My CLE with Claire Thomas of Safe Passage is live here, in which Claire and I help explain who unaccompanied minors are and the reasons for their migration to the U.S.,the immigration options that may be available for them, and the roles that attorneys can play in the process. As noted before, those interested in finding further resources on the topic or in donating their time may do so by contacting Safe Passage.
Following my afternoon training with Claire Thomas on Representing Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court, I will be co-moderating the three-hour ethics training for the NY Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Rebecca Sosa will be moderating a panel on issues facing new attorneys, Victoria Neilson will be leading the panel on current issues in asylum, and I’ll be focusing on disciplinary issues.
We’ve put together an all-star lineup, with Linda Kenepaske, Cyrus Mehta, Deborah Klahr (Supervisory Asylum Officer at the Newark Asylum Office), Prof. Dan Smulian, Jun Hwa Lee (Principal Staff Attorney at the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department), Raluca Oncioiu (Director of the Immigration Legal Services Department of Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of NY and of the New Americans Hotline, and Sherry K. Cohen (former First Deputy Chief Counsel of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee).
The packed agenda will include:
- navigating common ethical pitfalls for new attorneys;
- best practices in setting up ethical practices for solo attorneys and small practices;
- ethical implications of filing certain applications to pursue relief in Immigration Court;
- ethical issues involved in representing minors, including dual representation of their parents;
- ethical duties to correct misrepresentations;
- ethical issues raised by prolonged backlogs at the Asylum Office and Immigration Courts;
- common complaints against attorneys and measures that attorneys can take to avoid complaints; and
- non attorney partnerships, supervision of employees, and other scenarios involving the unauthorized practice of law.
There will also be plenty of hypos and time for audience questions.
Attendance is free for NY AILA members and $75 for nonmembers, with reduced fees for instances of financial hardship.
Building off of my April 18th CLE with Claire Thomas on Representing Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court, Rebecca McBride and I will be providing a training for attorneys on special issues to be aware of when working with immigrant youth on September 29th at Lawline. We’ll be discussing the various legal definitions of a “child”, special protections under U.S. immigration law for youth, recent efforts to expand protections for immigrant youth, barriers to effective representation, and we’ll be taking your questions. And for attorneys interested in finding resources on the topic or in donating your time, please visit Atlas DIY to learn more.
Thought I’d loop back and let anyone interested know on this topic that my CLE with Dorian Needham of Immigration Equality is available at Lawline over here. We (well, mostly Dorian) provide a little background and talk policy, ongoing issues, and case strategies. This one came out pretty well; those interested in the topic won’t be disappointed.
Claire Thomas and I are very excited to train attorneys on the emergent topic of Representing Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court on April 18th at Lawline. For quick background information, see here and here. And for attorneys interested in finding resources on the topic or in donating your time, please visit Safe Passage to learn more.
Today, the Protecting Immigrant New Yorkers Task Force released its Resource Guide for Law Enforcement, Government & Advocates to Address Immigration Services Fraud. The Guide, a comprehensive initiative to combat immigration services fraud, has been a long time in the making, and I’m very proud to have served as co-editor. While focusing on New York State, it is intended to serve as a tool for use by law enforcement and governmental agencies, as well as community based organizations across the country. Rather than say more, please view the resource guide here, and read about the Task Force here.
Legal service providers (myself included), community based organizations, elected officials and law enforcement agencies are being inundated by phone calls by people terrified by the rumors and false stories being circulated by friends, family, scammers, and news media. To combat the misinformation I’ve compiled a list of 10 myths and suggestions to help people sift through the misinformation and to learn how to cope with situations in which they or their loved ones actually do find themselves in an encounter with ICE. Here we go:
- There are no confirmed raids occurring in New York State (or New Jersey, or the northeast generally).
- This is not to say that NO enforcement is being taken in New York—just that only STANDARD enforcement operations seem to be taking in New York at the moment.
- A telltale sign of a false rumor is the description of ICE vehicles. ICE does not generally use trucks or marked cars, except for those to transport detainees to court appearances and other places. The marked vehicles generally used by the Department of Homeland Security belong to the Federal Protective Service, which protects buildings, or CBP, which focuses on ports or entry (airports and the border), but NOT on interior enforcement. Arrests are usually conducted by individual ICE officers in unmarked cars.
- Another sign of a false story are the focus on “ICE raids.” ICE does not generally carry out “raids”. Current enforcement priorities do not focus on picking up as many people as possible; in fact, they are the opposite. The three enforcement priorities for ICE all focus on targeting individuals considered to be ‘fugitives’ or otherwise threats to public safety. It is possible that, during an enforcement action, a family members or other co-habitant of a targeted individual may be arrested as well, but only incidentally.
