RECORD NUMBER OF DEPORTATIONS IN 2024

U.S. immigration judges issued a staggering 136,623 deportation orders during the initial six months of Fiscal Year 2024, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University. This is a significant surge in removal orders compared to the previous peak in removals observed in FY 2019 under the Donald Trump administration and the peak in FY2011 – FY2012 under the Obama administration. The current pace of removal orders have soared by 50 percent. This surge coincides with the expansion of immigration judges during the current administration. New York City emerged as the epicenter of deportations, with just under 11,000 removal orders issued to immigrants residing there. Following closely behind was Harris County, TN, which witnessed more than 8,000 removal orders, and Los Angeles County, CA, with nearly 6,000 removal orders. Despite the prominence of those three top regions, Dallas County, TA, and Miami-Dade County, FL, also witnessed substantial deportation figures. The disparity becomes evident when looking at Miami-Dade County, which has only one-fourth of the removal orders of New York City and less than half of Los Angeles. Analysts also found that as immigration judges accelerate the issuance of removal orders, fewer immigrants ordered for removal manage to secure legal representation to advocate their cases. ATRAC examination of year-by-year trends over the past decade reveals a nuanced trajectory according to an article in the Amsterdam News. Between 2016 and 2019, the total number of removal decisions saw a modest increase, but there were notable improvements in representation rates. However, the onset of partial government COVID-19 shutdowns precipitated a sharp decline in decisions, coinciding with a surprising uptick in the likelihood of finding legal representation. This anomaly probably stemmed from the decreased demand for immigration attorneys due to the reduced number of court hearings, subsequently alleviating supply constraints, TRAC found. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, the rate of legal representation for immigrants facing removal proceedings has sharply declined. Last year, representation rates dropped to just 20 percent. In FY 2024, this decline continued, with only 15 percent of immigrants ordered for removal able to secure legal representation. Interestingly, this contrasts significantly with the current representation rate of 30 percent for all immigrants in the court’s backlog. The implications are clear: Immigrants without legal representation face significantly higher odds of being ordered for removal. This underscores the urgency of addressing the challenges encountered by immigrants navigating the legal intricacies of deportation proceedings in the United States. Ranking of Places With the Most Residents Ordered Removed in Immigration Court Whether Immigrant was Represented when Removal Ordered Proceedings During FY 2024 (October 2023 – March 2024) Rank Ordered Removed Had An Attorney Percent with Attorney New York City, NY 1 10,897 1,469 13% Harris County, TX (Houston) 2 8,336 1,382 17% