Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

A Cincinnati Immigration Law Firm

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Directions
      • Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.
      • Cleveland Immigration Court
      • USCIS Cincinnati Field Office
    • Why I do what I do
  • Immigration
    • Family Immigration Home
      • K-1 Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)
      • Marriage Green Card
      • Removal of Conditions on Status (I-751)
    • Investment Immigration
      • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
      • EB-5 Visas
    • Employment Immigration
      • Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1
      • Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2
      • Employment Immigration H-1B
    • Naturalization 2021
    • Preventing Deportation
      • Immigration Court Video
      • Immigration Law Violations
      • Cancellation of Removal
      • I-212 Waivers
      • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Work Card or Employment Authorization Document
    • Nonimmigrant Options
      • H-1B Visas For Specialty Occupations, Like Yours
      • The B Visas: Business or Pleasure?
      • Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors
      • E-1/E-2 Eligibility Requirements
        • The E-1 Treaty Trader Visa
          • E-1 Treaty Traders Details
        • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
    • I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
    • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Criminal Law and Immigration
    • Temporary Protected Status
    • USCIS Processing Times Calculator 2021
  • Legal Information
  • Archive & Site Map
  • Client Portal

ICE held an American man in custody for 1,273 days per LA Times

May 1, 2018 by Thomas Geygan

Link to Full Article

Since 2012, ICE has released from its custody more than 1,480 people after investigating their citizenship claims, according to agency figures. And a Times review of Department of Justice records and interviews with immigration attorneys uncovered hundreds of additional cases in the country’s immigration courts in which people were forced to prove they are Americans and sometimes spent months or even years in detention.

The Times found that the two groups most vulnerable to becoming mistaken ICE targets are the children of immigrants and citizens born outside the country.

The Times’ review of federal documents and lawsuits turned up cases in which Americans were arrested based on mistakes or cursory ICE investigations and some who were repeatedly targeted because the government failed to update its records. Immigration lawyers said federal agents rarely conduct interviews before making arrests and getting ICE to correct its records is difficult.

In the seven and a half years ending in February, ICE reviewed 8,043 citizenship claims of people in custody, according to figures provided by the Department of Homeland Security. In 1,488 — nearly a fifth of those cases — ICE lawyers concluded the evidence “tended to show that the individual may, in fact, be a U.S. citizen,” a DHS spokeswoman said.

In addition, The Times found more than two dozen federal lawsuits in which U.S. citizens sued for unlawful arrest after ICE changed its policies in 2008 to prevent such detentions. Their time in custody ranged from a day to more than three years. Twelve of the men and women held U.S. passports proving their citizenship. ICE had mistakenly arrested several of the people more than once.

In an internal email prompted by the seven-day jailing of a Chicago man, an ICE official wrote that it was agency practice to tell citizens that the burden was on them to obtain written proof of their legal status to ensure they would not be wrongly targeted again.

A 2011 UC Berkeley study of ICE’s early use of IDENT found six U.S. citizens, including one who had previously been deported, in a sample of 375 arrests — an error rate that would affect thousands of Americans on a national scale. And government audits showed that last year 52,000 people were wrongly tagged in the Central Index System, a key database used by immigration agents, as being ineligible to work in the U.S.

A training document for users of the Central Index System, which is maintained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, warns of incorrect or multiple identification numbers, scrambled names, inconsistent procedures for recording multi-part names common in Latin and Chinese cultures, aliases, misspellings and typographical errors, incorrect birth dates and lost records.

“Garbage in, garbage out,” the document cautions, a reminder that what computer systems deliver is only as good as what goes in.

It is common for people facing deportation to be unaware they have a rightful claim to citizenship, both ICE officials and immigration attorneys said.

The task of proving citizenship can mean digging up the birth certificates of dead parents and finding work records from decades ago to show they lived in the country long enough to confer citizenship on their children.

