Immigrants Should Not “Break Out the Cheetos and Goldfish”

By Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved amendment 64, a ballot measure that decriminalizes marijuana possession of one ounce or less for adults over 21 and regulates the cultivation and sale of marijuana.  However, it remains unclear how the amendment will work out in practice; the state must still issue regulations.  Currently, some jurisdictions in the state are continuing to criminally prosecute individuals for marijuana possession while others are not.  Federal law still considers marijuana a controlled substance and makes it a crime to possess it or to engage in its production or distribution.  Federal officials have yet to indicate what actions they will take to enforce federal controlled substance laws related to marijuana in Colorado. 

Of specific concern to immigrants is that immigration matters are regulated by federal law, which has not changed.   Under immigration law, there are many areas related to controlled substances that could be problematic for marijuana users, producers, and distributors.  

For immigrants applying for status, these areas can render a person inadmissible to the United States, which in turn makes obtaining immigration benefits either impossible or more difficult.  Merely admitting to marijuana possession could make a person inadmissible; a conviction is not strictly necessary.   A conviction for marijuana possession makes a person inadmissible.  In addition, a person who is a suspected drug trafficker or participant in drug trafficking is inadmissible.  Finally, drug abusers and addicts are inadmissible to the United States.  Again, discovery of any of these grounds of inadmissibility during the immigration process could be extremely problematic.

Moreover, immigration law contains consequences for immigrants with permanent residency status if they are involved with marijuana.  Permanent residents could have their status revoked and be deported from the United States for a marijuana possession conviction of over 30 grams, for any other conviction related to marijuana, or if they are considered drug abusers or addicts.  

Presumably, immigrants in Colorado possessing less than one ounce of marijuana for their personal consumption and legally involved with the production and distribution of marijuana will not be charged with a crime by Colorado law enforcement once amendment 64 is implemented.  Thus, the lack of marijuana related convictions makes it less likely that they will face immigration problems in the future.  However, the lack of a conviction is not necessarily determinative; immigrants involved in some form of immigration processing determined to be drug addicts or abusers or otherwise involved with marijuana could face difficulties.   Moreover, immigrants could still be prosecuted by federal law enforcement officials for marijuana related crimes and then face immigration problems.  As marijuana consumption, possession, production, and distribution are still federal crimes and related to grounds of inadmissibility and deportation, it is best to heed Governor Hickenlooper’s advice not to “break out the Cheetos and Goldfish.”

 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Same-Sex Family Units Recognized

Contributed by Bryon Large

By now, most practitioners and immigration advocates are aware of the June 15, 2011 Morton Memoranda regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to persons in removal proceedings in accordance with ICE’s removal priorities.  While there were was vague language regarding family relationships in ICE’s guidance, and while assurances were made that same-sex couples would be recognized in the guidance, no official word came from the Department or ICE in writing.  Advocates for LGBT immigration issues received assurances that the vague language did not require a couple to be married, nor even of opposite sex, when ICE was evaluating a case for prosecutorial discretion.  However, in practice application of the Morton Prosecutorial Discretion Memos was inconsistent throughout the country.  While leadership in Washington seemed to envision inclusion of all couples, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, the boots on the ground seemed to be looking more for a marriage certificate.

 

On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Secretary Napolitano answered a letter from some Members of Congress requesting clarification on the issue.  Specifically, in her response, Secretary Napolitano clarified that the term “familial relationships” specifically would include long-term, same-sex partners.  She also specified that she has directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field clarifying the issue.  Advocates expect ICE guidance in the very near future on this issue.

 

Given the DOMA litigation, the pending Uniting American Families Act which would recognize same-sex relationships for immigration purposes, and the wave of marriage recognition across the country, this forthcoming guidance from ICE at the Secretary’s direction is a large advance for the LGBT community in immigration issues.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

States Seek to Deny Driver’s Licences to New Category of Deferred Action Cases

Contributed by Aaron Hall, Attorney

On August 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) began accepting applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  The procedures for DACA are now in place and the first applicants have already received their receipt notices and biometrics notices from USCIS.