- Stories involving enforcement at schools or churches are very likely false. ICE policy generally prevents agents from arrest, questioning, or searching people in “sensitive locations” such as schools, churches, hospitals, funerals, weddings, public religious ceremonies, and public demonstrations—unless there is a threat involving national security, imminent harm, or terrorism.
- ICE is not picking targeting individuals simply because they are undocumented or out of status. The three ICE priorities focus on: individuals who are a threat to national security; people who were initially apprehended while trying to enter the U.S.; gang members; people convicted of felonies, other serious crimes, or multiple misdemeanors; people who have unlawfully entered the U.S. since 2014; people who have removal (deportation orders) since 2014; and people who have significantly abused the visa waiver program.
- For those interested in knowing what their rights when interacting with ICE, there are many good materials in circulation, including: the Immigrant Defense Project’s “Know Your Rights with ICE” (English and Spanish); the New York Civil Liberties Union’s “What to Do if You’re Stopped by Immigration Offices” (English and Spanish); the National Immigration Law Center’s “Immigration Raids Alert” (English and Spanish); United We DREAM’s Deportation Defense Card and Know Your Rights Resources (English and Spanish); and Atlas DIY’s “Know Your Rights” one-pager in English, Spanish, and Mandarin.
- Often the best preparation may be to consult with a TRUSTED lawyer in order to find out what immigration benefits that you are and are not eligible for, and what to do in the event you are detained.
- If someone you know is detained, call the hotline operated by the Office for New Americans and Catholic Charities for a referral to free legal service providers at 1-800-566-763
- Don’t pay attention to the news; just remember 1-9.
Over a year and-a-half ago a handful of us gave a presentation at the New York Immigration Coalition to start the conversation that, after a great deal of effort by many people, resulted in the law that goes into effect today. The Immigrant Assistance Service Enforcement Act: makes the Office for New Americans a permanent state agency; builds capacity for the New Americans hotline for reporting immigration fraud; clarifies that notarios cannot advise someone on what their immigration status is and how to answer questions on forms; adds to new sections to the penal law for immigration fraud, including a class E felony with substantial penal and civil fines; creates a private right of action so that immigrants can themselves take the scammers to court, among many other new provisions.
We didn’t get everything we wanted, and we’ll continue to fight for better protections, but today, we can take a victory lap.
Courtesy of Vox (which I noticed because I often read it):
Contrary to a popular opinion, reflected here, neither deferred action, eligibility, nor even a grant of deferred action, takes someone ‘off-limits’ for enforcement.
Firstly, USCIS can still deny someone’s application in discretion. Meeting the guidelines does not mean that you are entitled to protection: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) retains the ultimate discretion to determine whether deferred action is appropriate in any given case even if the guidelines are met.”
The agencies conducting immigration enforcement, ICE & CBP, are sub-agencies of DHS. If they will be directed to screen individuals for eligibility and inform them of their potential eligibility, they are merely carrying out basic enforcement duties–just the as a police department in an overwhelmed district could instruct its officers to look at who is in jail, determine who is there for just minor violations, and let them know if they have any particular options.
I haven’t seen these memos, but the AP article cited by Vox merely states that ICE should try to identify who they “might be able to release”–which looks like it might mean “try to figure out who might fit in this low priority for detention”, which is far from an order to release everyone who might appear to be eligible. Indeed, even if ICE will be directed to release them from detention (to free up resources for other enforcement actions), they still retain the ability to pursue detention & removal against these same individuals. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes they will see that a person may be eligible, and yet they will pursue enforcement against the person. That person can pursue a request for deferred action, though they are not entitled to it, even if eligible.
Further, even a grant of deferred action is only a snapshot of a decision at a particular moment–‘we are not seeking your removal at this particular instant.’ It is not a guaranteed, get-out-jail-free card. Someone granted deferred action may later be pursued for enforcement, and this does happen when, say, someone who has been granted deferred action later gets arrested.
Saying “DHS doesn’t want ICE to prosecute immigrants who qualify” is a poor way of stating what actually happens; DHS has set out clear enforcement priorities, without taking away the ability of agents to prosecute anyone in any category. It does not “run afoul” of any “standard” Lynch set. (Of course, it is also a stretch to imply that Lynch articulated a new ‘standard, which was just articulating the basic function of an enforcement agency.)
All of that is perfectly consistent with the OLC memos, which is pretty much the only venue in which DOJ even comes into play, save for lawsuits challenging policies or specific enforcement actions. So they are very much “on the same page” –despite what today’s example in bad immigration reporting may tell you.
February 7th in Sunset Park, at the invitation of New York City Council Member Carlos Menchaca, I will be presenting on the topic of Deferred Action, along with colleagues from Atlas DIY, the Immigrant Justice Corps, and Juan Nuemann Center.