should not request consideration of deferred action before August 15, 2012. Requests submitted before August 15, 2012 will be rejected.

California Legislature Contemplates the TRUST ACT

The California Legislature recently passed the TRUST Act and the bill has been sent to the Governor so signature. The bill aims to correct the inherent flaws of the federal Secure Communities program.

For nearly three years, the Obama administration has advertised the Secure Communities program as a targeted enforcement tool that identifies "dangerous criminal aliens" for deportation. Over and over, federal officials have insisted that the program's focus would be chiefly limited to those immigrants whose criminal convictions show that they pose a danger to public safety.

But that's not the case. In practice, Secure Communities is a dragnet that fails to distinguish between felons convicted of serious crimes and nonviolent arrestees facing civil immigration violations. In California alone, more than half of the 75,000 people deported under the program since it began in 2009 had no criminal history or had only misdemeanor convictions.

Under the program, local law enforcement agencies are required to send the fingerprints of everyone booked into local jails to the FBI, which checks them against criminal databases. Department of Homeland Security officials then check the prints against immigration records and issue requests, known as "detainers," to local authorities asking them to hold particular individuals for 48 hours. As a result, immigrants arrested for illegal street vending or driving without a license who would ordinarily be released have to sit in jail for two days. After that, they are either transferred to federal custody or released, although some end up in jail for longer.

Local officials across the country are deeply concerned about having to spend their scarce resources filling already overcrowded jails with non-dangerous arrestees, and are also concerned that the program will undermine law enforcement by deterring immigrants from cooperating with police. So California lawmakers have passed the Trust Act, which would require police to release those who have posted bail, face no serious charges and have no prior serious criminal convictions, despite federal detainers. Officials in New York, the District of Columbia and Cook County, Ill., already have similar rules in place.

Prosecutorial Discretion Clinic in San Francisco on July 14, 2012

Our office has received many phone calls of the last few weeks asking about the June 15, 2012 announcement from President Obama that his administration will grant temporary relief in the form of prosecutorial discretion to any "Dream Act" eligible young person.

It is my understanding that this relief is temporary, for a two-year period, and anyone granted discretion will be eligible for an EAD Card, or work authorization. As there has been a tremendous amount of interest, many San Francisco Immigration Service Providers have joined together for a workshop on July 15, 2012, at Golden Gate University in San Francisco to help provide information to the public.

Here is the pertient information:

*********************************************
The San Francisco Immigrant Legal and Educational Network (a coalition of immigrant legal and education service providers which includes the African Advocacy Network, Arab Resource and Organizing Center, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Causa Justa: Just Cause, Central American Resource Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Dolores Street Community Services, Filipino Community Center, La Raza Centro Legal, La Raza Community Resource Center, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, and People Organized to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights) and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, along with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Centro Legal de la Raza, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA), East Bay Community Law Center, GGU Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, GGU La Raza Law Students Association, and GGU Law Career Services, will be hosting a two part free legal clinic on prosecutorial discretion for pro se (unrepresented) individuals currently in removal proceedings.

 Part I (July 14, 2012): We will provide an overview of prosecutorial discretion, distribute and review a pro se guide for those individuals interested in applying, and provide free legal screenings to evaluate other immigration relief and whether prosecutorial discretion should be pursued. We will ask pro se individuals interested in applying for PD to return to part two of the clinic Saturday, July 28, 2012, with their completed packets so that they may be reviewed by an immigration attorney prior to being submitted. We have a higher need for experienced immigration attorneys for this first part of the clinic.  

Part II (July 28, 2012): We will review prosecutorial discretion requests prepared by individuals using the pro se guide distributed during Part I to make sure they are ready for submission. We will also assist those individuals who are unable to complete a request on their own.

*Due to the Obama administration's June 15, 2012 announcement regarding deferred action for undocumented youth, we will also conduct a brief Know Your Rights presentation during Part I and provide consultations to individuals in proceedings who might qualify for temporary relief under the new guidelines. Clinic info:

 Where: Golden Gate University 536 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

When: July 14, 2012, 11:00 – 4:00

AND

July 28, 2012, 11:00 – 4:00

Victory in my Latest Criminal Appeal

The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, recently issued an opinion in a criminal appeal of a conviction for California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) - Unlawful Driving of a Vehicle. The case name was People v. Martinez and the jury trial took place in Contra Costa County. I was appointed to represent the appellant in the case.