Such legal fights “can be really, really difficult,” especially if the person is locked in a detention facility, said Ashley Tabbador, a federal immigration judge in Los Angeles who spoke in her capacity as president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges. “Unless the person is able to come forth with enough facts,” Tabbador said, judges are likely to side with ICE.

Immigration lawyers said they make it a habit to ask clients about their parents’ immigration status and other indications of citizenship that ICE agents often overlook.

A decade of Justice Department records analyzed by the Times show the success of defendants making U.S. citizenship claims more than doubled if they had an attorney.

[contentblock id=5 img=gcb.png]

Filed Under: Deportation & Removal

Non-Citizens Charged with Criminal Offenses Face Difficult Laws

April 30, 2018 by Thomas Geygan

 

shadow-ornament

United States immigration laws are complex and difficult. A non-U.S. citizen (non-USC) facing a criminal matter will need both a criminal defense lawyer and an immigration lawyer. Once the criminal issue is resolved, the non-USC may have to resolve an immigration issue. However, a plea deal can be carefully crafted to mitigate immigration consequences. It is very important that a criminal defense attorney first research possible immigration consequences and also consult an immigration attorney.

 

Q:      I’ve been accused of a crime. How do I know if I’m a U.S. citizen?

A:      Generally, if you were not born in the U. S. or have not otherwise received official citizenship status, you are not a citizen. However, you still may have legal status as a U.S. citizen if a parent or even a grandparent is a citizen; this is called “derivative citizenship.”

 

Q:  What if I don’t have legal status in the U.S.?

A:      “Legal status” gives the non-USC permission to be physically present in the United States. Normally, a non-USC will hold a non-immigrant or n immigrant visa status. A visa will allow a non-USC to seek permission to enter the U.S. at a port of entry such as a land crossing or airport. At the port of entry, the non-USC is inspected and admitted by an immigration officer. Whatever visa you used to enter the U.S. will determine your legal status and how long you are allowed to stay in the U.S. If you entered without inspection, committed a criminal act, did not comply with the terms of the specific visa you had, or you entered legally but have stayed longer than a visa permits, then you may not have legal status.

 

If you do not have legal status and you are arrested, you may have a “detainer” placed on you by a local law enforcement agency or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This detainer allows local law enforcement or DHS to hold you until the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrives. Once the ICE arrives, they will take you into custody.

 

Q:      If I am not a USC and I plead guilty to something, will I be forced to leave the U.S.?

A:      You should consider the possible effects of taking a plea deal or going to trial. After the criminal matter is completed, the crime you are charged with will determine if deportation proceedings will be started. A carefully crafted plea may help you avoid deportation proceedings. A criminal defense attorney must tell you about the immigration consequences of a criminal plea, especially for a plea agreement made after March 2010. The law requires that a criminal defense attorney assess whether or not the amended charge in a plea deal will have immigration consequences. If immigrations consequences are not clear, then the criminal defense attorney must consult with an immigration attorney or tell the criminal defendant to consult with an immigration attorney.

 

Q:      What is a “conviction” for immigration purposes?

A:      To receive a conviction, a judge must find you guilty of the charges against you and order some form of punishment, penalty or restraint of your freedom. You might also receive a conviction for violating the terms of probation or failing to follow a court order. For immigration purposes, the immigration court can only look at your conviction record. Even a “treatment in lieu of conviction” or “withholding of adjudication” may result in deportation proceedings, especially if you enter a plea of guilty and successfully complete the program. For immigration purposes, a guilty plea is considered a record of conviction, even though no record of conviction exists.

 

Q:      I was convicted of an offense, but I completed my probation and my conviction was expunged. Can I still be deported?

A:      Yes. Your conviction still counts against you even if you were put on probation and your record was expunged. Expungement may negatively affect possible post-conviction relief motions if an alien attempts to vacate the original plea.

 

Q:      What kinds of offenses can get me kicked out of the country?

A:      The two main types of crime that can result in your deportation are aggravated felonies and crimes of moral turpitude.

