The Most Meaningful Award I have Ever Received….

Yesterday, one of my clients stopped by my office and presented me with a framed award she had made for me herself!  When I met her, she was being held in detention and faced imminent deportation.  First we were able to vacate her in absentia removal order; next we applied for  an immigrant visa on her behalf through her U.S. citizen husband; then we had her deportation proceedings closed so we could apply for a provisional, 601(A),  waiver of her unlawful presence in the U.S., required before she could become a lawful permanent resident. After showing her husband would suffer the requisite hardship, she was granted the waiver, and then we were able to terminate her deportation proceedings.  We prepared her for her consular interview, and then she made the leap of faith and returned to El Salvador where, at the U.S. Embassy, she passed the final stage of the proceedings and was granted status as a lawful permanent resident. She  was able to return to this country to live with her husband and children as a permanent resident. After many years of uncertainty and fear, she finally has peace of mind!   Yesterday she stopped by our office, and she personally thanked me and the members of our office staff who made this possible for her. She presented me with this framed award she had made for me – words from her heart – the most meaningful award that I have ever received.

Translation:

“Dear George A. Terezakis, I extend these words of gratitude for the excellent work, thanks to God, and to you my esteemed attorney George, who with the vocation, endeavor and the efforts made every day….in three years, you were able to stop the deportation order I had pending …..and you made my dream a reality: to remain with my family in the United States,  and to achieve becoming a permanent resident of the United States, on September 14th, 2018. They say miracles can happen, and yes, they do! Without you we would not have succeeded.

My family and I will always be very grateful. May God bless you, your family, and your excellent staff who always treated me with great respect and always gave me the best answers to my concerns.

With great affection:

Elsy and Nelson”

One Week, Two Clients Previously Granted 601A Waivers Admitted to U.S. as Permanent Residents

Hope, effort and knowledge can change people’s lives. Our client’s husband came to us, desperate, several years ago.  His wife had been picked up by ICE based upon an old deportation order.  She faced imminent deportation. First we found defects in the Notice to Appear and had the old deportation order reopened. Next we obtained bond for her and brought her home to her family. We convinced DHS it was appropriate to administratively close her deportation-removal case, so she could apply for a 601A provisional waiver, which was needed before she could become a lawful permanent resident.  We carefully documented the extreme hardship her husband and family would suffer if she were deported, and so USCIS granted her a provisional 601A waiver.  Finally, we guided her through her Consular interview. Yesterday, after returning from her interview in El Salvador, she was lawfully admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident, and called to thank us.

Another client of ours, despite his long marriage to a U.S. citizen, had been afraid to apply to become a legal resident due to several previous arrests and a misdemeanor conviction. He had been told his case was hopeless. We obtained medical reports documenting his wife’s serious medical conditions, and the extreme financial hardship she would suffer if her husband was denied a waiver. Our memorandum of law, submitted with his visa application, demonstrated that although he had been convicted of a single crime involving moral turpitude, he qualified for the “petty offense” exception to the general rule rendering individuals with such convictions inadmissible to the U.S..  Earlier this week, he too passed his Consular interview in Honduras. He called us after he returned to thank us and to tell us how much it meant for him to finally become a legal resident.

We keep up with the constant changes to our country’s complex immigration laws.  We regularly attend Continuing Legal Education courses taught by the best attorneys in our field, often traveling across the country to do so. We are also called upon to teach these courses. Whether by attending a lecture, or by preparing to present a lecture, we gain a deeper understanding of, and greater insight into, our immigration laws. Our knowledge, expertise and experience become the sword we use to defend our clients, enabling us to continue to win even the most difficult cases. Through hope, effort and knowledge, our team has brought many clients back from the brink of deportation, back to their families. It’s the work we do, and it’s our passion.

