English
If you or a family member have lost your job because of the Coronavirus, and you live in Jefferson County, click here to obtain information on obtaining financial assistance. Online application will be available soon. We’ll include a link here once it is available.
USCIS has recently updated their website with the following notice:
“Rescheduling USCIS Appointments Due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19)
If you become ill for any reason, regardless of whether you were exposed to COVID-19, please do not come to appointments with any USCIS office. Please follow the instructions on your appointment notice to reschedule your appointment or interview if you:
Were in any country designated as a "level 3" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within 14 days of your appointment;
Believe that you may have been exposed to COVID-19 (even if you were not recently in any level 3 country); or
Are experiencing flu-like symptoms (such as a runny nose, headache, cough, sore throat or fever).
Visit CoronaVirus.gov for a complete list of CDC travel health notices. Learn about the Department of Homeland Security’s response to the coronavirus on their Coronavirus (COVID-19) page.
We will help you reschedule your appointment without penalty when you are healthy. See this page for more information: If You Feel Sick, Please Consider Canceling and Rescheduling Your USCIS Appointment.”
Note from Russell Immigration Law Firm:
As a precaution and for the safety of everyone, if you have an appointment or consultation with our office and fall under the categories listed above, feel free to request a telephone or video-conference (Skype, Whatsapp, etc) appointment. We will do our best to accommodate your needs and ensure the safety of your family, our employees, and the community at large.
Penn State Law Center for Immigrant’s Rights Clinic has created a fact sheet to help immigrants understand the most recent Travel Ban. Click here to see the chart.
Source: https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/immigration-time-of-trump#Travel%20Ban%203.0
If passed, SB-1 will potentially set into motion additional anti-immigrant sentiment and actions in our state population that will negatively impact the immigrant community in the numerous ways discussed below. Additionally, SB-1 will further set back efforts to build support for pro-immigration legislation and policies in our communities. SB-1 has the potential to create a very hostile, anti-immigrant environment that could have repercussions for all immigrants and their families for years to come. Specifically, SB-1 will likely lead to the arrest and deportation of thousands of additional immigrants. Practically, it could actively turn thousands of KY residents against immigrants, making as many as possible defacto ICE agents who report any suspected “illegals” to the local, county and state police, and other public employees charged with “supporting the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.” And because SB-1 specifically authorizes legal action against local, county and state officials who do not “use their best efforts….to support the enforcement of federal immigration law", they will be pressured to act on reports of all “illegals” in their respective jurisdictions. Reactionary politicians will most assuredly jump on board to "out-do the other" in efforts to rid our communities of “illegals” whom they will claim traffic in drugs and engage in cartel violence. Reactionary politicians are already using the recent Courier Journal article on the drug trafficking and related cartel violence of “El Mencho” and his associates as reason we all must be afraid and rid our communities of the scourge of “illegals” that threatens our safety and decency. Little concern is given to the fact that the recent arrivals into the U.S are in most cases women and children who are actual victims or potential victims of the most vicious, shocking and inhumane cartel violence in their own communities.
Below are some of the most egregious aspects of the SB-1:
1. Certain large municipalities and smaller jurisdictions could face injunctions for failure to support enforcement of federal immigration laws. Some jurisdictions have policies, written or otherwise, that do not authorize the arrest of undocumented individuals which law enforcement officers encounter on a daily basis, including those cited for minor traffic violations such as speeding or failure to stop at a stop sign. Under current policy under some jurisdictions, as long as a person has an ID issued by a government entity, even a foreign entity, the person stopped will be given a ticket and allowed to proceed. The person stopped is not asked to produce documentation to verify legal status, and the police officer is not authorized to contact ICE, or told to act as a defacto ICE officer and arrest the person for not having authorization to remain in the U.S. Under SB-1 these jurisdictions would likely be sued for not promoting the ”enforcement of federal immigration law.” Already overburdened courts and jails would be forced to spend time and resources enforcing immigration laws.