 

The Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) definition of “aggravated felony” includes a number of crimes that are not commonly considered either “felonies” or “aggravated.” A criminal defense attorney working with non-USC clients must fully understand the INA definition of “aggravated felony” to provide correct advice about offenses that can result in deportation.

 

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a crime of moral turpitude is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to social standards of morality and done with a reckless, malicious, or evil intent. Conviction of crimes of moral turpitude may also disqualify someone from an employment opportunity. The precise definition of a crime that involves moral turpitude isn’t always clear, but the following crimes are always considered crimes of moral turpitude:  murder; voluntary manslaughter; rape; statutory rape; domestic violence; prostitution; fraud and crimes where fraud is an element; all theft offenses; blackmail; malicious destruction of property; arson; alien smuggling; harboring a fugitive; bribery; and perjury.

 

Q:      If the immigration court finds that an offense I’ve been convicted of means I can be removed from the U.S., what do I do?

A:      Assuming you are a non-USC and have been placed in removal proceedings, you may be eligible for relief from removal, even if a plea deal is not successful. Relief can include, but is not limited to, adjustment of status, temporary protected status, or deferred action, or the removal may even be cancelled. You also may be eligible for asylum or protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. However, depending on the crime, you may not be eligible for certain forms of relief. Since much is at stake for you as a non-USC, the criminal defense attorney and the immigration attorney must work hand in hand once you face a criminal charge. Ohio courts must advise non-United States Citizens of possible consequences regarding deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or naturalization. However, if the plea was entered on the reliance of the criminal defense attorney and immigration attorney and the alien still ended up facing deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization, a non-United States defendant may still be able to vacate his or her plea and re-litigate the criminal matter in a state court.

[contentblock id=1 img=html.png]

Filed Under: Deportation & Removal, Immigration, Immigration Court, Ohio Crimmigration, Waiver

USCIS maybe planning on interviewing even more people

August 28, 2017 by Thomas Geygan

On August 25, 2017, Politico reported that USCIS is planning a change in policy to require interviews for all employment-based adjustment of status applicants and will be expanding the interview requirement to other categories. On August 28, 2017, the same reporter tweeted what appears to be the first page of a USCIS press release confirming that, effective October 1, interviews will be phased in for all employment-based adjustment applicants and for all I-730 refugee/asylee petitions. The press release also states that this is part of an “incremental expansion of interviews for benefits that lead to permanent residence,” thus signaling that the interview requirement could be expanded to other categories. An August 25 NBC News article provides some additional context as to what the future might hold.

[contentblock id=5 img=gcb.png]

Filed Under: Asylum, Employment, Green Card

Smuggling Or Trafficking Of Children May Bring Criminal Charges Against Parents

July 10, 2017 by Thomas Geygan

On February 20, 2017, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) John Kelly issued a memorandum entitled “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement Policies”. In a section entitled “Accountability Measures to Protect Alien Children from Exploitation and Prevent Abuses of Our Immigration Laws,” the Kelly Memo states that to counter “smuggling or trafficking of alien children” by “parents and family members of these children,”

[T]he Director of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] and the Commissioner of [U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)] shall ensure the proper enforcement of our immigration laws against any individual who—directly or indirectly—facilitates the illegal smuggling or trafficking of an alien child into the United States. In appropriate cases, taking into account the risk of harm to the child from the specific smuggling or trafficking activity that the individual facilitated and other factors relevant to the individual’s culpability and the child’s welfare, proper enforcement includes (but is not limited to) placing any such individual who is a removable alien into removal proceedings, or referring the individual for criminal prosecution.

On April 11, 2017, Attorney General Jefferson Sessions issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors instructing them to make criminal prosecutions for immigration-related offenses, including for smuggling-related conduct, “higher priorities.”

