As Attorney General, Jeff Sessions Can Have Substantial Influence Over the Law of Deporrtation ans emoval

On Friday, President-Elect Donald Trump announced that Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was his choice to serve as Attorney General.  Sessions has made it clear that he is anti-immigration.  Not anti-illegal immigration.  He is anti-immigration.  Painting with a wide brush, Sessions has made broad statements concerning the desirability of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, for example, claiming Dominicans as a class file fraudulent visa petition and that they have no provable skills that would benefit the United States.  Indeed, he has made statements that immigration -- legal immigration -- has been harmful to the United States.

The question arises as to exactly what influence Sessions would have over immigration policy if he were confirmed as Attorney General.  The answer is that the influence can be considerable, particularly with respect to immigration policy in deportation and removal cases.

The Department of Justice does not have the day to day responsibility for enforcing and administering the immigration law of the United States.  That role belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.  But this doe not mean that the Department of Justice has no say or influence over how immigration law is interpreted and enforced.

First the Department of Justice is responsible for representing the United States in litigation before the U.S. courts.  This means that the Justice Department, through the Office of the U.S. Attorney, assesses litigation risk and advises the agency being sued. 

This can mean that the Justice Department injects a bit of reasonableness when an agency is being sued.  The U.S. Attorney's Office can advise an agency that its action is not likely to convince a judge.  In this way, the Justice Department can subtly influence agency policy.

But the Justice Department can also agree to take a more extreme litigation position, thereby encouraging an agency to push the boundaries of the law.

The more important role that the Department of Justice plays in U.S. immigration law is through the operation of the administrative courts used to enforce the deportation and removal law.

Contrary to what many people believe, the U.S. Government cannot simply pick up a person who is present in the country in violation of the immigration law and deport him or her.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to due process of law.  That is, it has to be proven that a person does not have legal status in the United States or that the person has violated that status by, for example, committing a crime.  Then, even if a person is present in the United States in violation of the immigration law, there may still be legal grounds for relief to allow that person to stay, such as asylum law.  Some entity has to make determination.

The entity that makes that determination is the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which is housed by the Department of Justice.  The EOIR consists of the first level trial courts, that is the Immigration Courts, and the appellate body, known as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

In the first place, the Attorney General influences how immigration law is interpreted and enforced through the power of appointment and supervision.  The Attorney General appoints the Immigration Judges, the Members of the BIA, the Chief Immigration Judge and the Chair of the BIA.  Thus, so long as the people appointed meet the minimum requirements of competency, the Attorney General can be sure to appoint people who will interpret immigration law congruent with his thinking.  The EOIR also ensures of the training of Immigration Judges and BIA Members.  Such training programs can be used to subtly influence how the law is viewed and interpreted.

More importantly, by developing case law, the BIA, and indeed the Attorney General, can issue opinions binding on Immigration Judges in similar cases.  The BIA publishes its case decisions.  The BIA can vote to make a decision precedential, which means it announces an interpretation of the law that is binding on Immigration Judges.  The Attorney General may also decide to take jurisdiction over a case on appeal, and issue a decision announcing an interpretation of the law that is precedential.  Indeed, if the Attorney General takes jurisdiction over the case, he does not need to give the parties to the case an opportunity to brief the issues before him.

This power has been used in the past, for example, to define what constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.  This can be an issue where a state criminal law defines an offense so broadly that it can include both behavior that is morally reprehensible, and behavior that isn't. 

This is the case with assault and battery.  To be considered a crime involving moral turpitude, assault and battery must be a crime of violence.  But, in many states, assault and battery can include a mere unwanted touching, such as a tap on the shoulder.  Moreover, when a defendant pleads guilty, the plea agreement may be worded so as to avoid admitting to actions that would constitute a crime of violence.  This leaves Immigration Judges in a tough position in determining if the conviction before them is actually a deportable offense or not.

In this situation, the Attorney General took jurisdiction over a case, and announced a rule that Immigration Judges could look beyond the record of conviction to determine if an assault and battery is a crime of violence, and thus a crime involving moral turpitude.  The Attorney General's decision permitted the Immigration Judge to go so far as to make conclusions based on the police report.  This particular rule was then the subject of extensive legislation, and has since been withdrawn by a successive Attorney General decision.