2. Undocumented parents applying for legally authorized benefits for their US citizen children could face arrest and detention on notification to ICE by agency employees. This provision of SB-1 will enable state, county, and local agency employees to contact ICE regarding a suspected undocumented parent who applies on behalf of a U.S. citizen child to obtain legally guaranteed benefits under state or national law. An agency employee could potentially identify parents who are likely undocumented by the information provided on the forms, or who verbally provide information to an agency employee indicating they are undocumented. In the past certain agency employees have created obstacles by obfuscation, noncooperation, even using threats to report an undocumented parent who seeks to secure certain legally guaranteed benefits for their U.S. citizen children. SB-1 will allow these individuals to legally report to ICE suspected undocumented parents who appear before an agency. This will have a chilling effect on undocumented parents who could face arrest if they are reported to authorities. Further, their children would be unable to secure the needed benefit, even benefits required for the heath and continuing life of the child. I personally have had clients who encountered such agency employees who tried to stop parents of U.S. citizens from obtaining these benefits through threats and other unlawful actions. Under SB-1, such acts would no longer be unlawful. They would be protected and encouraged.
3. Passage of SB-1 will very likely unleash pent-up resentment and hatred of some Kentucky residents toward undocumented immigrants. Even today there are individuals in our state who see it as their responsibility to report to police individuals in their community who they suspect are undocumented. In a number of cases involving former clients, they were told that a person in the community contacted the local police, who arrested/detained them, which led to their arrest by ICE. Having practiced immigration law for over 31 years I’m sure this or similar fact patterns has led to arrests of many other undocumented individuals. SB-1 will unleash a racially charged and hyper-nationalistic atmosphere where suspected undocumented individuals could be “informed on,” leading to many more arrests of undocumented individuals and their families. SB-1 could also promote the wholesale targeting of primarily immigrant neighborhoods and communities by a small number of resentful and hateful citizens wanting to support “enforcement of our immigration laws” by calling their local officials to contact ICE and have suspected undocumented individuals arrested and removed from the U.S. to “protect our communities.” The irony of this demand is that in many cases forcing these individuals to return to their communities from which they fled would amount to a death sentence, as they fled due to threats from gangs and cartels that would seek revenge for ignoring their demands. An atmosphere of turning on one's neighbors is likely, similar to that encouraged in Nazi Germany to arrest Jews and other “undesirables." Or the atmosphere in the U.S. when African American supporters of Reconstruction were called out, arrested and murdered for encouraging the right to vote and running for office.
4. The regimen allowed under SB-1 could lead to the unlawful arrest of individuals merely on suspicion of undocumented status, including those who have authorization to remain in the U.S. SB-1 allows a state agency employee to “use their best efforts to support the enforcement of immigration laws.” What does that actually mean? What "best effort" actions are agency employees allowed to undertake under the law? Contacting ICE on their own? Will an agency be required to set up procedures for employees to contact ICE? Will they try to ascertain the person’s unauthorized status before contacting ICE? How is unauthorized status determined by the agency employee? If the employee assumes unauthorized status, will the suspected unauthorized individual be required or told to wait until a police officer or ICE officer arrives? What if the person refuses to do so? Can the agency employee take steps to stop the person from leaving, such as locking a door to restrict movement, or make threats against their safety? Could the agency employee physically stop the person from leaving? Make a citizen arrest? SB-1 opens a Pandora's box of potential previously unlawful and even dangerous activity. Considering our ever-expanding open carry laws in certain public locations, the possibilities are absolutely frightening.
5. Those seeking to arrest and detain individuals for suspected undocumented status, including law enforcement officers and others, are clearly unqualified to make a determination about unlawful status. According to legal scholars, immigration law is one of the complicated areas of U.S. law, with many thousands of pages of statutes, regulations, agency written policies and procedures stemming from each of the three major government agencies (USCIS, CBP and ICE) tasked with interpreting, applying and enforcing immigration law. Enforcing immigration law requires a thorough knowledge not only of immigration law, but also understanding how immigration law intersects with and is impacted by numerous other areas of law, such as criminal law, constitutional law and administrative agency law. Further, enforcing immigration laws require an understanding of relevant interpretations of immigration laws and regulations, issued by U.S. District Courts, U.S. Circuit Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. What this means is that making a decision to determine whether a person should be arrested, detained and given over to ICE for detention and possible removal, is a very complicated one. Consequently, giving authority to a person who has a mere suspicion or scant knowledge of a person’s status, or acts without a legal understanding of a person's status, is profoundly reckless.