Now noncitizen family members of children in removal proceedings are at increased risk of being placed in removal proceedings themselves if the government believes that they have “facilitated” a child’s unlawful entry into the United States, whether “direct or indirectly.” Family members may also face federal criminal charges instead of or in addition to these removal proceedings.

If you have a child in removal proceedings, please contact an experienced attorney.

[contentblock id=5 img=gcb.png]

Filed Under: Deportation & Removal, Immigration Court

LPRs AND FIGHTING ABANDONMENT OF LPR STATUS

June 22, 2017 by Thomas Geygan

Anyone who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States may freely travel in and out of the country without the need to ask for special permission. The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes that when a lawful permanent resident (LPR) returns to the United States they are not seeking admission except under very limited circumstances.

However, when an LPR comes through a port of entry either by land, by sea or through the airport they may still be stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and questioned about their status as a lawful permanent resident. If the officer believes that the LPR has abandoned their status, the officer will ask the LPR to voluntarily relinquish their status or will refer them to the Immigration Judge.

Only an Immigration Judge can make a legal ruling that a lawful permanent resident has abandoned their status. As such, the LPR must be put in formal removal proceedings in order to prove that a respondent has abandoned their LPR status. In order to be successful in proving abandonment, the government must prove that the lawful resident intended to abandon their lawful resident status in the United States. Until such a ruling is made by the immigration court, the respondent in removal proceedings remains a lawful permanent resident.

There is no set formula in order to prove abandonment of status. Courts have looked at a variety of factors in determining whether or not a person has abandoned their status. Each case must evaluated individually, making sure that all factors are properly evaluated and considered. The overarching question in these cases should be whether the lawful permanent resident had an objective intent to return to the United States after a short period of time or by some fixed event that would occur prior to returning.

Some of the factors set of by the BIA and the federal courts include:

  • Family ties
  • Employment
  • Income tax returns and filing as a resident
  • Club memberships and community ties in the United States
  • Property ownership in the United States and abroad
  • Active financial accounts

These factors alone are not the only thing to be considered but instead each case should present its specific reasons for being outside of the United States for a long period of time or in some cases to show that despite the length of time outside of the United States, there was never the intent to abandon lawful resident status. There may also be political factors, family situations, work related factors, educational considerations and many other unique factors that may be used to defend allegations of abandonment. It is important to remember that the burden is on the government to prove deportability by “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.”

Now more than ever, returning residents need to be prepared should they be accused of abandoning their lawful resident status at entry. It is important for LPRs to understand their rights and be prepared to advocate for themselves should they be asked to voluntarily relinquish their status by filling out a form I-407. It is important to understand that a CBP Officer cannot make the legal determination that a person has abandoned their status as a lawful permanent resident. However, if a returning resident signs a voluntary relinquishment of their LPR status (Form I-407), then it becomes final and there would be no need to place a returning resident in removal proceedings.

There have been many reports of returning residents feeling pressured to sign the I-407. Once the form has been signed, the returning resident will be returned to their home country some cases that can still be challenged even after a returning resident has relinquished their status and surrendered in their green card but it is always best to fight abandonment at entry and ask to be placed in removal proceedings to go before an immigration
judge.

Obtaining LPR status can be long and expensive. It is important to protect this status, not only for the individual, but their family and all others who rely on the LPR. If you or someone you know is facing the risk of losing their LPR status, please have them seek out an experienced immigration attorney. If you would like our advise please call our office at 513-791-1673.

Filed Under: Deportation & Removal, Immigration Court

Next Page »

Client Resources

May 15, 2017

 

More Posts from this Category

Featured Posts

Biden administration considers migrant restrictions similar to Trump policies.

Asylum rates drop as immigration cases are fast-tracked.

Contact Us

Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

8050 Hosbrook Road, Suite 107
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
Tel 513-791-1673
Fax 513-791-1683
info@geygan.com

Disclaimer and Privacy Policy

Lawyer Thomas Geygan | Featured Attorney Immigration

Copyright © 2023 · Enterprise Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in