Immigration Courts
SCOTUS Narrows Protections For Noncitizens Who Received Poor Legal Advice
Almost three years ago, in the landmark decision Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court acknowledged the severity of deportation and that our current immigration laws make “removal nearly an automatic result” for many noncitizens convicted of crimes. Consequently, the Court held that a criminal defense attorney must advise noncitizen clients about the risks of deportation if they accept a plea bargain. If the defense attorney fails to provide this advice, the noncitizen can seek to have the conviction set aside. Such recourse brings integrity to the criminal justice and immigration systems and ensures that immigrants who reasonably rely on advice from their lawyers are not unfairly held accountable for their lawyers’ mistakes. Read More
Shoddy Court Process Behind the Record Number of Deportations
The Obama Administration is on record for pursuing the toughest immigration enforcement policies in U.S. history, mostly evidenced by its record numbers of deportations. These numbers speak volumes: last year, nearly 400,000 people were deported from the United States. While these numbers are shockingly high and there has been much discussion about how these actions tear families and communities apart, there has also been an under-reporting of the unfair and often expedited process that leads to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of people each year. In fact, two-thirds of the individuals removed are done so without ever seeing the inside of an immigration courtroom and are not accorded many other basic due process protections. Read More
Survey: Asian Americans Concerned with Legalization, Family Backlogs
In the current debate, immigration is often depicted as a Latino issue. This is partially because just over half of America’s foreign-born population is from Latin America and the Caribbean, and the current political climate around immigration is largely seen as being driven by Latino turnout for Democrats in the 2012 election. But this depiction glosses over the millions of immigrants – documented and undocumented – who hail from other parts of the globe. Read More
Why Immigrants Should Have Access to Legal Counsel
U. S. immigration laws are incredibly complex, yet they provide only minimal due process protections for even the most vulnerable noncitizens. In criminal courts, defendants who cannot afford an attorney are provided one for free, but in immigration court, noncitizens do not receive the same protections. As a result, many immigrants facing deportation are forced to proceed on their own. Even noncitizens with serious mental disorders who cannot understand what is happening in court may be deported without ever speaking to an attorney. Although current laws and regulations provide some protections for people in immigration court who lack “mental competency,” they are insufficient and unclear. An immigration system that takes seriously the promise of due process and fair hearings must do better. Read More
Out of Legal Options, Alabama Files Petition at Supreme Court
Nearly five months ago, a federal appeals court in Atlanta issued a set of opinions that invalidated numerous provisions of Alabama HB 56, the most pernicious state immigration law in the country. After Alabama asked the full court to reconsider its rulings, the active judges unanimously rejected its request. Out of other legal options, the state filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to revive some (though not all) of the invalidated provisions. While the odds remain small that the Justices will take up the case, granting the petition could set up another legal showdown similar to the case over Arizona SB 1070. Read More
Federal Judges Remind Government to Consider Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of a law enforcement agency or officer to decide whether and to what degree to enforce the law in particular cases. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative continues to be a successful example of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context. However the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often ignores other non-DACA-related cases where prosecutorial discretion would be equally appropriate. Read More
Arizona Faces Lawsuit over DACA Driver’s License Policy
Less than six months after it received a stinging rebuke from the Supreme Court, Arizona today was hit with another major lawsuit over its punitive immigration policies—this time challenging its practice of denying driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Filed in federal court in Phoenix, the class-action suit challenges an executive order issued by Gov. Jan Brewer making DACA recipients ineligible for all public benefits. Although the suit is limited to Arizona’s policy, the outcome could affect DACA recipients’ ability to obtain driver’s licenses in other states as well. Read More
Watchdog Report Offers Misdiagnosis of Immigration Court Backlog
With more than 325,000 cases pending at the start of October, our nation’s immigration courts are indisputably operating under a crushing backlog. The only question is whether and how it can be resolved. In a little-noticed report issued in early November, the Inspector General of the Justice Department levied a number of criticisms regarding the length of time needed to decide individual cases. Although the report makes a few valid points, its ultimate recommendations would prioritize the quantity of decisions made over the quality of decisions issued. Read More
Supreme Court to Consider Reach of Padilla v. Kentucky
In its landmark decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court confirmed that criminal defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise their clients if pleading guilty to a particular offense could lead to deportation. On Thursday,* the Justices will consider a follow-up question of critical importance for many immigrants placed in removal proceedings on account of bad legal advice: whether the ruling applies to cases that became final before the decision was issued. Read More
Author of Torture Memos Challenges Legality of DACA
As a high-ranking Justice Department attorney after 9/11, John Yoo authored an infamous legal memo arguing that the President, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possessed irrevocable authority to order the torture of alleged “enemy combatants.” Although the memos were subsequently revoked, Yoo has remained an ardent defender of presidential power—except, it appears, when it comes to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion for undocumented immigrants. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
