Immigration Courts
Immigration courts play a crucial role in ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently, providing due process to those facing removal. Learn more about issues facing the courts today and explore the actions we're taking to ensure the rights of immigrants are upheld and legal integrity is maintained.
Shenandoah is a Cautionary Tale for How to Debate Immigration Reform
This week a police chief and two of his officers were charged with obstruction of justice in connection with their investigation of the beating death of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, PA, last year. The two teenagers acquitted of his murder were also indicted on federal hate crime charges. While some measure of justice may eventually be served in the Ramirez case, this tragedy should serve as a cautionary tale as we move into 2010 and gear up for a new round of immigration reform debates. Policy makers and the media must understand that when the debate devolves from reasoned, fact-based discussions into fear and hate-mongering the consequences can be dire. Read More
ICE Transferring Detainees Impedes Their Access to Counsel and Limits Their Right to Present a Defense to Deportation
Two recent reports draw attention to yet another defect in the government’s problem-ridden detention system: ICE’s practice of regularly transferring immigration detainees from one jail to another, often far from where ICE initially arrested them. Transfers have a devastating effect on a person’s ability to retain counsel and maintain an attorney-client relationship; present a defense to deportation; and obtain release from detention. The government should take immediate steps to eliminate these effects and ensure that people who are detained are afforded a fair hearing. Read More
The Right to a Remedy for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Immigrants reasonably rely on their lawyers’ advice, and they expect their lawyers to be knowledgeable about immigration law and procedure. They count on their lawyers to be their voice in immigration court when facing removal and help ensure that they have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In the great majority of cases, lawyers competently represent their clients’ interests. But what happens in those occasional situations where the immigrant is defrauded by an unscrupulous lawyer, or an otherwise competent lawyer makes an inadvertent mistake that results in the person being ordered removed from the United States? Certainly, a person should not be deprived of the opportunity to present a defense in removal proceedings because of his or her lawyer’s conduct. Read More
New Report Shines Light on Detainee Rights Violations in Minnesota
Over the summer, three graduate students at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute interviewed immigration attorneys and public defenders to document their experiences working with detained immigrants. The result—a heartbreaking account of detainees locked away, without access to counsel or family, in a system where rights and the most minimal detention standards are routinely violated. Read More
Does U.S. Attorney Nomination Send a Mixed Signal on Immigration?
While the Obama administration has spent the past year discussing its plans to reform our broken immigration system, it is the day to day actions that, at times, draw a stark contrast to the hope and promise of a new strategy on U.S. immigration. The nomination of Stephanie Rose to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa seems like a mixed signal to immigration reformers. Rose’s 12-year career in the U.S. Attorney’s office was most notably marked by her role as lead prosecutor on the largest (and most controversial) immigration worksite enforcement in U.S. history. Read More
Supreme Court Hears Case about Immigrants’ Access to Federal Court Review
Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that involves an important safeguard for immigrants facing removal from the United States—access to federal court review. The case, Kucana v. Holder, was brought by an asylum seeker from Albania. Mr. Kucana is seeking court review of a government decision depriving him of the opportunity to present his asylum claim. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (based in Chicago) refused to review the government’s decision. Instead, the Seventh Circuit found that in his case, the government has unfettered discretion over a potentially life and death decision. The Supreme Court now is considering whether the Seventh Circuit was right. Read More
Report Highlights Need for Appointed Counsel for Detainees Facing Removal
A report issued this week by the City Bar Justice Center highlights one of the most serious flaws of the removal process: noncitizens are not appointed a lawyer to represent them. The report focuses on the efforts of the City Bar Justice Center and other nonprofit organizations to increase access to legal counsel at the Varick Federal Detention Facility in Manhattan. According to the report, a significant portion of the detainees housed at Varick had possible meritorious claims to relief from removal, such as asylum or an avenue for obtaining a green card. Read More
Board of Immigration Appeals Rules Not to Reopen Old Deportation Cases
A decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) last week provides yet more evidence that broken laws create broken government. By refusing to protect eligible applicants for adjustment of status from deportation, the Board eased the way for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport someone whose legitimate green card application is pending with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Considers “Collateral Consequences” for Immigrants in Criminal Cases
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case posing the question: “If a criminal defense lawyer tells his or her client not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, but that advice is wrong and in fact the client will be deported as a result of pleading guilty, can the client withdraw the plea?” In this case, Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court of the State of Kentucky said no: even incorrect advice about the immigration result is not a sufficient reason to reopen a case because deportation (now known officially as “removal”) from the U.S. is a “collateral” consequence—that is, not something directly related to the criminal case. Kentucky’s lawyer argued today that the High Court should uphold that decision. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