On appeal, I raise one issue, that the trial judge inserted an variant jury instruction that confused the jury and impermissibly lessened the burden of proof for the prosecution. After oral arguments, the court of appeal agreed with my argument and reversed the verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

The opinion is presently unpublished, however, I requested that the court consider publishing the opinion to discourage other District Attorneys from seeking to insert variant language into the standard CALCRIM instructions.

The opinion can be seen here. 

Board of Immigration Appeals Remanded One of Our Adam Walsh Cases Back to USCIS For Further Proceedings

Last month, our office received the decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals in an Adam Walsh Case. We argued to the Board that USCIS improperly imposed the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard" in determining whether the petition poses a risk to the intended beneficiary. My contention was that this standard had no underlying basis as Congress never intended to require this criminal law threshold. In most immigration matters the standard is more probable than not.

In the decision, the Board specifically asked USCIS to explain 8 items in how they reached their conclusion to deny our client's I-130 visa petition. It is my belief that this is a milestone in adjudication of these petitions because the entire process has not be thoroughly thought through and the Board is asking USCIS to do so.

Board of Immigration Appeals Decision in Walsh Act Case

Facebook co-Founder, Eduardo Saverin, Renounces U.S. Citizenship to Avoid Paying Taxes

Facebook co-Founder, Eduardo Saverin, whose family fled from Brazil to the United States seeking asylum protection, has just renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying approximately $600 million dollars in taxes from his expected windfall from the Facebook IPO. It seems the 1% again clearly demonstrate that they owe no obligations to the 99%. As someone who works in the trenches day in and day out, fighting for asylees fleeing from persecution around the globe, I am deeply saddened by someone who takes advantage of the largeness and generosity of the United States, and then absconds with the loot when it is not longer convenient for that person.

Here is the full story as reported.

When Eduardo Saverin was 13, his family discovered that his name had turned up on a list of victims to be kidnapped by Brazilian gangs. Saverin’s father was a wealthy businessman in São Paulo, and it was inevitable that he’d attract this kind of unwanted attention. Now the family had to make a permanent decision. They hastily arranged a move out of the country. And of all the places in the world they could move to, the Saverin family saw only one option. They took their talents to Miami.

Would it be too much to say that America saved Eduardo Saverin? Probably. Maybe that’s just too overwrought. The Saverins were just another in a long line of immigrants who’d come to America for the opportunity it affords—the opportunity, among other things, to not have to worry that your child will be kidnapped just because you’ve become wealthy.

Just because his parents moved here doesn’t mean Eduardo Saverin owes America anything, right?

Yet if you study the trajectory of Saverin’s life—the path that took him from being an immigrant kid to a Harvard student to an instant billionaire to the subject of an Oscar-winning motion picture—it emerges as a uniquely American story. At just about every step between his landing in Miami and his becoming a co-founder of Facebook, you find American institutions and inventions playing a significant part in his success.

Would Eduardo Saverin have been successful anywhere else? Maybe, but not as quickly, and not as spectacularly. It was only thanks to America—thanks to the American government’s direct and indirect investments in science and technology; thanks to the U.S. justice system; the relatively safe and fair investment climate made possible by that justice system; the education system that educated all of Facebook’s workers, and on and on—it was only thanks to all of this that you know anything at all about Eduardo Saverin today.

Now comes news that Saverin has decided to renounce his U.S. citizenship, most likely to avoid a large long-term tax bill on his winnings in the Facebook IPO. Saverin owns about 4 percent of Facebook stock. By renouncing his citizenship last fall, well in advance of the IPO, Saverin will pay an “exit tax” on his assets as they were valued then. But he’ll pay no tax on income derived from stock sales in the future—that’s because he now lives in Singapore, which has no capital gains tax. It’s unclear how much this move will save him, since it depends on how Facebook’s stock performs. But let’s say the value of his stock doubles over the long run, from an estimated $3.8 billion now to around $8 billion. If that happens, he won’t pay any tax on the $4 billion increase in value—which, at a 15 percent capital gains rate, will save him $600 million in taxes.