Nonetheless, the Attorney General can have substantial sway over immigration law as it applies to deportation and removal cases.  Given Sessions' history, I would expect that immigration law as it applies to deportation and removal cases will be interpreted more harshly.  Indeed, I would even expect interpretations that are constitutionally questionable for the sole purpose of pushing the envelope and seeing if the courts permit it.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
For an appointment call (703) 837-8832

What Happens to the Unaccompanied Children Who Cross into the United States?

2014 brought about an unprecedented humanitarian crisis at the border between the United States and Mexico.  Over 60,000 children, mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, crossed the border into the United States without their parents.  Many were escaping violence and abuse in their home countries, especially violence from the illegal drug trade and the street gangs.  In legal terms, they are called "unaccompanied alien children."

The responsibility for caring for unaccompanied minor children falls on the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  The goal is to find a sponsor in the United States to care for each child while that child awaits a hearing before an Immigration Judge.  Most of the time, that sponsor is a parent, relative or family friend already in the United States.

However, with the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border remaining at shockingly high levels, it often takes time for ORR to find a suitable sponsor.  The average wait is about thirty-two (32) days.  While ORR is looking for a sponsor, children are housed in detention facilities, separate from adult detainees.

Even after ORR finds a sponsor, many of the children remain subject to abuse.  Critics argue that the U.S. Government has created a "pseudo-foster-care system" with no oversight or government follow-up.  Once a sponsor is found, the Government takes it on the honor system that the sponsor will act in the child's best interests.  In reality, some children have been subject to emotional, physical and sexual abuse from their sponsors.

Meanwhile, the children continue to face removal proceedings in Immigration Court.  Because immigration proceedings are civil law proceedings, and not criminal proceedings, the U.S. Government takes the position that it is not required by the Constitution to provide legal counsel, as it would be in criminal court.  One Immigration Judge shocked many by asserting that three and four year old children could learn immigration law well enough to represent themselves in Immigration Court.  Some organizations, like the ACLU, have pressed the Government to accept responsibility for providing attorneys to represent unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings.

What is clear is that the unaccompanied children represent the most vulnerable of those making the dangerous trek to the United States.  Once in the United States, they may qualify for such programs as asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).  The U.S. Constitution requires that the children be provided with due process of law before being shipped back to their home countries.

Here at William J. Kovatch, Jr., Attorney at Law, PLLC, we provide quality legal representation to children who have come into the country without their parents.  While past results cannot be used to guarantee results in future cases, we have obtained asylum for children abused. in their home country, and have successfully petitioned for SIJS for many children.  If you are a sponsor for an unaccompanied child, and looking for legal advice, call us.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
Se habla espanol: (571) 551-6069.

I'm Not Dead Yet: How DAPA Has Survived the Supreme Court Decision

Yesterday, in a one sentence decision, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they were deadlocked in the case of United States v. Texas, and therefore the Circuit Court decision stands. 

The media hailed the decision as a major defeat for President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. The President announced in November of 2014 that parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents present in the United States could qualify for a promise that the government will not seek their deportation and a chance to apply for work authorization. The President took matters into his own hands when he believed Congress had become deadlocked on the issue of immigration reform. Critics immediately dubbed the move amnesty. 

Texas and other states filed suit over the measure, claiming the President had no authority to implement the program without congressional authorization. Before the District Court could hold a hearing on the main case, the states sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Administration from implementing the program while the lawsuit was pending. The District Court granted the injunction. The Administration appealed. The Circuit Court upheld the injunction. The Administration sought review before the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, the main case continued before the District Court. 

The Supreme Court decision concerned only the preliminary injunction. Because the main case is still pending, this means that the issue could once again reach the Supreme Court. 

What this means is that the 2016 presidential election has now become a critical election for immigration reform. Justice Antonin Scalia died this year, leaving an open Supreme Court seat. With an even number of Supreme Court justices, any case where the vote is tied means that the lower court decision stands. The Republicans in the Senate have refused to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee to take Scalia's seat. 