6. If SB-1 becomes law, it is very likely that individuals who are legally authorized to remain in the U.S., including Permanent Residents and US citizens, will be unlawfully detained, arrested, and possibly deported. Appearance and lack of English fluency are often assumed indicators of an undocumented person by those unfamiliar with the immigrant community and immigration laws. However, naturalized citizens are not required to carry any documentation to indicate their citizenship. And naturalized citizens are not required to maintain even minimal English fluency. Some naturalized citizens who were Permanent Residents for 15-20 years or more are not even required to learn English to pass the naturalization test. And many citizens who are born in the U.S. do not learn English sufficiently, nor are they required to do so. Consequently, this has led to a number of U.S citizens being mistakenly deported to their assumed country of birth by ICE. Additionally, while Permanent Residents are required by law to carry proof of their status, this is not true of those who have entered the U.S. lawfully in one of the many immigrant visa statuses, and remain lawfully for many years in that status.
7. Under SB-1 many undocumented individuals who are authorized to remain in the U.S. could mistakenly face arrest, detention, and possible removal. Many people are lawfully present in the U.S. even though they have entered without inspection. For example, individuals in immigration court proceedings, who previously entered without inspection, are allowed to remain in the U.S. while their proceedings continue, and longer, if appeal is filed with the BIA or US Circuit Court of Appeals. Others who are out of status but have filed an application for extension of current visa status, or filed for asylum, TPS, or any other status for which they were eligible and remain waiting for adjudication, are very likely lawfully present in the U.S. ICE of the USCIS may have granted qualified undocumented individuals a “humanitarian” stay of removal for reasons based on family hardship, or likely persecution, if returned to their home country. Some undocumented individuals are considered “stateless" and unable to return to any country to live. In other cases individuals are lawfully present under a rule or policy issued by the Attorney General or a surrogate. Some of the above individuals may have proof in their possession of their lawful authorization to remain in the U.S. Others may not. In some cases the proof of authorization to remain may appear confusing or unclear. But an agency employee or police officer is very likely without knowledge of the intricacies of immigration law to make a proper decision regarding a person’s authorization to remain in the US. Without that knowledge the suspected unauthorized individual will likely suffer unlawful arrest, detention and, in the worst case, improper removal from the U.S. Those removed will lose their jobs, contact with friends, family and children in the U.S. Many will face living in a country for which they have been absent from for many years, or have no discernible memory of ever living there. In the worst case they could suffer removal to a country where they fear for their safety and even their lives. Academic scholars have reported that people living in the U.S. for many years when returning home face immediate targeting by gangs and cartels who assume they have money for extortion. Or they have useful skills gangs and cartels could use in their illegal activity. They are forced to join or face death.
8. SB-1 will likely lead to numerous suits filed on behalf of those unlawfully arrested, detained and possibly removed from the U.S. Many years ago ICE initiated the 287(g) program (under 237(g) of the INA). This program allowed the brief “training” of police officers in certain communities to enforce immigration laws. As a result of many abuses made by of these officers, primarily due to insufficient training and supervision, the program was plagued with charges of racial profiling and civil rights violations. Localities were sued and very large legal settlements were won, incurring significant taxpayer loses. Eventually 237(g) was significantly curtailed during the Obama Administration, but it was revived by the Trump Administration. SB-1 will likely produce worse results considering the lack of training of those encouraged to support enforcement of federal immigration laws. This reckless bill could repeat the same mistakes of ICE’s 287(g) program with localities forced to pay large sums for violating the constitutional rights of immigrants.
9. SB-1 is so provocative and reckless that it will likely increase racial and national hatred and further divisiveness among Kentucky residents. SB-1 could appropriately be labeled the “KY Hate Your Neighbor Bill” or “KY Turn in Your Neighbor Bill.” SB-1 may rank as one of the more provocative of any immigration bill filed in a state legislature in the past couple of decades. Therefore, it deserves a label defining the actual purpose and inevitable consequence of the legislation. A number of years ago we organized a large, statewide coalition to defeat SB-6, at that time the most egregious and reactionary piece of legislation proposed in any state. It was worse than the infamous Arizona “Show Me Your Papers Bill.” And it rivaled the more infamous Alabama anti-immigration bill. This bill intends a similar (disastrous) outcome.
— Contributed by Ron Russell
Certain Liberian nationals and family members are now able to adjust status to Legal Permanent Residents thanks to the LIberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. See the attached fact sheet from The Advocates for Human Rights. Our office is happy to help Liberian members of the community who would like to verify eligibility. Call our office to schedule an appointment!