Asylum Win for Salvadoran Fleeing MS-13 & Salvadoran Military

In Spanish, there is an expression: “Entre la espada y la pared,” which means: “Caught between the sword and the wall.”  Recently we won a grant of asylum for a young man who witnessed members of the MS-13 gang as they chased down a Salvadoran military officer, moments before he was murdered. The gang members later threatened our client to remain silent.

A Salvadoran police officer, assigned to investigate the case, told our client’s friend, a neighbor who had actually witnessed the murder, not to say anything about what he had seen, to anyone. A few days later his friend was killed.

Members of the Salvadoran military stopped our client in public, beat him and accused him of willfully refusing to identify the gang members who killed the officer. They interrogated him, literally, with a cocked pistol at his temple. The soldiers believed he was helping MS-13 by not identifying the killers and threatened to kill him.

After our client was seen being questioned by the military, he learned MS-13 gang members had “green lighted” him to be killed by any gang member.

Many in the Salvadoran police are corrupt and have a history or working with   MS-13. The military threatened to kill our client, and MS-13 was also looking to kill him. He fled to the U.S. for his life, and for safety. After hearing his testimony and reviewing the evidence which corroborated his claims, an Immigration Judge granted him asylum. While the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B- will make it harder to win asylum in cases based upon fear of persecution by the MS-13 gang, deemed “private actors”, the persecution by the military distinguished our client’s claim. Let’s hope our country continues its proud tradition of lifting up its “lamp beside the golden door” and of offering refuge to those who flee persecution.

Taking Migrant Children From Parents Is Illegal, U.N. Tells U.S.

“Q.   And toddlers?”

“A.   And toddlers.”

Sometimes our government goes too far, and the fervor of the zealots leads them to engage in criminal conduct; to violate accepted, bedrock, principles of decency and international law. When Central American families come to our country seeking asylum because they are fleeing persecution, rape and murder at the hands of vicious gangs, such as MS-13, it is unlawful and immoral for our government to separate young children from their parents, and hold them in cells, like criminals. Our government is doing this today, in our names, and it is wrong. Organize; speak out; and commit yourself to prevent this continued, intentional, infliction of severe trauma on innocent, desperate, children.

From The New York Times:

Taking Migrant Children From Parents Is Illegal, U.N. Tells U.S.

The Trump administration treats all undocumented border crossing as a crime, jailing adults and splitting families. The U.N. says that violates the children’s rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html

Su TPS o DACA se Vence? Hay Esperanza

Perdón Provisional (I-601A) – Una manera de poder legalizarse en los Estados Unidos

El perdón provisional fue puesto en regulación en el 2013 y el programa fue extendido para cubrir no solo a los familiares de estadounidenses sino también para familiares de residentes permanentes en Agosto del 2016. Las personas que entran a los Estados Unidos indocumentados, necesitan obtener un perdon antes de poder recibir su recidencia. Antes, estas personas tenian que salir del pais y aplicar para un perdon desde su pais natal, esto era un proceso largo y duraba muchos años y seperaba a las familias. Con el programa del perdon provisional, un inmigrante indocumentado que quiere aplicar para hacerse residente; quien entro a los Estados Unidos sin inspeccion y que tiene un familiar cercano que es estadounidenses o residentes permanente puede pedir este perdon mientras esta en los Estados Unidos. Al principio, el programa solamente estaba disponible para los familiares inmediatos de estadounidenses. Pero, ahora tambien incluye a familiares de residentes permanentes. El programa está diseñado para evitar el riesgo de que el individuo viaje a su entrevista en el consulado de su país natal y que no pueda regresar a los Estados Unidos. Ahora es posible que miles de personas puedan beneficiarse de este programa – especialmente aquellas personas que ahora se encuentran con la realidad de que su estatus de protección temporaria (TPS) será eliminada.

