newyorkvisalawyer_o0id8f 
Matter of H-C-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 809 (BIA 2024) (1) Applicants bear the burden of establishing their own credibility, and no statute or legal precedent compels an Immigration Judge to conclude that an applicant’s testimony is credible. (2) Rape is sufficiently severe to constitute torture and can never be a lawful sanction under the Convention Against Torture.
The Supreme Court issued a decision limiting the ability of noncitizens to reopen and rescind in absentia orders of removal issued against them in their June 14, 2024 decision, Campos-Chaves v Garland, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). The relevant portions of the Court’s decision are quoted below. You can read the entire decision at the Supreme Court’s Website. FACTS OF THE CASE The facts of the case involved noncitizens who received a defective NTA that lacked the time and place of the hearing. Each later received a notice of hearing containing the time and place of the hearing. Mr. Campos-Chaves moved to rescind his in absentia removal order because the Department of Homeland Security never gave him a valid NTA with notice of the date and time of his hearing. SCOTUS said that because DHS later gave him a “Notice of change in time or place of proceedings,” that counts as proper notice and cures the defective NTA, so he could not reopen his deportation order. THE COURT’S DECISION With this decision, the Court backtracked from two recent decisions that had emphasized the importance of a complete NTA in immigration proceedings. In Niz-Chavez and Pereira , SCOTUS said that an NTA must include a wide range of information in a single document, including the removal charges, the facts to support those charges, notice of the right to be represented by an attorney, and the time and place of removal proceedings. The dissenting opinion noted this unexplained departure from their prior precedent. The decision also seems to contradict BIA case law. Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022) (a respondent may timely object to a deficient NTA prior to the closing of pleadings and need not show any prejudice caused by the missing time and place information); Matter of Aguilar Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 2024) (DHS cannot remedy a defective NTA by filing an I-261). Indeed, in dicta, the majority opinion states that: “[a]lthough an alien who receives only paragraph (2) notice must still attend the hearing or face in absentia removal, he can raise issues regarding incomplete notice at that time.” GOING FORWARD Respondents can and should continue to object to proceedings taking place based on a defective NTA. They can cite Matter of Fernandes and Matter of Aguilar Hernandez to preserve a timely objection to the defective NTA. Niz-Chavez and Pereira remain good law and are not overruled by this decision as to the stop-time rule. So a statutorily compliant NTA is still required in order to trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. The Court’s Decision: To initiate the removal of an alien from the United States who is either “inadmissible” under 8 U. S. C. §1182 or “deportable” under §1227, the Federal Government must provide the alien with “written notice” of the proceedings. §§1229(a)(1), (2). Two types of “written notice” are described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of §1229(a): Paragraph (1) provides that the alien be given a written “ ‘notice to appear,’ ” or NTA, which must set out, among other things, “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Paragraph (2) states that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” the agency must provide “a written notice” specifying “the new time or place of the proceedings” and “the consequences” of failing to attend. An alien who fails to attend a hearing despite receiving notice “shall be ordered removed in absentia” if the Government “establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that “the written notice” was provided and that “the alien is removable.” §1229a(b)(5)(A). Three scenarios permit the rescinding of an in absentia removal order, one of which is when an alien “demonstrates that [he] did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)” of §1229(a). §1229a(b)(5)(C (ii). In these consolidated cases (one from the Fifth Circuit, and two from the Ninth), aliens Esmelis Campos-Chaves, Varinder Singh, and Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín, each moved to rescind his in absentia order of removal on the ground that he did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing. In each case, the Government provided an initial NTA, but the NTA did not specify the time and place of the removal hearing. Eventually, the Government provided each alien with a notice of hearing under §1229(a)(2) which set out the specific time and place of the removal hearing. None of the aliens showed up for his hearing, and each was ordered removed in absentia by an Immigration Judge. Each then sought to rescind the removal order, arguing that he did not receive a proper NTA under §1229(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit considered and denied one of the petitions, but the Ninth Circuit granted the other two. Held: Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Pp 7–16. (a) These cases turn on whether Campos-Chaves, Singh, and Mendez-Colín can “demonstrat[e]” that they “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).” §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The Government reads that provision to permit rescission only when the alien did not receive notice of the hearing he failed to attend. Campos-Chaves, Singh, and Mendez-Colín, on the other hand, urge a reading of the provision’s word “or” that would distribute the phrase “did not receive notice in accordance with” across “paragraph (1) or (2).” They argue that because each can “demonstrat[e]” that he “did not receive” an NTA, they each can seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders. Pp. 7–8. (b) The Government’s provision of a single notice under either paragraph (1) or (2) defeats rescission under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The word “ ‘or’ ” is “ ‘almost always disjunctive.’ ” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U. S. 79, 87. Thus, §1229a(b)(5)’s ordinary meaning … Read more
