Texas Immigration Lawyer Blog

Analysis Reveals Asylum Records of Judges

New York Times by Julian Aguilar (from the Texas Tribune)

The Mexican journalist Emilio Gutiérrez has sought political asylum in the United States since June 2008, when he and his teenage son fled the small town of Ascensción, Chihuahua, in the pre-dawn hours and arrived at the Antelope Wells, N.M., border crossing.

Threatened by the Mexican military for his reporting on its alleged human rights abuses, Mr. Gutiérrez says returning to his native land is a certain death sentence. Whether an asylum judge will agree, however, is far less clear.

A new analysis of the decisions of United States immigration court judges finds that at least two of the five immigration judges in El Paso, where Mr. Gutiérrez’s case is being considered, have a far higher denial rate than the national average. The report, by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan center based at Syracuse University that tracks the enforcement activities of the federal government, analyzed the decisions of 265 immigration judges across the country who have ruled in at least 100 political asylum cases in the last five years. On average, over that period, immigration judges rejected 53.2 percent of asylum applications.

But William L. Abbott and Thomas C. Roepke, both judges in El Paso, had a combined rejection rate of 83.3 percent in 346 cases — most from Mexico and Central America — decided between 2006 and July 2011. Mr. Roepke denied asylum requests in 96.7 percent of his cases — the third-highest rejection rate among the judges included in the Syracuse report.

The denial rate for Mr. Gutiérrez’s judge, Robert Hough, was not determined because he had decided fewer than 100 cases. Earlier this year, Mr. Gutiérrez’s case was postponed until May 2012. The long delay is indicative of another problem highlighted in the Syracuse study: the system is overwhelmed, resulting in a significant backlog of cases.

Naturalization Increases in Texas, U.S.

Texas Tribune by Julian Aguilar

If current trends continue, the federal government will approve nearly 18,000 more applications for citizenship this year than it did in 2010, according to data recently posted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency is also likely to deny about 3,300 fewer.

During the 2010 fiscal year, the government approved about 619,000 of what it calls the N-400, its application for naturalization. That total includes about 9,800 military applications. Authorities denied about 57,000, including 750 military applications. This year, the government is on pace to approve about 637,000 and deny about 53,700.

The trends at Texas field offices follow those seen nationwide. In 2010, the field offices in Dallas, El Paso, Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio collectively approved about 48,900 applications and denied 4,610. Through April 2011 — seven months of the current fiscal year — the Texas offices have approved about 30,000 and denied about 2,500.

The data also shows that field offices in Texas border cities have far fewer applicants than those in the middle of the state. So far this year, the El Paso and Harlingen field offices have received about 2,300 and 1,970 applications, respectively. That’s compared to 11,550 in Dallas, about 12,900 in Houston and 5,700 in San Antonio.

The approvals and denials both fall far short of 2009 figures, however, when the agency approved about 742,000 applications and denied about 110,000.

Stock on the HALT Act

From Greg Siskind:

My friend Margaret Stock testified yesterday on an aspect of the HALT Act, the bill's sponsors would rather have you not notice. The bill would effectively rescind the recent ICE memorandum which allows government attorneys discretion not to deport people where public policy reasons suggest using resources on others is wise. Margaret reminded members of the House Immigration Subcommittee would create a host of consequences that most would largely find unpalatable. For example, the option of paroling in someone to donate an organ to a US citizen in need would no longer be possible. Or the option of paroling in a baby whose parents have died in order to live with his American grandparents. Read Margaret's compelling testimony here.

via blogs.ilw.com

Lamar Smith’s HALT Act Would Limit Administration’s Ability to Administer Humanitarian Relief

Immigration Impact

Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” (HALT Act), introduced by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). The bill, which some are calling a political response to recent ICE memos, would suspend the Administration’s ability to exercise certain discretionary forms of immigration protections and relief until January 21, 2013—the day after the first Obama administration comes to an end.