The new DACA program is designed to allow qualifying applicants who entered the U.S. as children to be temporarily safe from being deported and would allow them to seek employment authorization while they are here.  Such employment authorization would ordinarily allow them to apply for a driver’s license from their state DMVs.  But Governors Jan Brewer of Arizona and Dave Heineman of Nebraska have declared that despite the REAL ID Act of 2005 listing deferred action grantees as eligible for driver’s licenses, their states will refuse to issue such licenses to those who are granted deferred action through DACA.

 

Their decision to deny driver’s license to those with DACA is certain to lead to litigation on the matter but at this point it is unclear how many other states may join Arizona and Nebraska in keeping work-authorized DACA grantees from getting their licenses.

 

Further Reading:

-Christian Science Monitor article on states refusing to issue driver’s licenses for deferred action

-USCIS Frequently Asked Questions on DACA

-JLF DACA Site at http://www.dreamtoimmigrate.com

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The Changing State of LGBT Immigration Issues

Contributed by Bryon Large, Senior Attorney

 

 

On August 28, 2012, Senior Attorney Bryon M. Large presented a Continuing Legal Education program to immigration practitioners regarding the current status of immigration law for LGBT persons and the current impact of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on immigration cases.  The course was offered by the Colorado Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section, of which Bryon is the Chair.  He spent time discussing the many challenges LGBT people face in the absence of protections for same-sex partners under the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Bryon also spent time discussing how the current DOMA litigation awaiting a hearing decision by the Supreme Court would impact people.  Bryon is frequently involved in issues related to the intersection of Immigration Law and LGBT issues and recently attended the National LGBT Bar Association’s Lavender Law annual conference in Washington, D.C.  He is an active member of the Colorado GLBT Bar Association, the National LGBT Bar Association, and is a member of AILA National’s LGBT Working Group.

 

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Back to School

By Kim Tremblay, Associate Attorney

 

As summer comes to a close, millions of students across the United States are returning to school. In the current popular and political discourse, foreign students lawfully present in the United States to pursue their studies are rarely mentioned. Last year, the Department of State issued about half a million F-1 student visas to students coming to the United States from abroad. This number does not include scholars and students coming to the United States on J-1 exchange visitor visas. Students migrate from every corner of the globe to study in our schools; the majority, over 150,000 students, are Chinese nationals.

 

These students gain many benefits from studying in the United States, such as a good education or a different cultural or educational perspective. However, Americans are the true beneficiaries of these foreign students’ presence in our schools. Foreign students bring a global perspective to the classroom and expose local students to new ideas. They pay out-of-state tuition, helping maintain programs at Universities, many of which face increasing financial struggles.

 

Surely surprising to many people, these students inject billions of dollars annually into the U.S. economy. According to NAFSA, an association of international educators, they spend over 20 billion dollars every year. They pay tuition and fees to Universities, but they and their families also contribute to local economies through their living expenses. For example, during the 2010-2011 school year, there were 7,688 foreign students living in Colorado. They spent over $235,000,000 in Colorado that year alone in contributions to both their schools and adopted communities.

 

The above-mentioned facts, along with the issue of retaining foreign talent after graduation, represent yet another topic that should be considered in our national dialogue regarding immigration reform.

 

See http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2011/Colorado.pdf

See http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/graphs/graphs_4399.html

See http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY11AnnualReport-Table%20XVII.pdf

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DREAM Economics

By Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorney

Immigration reform, such as the DREAM Act, may not be the ultimate solution to our economic woes, but it could be a starting point.  Whether it increases our national revenue or we break even, the economic benefit of the DREAM Act and similar legislation far outweigh the alternatives.

