ICE's War Against the Latino Community

When word of the nationwide enforcement raids by ICE began to break about a week ago, I wanted to be able to say that this is not the time to get hysterical. I wanted to say that these occasional raids are common, and certainly happened under the Obama Administration. But as I read more and more news accounts, I cannot say that. Instead, what I am seeing is a coordinated attack on the Latino community in a modern-day which hunt to find anyone ICE can seek to remove from the United States. I see the utter demise of any sense of humanity or dignity in this nation's immigration enforcement policy. I see the Constitution being torn to shreds. 

Let's start with the change in policy itself. Under the Obama Administration, ICE was instructed to concentrate its enforcement resources on priority cases involving dangerous criminal aliens. Undocumented aliens who were here just earning money to feed their families, and who had not had brushes with the law, were given leniency. 

In his first week in office, President Trump signed three executive orders on immigration policy. In one order, the President outlined the new enforcement priorities, which included aliens who had committed acts that constitute a crime but who have not been convicted. To some degree, this seemed innocuous enough. The Immigration and Nationality Act does have a similar basis of inadmissibility. 

In a closed-door session with lawmakers, however, ICE leadership let it be known that it viewed Trump's executive order as removing the shackles imposed by the Obama Administration. Now the reference to aliens who had committed acts that constituted a crime but who had not been convicted was being interpreted to mean that any of the aliens present in the United States without valid legal status was considered a priority for enforcement. That is, instead of the two to three million Trump  believed were criminal aliens he wanted to focus on, ICE considered all eleven million undocumented aliens as fair game for removal. 

It should be noted that in this very meeting where ICE announced its interpretation of the Trump policy, certain Latino congressional representatives were turned away. That's right. Latino congressional representatives were denied the right to hear from ICE itself the new enforcement priorities that would affect their Latino constituents and their families. 

What's worse is that ICE's enforcement activities have shown an utter disregard for morality and human decency, as ICE has practically declared war on the Latino community. Let's explore just a few examples. 

In Arizona, a woman who had been reporting into ICE annually for ten years was taken into custody during her annual check-in. Within 48 hours she was removed because a decade before she used a phony Social Security number to find work. She had no history of any violent crimes. 

In Washington State, a man who had been granted protection and work authorization pursuant to President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) was taken into custody during a raid on his home targeting his father. ICE ignored the DACA protection, claiming the man had known gang affiliations. ICE's evidence of this?  A tattoo which translates into English as "peace."

In Virginia, ICE waited outside a church hypothermia shelter to stop Latino males as they left the shelter in the morning. One of the Latino males stopped was a permanent resident who is in this country legally. Obviously, ICE's marching orders were to stop all Latino males with the hope of finding one or two who would be removable. 

But the piece de resistance?  In Texas, ICE waited outside a courtroom as a woman obtained a protective order against her abusive partner. Once she left the courtroom, ICE arrested her. In all likelihood, the tip to ICE on where the woman would be was given by the abuser. 

What conclusions, then, are the Latino community supposed to take from ICE's recent actions?  First, ICE has no interest in being transparent and telling Latino political leaders what it's enforcement priorities are. Second, don't bother venturing out to seek any legal protection or to accept help from others with charitable intentions. Are you homeless and need shelter for the night?  ICE will be waiting outside the door to take you into custody in the morning. Are you an abused woman?  If you seek help in the courts, the moment you step outside of the courtroom, ICE will be there to perpetuate the abuse.  Are you a Latino male?  ICE will presume gang affiliation, especially if you have any tattoos. 

The point is that ICE's indiscriminate attacks on the Latino community must be resisted. ICE knows that due to language barriers, many Latinos present here don't know their rights.  ICE knows that many Latinos will not resistente the assertion of authority. This has to change. 

Know your rights, and understand that ICE had to act within the constraints of the Constitution. Don't open the door to ICE unless they show you a judge-issued warrant. Don't answer any questions posed by ICE. Demand your right to see a lawyer. Don't sign any papers without consulting a lawyer first. Insist on a hearing. Only by fighting back within the bounds of the legal system can we push back against ICE's assault on the Latino community. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

For an appointment call (703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (español)

What Do You When a Relative is Detained by Immigration Authorities

When Immigrations and Customs Enforcement comes to your door, it can be a harrowing experience.  If ICE is taking away a relative of yours, there are things you need to do.  The main thing is to gather as much information about the situation as possible.  You will need to have this information so you can consult an attorney, and the attorney can tell you if your relative can be helped.