The Center for Immigrants’ Right Clinic at Penn Sate Law has released a fact sheet titled, “Children at the Border: What You Need to Know. ” The .pdf version of the fact sheet can be accessed by clicking here.
There are some reports that President Trump may end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program soon. At this time, we do not know when or if the DACA program will be terminated or what the end of the program may look like. For example, will those with DACA continue to be protected from deportation and able to use their work permits until they expire? Or will DACA approvals and work permits be revoked? While the DACA program remains in effect at this time, see the following links for some things to keep in mind should the program end. ENGLISH / SPANISH
Source: www.ilrc.org
Although Russell Immigration Law Firm hopes that you will never be in a situation where you or your family feels insecure and afraid, we recommend taking steps to prepare yourself for the possibility of detention, deportation, or other immigration problems. Knowing your rights and making an emergency plan are two such steps that will take away part of the fear and stress about the future. In addition to these suggestions, the lawyers at Russell Immigration are here to help you find your legal solutions and move through the immigration system.
Do You Know Your Rights?
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”
The rights that a police officer announces to a person at the time of arrest are called the Miranda rights. When a person is questioned by a police officer, they can often feel frightened, intimidated, and/or nervous. When an officer reads you your Miranda rights, he or she is reminding you that, whether you are just questioned or taken into police custody, you are not powerless.
You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to speak with your lawyer before you talk to the police. However, it is very important to be confident in your rights and stand up for them, because police and immigration officers often use strategies which make you feel like you have no options. Even if you clearly tell the police that you want to remain silent or speak with your lawyer, they may continue to ask you questions. You do NOT have to answer their questions. If you say, “I want to remain silent” or “I want to talk to my lawyer”, the police are required to stop questioning you. If they don’t stop, they are violating your rights, and you can later ask a judge to refuse to accept (“exclude”) any evidence they obtained this way. Even after you are arrested or detained, the judge is the only person who can order you to answer questions.
According to the US Constitution, you also have the right to be safe in your home against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” When police or immigration officers come to your home, you do NOT have to open the door or give them permission to come inside. In order to come into your house, an officer should show you a paper called a “search warrant” that is signed by a judge.
Finally, if you are not a US citizen, you also have the right to know how any criminal charges and convictions can affect your immigration status. This is extremely important if you are choosing whether to plead guilty to a crime in order to make a deal with the court (also known as a “plea bargain”). If your criminal lawyer does not know how accepting the prosecutor’s offer in a criminal case will affect your immigration status, then he or she MUST discuss this with an immigration attorney to in order to represent you correctly.
Rights in the Immigration System are NOT the Same as in the Criminal System
When the police tell you what your rights are, they are giving you a warning that anything you say after that point will be used against you in a CRIMINAL trial. However, at any time when you are speaking with police, especially immigration officers, any information that you give can be used in IMMIGRATION court or when applying for immigration benefits. It does not matter if they didn’t warn you. Therefore, it is VERY important that you KNOW your rights and that you USE them to protect yourself from negative immigration consequences. When you speak with police officers or any other government officials, DO NOT lie or give them fake documents, like a driver’s license or permanent resident card, because that information will be used against you later and may even cause you to receive additiojnal very serious criminal charges.
It can help to carry a “know-your-rights” card that you can give to the police as soon as they stop you. The card tells police that you want to remain silent and will not answer their questions until your lawyer is present.
The biggest difference between the immigration system and the criminal justice system is that, in the criminal system, you have the right to a free lawyer if you cannot afford to hire one yourself. While you have to right to be represented by an attorney in the immigration system, you DO NOT have the right to a free lawyer if you cannot afford to pay to hire one. If you are detained by immigration, you still have the right to have a lawyer with you and the right to talk with an attorney before you sign any documents. If you can’t afford to hire one, there are many who are willing to provide some immigration representation “pro-bono” (at no cost to you). Russell Immigration Law Firm maintains a list of some of these attorneys. If you are detained by ICE and are not already working with one of the attorneys from our office, we may be able to connect you with a pro-bono attorney who can help you seek a bond (or a bond reduction).
Make an Emergency Plan
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” In addition to knowing your rights, many negative consequences can be avoided through careful emergency planning. You should create a plan to protect your family and possessions (like your car or home). Preparing for the worst scenario can help you to feel more in control, less afraid of what might happen, and stronger in the face of pressure from an ICE officer.