Is this fair? No. It’s worse than that, though. It’s ungrateful and it’s indecent. Saverin’s decision to decamp the U.S. suggests he’s got no idea how much America has helped him out.

So, to enlighten him, let’s list all the ways Eduardo Saverin has benefitted from America. First and most obviously, he lived a life of relative safety in Miami, something that wasn’t guaranteed for him in Brazil. Second, also obvious: If Saverin hadn’t come to America, he wouldn’t have met Mark Zuckerberg, and—not to put too fine a point on it—if Saverin hadn’t met Zuckerberg, Saverin wouldn’t be Saverin.

Third: Harvard. Zuckerberg and his cofounders met in the dorms, and while Harvard is a nominally private institution, it enjoys significant funding and protections from the government. In 2011, Harvard received $686 million, about 18 percent of its operating revenue, from federal grants; that’s almost as much as it received from student tuition.

Would Facebook have been founded without Harvard? Perhaps—maybe Facebook would have come about wherever Zuck went to school. Still, there were social networks at lots of other schools. There was clearly something about Harvard’s student body that was receptive to Facebook. More generally, elite, government-sponsored American universities like Harvard have been instrumental in the founding of many tech giants. Microsoft’s founders met at Harvard. Yahoo and Google’s founders met at Stanford. But even if you believe that these universities shouldn’t claim credit for the companies they brought about, it’s still hard to argue that Facebook would be where it is today without the American taxpayers’ large investment in public education. Facebook depends on really smart people to make its products. You don’t get smart people without tax dollars.

Fourth: The American government’s creation of the Internet. The strangest thing about Silicon Valley’s libertarian politics is how few people here recognize how the Internet came about. ARPANET, the earliest large-scale computer network that morphed into the Internet, was funded by the U.S. Defense Department, as was the research into fundamental technologies like packet switching and TCP/IP. Delve deeper into the network and you get to the microprocessors that run the world’s computers—another technology that wouldn’t have come about by loads of federal research grants.

Even the Web itself can trace its founding to government grants. Tim Berners-Lee worked at CERN, the research group funded by Europeans governments, when he worked on the HTTP protocol. Marc Andreessen worked at National Center for Supercomputing Applications—which is funded by in a partnership between the federal government and the state of Illinois—when he created the Mosaic Web browser. Then you’ve got GPS, a technology that makes much of the mobile revolution possible, and one that is wholly created and operated by the U.S. government.

Fifth: The judicial system. If it weren’t for the U.S. courts and laws, Saverin might have been permanently shut out of Facebook. But in 2009, he settled a lawsuit with Facebook that gave him credit as a co-founder and his current stake in the firm. In other words, it’s only because Saverin could sue Facebook and depend on a relatively fair judicial system that he’s got the billions on which he’s now skirting taxes.

Fair courts aren’t to be taken for granted, by the way. There are many places in the world where, if you are wronged by a billionaire, you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. One of those places is Brazil; according to Transparency International, the courts in Saverin’s birth country are beset by corruption.

Now, none of this is to discount Saverin’s own contributions to Facebook’s success. Though he was only there at the beginning—and although he had some pretty terrible ideas for Facebook, including his plan to show interstitial ads when you went to add a friend—let’s assume that he did in fact add $4 billion of value to the world.

The question is, what’s fair for him to keep?

As a son of immigrants myself, I’ve got no patience for the argument that he should keep all of it. Pretty much everything in my life that I enjoy wouldn’t have happened without my being born in the United States. My education, my job, my wife and family, the fact that I’m not persecuted for my race or religion (my parents fled from the war-torn aftermath of WWII), the fact that I can sometimes forget to lock my doors at night and not end up killed by marauding bands—I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but when I think about all the ways that the United States has been integral to everything in my life, taxes seem like a tiny price.

Now, remember that the tax rate on long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. In other words, Saverin gets to keep 85 percent of everything he’s making from Facebook’s IPO. Given how much of his wealth depends on the government, that’s more than fair.