For more detail, see my article:  "My Husband / Brother / Friend Has Been Taken by ICE - What Do I Do?"

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

California Governor Jerry Brown Vetoes TRUST Act

California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the TRUST Act, finding the list of crimes where California police would cooperate with an ICE detainer too narrow.

Under California's TRUST Act, law enforcement officials would have been prohibited from complying with ICE detainers except in cases of serious or violent felonies.  In a signing statement, Brown noted that the act would have prohibited law enforcement officers from cooperating with ICE where there were convictions for such crimes as child abuse, drug trafficking, selling weapons, and using children to sell drugs.  Brown concluded by saying, "I believe it is unwise to interfere with a sheriff's discretion to comply with a detainer issued for people with these kinds of troubling criminal records."

ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency charged with enforcing U.S. immigration laws.  A detainer is a request by ICE to local law enforcement officials to hold a person who was in state or local custody until ICE can decide whether to take the individual into detention to begin removal proceedings.

The bill did raise questions of federalism.  That is, under the Constitution, the laws made by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.   The Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate immigration and naturalization.  Thus, a law prohibiting a local law enforcement authority from complying with a validly issued ICE detainer would violate the Constitution.

The text of the Governor's statement can be found here.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832

Driving Without a Lincense? Beware!

If you are an undocumented alien driving without a license in Virginia, be careful. Virginia will not grant a license to someone without immigration status. If you drive anyway and get caught, it is a misdemeanor, which means there is possible jail time. Although the jail time could be short, the fact is the moment you step into the jail, you are reported to ICE. ICE will ask the local jail to keep you in jail until they can pick you up, and you will be placed in removal proceedings.

The goal, then, if you've been charged with driving without a license is to negotiate a plea with no jail time. This could mean accepting a large fine. It all depends on past criminal history, hour driving record and what agenda the Commonwealth Attorney may have. Your best bet is to hire an experienced lawyer to negotiate the plea for you.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Prosecutorial Discretion - How It Works

I was in Immigration Court on Thursday. A couple of cases, including my own, bought up the President's announcement concerning the new policy toward exercising prosecutorial discretion. Applications for prosecutorial discretion have to be made directly to the Chief Counsel's Office. So, in Washington, DC and Virginia, and alien would write directly to Rafael Choi, the Chief Counsel for this area. The application should contain all information necessary to convince the Chief Counsel to exercise his discretion not to seek removal of the alien. In the meantime, if there is no hope of any other ground of relief, ICE will not support release on bond.

In my case, the only relief we could request was voluntary departure. ICE would not agree to release on bond. Nor would ICE agree to voluntary departure with a voluntary departure bond. But, ICE did agree that we could apply for prosecutorial discretion even after the Judge issued the voluntary departure order.

Best practice, then, is to make the application before coming to Court, as an application for prosecutorial discretion will not be a basis for an Immigration Judge granting bond.

Has ICE Really Changed Its Policy?

Today, I am going to see if ICE will put its money where the President's mouth is. The President announced that ICE would focus its priorities on removing aliens with criminal records who are a danger to the public safety. This Wall Street Journal article discusses how the change in priority was due in part to the number of people being removed based solely on a minor traffic offense.

The White House posted the announcement on its official blog. The blog refers to ICE's exercise of prosecutorial discretion. A memorandum on the exercise of that discretion can be found with this link.

I have a client with a family in the United States, who was arrested for a traffic offense. He has no other criminal convictions. To date, ICE has refused his release on bond. I am renewing my request for his release today, and intend to renew it again when we have his Immigration Court date. We will see if the President is serious or just talk.

The Obama Administration announced that it would allow more undocumented aliens stay in the country, and focus its deportation efforts on those with more serious criminal convictions. The Washington Post details the announcement in this article.

If this is true, it will be a major policy shift. Last year, after a tragic traffic accident in Northern Virginia involving an alien who was in removal proceedings but who had a temporary work permit, ICE adopted a harsh policy toward alien detained after traffic offenses. Under US immigration law, for example, a first time DUI is generally not a deportable offense. However, ICE was detaining people arrested for DUI (even before the arrest resulted in a conviction) and refusing to set a bond for release.

Later in the year, ICE was detaining people who were arrested for offenses as minor as driving without a license, and refusing to set bond for release. This was happening, even when the person had no criminal record, and when the person had a US citizen newborn baby whom he was supporting.