 

In January 2012, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director, Kumar Kibble, informed the House Judiciary Subcommittee that deportation costs the government $12,500 per person.  This includes the arrest, detention, litigation, and removal of an immigrant.  A majority of these costs are paid from tax revenue.  The Department of Homeland Security memo published on June 15, 2012, granting deferred action to individuals who entered without status as children, estimated that 800,000 undocumented aliens could be eligible for the new benefit.  Since June 15, 2012, the government has revised the number of potentially eligible beneficiaries to 1.4 million.  Removing all 1.4 million individuals could, therefore, cost the government as much as $175 million according to Deputy Director Kibble’s report.

 

Legislation such as the DREAM Act requires that the immigrant “pay into the system.”  Even the memo offering deferred action to potential DREAMers would require that the undocumented immigrant pay processing fees at every stage and provide evidence of eligibility for the benefit.  Instead of the US taxpayer supporting an undocumented immigrant through the process, the undocumented immigrant supports herself through the process and contributes to the greater economy.  A recent White House blog cited a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the 2010 version of the DREAM Act could reduce the deficit “by $2.2 billion over ten years because of increased tax revenues.” 

 

DREAMers epitomize our hope for the future of this country.  The DREAM Act as previously written required that the undocumented immigrant enroll in post-secondary school at her expense or enlist in the military.  The new memo requires that the beneficiary be enrolled in school, have graduated at least from high school, or be a veteran of the armed forces.  At present the Census Bureau reports that “only 16 percent of the resident population holding a bachelor’s degree or higher” are immigrants, but immigrants account for “33 percent of engineers, 27 percent of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientist, and 24 percent of physical scientists,” in the United States, as cited by the White House.  Given the chance, potential DREAMers could increase those numbers substantially, which would increase revenue for both private and public schools nationwide.  At present many undocumented individuals who entered as children and earned their education through US schools are unable to enroll in postsecondary institutions because they lack proof of lawful status or are unable to pay non-resident tuition rates.  Immigrants benefiting from the DREAM Act would not only “pay into the system,” but would be required to positively contribute to the future of our communities and our nation’s welfare.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Contributed by Melanie Corrin

The United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) announced a portion of its procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; commonly known as deferred action for DREAMers.  Through this procedure, as of August 15, 2012 eligible applicants who meet the following criteria can apply for Deferred Action:

1.       Under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012

2.       Came to the US before reaching 16^th birthday

3.       Continuous physical presence June 14, 2007 – June 15, 2012

4.       Present in the US on June 15, 2012

5.       Entered without a visa or their visa expired as of June 15, 2012

6.       Currently enrolled in school/GED program or have obtained high school diploma/GED or be United States Military veteran with honorable discharge

7.       No felony convictions, No significant misdemeanor conviction, Cannot have 3 or more misdemeanor convictions

Portion of this program have very specific definitions and requirements, including what defines a felony, a serious misdemeanor and a misdemeanor.  It is important to speak with an attorney prior to determining eligibility, potential relief and potential pitfalls to ensure you are not putting yourself at risk. 

DACA is temporary, and if granted, is approved in two year increments.  USCIS has not published the form, and will not do so until August 15, 2012; the first day individuals are eligible to apply.  The filing fee will be a total of $465.00 and will include biometrics collection, background checks and the application for employment authorization.   

If you are interested in DACA or think you may be eligible, contact us to discuss your case.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

30 year-olds Don’t Despair, Deferred Action Still Within Reach

Contributed by Aaron Hall

When Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Napolitano announced the new deferred action program on June 15, 2012, it was announced that one of the requirements for eligibility would be that applicants “are not above the age of thirty” as of June 15, 2012.

 

The initial assumption was that this requirement would disqualify a potential applicant who was 30 years and two months old at the time of the announcement.  Fortunately, DHS has now clarified that potential applicants will meet the age requirement so long as they were under 31 years old on June 15, 2012.  Therefore, many people who were 30 at the time of the announcement will qualify for the new deferred action program.

 

For further information on the eligibility requirements, go to our website dedicated to deferred action at http://www.dreamtoimmigrate.com/. 

 

Further Reading:

6/15/12 DHS Announcement

USCIS on Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Legalizing your Future Spouse

A woman inquired about legalizing her future spouse who she had been dating for months. They were talking about getting married but needed to know if it would be better to go to Mexico and marry and file over there or do it here in the US. They also inquired about the steps for doing so once their decision was made.

We provided an answer of:

You can get married in Mexico or in the United States. However, there may be risks with traveling abroad so before your spouse leaves the country, you should consult with a Colorado immigration attorney to discuss your options and come up with the best option for your circumstances.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Sponsoring an Immigrant

A Swedish citizen currently living in the US with her spouse's VISA (L1 and L2) asked about when his assignment is over. She wanted to know if there was any chance someone can sponsor her to stay in the US. They had financial resources, but also wanted to work here. Additionally, she requested to know if there was any risk for the sponsor?

Our response at Joseph Law Firm Denver was that under U.S. immigration law, there is not avenue to remain in the United States based on generic sponsorship. It may be possible for you to remain in the United States, but you would have to obtain a new employer sponsor or start a business and self-petition for an investor or treaty trader visa (E-1 or E-2). You should consult with an immigration attorney to discuss these options and the best avenue for you.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

If Looking to Marry Someone Who Entered the Country from Mexico without Inspection

I am sharing this question pertaining to a woman who asked if it was possible to keep her boyfriend here without having to go to Mexico.

Generally, if you entered the United States without inspection, you must return to Mexico in order to process your immigration paperwork. The exception to this is if someone filed an immigrant visa petition for you or your spouse or your parents prior to April 30, 2001 in which case you may be covered by a law called 245(i) which expired on April 30, 2001. Under 245(i), you may be able to pay a penalty fee and remain in the United States to process your paperwork. You would need to consult with an immigration attorney to see if you qualify inder 245(i) and, if not, to discuss the process of obtaining a visa at a consulate abroad. We would be happy to assist you with this. Please contact our office at the number above and we can assist you.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Decline in Unauthorized Aliens Residing in US

Whether it is the economy or an increase in worksite enforcement, the number of unauthorized aliens in the United States has declined since 2008. According to the Congressional Research Service report published September 22, 2001, an estimated 10-11 million unauthorized aliens lived in the U.S. as of 2010, compared to over 12 million in 2007. The report surveyed the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Surveys (CPS) published since 1986, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reports based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) since 2000.

The report analyzed data collected not only on the number of unauthorized aliens in the U.S., but also countries of origin, residence in the United States, and year of arrival. The majority of unauthorized aliens residing in the U.S. as of 2010, approximately 30% of the total population, entered between 2000 and 2004. Only 9% of the current unauthorized alien population entered the U.S. between 2005 and 2009 according to a 2010 CPS report. Unauthorized aliens migrating from Mexico have declined since 1986, from 69% to 57% in 2010, while aliens originating from Asia have increased by 6%. The greatest number of unauthorized aliens continue to reside in California and Texas. According to the report, Colorado is not even in the top ten states "with unauthorized resident aliens" with a 2010 headcount between 140,000 to 325,000.

Contributing factors to the rise and fall of the unauthorized alien population in the U.S. since 1986 included economics, legislation, and enforcement. Some analysts attributed the rise of unauthorized aliens to "lax enforcement of employer sanctions," introduced in 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986). These analysts point to the decrease in unauthorized aliens since work site enforcement increased in 2007-2008. However, the decrease in population since 2007 may also be attributed to the 2008 housing downturn and the subsequent recession.

In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) "may have inadvertently increased the population of unauthorized resident aliens." Among other penalties, the act introduced the three and ten year bars to admission for aliens unlawfully present in the US for 180 days or more. These provisions "coupled with incrased resources for border enforcement" in the wak of the 911 terrorist attacks, according to the report, have created a "caging effect" that has "stymied what had been a rather fluid movement of migratory workers along the southern border." The result of IIRIRA "raised the stakes" and "created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay."

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Record High Deportations from U.S.