Quienes son elegibles:

  1. Esposos de un ciudadano americano (USC) ó residente permanente (LPR).
  2. Padres de un ciudadano americano (USC) – el USC tiene que tener más de 21 años de edad.
  3. Hijos menores de edad (menos de 21 años y no casados) de un ciudadano americano.
  4. Un familiar en las categorías de preferencia (estas categorías tienen una espera para una visa, a veces de años, para poder proceder con un proceso consular) – Puede llamar para una consulta para más información.

Quienes no son elegibles:

  1. Ciertos inmigrantes con convicciones criminales (debe de asesorase si tiene un record criminal ó arrestos)
  2. Inmigrantes que hayan comité fraude, por ejemplo: el haber entrado a los estados unidos con un pasaporte falso.
  3. Inmigrantes con una orden de deportación de una corte de inmigración ó alguna orden de deportación hecha por el gobierno. (En unos casos limites, hay maneras de resolver estas órdenes – puede hacer una cita para hacer una consulta)
  4. Niños menores de 17 años.

Que debe demostrar:

TODO APLICANTE PARA UN PERDON PROVISIONAL DEBE DE DEMOSTRAR QUE TIENE UN FAMILIAR CALIFICANTE (“Qualifying Relative”), POR EJEMPLO:

  • ESPOSO/A CIUDADANO/A Ó RESIDENTE PERMANENTE; Ó
  • PADRE/MADRE CIUDADANO Ó RESIDENTE PERMANENTE

(Desafortunadamente, los hijos ciudadanos no pueden calificar)

Y ADEMAS, DEBE DE DEMOSTRAR QUE EL FAMILIAR CALIFICANTE TENDRA UN SUFRIMIENTO EXTREMEMO SI EL APLICANTE NO PUEDE PERMANECER EN LOS E.E.U.U. MIENTRAS ESPERA SU PROCESO CONSULAR.  (Esto incluye mucha documentación)

Aunque este programa ha estado en efecto desde el 2013, todavía existen muchas personas que no saben que pueden utilizarlo para poder obtener su residencia permanente. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre este programa puede llamar a nuestra oficina para hacer una cita y le podemos dar más detalles.

Las personas que van a perder su estatus protegido no pueden perder la esperanza – tienen que investigar las opciones para legalizarse. Y mas importante, no usar “notarios” ó supuestos “consultantes” – tienen que usar abogados con experiencia, para que nos los vayan a defraudar.

La información anterior incluye solamente los detalles básicos – cada caso es diferente y usted debe de hablar con un abogado con experiencia para poder asesorarse si usted puede calificar para este programa y también para estarse seguro de llenar todas las aplicaciones conectadas con un proceso consular y un perdón provisional correctamente. Llámenos para más información

Impact Of DWI Conviction on Non-Citizens in Deportation

Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2-2-18)
Analysis & Suggestions for the Criminal Defense Bar

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) hears appeals from the U.S. Immigration Courts. A non-citizen may appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order of deportation; other times the government may appeal an IJ’s order finding the person is not in fact deportable; or they may appeal an order granting discretionary relief from deportation. The BIA also hears appeals of IJ’s bond decisions. Precedent decisions, such as that in Siniauskas, must be followed by all IJ’s, unless there is contrary, controlling, precedent from the Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over where the deportation proceedings take place.

Matter of Siniauskas, decided earlier this month, involves an appeal by the government from an IJ’s decision granting Siniauskas release from custody while his deportation proceedings were pending, upon posting a $25,000.00 bond. While Siniaukas was in fact undocumented, he was eligible for relief from deportation in the form of adjustment of status based on an approved visa petition that his U.S. citizen daughter had filed on his behalf. In addition to his daughter, he had his lawful permanent resident wife and other longstanding and deep ties to his community.

The government appealed the IJ’s bond decision. They argued Siniauskas’s three (3) DWI convictions from approximately ten years prior to his detention by ICE, combined with his pending DWI charge, demonstrated he presented a danger to the community and should have been denied bond while his removal proceedings were pending. In reversing the IJ’s decision, the BIA ruled his history of prior convictions for DWI, coupled with his pending DWI prosecution, indicated he presented a danger to the community; undercut his claims of rehabilitation; and warranted detention during his deportation proceedings.