In his opening statement, Rep. Smith stated that the HALT Act was introduced because “the current administration now wants to grant a ‘backdoor amnesty’ to illegal immigrants.” However, as Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress points out, “the president can’t ‘legalize’ undocumented immigrants. The most he can do is delay their removal from the country for compelling reasons.” The HALT Act would, in devastating fashion, remove the power of the Administration to delay removal for certain immigrants in dire need. A far cry from the “amnesty” that Rep. Smith fears, this relief is often provided on a temporary basis to ensure the safety of the immigrants or their immediate family.

In the hearing, Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and retired Lieutenant Colonel, stated that this discretionary relief is important for a number of reasons. If the HALT Act were passed, a number of forms of discretionary relief would be unavailable. For example:

• The Administration would be prevented from granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for countries suffering disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis or countries experiencing civil war or other armed conflict.
• The Administration would be unable to grant deferred action to domestic abuse survivors seeking protection under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
• An immigration judge would not longer have the authority to cancel a deportation on the grounds that a non-citizen’s deportation would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member.

The bill seemingly comes as a response to ICE’s prosecutorial discretion memos, which Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) characterized as ICE’s attempt to prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals, given that “like every other law enforcement agency on the planet, ICE has limited resources.” Rep. Pierluisi berated ICE Council President Chris Crane, who testified in support of the bill, stating that the Obama Administration has already focused more resources on the border and deported more immigrants per year than any previous administration.

In the end, the policies of the HALT Act are misguided and overbroad. While Rep. Smith stated that the purpose of the bill is to prevent the President from granting a “mass amnesty,” the reality is that the bill suspends a number of tools that the Administration may use on a case-by-case basis for the most extreme humanitarian cases, tools that Smith himself advocated for in 1999.

Passage of the HALT Act would result in the loss of some of the few protections we have left for immigrants in this country, and would sacrifice many of the values that form the foundation of United States.

Texas Democrats Attack Lamar Smith Over HALT Act

Texas Tribune by Julian Aguilar

Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith’s attempt to strip the Obama administration of its immigration enforcement powers has drawn a harsh rebuke from Texas Democrats in the U.S. House, who say the proposal “is an attack on [the president’s] integrity that should not pass unnoticed or unopposed.”

Smith, R-San Antonio, this month introduced the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation (HALT) Act, which would prevent the administration from, among other things, canceling the removal of illegal immigrants, granting protective status to any immigrant and granting parole or issuing deferred action (except in narrow circumstances). It is co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

The legislation was filed as a direct response to a directive issued by Customs and Immigration Enforcement Director John Morton, who advised agency offices throughout the country last month to use prosecutorial discretion when deciding which immigrants to refer for deportation proceedings. Morton said the discretion would allow the agency to concentrate its limited resources on finding and deporting dangerous criminal immigrants that pose the greatest risk to the country.

Smith said the president “ignored the will of Congress and the American people” by using his authority to let illegal immigrants stay in the country.

Today in Washington, a coalition led by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., discussed a letter sent to the White House in response to the HALT Act. Gutierrez was joined by U.S. Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston; Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin; and Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso.

“Tying your hands and that of our law enforcement and border security authorities in order to score political points is a new low. It brings new meaning to the term ‘playing politics,’ but in this case has severe consequences for national security and community safety,” the letter states. It is also signed by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo; Al Green, D-Houston; Gene Green, D-Houston; Charlie Gonzalez; D-San Antonio; and Ruben Hinojosa, D-Edinburg.

Smith’s allegations comes despite the fact that the Obama administration is on pace to deport or prosecute more immigrants in three years than President George W. Bush did in eight. Department of Justice data reflects that prosecutions for illegal entry since Obama took office are forecast to be about 132,400 by the end of the year, surpassing the Bush administration’s eight-year total of 122,385. Prosecutions for illegal reentry have averaged about 34,350 annually under Obama, compared to Bush’s annual average of 14,000.

The fact was not lost on Gutierrez, who has previously rebuked Obama for failing to do more to push a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes the DREAM act.