On October 6, 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") announced that it had deported more people in fiscal year 2010 than in any year in history. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton announced that they had deported 392,000 people. According to ICE, more than 195,000 of the people deported had been convicted of some crime.

While those who see enforcement as the only important policy piece of our immigration system will likely be happy to see the record numbers, one has to wonder whether the immigration court staff is growing at an similar rate in order to ensure that all are afforded full and meaningful due process before being removed.

To see the ICE announcement, click here.

For a New York Times article on the record numbers, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Human Rights Watch Drafts Letter to Secretary Napolitano On Immigration Detainers

The international organization Human Rights Watch released a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano commenting on the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") draft detainer policy. The draft detainer policy was drafted with the goal of clarifying and standardizing the circumstances that should lead to ICE placing immigration detainers on foreign nationals held by local law enforcement agencies. While Human Rights Watch applauded DHS for its attempt to formalize a detainer policy, it pointed out that the current draft policy does not do enough to safeguard the rights of detained immigrants.

Importantly, the draft policy does not include any requirement that there be a clear legal basis for the issuance of a detainer and does not provide detainees with any grounds to challenge their custody under a detainer. Human Rights Watch also suggests that ICE implement data tracking systems on the duration of time individuals spend in the custody of local law enforcement due to ICE-issued detainers, how many people are held under detainer who are not ultimately served with a Notice to Appear, the underlying basis for detainers, and the immigration status of persons held under detainer (including how many U.S. Citizens are mistakenly held on detainers).

To read the complete letter to Secretary Napolitano, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Major Colorado ICE Operation Leads to Arrests

According to the Denver Post, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has just completed a three-day operation which led to the arrest of 78 immigrants in towns across Colorado and in the town of Wamsutter, Wyoming. Using a law called Reinstatement of Removal, ICE has stated that those with prior orders of removal will be immediately removed from the country. Those subjected to Reinstatement of Removal will not have the opportunity to present a case for relief from removal in front of an immigration judge.

Read the full article from the Denver Post here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Denver Post Editorial: Denver is No Sanctuary City

The Denver Post released an editorial on September 13, 2010 refuting the assertion that Denver is a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants. As pointed out in the Post's editorial, the notion that the undocumented are safe from deportation simply because they are with the Denver city limits is demonstrably false.

The Post cites Denver's efforts to join the Secure Communities program and a city ordinance requiring contstruction contrators to verify the immigration status of empoyees in order to gain city contracts as evidence that Denver is not turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.

Read the full Denver Post editorial here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Phony Immigration Attorney Indicted on Felony Charges

The dangers of those posing as immigration lawyers even though they are unlicensed were again highlighted on Monday in New York. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office indicted a man posing to be an immigration lawyer on charges of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Unauthorized Practice of Law, and violations of various subsections of the Immigration Assistance Services Law. All too typically, this man defrauded people out of thousands of dollars, promised them green cards which never materialized, and disappeared when they tried to contact him about what had happened with their cases. If he is convicted, he could spend more than 7 years in prison.

For the District Attorney's Press Release, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Requirements of Employers for Determining the Employment Eiligibility of Foreign Workers

As individual States continue to pass laws in an effort to “protect” their citizens from what they perceive to be harm from undocumented immigrants, the constitutionality of the laws continues to be challenged in our federal courts and courts of appeal. Last week, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, an Arizona state law prohibiting employers from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized immigrant was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.


The petitioners allege that the Arizona statute is unlawful because it is preempted by federal immigration laws that regulate the employment of non-citizens. The lower courts upheld the statute, finding that it was not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court will address three questions; 1) Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2); 2) Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note, and 3) Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the "comprehensive scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

This proves to be a fundamental decision for many states, as once determined it will serve as precedent and a number of states have similar laws governing requirements of employers for determining the employment eligibility of foreign workers.

http://www.legalactioncenter.org/supreme-court/court-consider-legality-arizona-law-sanctioning-employers-who-hire-unauthorized-worker

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•