This decision is part of a trend toward increasingly harsh treatment by immigration authorities of individuals convicted of, or in some instances, simply charged with, driving while intoxicated. While Siniauskas may not present as the most sympathetic figure, it is anticipated IJ’s will use the decision to justify denying release to other non-citizens with a pending DWI prosecution, or with prior DWI convictions, despite what may be stronger equities than those presented by Siniauskas. The decision is also notable because, under the immigration laws, a conviction for DWI, in and of itself, does not render a lawful permanent resident subject to deportation, nor does it render inadmissible someone who is otherwise eligible to gain status as a lawful permanent resident. In fact, a conviction for DWI is not even one of the criminal offenses enumerated at §236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which details the convictions that subject non-citizens to mandatory detention during their deportation proceedings.

Release under bond during deportation proceedings is of critical importance if the client is to have the best chance of winning his case.  For those otherwise eligible for some form of discretionary relief, a charge or conviction for DWI is considered a substantial negative factor and weighs heavily against an IJ exercising his discretion in favor of permitting the person to remain in the U.S.. Deportation proceedings for detained individuals are customarily concluded within months, whereas those involving individuals released under bond routinely take years. A client at liberty under bond has the opportunity to seek, and complete, treatment, and thereby demonstrate genuine rehabilitation. This will provide the client’s deportation defense1 attorney a far better chance of convincing the Immigration Judge his client merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

If defense counsel understands his client will eventually be placed into deportation proceedings – either at the conclusion of his prosecution for his DWI case, or while on probation – he can work from the outset of his representation to prepare his client for his future deportation proceedings. This is of critical importance whether the client is undocumented, or, a lawful permanent resident with a previous conviction that renders him deportable. By ensuring the client enrolls in, and if possible completes, counseling while the DWI charge is pending, defense counsel increases the likelihood that if placed into deportation proceedings, the IJ will find the client has demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation that he should not be considered a danger to the community and should be granted release under bond.

Release under bond not only affords the client the ability to remain with his family, and to work to fund the defense of his deportation proceedings, but in addition, it affords the client additional time within which to demonstrate rehabilitation, and to accrue favorable equities. The greater the time between the non-citizen’s last arrest, and the time when the IJ must decide whether to permit the person to remain in this country, the greater the chance the judge will find rehabilitation.

In order to demonstrate rehabilitation, the client should promptly enroll in a recognized treatment program. If held in custody during his criminal prosecution, determine whether the jail has any type of alcohol counseling program, and if so, have the client enroll. If it appears he must serve time in jail – try to negotiate a period of in-patient treatment in lieu of extended incarceration. If that is not possible, ask that he be placed in the DWI dorm, or be afforded treatment while in custody.

If the person is at liberty but will ultimately plead guilty and receive a sentence of incarceration or of probation, delay taking the plea in order to afford the client the chance to complete treatment. In the alternative, negotiate a plea where the client will remain at liberty after pleading guilty, so he can complete his treatment prior to sentencing. A sentence to a conditional discharge, as opposed to one of incarceration or probation, will often forestall the client being placed into deportation, and so provide additional time for the client to demonstrate rehabilitation. Ideally the program should include random screening for alcohol and controlled substances; test results and counseling updates should be saved, as these will provide corroboration for the client’s later claims of abstinence.

While this advisory is geared toward DWI cases, the importance of demonstrating rehabilitation holds true irrespective of whether the client’s underlying problem is with alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence. While counseling is generally helpful for most of our clients, when the client is a non-citizen, it becomes imperative. The recalcitrant client needs to understand that completing counseling will not only help him in his life, and with his criminal case, but it may also enable him to gain release under bond if he is detained by ICE.  Ultimately, by demonstrating rehabilitation, the client may avoid the life altering hardship which follows detention and deportation.