“The Chairman also forgets that President Obama deports more people -- about 1,100 per day -- than the last President or any President in modern history. He conveniently forgets that the Obama Administration told Congress they are granting deferred action and other delays in deportation less than the previous Administration,” he said to colleagues today, according to a statement. “He also forgets that we are seeing historically low levels of illegal immigration; that communities along the U.S. Mexico border are the most crime-free communities in our nation; and that immigration from Mexico is the lowest it has been in six decades."

Former INS lawyers: new prosecutorial discretion memos "squarely within" existing law

Former INS General Council Bo Cooper, Paul Virtue and others issued a Memo on July 19, 2011, addressing I.C.E. Director John Morton's Prosecutorial Discretion Memos issued on April 27, 2011 and June 17, 2011.

"After carefully reviewing Director Morton’s memoranda dated June 17, 2011, we believe that the analysis of the law and the guidance provided therein lie squarely within the basic authorities available to the executive branch." Bo Cooper, Paul Virtue and others, July 19, 2011.

 

Americans Married To Immigrants Push For Reform

Huffington Post by Elise Foley

Nazry and Hope Mustakim will celebrate their one-year anniversary on July 31 through a plate of glass.

Nazry, a 31-year-old from Singapore who is called Naz by his family and friends, is being held in a detention center in Texas, awaiting a hearing where a judge will decide if he can stay in the United States. He moved to the country legally when he was a child, but is now in deportation proceedings after being denied a green card for drug-related crimes he committed half a decade ago.

"It's really bleak. It's depressing. I drove up and I had the best attitude about it, but when i saw him through the glass -- I never expected to see my husband there," said Hope, a 25-year-old from Lafayette, La. "It's a little easier to deal with when you know they're there because of choices they made. But for Naz, it's so unfair."

Hope, like other Americans married to immigrants, is now fighting the system to keep her spouse from being deported to a foreign country. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States -- some of them married to Americans -- among the 33.5 million foreign-born people living in the country. (There are no estimates of the exact number, but about 4 million American children have at least one undocumented parent, according to Pew Hispanic Center.) For non-citizens who entered the country illegally or, like Nazry, are facing deportation, a marriage to a U.S. citizen is not enough to stay.

Based on a 1996 immigration law, immigrants married to U.S. citizens are often still deportable if they snuck into the U.S. or committed certain crimes, immigration attorney Matthew Kolken said.

"The bottom line is that the law that was enacted in 1996 is extremely harsh, and it takes discretion away from immigration judges in most instances," Kolken told HuffPost. "In many circumstances it's basically a one strike and you're out."

Nazry Mustakim has possessed a green card since 1992. But he may still be deported based on an arrest for felony possession during his late teens, when he became addicted to crystal meth. Nazry has since cleaned up -- he hasn't used drugs for five years, Hope said -- converted to Christianity, and decided to devote his life to helping struggling teens and drug addicts. But his good deeds, and his marriage to Hope, may not be enough.

U.S. Consulate in Cd. Juarez issues warning

The U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez has issued an Emergency Message warning that drug cartels may be targeting ports of entry, consulate employees and “the public in general” in response to a crackdown on criminal gangs in Ciudad Juárez by the Mexican military.

The message includes instructions for contacting the Consulate and for enrolling in the State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) for those who must travel to Mexico.

Undocumented military spouses "paroled" into legal status

Texas Public Radio

A little known provision of U.S. immigration law has been quietly expanded in the last year to provide legal residency to spouses of active-duty military members. Known as “parole in place,” it gives spouses who have been in the country [without authorization] a temporary pardon while their green-card applications are processed.

This program does not make undocumented spouses of military members eligible for legal permanent residence -- they already are eligible. What it does is allow them to stay in the U.S. and receive their permanent residence rather than return to their home country to do so.

Surviving an Immigration Audit

New York Times by Adriana Gardella

The Obama Administration has increased audits of employer's I-9 forms.

The upshot of the more aggressive enforcement is that even employers who have followed the rules can be devastated by an audit that compels them to fire valuable, long-time employees.