What is Form G-1145? Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance, is a one-page form on which you provide your name, mobile phone number, and email address. You then submit the form with your petition or application that you are filing with USCIS so that you will receive an SMS or email informing you of when your application or petition is received by USCIS. How Does It Work? When USCIS first scans your submission at one of the three lockbox facilities (this service is only available at the lockbox facilities) the barcode on the Form G-1145 will generate and send either an email or SMS text message (or both) simply informing you that your submission has been received. How Much Does It Cost? $0. It is free as indicated on the latest USCIS Filing Fee Schedule. Who Can Use Form G-1145? Anyone who is filing forms at on of the three Lockbox facilities located in Lewisville, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; and Phoenix, Arizona. What Information Will Be Provided In The Notification? The notification will list your receipt number and tell you how to obtain case status information. E-Notifications do not include any personal information, not even your name, because email and text message are not secure ways for USCIS to transmit that information. What Is The Benefit Of This? It allows you to be informed that your papers physically arrived at the USCIS lockbox facility. This can be helpful for letting you know that your package was not lost in the mail. Even mail sent with tracking can sometimes go missing despite USPS tracking indicating that it was delivered. It provides some piece of mind. What Is The Form G-1145 Edition Date? 09/26/14. You can also use previous editions according to the USCIS instructions here. Where Can I Get Form G-1145? The USCIS website of course. You can find a fillable PDF of the Form G-1145 here. NOTE: This service is only available for forms filed at our three Lockbox facilities located in Lewisville, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; and Phoenix, Arizona. LEARN MORE
The table below has the Webex link for every Immigration Judge grouped by Court. Updated April 2024 with some additional IJ’s that were not on the prior list. HINT: Use Ctrl+F to search for IJ name. Arizona Eloy Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Irene C. Feldman (ICF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Feldman Robert Bartlemay Sr. (RCB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Bartlemay Nicolas Orechwa (NSO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Orechwa William Mabry III (WMM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Mabry.III Michael Schnitzer (MLS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Schnitzer Florence Immigration Court ACIJ Irene C. Feldman (ICF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Feldman Marni Guerrero (MGO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Guerrero Natalie Huddleston (NHT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Huddleston Victoria Levin (VAL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Levin Bruce Taylor (BAT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.BruceTaylor Phoenix Immigration Court ACIJ Irene C. Feldman (ICF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Feldman John Cortes (JOC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cortes Elizabeth Cottor (EAC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cottor LaMonte Freerks (LSF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.LaMonte Jennifer Gaz (JIG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gaz Paul Habich (PMH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Habich Melissa Karlen (MBK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Karlen Alec Niziolek (AJN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Alec.Niziolek Munish Sharda (MS1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Sharda Tucson Immigration Court ACIJ Irene C. Feldman (ICF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Feldman Kathryn DeAngelis (KLD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.DeAngelis Michael W. Lloyd (MLL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lloyd Gilda Terrazas (GMT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Terrazas California Adelanto Immigration Court ACIJ Jonathan W. Hitesman (JH1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Hitesman Patrick Barrett (PDB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Barrett Bryan DePowell (BDP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.DePowell Ravit Halperin (RRH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Halperin Kate Mullins (KGM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Mullins Curtis White (CGW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.CurtisWhite Concord Immigration Court ACIJ Julie Nelson (JLN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Nelson Jeremy J. Butler (JYB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Butler Florence A. Chamberlin (FAC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Florence.Chamberlin Colin P. Eichenberger (CPE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Eichenberger Kyra S. Lilien (KSL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lilien Marlem Nava (MWN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Marlem.Nava Lindsay Weatherbee Pepi (LWP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Pepi Justin M. Price (JMP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Price Shadee M. Star (SMS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Star Jacob J. Stender (JJS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Stender Roberta A. Wilson (RAW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Roberta.Wilson Imperial Immigration Court ACIJ Anne Kristina Perry (AKP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Perry Vicenta Banuelos-Rodriguez (VBR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Banuelos-Rodriguez Jeffrey Munoz (JVM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Munoz Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles Street Immigration Court ACIJ Rodin Rooyani (RR1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Rooyani Timothy Everett (TRE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Everett Andrea Hong (AHO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Hong Jaime Jasso (JJO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jasso Peter A. Kim (PAK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Peter.Kim James Left (JML) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Left Nancy Miller (NMR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Miller Jake D. Nare (NAR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jake.Nare Rachel Ruane (RAR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ruane Kyle J. Ryan (KJR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kyle.Ryan Andrea Siebert (ANS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Siebert Taiyyeba S. Skomra (TSS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Taiyyeba.Skomra Frank Travieso (FMT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Travieso Bridget Virchis (BV1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Virchis Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court ACIJ Rodin Rooyani (RR1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Rooyani Joyce Bakke Varzandeh (JBV) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Varzandeh Ira Bank (IEB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Bank Audra Behne (ABE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Behne Hye Chon (HYC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Chon Philip Costa (PJC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Costa Jankana Desai (JD1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Desai Timothy Everett (TRE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Everett Jeffrey Frederick (JSF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jeffrey.Frederick Ashley Gadson-Andrews (AGA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gadson-Andrews Andrea Hong (AHO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Hong Jaime Jasso (JJO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jasso Carlos Juelle (CRJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Juelle Jan Latimore (JDL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Latimore Daniel Malvin (DHM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Malvin Nancy Miller (NMR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Miller Jeannette Park (JPK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.JeannettePark Irma Perez (IRP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Perez Rachel Ruane (RAR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ruane Andrea Siebert (ANS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Siebert Anita Simons (ALS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Simons Christine Stancill (CES) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Stancill Gita Vahid-Tehrani (GA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Vahid-Tehrani Veronica Villegas (VSV) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Villegas Bridget Virchis (BV1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Virchis Joseph Weiner (JAW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Joseph.Weiner Los Angeles – Van Nuys Boulevard Immigration Court ACIJ Rodin Rooyani (RR1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Rooyani Hye Chon (HYC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Chon Arlene E. Dorfman (ARD) http://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Dorfman Carlos Maury (CEM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Maury Steven Marcus (SNM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Marcus Judge Paul Medved (PNM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Medved Jeannette Park (JPK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.JeannettePark Kevin Riley (KWR) http://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kevin.Riley Sandra Santos-Garcia (SJS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Santos-Garcia Joseph Weiner (JAW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Joseph.Weiner Otay Mesa Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Anne Kristina Perry (AKP) http://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.P erry Valerie Burch (VAB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Burch Meghan E. Heesch (MHH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Heesch Ana Partida (APA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Partida Eugene Robinson (EHR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Robinson Mark Sameit (MST) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Mark.Sameit Sacramento Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Jonathan W. Hitesman (JH1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Hitesman Vikram Badrinath (VKB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Vikram.Badrinath Alison Daw (AED) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Daw Loreto Geisse (LSG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Geisse Denise Hunter (DEH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Denise.Hunter Print Maggard (PRM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Maggard William David Neumeister (WDN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Neumeister Susan Phan (SPN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Phan San Diego Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Rhana Ishimoto (RAI) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Ishimoto Amelia Anderson (AAN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Amelia.Anderson Olga Attia (OEA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Attia Rico Bartolomei (BAR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Bartolomei James DeVitto (JDV) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Devitto Guy Grande (GGG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Grande Catherine Halliday-Roberts (CHR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Halliday-Roberts George R. Najjar (GRN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Najjar Lee O’Connor (LOC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Oconnor Jose Penalosa (JPJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Penalosa Scott Simpson (SS2) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Simpson San Francisco Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Elizabeth L. Young (ELY) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Young Elisa C Brasil (ECB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Brasil Shuting Chen (SGN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Shuting.Chen Elanie J. Cintron (EJC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cintron Howard Davis (HRD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Howard.Davis Ila Deiss (ICD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Deiss Chloe Dillon (CSD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Chloe.Dillon Roger H. Dinh (RHD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Dinh Scott Gambill (SDG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gambill