Reach Out to Community Organizations
With all of the news about President Trump’s agenda and recent reports of higher numbers of people being arrested and deported, you might feel worried about the risk of immigration problems for yourself and your family. You are not alone! Louisville has a great network of support for the immigrant, noncitizen, and refugee community, including organizations such as La Casita Center, Doors to Hope, Kentucky Refugee Ministries, and the Americana Community Center. Please also reach out to your neighbors, especially if they don’t seem to have a strong support network. Your help might make all the difference to someone!
In difficult times, we all should reach out to others for mutual assistance and support. Remember, “the people, united, will never be defeated.”
(General) Know Your Rights [ENGLISH/SPANISH]: This flyer has basic information about your rights when being investigated or detained by the police.
(Extended Version) Know Your Rights: This flyer includes helpful information about what to do if you or a loved one is detained by immigration. [ENGLISH/SPANISH])
Source: www.altotrump.com, www.ilrc.org
Readers may remember that Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government in 2015 to stop its implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA, programs announced by President Obama in 2014. The federal judge in Texas, where the case began, issued a nationwide injunction preventing the federal government from moving forward. The injunction was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which deadlocked 4-4 – allowing the injunction to remain in place.
Because the 2015 lawsuit only challenged the 2014 expansion of DACA, it did not affect the original 2012 DACA, and many have been able to obtain DACA or renew previous DACA grants under that program even while that lawsuit was going forward.
Unfortunately, leaders in some of those states want the original 2012 DACA ended as well, and believed President Trump would end the program when he took office. Since he has (so far) refused to do so, the Texas State Attorney General (AG) and nine other Republican State Attorney Generals are now threatening to add the original 2012 DACA program to the 2015 lawsuit if President Trump does not end the program by September 5, 2017. President Trump has chosen to continue DACA up to this point, but it is impossible to say what he will do in the future. If he does not at least indicate by September 5th that he will end the DACA program, it is likely that the above-listed states will follow through on their threat soon thereafter.
If the AGs follow through on their threat, the fate of DACA may be sealed and it will likely eventually be ended by the courts. That is because every court where the suit would proceed (US District Court in Texas, US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S Supreme Court), is dominated by conservatives who would likely rule against the program the same way they ruled against the 2014 expansion. Even pro-immigration legal scholars concur in this analysis.
This strategy was successful for the AGs when they fought against the DAPA and DACA expansion programs in 2015, and the courts that allowed the injunction to stand in that case are the same courts that would now hear the arguments against the original 2012 DACA.
That is hard to predict exactly. It is possible, even likely, that DACA filings could end soon after the suit is filed. That is because it would be filed with the same US District Court judge who issued the first injunction, and it is highly likely that he would issue one for the original 2012 DACA program as well. That would prohibit the federal government from processing DACA applications while the case proceeds through the courts – a process likely to take at least several years. However, if the judge does not issue a new injunction, the program could continue for many months, or a year or more, before the US Supreme Court finally decides against continuing DACA.
In each case the person should contact an experienced immigration attorney to advise on the pros and cons of filing each application based on the facts of their individual case and the status and progress of the court suit.
In the case of filing an application for Advance Parole, the future benefit of traveling and reentering on Advance Parole is very significant, but only if the person originally entered the United States illegally. That is because the person would now have a legal entry into the U.S.
Why is this important? It is important because having entered the U.S. legally gives a person more options if that person later has a way to obtain permanent resident status. For example, if at some time in the future a person were to marry a U.S citizen, the legal reentry on Advance Parole could allow the person to apply for permanent resident status inside the U.S. instead of having to travel abroad to apply for an immigrant visa (also permanent resident status), which would very likely also require the person to ask for a waiver of inadmissibility. Applying for permanent residency without leaving the U.S. means the person would likely not need the waiver, which makes the process faster, less expensive, and less risky.
Again, you should NOT move forward with filing any of the above applications until AFTER consulting with an experienced immigration attorney.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released a new app called "USCIS: Civics Test Study Tools." The press release reads as follows:
Our app, “USCIS: Civics Test Study Tools,” is now available on the iTunes and Google Play app stores. The app helps you prepare for the civics test during the naturalization interview. It also has a game to challenge your civics knowledge, reminder notifications, and review of past tests. You can also switch between English and Spanish.
Be sure you get our official app! Follow the links above or search for “USCIS" or "USCIS civics.” Then, check that USCIS is the developer.
Additional study materials for the English and Civics tests can be found for free at the USCIS website. You can also find a practice Civics test there.
As you probably already heard or noticed, there has been a significant increase in arrests of undocumented immigrants across the United States. In the three months between January 22nd and April 29th, 2017, those arrests increased by 40%, compared to the same time frame last year.
Although most of those arrested had criminal convictions, both ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly state that ICE will arrest any undocumented person, regardless of criminal history.
As such, it is critically important that you know your rights and know how to protect yourself.
Click on the “protect yourself” tag below or type in “protect” in the search box on the right to read articles which thoroughly describe how you can protect yourself.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a fraud alert on April 19, 2017, to warn the public about a scam using the DHS OIG hotline telephone number. Scammers have identified themselves as “U.S. Immigration” employees and have altered their caller ID to seem like the call is coming from the DHS OIG hotline (1-800-323-8603). They then demand that the individual provide or verify personally identifiable information, often by telling individuals that they are victims of identity theft.
Read the DHS OIG fraud alert for more details.
If a Scammer Calls You
If you receive a call demanding personal information or payment, hang up immediately. If you want to verify whether a call is from USCIS, you may:
* Call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 to ask if you need to do anything about your case or immigration status,
* Make an InfoPass appointment at http://infopass.uscis.gov, or
* Use myUSCIS to find up-to-date information about your application.
Remember, USCIS officials will never threaten you or ask for payment over the phone or in an email. If we need payment, we will mail a letter on official stationery requesting payment. Do not give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official. In general, we encourage you to protect your personal information and not to provide details about your immigration application in any public area.
How to Report a Call from a Scammer
If you receive a scam email or phone call, report it to the Federal Trade Commission at http://1.usa.gov/1suOHSS. If you are not sure if it is a scam, forward the suspicious email to the USCIS webmaster at uscis.webmaster@uscis.dhs.gov. USCIS will review the emails received and share with law enforcement agencies as appropriate. Visit the Avoid Scams Initiative at www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams for more information on common scams and other important tips.
SOURCE: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (uscis@public.govdelivery.com)
This past Saturday evening, on February 18, 2017, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, issued a Memo to implement the new Executive Order on Border Enforcement that was signed on January 25, 2017. One of the most shocking and harmful of the changes in the Memo was the announcement that Expedited Removals, previously issued only at airports, border points of entry, and against undocumented individuals who were caught within 100 miles of the border, will now be applied throughout the United States. This is an unprecedented expansion of the law that will hopefully be challenged in federal courts. This new Memo will potentially allow very fast deportations of millions of undocumented individuals from the United States.
An Expedited Removal Order is an order of deportation, with similar legal effect as an order of removal by an immigration judge. But the Expedited Removal order is not issued by an immigration judge, it is issued by the immigration officer soon after arrest of the person. More importantly, the arrested person has no right to speak to an attorney, no right to a bond or a bond hearing, and no right to a hearing before an immigration judge where you can apply for a benefit, such as Cancellation of Removal. All due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and in the Immigration and Nationality Act (i.e., right to a bond, right to obtain an attorney, right to a hearing before an immigration judge and to apply for a status, such as permanent residency) are denied. After the order is given the person is removed from the U.S. as soon as possible. If the person is from a border country such as Mexico, the removal is quickly arranged. If from another country such as in Central America, or Africa, the removal will take longer to arrange because it is by plane.
The Memo clearly explains the government’s reason for the expansion. The Memo states that immigration courts are seriously backlogged with over 500,000 cases in immigration court. And that many court cases take years to be heard by an immigration judge. Therefore, the government wants to deport people without allowing hearings in immigration courts, to avoid deportation, and remain in the US. The reason for the court backlog lies with Congress because for over 20 years they refused to properly increase funding to expand the immigration courts to handle the backlog of cases. It is wrong to blame immigrants for the inaction of Congress.
YES! Nearly all undocumented individuals can stop an immigration officer from issuing an Expedited Removal order. First, undocumented individuals must ALWAYS carry in their possession, proof of continuous physical presence in the U.S. for at least the past TWO years. The two years of documentation must be updated every month to prove your continuous physical presence. You must have the documentation in your possession at all times, especially whenever you leave the house (even to go outside to empty the garbage, or go to work, church, or school). It should ALWAYS be in your possession no matter where you go or what you are doing. And besides updating your documentation every month, you should have an extra copy at home. This could allow a documented family member or friend to present proof of your continuous physical presence for the past two years to the immigration officer at the local ICE office. Since this may not be allowed, the best way to avoid an Expedited Removal Order is to always carry the documentation with you.