If this change in policy is true, it may perhaps open more doors of relief to aliens pulled over for minor traffic offenses.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Padilla v. Kentucky & Post-Conviction Relief for Criminal Offenses with Immigration Consequences

On March 31, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, Crt. No. 08-651, which held that the failure to give advice concerning the immigration consequences of a guilty plea amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Immigrants facing deportation or removal because of criminal convictions now face the possibility of using the Supreme Court’s decision to solve their own immigration problems.

Padilla was a permanent resident and veteran of the Vietnam War, where he served his country honorable. He was charged under Kentucky law for transporting marijuana, an offense that carried with it an assured deportation if convicted. According to Padilla, when considering whether to plead guilty, he asked his counsel about the immigration consequences of his conviction. His counsel told him not to worry because of the long time that he had spent in the United States. This advice was dead wrong.

After pleading guilty, Padilla faced removal proceedings. It was at this time that Padilla sought post-conviction relief to withdraw his guilty plea and face trial. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied his request.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure of counsel to provide advice on the immigration consequences of a guilty plea amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and remanded the case for further proceedings under Kentucky law. In reaching this conclusion, the Court made a number of key findings. First, the Court found that even though immigration is governed by civil law, the immigration consequences of a conviction are inexorably intertwined. Second, the Court noted that there was no distinction between bad advice and no advice. That is, criminal defense counsel is under a duty to provide advice concerning the immigration consequence of a conviction, even if the topic was not affirmatively brought up by the client. Finally, a key point of the Supreme Court’s decision is that Padilla sought to remedy a guilty plea that was allegedly procured by ineffective assistance of counsel.

With the Supreme Court weighing in on the subject, the question now for many facing deportation or removal is how to use Padilla to gain immigration relief.

All people being held by the government have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus. That means, that they can challenge the legality of their detention. Thus, in many instances, it may be possible now to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and argue that the detention is illegal because the conviction was based on a guilty plea procured by counsel’s bad immigration advice.

But, habeas corpus may not be available for everyone facing immigration consequences of their criminal convictions. For example, in Virginia, a habeas corpus action is only available for two years after the final judgment of the trial court, or one year after the final decision on appeal.

Virginia has one more avenue that may be available. That is the writ of error coram vobis. This is a procedure meant to correct errors that affect the validity and regularity of the judgment. In Commonwealth v. Mohamed, 71 Va. Cir. 383 (2006), a defendant attacked the length of his sentence, claiming his criminal defense counsel failed to advise him properly on the fact that the length of his sentence would cause his to be deportable. The Circuit Court of Arlington County permitted the defendant, who had served his sentence completely, to use the coram vobis procedure to reduce his sentence in order to avoid deportation proceedings.

It is important to note that Mohamed did not challenge a guilty plea itself. Indeed, in Virginia, by pleading guilty, a defendant waives a host of rights, including the right to appeal. A question remains as to whether the coram vobis procedure can be used to withdraw a guilty plea when based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Virginia Supreme Court in Dobie v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 762, 96 S.E.2d 747 (1957), held that coram vobis cannot be sought merely if the criminal defendant thinks he can obtain a better result by going to trial.

However, Dobie was decided long before Padilla. And, Padilla specifically addresses the situation where the guilty plea was alleged procured because of bad advice on the immigration consequences of the plea. The argument would be that the guilty plea itself is invalid because it stemmed from the ineffective immigration advice.

Such a strategy remains untested. Its success is, therefore, unknown. Moreover, this strategy faces the hurdle that guilty pleas are difficult to attack under Virginia law. However, it may be the best hope available for immigrants who have already served their sentences in Virginia, and now face the immigration consequences of their guilty plea.

Update (September 27, 2012):  The Virginia Supreme Court case of Morris v. Commonwealth has pretty much shut the door on obtaining post-conviction relief based on Padilla.  Morris held that the writ of error coram vobis and the writ of audita querela were not available in Virginia to address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  The only avenue open for post-conviction relief based on a Padilla claim is a writ of habeas corpus.

There is, however, a statute of limitations on a writ of habeas corpus in Virginia.  It must be filed two years after the final judgment of the trial court, or one year after the appellate decision is final.

This creates a gross inequity in Virginia.  A person can have a conviction of a deportable crime that is ten years old.  There is no statute of limitation on the ability of the Government to use such a conviction for deportation.  But, that person may not have any clue that the advice he or she received when accepting the plea was faulty until ICE takes him or her into detention and starts removal proceedings.  That person would then have no ability in Virginia to challenge the conviction based on the Sixth Amendment violation.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com