Louis A. Gordon (LAG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gordon Amber D. George (ADG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.George Charles Greene (CSG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Greene Jeremiah Johnson (JVJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Johnson Steven Kirchner (SMK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kirchner Shira M. Levine (SML) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Levine Loi McCleskey (LLM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McCleskey Patrick O’Brien (PSO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.PTOBrien Joseph Park (JYP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Park Curtis Pierce (CFP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Pierce Patrick Savage (PSS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Savage Karen Schulz (KWS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Schulz Frank Seminerio (FAS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Seminerio Michelle Slayton (MAS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Slayton Arwen Swink (AAS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Swink Jami Vigil (JLV) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Vigil Santa Ana Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Jonathan W. Hitesman (JH1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Hitesman Roberto Amaya (ROA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Amaya Alicia Brooks (ABK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Alicia.Brooks Matthew Chan (MWC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Matthew.Chan Andrew Fishkin (AFN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Fishkin Leon Francis (LJF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Francis Iman Ghasri (ING) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ghasri Howard Hom (HH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Hom Jonathan Huang (JOH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Huang Karen Y. Hope (KNH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Hope Lily Hsu (LCH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Hsu Wilbur Lee (WRL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.WilburLee Heather Libeu (HRL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Libeu Anita McFadden (AMF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McFadden Christopher McNary (CDM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McNary Joyce Noche (JEN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Noche Aggie Norregard (AEN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Norregard Irma Perez (IRP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Perez Kristin Piepmeier (PIE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Piepmeier Jerome Rothschild Jr. (JER) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Rothschild Gregory Simmons (GSS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Simmons Terese Tadros-Ibarra (TTI) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Tadros-Ibarra Jason Waterloo (JWO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Waterloo Nathaniel B. Walker (NBW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Walker Jennifer Winfield (JNW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Winfield Colorado Aurora Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Matthew W. Kaufman (MWK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Kaufman Judy Archuleta (JDA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Archuleta Nina M. Carbone (NMC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Carbone Elizabeth McGrail (EHM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McGrail Denver Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Matthew W. Kaufman (MWK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Kaufman Brea Burgie (BAB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Burgie Nina M. Carbone (NMC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Carbone Kerri Calcador (KC1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Calcador Melanie Corrin (MKC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Corrin Ivan Gardzelewski (IEG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gardzelewski Alison Kane (ARK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kane Andrea Koppenhofer (AKR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Koppenhofer Eileen Trujillo (ERT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Trujillo Tyler Wood (TRW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Tyler.Wood Connecticut Hartford Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Brandon C. Jaroch (BNJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Jaroch Theodore Doolittle (THD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Theodore.Doolittle Jonathan Goulding (JNG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Goulding Daniel A. Morris (DM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Morris Michael W. Straus (MWS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Straus Philip Verrillo (PV) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Verrillo Florida Miami Immigration Court Judge Name Internet-Based Hearing Link ACIJ Elisa M. Sukkar (EMS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Sukkar Scott Alexander (SGA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Alexander Michelle Araneta (MCA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Araneta Thomas Ayze (TSA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ayze Javier … Read more
Check the EOIR Operational Status Webpage EOIR Operational Status Update An email sent out by EOIR states that the Broadway, Varick Street, and Federal Plaza Immigration Courts in New York City will be closed tomorrow, February 13, 2024. The Boston, Elizabeth, Hartford, New York – Broadway, New York – Federal Plaza, New York – Varick, and Newark immigration courts will be closed tomorrow, Feb. 13. Please see EOIR’s Operational Status webpage for details on internet-based hearings that will proceed, the alternate filing location, and agency operations nationwide. Internet-Based Hearings Are Not Cancelled Depending on Immigration Judge Check the EOIR Operational Status Webpage to see if your online hearing is going forward because they are specific to the Immigration Judge. 26 Federal Plaza: Internet-based hearings will proceed for IJs Cohen, Douchy, Golovnin, Gordon-Uruapka, Johnson-Papillo, Loprest, McFarland, Segal, Sponzo, Thompson, Tsankov, Segal, and Zagzoug. Alternate filings at Batavia. Varick Street: Internet-based hearings will proceed for IJs Kolbe and Mulligan. Alternate filings at Batavia. 290 Broadway: Internet-based hearings will proceed for IJ McKee. Alternate filings at Batavia. EOIR Operational Status