Also, international treaties, signed and recognized by our government, allow every foreign national to speak to someone at their own consulate after arrest in the U.S. This is a right that must be recognized by all government officials when demanded by any foreign national. Asserting this right can be helpful if you face an immigration officer who refuses to recognize your proof of two years of continuous physical presence in the U.S. You can ask the consulate to intervene by helping you to get an attorney to argue against expedited removal and remain in the U.S.
Finally, if you are afraid to return to your home country, you should clearly and consistently state you are afraid to return, to every immigration officer you come in contact with. Once you express a credible fear of persecution you will be allowed to have an interview by an asylum officer. However, your fear to the officer must be done in a way that is recognized under our immigration laws. For example, if you have a fear of harm by cartel or gang members in your community back home, your fear will not be considered important under our law.
However, if your fear is also based on the targeting of family members back home by cartel or gang members, you may be part of a protected social group of family members and your claim may be successful. Or if you are afraid to return home because you will be harmed by a violent ex-partner, spouse or former spouse in your home country, your claim will more likely be recognized because it is based on a protected social group of battered ex-spouses or partners. You must also be specific in the type of harm you fear (physical attack, murder, etc.), and who will inflict the harm on you. But this type of defense to an Expedited Removal order is more difficult to establish to an immigration officer. It will always be best to present two years of documentation of continuous physical presence in the U.S. to avoid an Expedited Removal order, and only assert a fear of persecution if the fear is real and you have no other choice.
There are many types of documents or combinations of documents that can show continuous physical presence: monthly bank statements, monthly car payments, monthly cell phone bills, monthly house payments or rent receipts. Every monthly document must clearly have your name on the document. Basically, any monthly bills and payments with your name on them should be acceptable. If you do not have monthly receipts, other documents such as proof of doctors visits for yourself, or your children, showing you took your child to the appointments, or school activities such as parent teacher conferences you attended can prove physical presence.
A letter from your church minister, pastor, priest or deacon, showing attendance at church gatherings can be very helpful. But these letters must be on church stationary and signed and dated by the minister, pastor, priest or deacon. The letters must also specifically and clearly explain your participation in the church, and how often you attend or participate in the church activity. This type of letter can be used for both parents, and even undocumented children, if all attend the church activities. You can make copies and use a copy for each person. If church letterhead is not available, the letter must be signed and dated by the pastor, etc., before a Notary Public. A copy of a photo ID of the person writing the letter (driver’s license, for example) should be attached to the letter. There may be other types of documents one can use to establish continuous physical presence. Just make sure the documents are clear and readable, with your name and date on the document and make a readable, duplicate copy.
We think so. This is a very unprecedented and massive expansion of Expedited Removal. And it is clearly done to deny due process rights to millions of undocumented individuals, many, if not most, of whom are to eligible to avoid deportation and even successfully apply for and obtain permanent resident status. So legal challenges will likely be made and possibly be successful to overcome this unprecedented and unlawful application of law. But even if these changes are successful, it could take months or longer to get a positive court decision. So it is best to always carry proof of your continuous physical presence wherever you go.
Yes. Many immigrant communities and their allies are getting organized to stop this unprecedented and unlawful expansion of law from deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented, thereby destroying immigrant families in our communities. Many of these families contain U.S. citizen and permanent resident family members. Such organizing include: presentations to immigrant communities about using documentation to stop issuance of Expedited Removal Orders; marches, rallies, strikes, and protests to stop the government deportations from destroying our immigrant communities and harming thousands of businesses that rely on immigrants to survive and succeed. Some church communities, based on their strongly-held religious beliefs of providing safe refuge to those facing harm, are preparing to house immigrants who face imminent deportation. Other communities are organizing alerts and planning ways to respond by protesting when raids are taking place. We can and must oppose, in as many ways as legally possible, government efforts to deny due process rights that are guaranteed to every person in the U.S., even undocumented persons, who are equally protected by the U.S. Constitution, in addition to the rights and protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the great African American anti-slavery leader Frederick Douglas stated: “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.”
¡Sí Se Puede!
Ron Russell, Rachel Mendoza-Newton, Ted Farrell and Duffy Trager of the Russell Immigration Law Firm