________________________

[1] Although Congress, in true Orwellian form, renamed it “removal” proceedings in 1996, it remains what is historically known as “deportation” proceedings. We should not strip these proceedings of the historical context surrounding the word “deportation”; we should call it what it is, because deportation may result in: “the loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.” We should never forget that.  Justice Brandeis, Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922).

 

Latin father and daughters embracing in circle

DHS Announced that TPS for El Salvador would be Terminated!

DHS announced on Monday that TPS for El Salvador will be terminated. This decision affects some 200,000 Salvadorans. If you or someone you know is impacted by this terrible announcement from DHS, please call us to make an appointment with one of our attorneys so we can explore any options for legalization. Our experienced attorneys are fluent in Spanish and we are here to help! Here are some other things to consider:

  1. The termination of El Salvador’s TPS will not be effective until September 9, 2019.
  2. Salvadorans with TPS can keep their status until September 9, 2019, but they must re-register. If you have any questions, call us we can help!
  3. Some Salvadorans with TPS may have other options for remaining in the United States. You should consult a reputable immigration attorney to explore these options.

Lecture: Best Practices for Avoiding Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel When Defending Non-Citizens in Criminal Proceedings

Earlier this week, George A. Terezakis, Esq. presented a lecture, at the Nassau County Bar Association, which provided the criminal defense bar with guidance on the best practices for criminal defense lawyers when defending non-citizens.  The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky requires defense attorneys to ascertain and advise their non-citizen clients of the direct immigration consequences of any proposed plea agreement, or of conviction after trial.

Criminal convictions can result in: detention, loss of legal status, deportation and permanent separation from the client’s family.  Knowledge of the interplay between criminal and immigration law, and guidance from an experienced “crimmigration” attorney, can enable defense counsel to craft a plea agreement which avoids or minimizes adverse immigration consequences.  This permits the client to make an informed decision as to whether to accept a proposed plea agreement, or to exercise their right to go trial.

“Refusal” Hearing Win in Charged D.W.I.

When police stop a driver on suspicion of driving while intoxicated, they often question the person and ask him or her to perform certain standard field sobriety tests.  The police also frequently request the driver submit to a “breath test,” which is designed to determine the individual’s blood alcohol level from a sample of the person’s breath.

In New York, if there is a finding that a motorist unjustifiably refused to submit to a breath test, the D.M.V. will impose a one (1) year suspension of the person’s driver’s license. During that suspension, the person is ineligible for a restricted or conditional driver’s license which would otherwise permit the person to drive to and from work during their suspension period. The refusal can also be introduced into evidence against the motorist if he should go to trial on his D.W.I. charge.

Before D.M.V. can impose this one (1) year suspension, the motorist is entitled to a “refusal hearing” before a Judge, at which time the arresting officer must demonstrate he had a legal basis for stopping the motorist and for requesting he submit to a breath test. Most importantly, the officer must also establish he gave the motorist the required, clear and unequivocal, warning that if the motorist does not submit to the breath test, his or her license will be suspended for one year, irrespective of whether or not the motorist is convicted of the underlying DWI charge.  Unfortunately, many motorists do not take advantage of their valuable right to such a hearing, or give up their right to be represented by an attorney of their choice, because they mistakenly believe they will never win, or feel the cost of attempting to vindicate their rights is not justified.

The reality, however, is that all too often, the arresting officer fails to provide the motorist with the proper warning regarding the consequences of failing to submit to a breath test, and as a consequence, the motorist does not deserve to have their license suspended.  This past week we defended one of our clients at his refusal hearing: he faced both the suspension of his license and the loss of his job. Today we received the Judge’s decision finding, as we had argued, that the officer failed to provide our client with the clear warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to the breath test, to which he was entitled, and so the Judge refused to suspend our client’s license.  This case demonstrates an important maxim: your rights are useless unless you assert them.