Prosecutorial Discretion on the Rise in Immigration Courts

LAtimes.com reports that the number of deportation cases dismissed on “prosecutorial discretion” has nearly doubled since fiscal 2012 according to analysis by researchers at Syracuse University. John Morton, former director of USCIS, formalized the use of prosecutorial discretion in 2011 to ensure immigration officials take certain factors—time spent in the U.S., community and family ties, connection to the U.S. military, etc.—into consideration when taking undocumented immigrants to court. 8.5% of closed immigration court cases in fiscal 2013 listed prosecutorial discretion as the reason for dismissal. Nearly 24% of approximately 35,000 cases closed in Los Angeles involved prosecutorial discretion. In Houston, however, only 1.7% of case closures were due to the same. Tallies also do not include cases closed in earlier stages, before reaching immigration courts.

Researchers at Syracuse’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse stated that a high court closure rate due to prosecutorial discretion may be related to inadequate case review by officials before they file for removal.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prosecutorial-discretion-immigration-20140115,0,5779733.story#axzz2qaEBClFX

*

US Supreme Court May Help ‘Aged Out’ Immigrant Kids Get Back on Citizenship Track

NYdailynews.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, a lawsuit that addresses the problems faced by young would-be immigrants who age out of family visa bids. When a child turns 21, they are no longer considered under their parents’ status and must start a new petition process, regardless of how long they’ve waited for visa proceedings. The lawsuit was named for a Salvadoran mother who was separated from her son when he turned 21, despite having waited for seven years for a family visa. The U.S. gives out a select number of green cards per country each year, so even approved visas can take “decades” to actually be issued. Congress created the Child Status Protection Act in 2002 to help children who age out due to backlogs. Some legislators are pushing for a narrow interpretation of the law excluding children whose visa bids are attached to grandparents, aunts, uncles, or a parent’s employer. Others, such as Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) have argued for a more broad interpretation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/supreme-court-aged-immigrant-kids-article-1.1584901

*

Feds to Limit Use of Shackles at Immigration Court

ABC News reports that in San Francisco courts, detainees will no longer be restrained at bond or merit hearings unless they pose a safety threat or risk of escape. San Francisco’s immigration court oversees more than 2,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cases per year, serving three county jails in Northern California. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg approved the settlement. ICE released a statement claiming that it hopes to both “preserve the dignity and welfare” of its detainees while maintaining its standards for the safety of the public and its employees. Detainees will still be shackled at calendar hearings.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21631575&sid=81

*

Judge OKs Immigration Detainer Lawsuit in RI

Boston.com reports that U.S. citizen Ada Morales was held in immigration detainment in violation of her constitutional rights, according to U.S. District Judge John McConnell. Morales was arrested by police in 2009 as a part of a benefits fraud case. She was ordered to be released in the fraud case, but was held for a little over 24 hours while immigration officers investigated her legal status. According to her lawsuit, Morales was detained solely on the basis of her national origin (Guatemala) and last name, and consequently, McConnell explained, Morales’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated. Sources claim that Morales’ naturalization certificate listed her name as Ada Amavilla Cabrera, thus raising some suspicions about her legality.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode-island/2014/02/13/judge-oks-immigration-detainer-lawsuit/tPAe7cW5aHAau1PGxfjT3L/story.html

*

Former McDonald’s Franchisee Settles with DOL for $211K in FLSA, J-1 Summer Work Case

The Depart of Labor released a report on Andrew Cheung, former McDonald’s franchisee and president of Cheung Enterprises LLC, and his treatment of foreign student working in the U.S. on J-1 student visas. At six company locations across central Pennsylvania, Cheung made improper deductions from his workers’ paychecks, at times bringing the rate of pay below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. Other employees were denied overtime premiums, which are required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, investigators found that Cheung’s company charged disproportionate rent for substandard employee housing. Cheung Enterprises has agreed to pay $205,977 in back wages and liquidated damages to 201 employees, 178 of which are foreign student workers. Cheung and his company will also pay a $5,000 civil money penalty for willfully violating regulations put in place by the FLSA. Cheung no longer operates any McDonald’s franchises.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/media/press/whdpressVB3.asp?pressdoc=Northeast/20140218.xml

*

Tuition Based on Parents’ Immigration Status may be Headed for Court Fight

The Post and Courier reports that many college-bound students whose parents lack legal immigration status are facing problems with funding their education in South Carolina. Students who were born and raised in the U.S. and thereby have U.S. citizenship are, in some cases, charged out-of-state tuition rates and denied scholarships due to being unable to prove their parents’ immigration status. The University of South Carolina’s out-of-state tuition rate is $17,670 higher than in-state, while the College of Charleston’s out-of-state rate is $16,464 higher. Some civil rights groups claim this practice is illegal, but representatives from South Carolina colleges state that when they determine tuition rates for students, they follow the residency requirement policy of the SC Commission on Higher Education.

It is possible to appeal these charges says Sam Brooke, a senior staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. But not all students seek to appeal; Brooke calls it a “tall order for 18-year-olds.” And some students fear endangering their parents’ residency. Mary Runyon, Principal of West Ashley High School, claimed that many students faced with these fees turn away from school and choose to enter the workforce, finding jobs wherever they can without a college degree.

The South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, based in Columbia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are working together to investigate cases in South Carolina. The SPLC dismantled a similar tuition policy in Florida in 2013.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140118/PC16/140119383/1006/tuition-policy-prompts-rights-debate

Back | Index | Next

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.

I Accept

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. If you continue using our website, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website and you agree to our Privacy Policy.