This means that the new President will have the power to appoint a new justice, and thereby break the deadlock before the main case reaches the Supreme Court.  The fight over DAPA, therefore is not over; its fate rests in the hands of the voters. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832

Se habla español (571) 551-6069 

No, Undocumented Aliens are not About to Bankrupt the Federal Government Looking for Hand-Outs

Over the weekend, I saw a Facebook friend link to a video which he believed was the definitive proof that those "illegals" are just coming to the United States to live off the backs of taxpayers.  The video is a Fox News "Special Report" by Steve Harrigan sometime in the Spring of 2013.  Although the video is three years old, it is still making its rounds. A quick Google search revealed that it has been used by conservative causes to demand that politicians do something about these "illegals" living off the public dole. 

As I watched the video with a critical eye, I noted that it was short on facts, accurate information and real analysis, and long on misdirection and scare tactics.

The video focused on a woman.  I hesitate to mention her by name, since she has been made the pariah of the opponents of immigration reform.  Still, I cannot find one article on the Internet that defends her.  And for that reason alone, let me tell you about the story of Marita Nelson.

According to Harrigan, Nelson crossed the Rio Grande to enter this country over twenty years ago.  She has been receiving public assistance for over twenty years. She has seven mouths to feed, and the $240 per month she receives from SNAP (or as he calls it, food stamps) does not last through three weeks.  Harrigan claims that Nelson, who is fifty years olds, receives funds for public housing, government help with medication and $700 per month in Social Security.  There is some talk about her receiving some child support, but no details are given.

Harrigan then expresses complete surprise that there are privately funded organizations out there that actually help people find public assistance programs for which they qualify.  And Nelson has the temerity to urge people who need help to go look for it before it is too late.

Horrors!

Well, let's analyze this piece by piece, with reference to the actual law.  A thoughtful analysis shows why any fears are just unsubstantiated.  We'll start with Nelson's immigration status.  The assumption is that since Nelson crossed the Rio Grande over twenty years ago, she must be illegal!  Some conservative bloggers go so far as to say that she's criminal.

I hate to break it to you, but crossing the border without a visa is not necessarily a crime.  It is illegal, yes.  But, as the Immigration Courts and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement love to point out, immigration law is civil, not criminal (even though people in removal proceedings are put in "detention" which looks an awful lot like jail).  So we cannot conclude that Nelson is a criminal.

More importantly, we cannot even conclude that she is necessarily an illegal alien.  We do not know where she is from.  We do not know why she came to the United States.  We do not know if she is married.  People who crossed the border illegally could still qualify for asylum or temporary protected status, two legal programs under U.S. immigration law.  If she were in removal proceedings, having been in the United States over ten years, she could qualify for cancellation of removal, which would make her a legal permanent resident.  Perhaps she married a U.S. citizen and was grandfathered under an older law that would allow her to become a legal permanent resident.  Without more facts, we just don't know what her immigration status is.

But let's assume that she is undocumented, for the sake of argument.  Does her story give definitive proof that those pesky "illegals" will just pour across our border to step up to the public trough?

The first key to understanding this story is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.  This act of Congress prohibited undocumented aliens from applying for federal benefits.  The act was passed on August 22, 1996.  This means that it applied only to people receiving public benefits after that date.  If Nelson has been receiving public benefits for over twenty years, then she would have been receiving benefits as of 1993, or before the passage of the act.  She would therefore have been grandfathered in, and thus not prohibited from receiving benefits.  The real point here is that her case does not mean that people who cross the border today or tomorrow or who crossed the border ten years ago can receive federal benefits such as SNAP, public housing or health insurance.

But let's go further.  We'll start with Social Security.  Social Security administers three programs: (1) retirement benefits; (2) insurance for becoming disabled after working; and (3) supplemental income for those who are disabled.  To receive retirement benefits, you have to be at least sixty-five.  At age fifty, Nelson is too young.  To receive disability insurance, you must have worked for 40 quarters paying into the Social Security system.  If Nelson were undocumented, it seems unlikely that she would have been working legally and the would not qualify for that program.  As for the supplemental income, well let's not forget that Nelson has seven mouths to feed.  Some of those mouths are likely her children.  She could very well have children born in the United States and thus U.S. citizens.  If a U.S. citizen child is disabled, then the child may be eligible for supplemental income.  But note that the benefits would belong to the U.S. citizen child, and Nelson might only be serving as the representative payee, who receives the benefits on the child's behalf and is legally obligated to use the benefits for the child.