A conviction for a drug offense can have outsized legal consequences when it comes to obtaining employment, licensing, access to benefits and finding housing. Outside of the law it can have serious consequences In some cases minor marijuana offenses could result in eviction or the loss of employment or parental rights. These consequences can effect people for years, long after they have tried to put the conviction behind them. It is almost a right of passage for teenagers to experiment with drugs. A nationwide survey done in 2019 found that 13% of people 12+ used an illicit drug in the past month, and by age 16 that number goes up to 16.5% i. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). IRCA required the U.S. Attorney General to deport immigrants with criminal convictions as quickly as possible. The ADAA of 1986 also authorized the use of “detainers,” under a subsection titled the “Narcotics Traffickers Deportation Act,” by which immigration authorities could request that local law enforcement agencies hold people arrested for controlled substance offenses until they could be taken into immigration custody. This sort of paved the way for political rhetoric that continues to criminalize migration and push for punitive policies towards the treatment of immigrants who cross the southern border without a visa In the 80’s and 90’s drug laws grew in their size and scope and so did their punishments, in part thanks to now President Biden. These laws often discriminated against African American and immigrant populations in the way they were written and enforced. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which set mandatory minimums for drug law violations, including exceptionally harsh penalties for crack cocaine. With this law Congress expanded the drug convictions that are grounds for deportability and exclusion of immigrants from the country. Ultimately Congress amended the laws relating to exclusion and deportability grounds to include a single conviction for violating any law involving a controlled substance as defined by the federal drug schedule. Congress also eliminated all inadmissibility waivers for drug convictions with the exception of only a conviction for possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, however, marijuana use remains a ground of “health-related inadmissibility” that can apply to any person who admits to having used marijuana and DHS can accuse a non-citizen of “drug trafficking” if they have reason to believe that the person was ever involved in the transporting or transfer of any amount of any drugii. Two years after that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 sought to further address “an expansive drug syndicate established and managed by illegal aliens,” in the words of Florida senator Lawton Chiles. Anti-Drug Abuse Act introduced aggravated felonies to the immigration law. Two years after that, the Immigration Act of 1990 signed into law by President H.W. Bush increased the types of offenses considered aggravated felonies. Then in 1994, the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 again increased that number.. Then only two years later, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 increased it yet againiii. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 gave the government the basis to completely revamp the country’s immigration laws not only on paper but by creating the Department of Homeland Security, the largest government agency that ever existed to enforce the immigration laws and to actively investigate and search for noncitizens in the US in order to apprehend, detain, and deport them . These changes to the law coupled with the creation of a second military police force dedicated to the enforcement of those laws, birthed the deportation machine of the twenty first century that is responsible for millions of arrests. Controlled substance charges continue to be the leading grounds for the deportation of non-citizens today with over 34,000 immigrants between fiscal years 2007 – 2012 being removed from the US due a drug conviction. In 2019 alone, ICE arrested more than 67,000 people for drug offenses. An arrest for a drug offense not only renders a non-citizen all but automatically deportable, but it subjects them to mandatory detention. Under U.S. law individuals convicted of certain crimes or that the government has “reason to believe” are involved in drug trafficking are not eligible to get released from immigration custody on bond and they are required to challenge their deportation from jail. Mandatory detention puts an incredible burden on the non-citizen and their family because the court proceedings move much faster on the detained docket, lawyers charge much more money, and it extremely difficult to coordinate the preparation of documents and testimony from immigration detention, especially because the government will detain noncitizens hundreds of miles away from their homes. ICE will only hold noncitizens in New York City temporarily on days they have hearings in court then busses them to New Jersey or Pennsylvanian to be jailed between hearings. ICE even has detention bed quotas—as in, a minimum number of non-citizens that must be detained at any given time. In 2018 ICE increased its detention bed quotas from 34,000 to 40,520. Between May and July 2019 55,185 non-citizens were in ICE custody and the average stay length was 46 days, which resulted in ICE exceeding the budget for immigration detention set by Congress. The government has contracts with private prisons that guarantee a certain capacity (some as high as 100%). When the taxpayers are paying the corporation regardless of whether or not they are actually holding anyone people should start questioning how these deals are being negotiated. The harsh penalties for drugs are not only a concern for immigrants that are in the country without any legal status. Immigrants that are here on a visitor visa, student or employment visa, or even permanent residents with green cards will be put in court and face deportation if convicted of a controlled substance offense, even possession of marijuana (which they would have to prove fits into the exception of being mere possession of less than 30 grams). The vast majority of green … Read more