The problem is that from the report itself, we just don't know.  Nothing is mentioned about her children, other than the fact that Nelson receives child support.

U.S. citizen children could possibly explain other benefits.  The SNAP benefits could belong to the children.  The public housing could belong to the children.  If she did have a U.S. citizen child who was disabled, then that child might qualify for Medicaid, thus explaining the assistance with medication.  But we do not know any of the relevant facts from the report.  Instead, Harrigan purposefully leads the viewer to think that the benefits are for Nelson herself.

The point is that a critical eye, armed with knowledge of the law, demonstrates that Harriman's so-called "Special Report" is nothing but fear mongering meant to stir up xenophobia, racism and hatred of those darned "illegals."  In reality, there is no danger that those who crossed the border recently, or who will cross the border in the future, are about to bankrupt the U.S. treasury looking for government hand-outs.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Judge Makes Special Immigration Juvenile Status (SIJS) Findings

A judge on the Juvenile and Domestic Relations General District Court in Virginia signed an order today making the findings required to permit a juvenile from Central America to apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, or SIJS.  SIJS is one of the more unique immigration statuses in that the law authorizes state courts to make the initial findings before the juvenile can apply to USCIS.

In order to qualify, the alien must be under 21, unmarried and apply to a court in the state where he or she resides which has jurisdiction over minors.  The state court must first find that the juvenile is dependent on the state court.  Dependent can mean that the state court places the juvenile with a state agency for care, or with a private individual.  The court must then find that reunification with one or both of the juvenile's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or a similar ground under state law.  Finally, the state court must find that it is not in the juvenile's best interests to be returned to his or her home country.

In today's proceeding, the juvenile's father was an alcoholic who physically abused the mother.  The father threw the juvenile out of the house with the mother's acquiescence.  The juvenile, who faced harassment at the hand of street gangs at school, fled to the United States where his older sister lived.  Once in the United States, his parents refused to provide any financial support.

The juvenile's sister applied to the court for custody, and requested that the judge make the SIJS findings.  The judge agreed, permitting the juvenile to proceed with his application with USCIS.

Applying for custody is a typical way in which a responsible adult can assist a juvenile in obtaining the required SIJS findings.  Because the law permits a finding that reunification is not viable with one or both parents, often a parent who is present in the United States can apply for custody of his or her own child in order protect that child from the abuse or neglect of the parent who remained in the foreign country.  Once a state juvenile court has jurisdiction through a custody petition, the parent can then ask the court to make the required findings.

If the juvenile is in Immigration Court proceedings, a practitioner can request that the court continue, or delay, the proceedings while the juvenile is applying for the SIJS findings in state court.  Once the state court makes the findings, the practitioner can then request that the Immigration Court case be terminated to allow the juvenile to apply with USCIS.  The end result is the granting of permanent residency to the juvenile, and an opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship in the future.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832.
Se habla espanol (571) 551-6069.

The Senate Must Vote on Judge Garland's Nomination

While pursuing Facebook yesterday, I came across a post from Michelle Malkin on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The post was a link to an article in the Conservative Review simply entitled, "What Conservatives Need to Know About Merrick Garland."  When I clicked the link, I was shocked to find a one word answer as the first paragraph of the article. It simply said, "Nothing."

Author Brian Darling's analysis didn't get much more informative. The crux of his argument was that because Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama, he is a liberal and will tip the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of the liberals. 

I was shocked because even though I consider myself a Republican with conservative leanings, my reaction to President Obama's pick was far different. I was surprised by how non-controversial the appointment would be. 

Judge Garland has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit since 1997.  He is currently the Chief Judge.  Because of the location of the DC Circuit, it is the court that tends to hear cases involving Federal policy most often. The court is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. 

In addition, Judge Garland is a former prosecutor who is 63 years old. Not only has he worked in law enforcement, he is not likely to stick around the Supreme Court for a very long time. 

At this point, conservatives point to two cases in which he was involved to ring the alarm bells that he will rob us all of our gun rights. The first is the case that overturned the District of Columbia's gun control law. The case was decided by a three judge panel, and Judge Garland voted for the case to be reheard en banc, which means in front of all of the judges of the DC Circuit. 

The second was a case where Judge Garland agreed that the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a computerized background check was working. 

Neither case hardly says anything about the Judge's views on the Second Amendment. Yet it is enough that Judge Garland acted in a way displeasing to the NRA for conservatives to mobilize opposition by engaging in the Second Amendment fear mongering. 

Conservatives are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. The prospect that his seat on the Supreme Court could be filled by an Obama appointee is just devastating to them. Thus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of announcing that there would be no hearings on any Obama nomination. Instead, the choice would be left to the new president. President Obama has countered with the nomination of a highly respected jurist, who is not likely to stay around for a very long time. The result is that Senate Republicans look far worse than just merely obstructionists. They look like whiny, petulant children. 

One of the most frightening characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and its influence on the Republican Party, has been the uncompromising willingness to shut down normal government functions in the name of promoting conservatism. Faced with very little on the record to challenge a nominee who appears to be eminently qualified, the conservatives resort to fear mongering. Senate leaders should not play this game. Rather, they should do their constitutional duty of allowing the full Senate to give advice and consent by holding hearings on Judge Garland, and sending his nomination to the floor for a vote. 

The Way Things Are Supposed to be, and the Way Things Actually Are

Readers of my blog know that there's no secret that I am really enjoying AMC's "Better Call Saul."  I think it's because being a solo practitioner, while I may strongly disagree with Jimmy McGill's ethics, I understand his struggles. Last night's episode, we saw some of the tension of big firm lawyers, who expect things to be the way they are supposed to be, and the solo practitioner, who understands the way things are. 

Time for my required spoiler alert for those who have recorded it, want to catch an encore showing or will be watching through AMC's app. 

***SPOILER ALERT***

Jimmy got in trouble last week by airing a commercial without the partners' prior approval. He wasn't fired, but warned that he would be under a lot more scrutiny. 

This week, we learn what that scrutiny is. A second year associate has been tasked with reviewing everything Jimmy does, and teaching him the firm's way. Jimmy, not surprisingly, is annoyed that he, who was hired as a fourth year associate, is now being babysat by a second year associate. 

The scene that stuck out the most for me was when Jimmy and his babysitter go to court to file a motion and to get a date for a hearing. Jimmy isn't getting the date he wants. So he pulls out a Beanie Baby to offer to the surly clerk. Suddenly, and better date opens up. 

Shocked, the babysitter pulls Jimmy aside and chides him for offering a bribe. The result? It will now be more than a month until Jimmy gets his hearing. 

Look, all of us have come across that bureaucrat who has their own little fiefdom, and will let you know that they have power over you. The question is how do you deal with that. 

I think the mistake many lawyers make is forgetting that the bureaucrat is a person. Some lawyers will treat the clerk or the bailiff or the security guard as just a means to an end. This person has something I want, and she should just give it to me. 

Jimmy's solution, while shady, at least recognizes the person behind the job. He has taken the time to learn that the clerk loves Beanie Babies, so he makes her feel good by offering what she likes. 

Yeah, the direct quid pro quo is wrong. But I do think Jimmy is on the right track. As the saying goes, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. 

I remember back to my internship days. I was the guy who went to a certain embassy in Washington to turn in the paperwork for visa requests for our consultants. For a long time, the consular officer was surly. Even though I knew the paperwork was correct, she gave me attitude. I didn't get things from her on time. This was her fiefdom. 

I didn't go to Jimmy's extreme. But I did change my attitude. I tried to engage her on conversation. I knew a little of her native language, so I would greet her in it. I'd try to joke with her, ask her how her day was. In general, I treated her like a person and not like a means to an end. Heck, I even fixed her printer once. The result?  I suddenly had the reputation of getting visas approved faster than the other interns. My bosses were impressed that I got the clerk whom everyone thought was cold to thaw. 

But that's the point of being in the trenches. You get to know how things really work. You learn how to manipulate that to your advantage, or you learn to live with it. Jimmy, for all his faults, at least knows people. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.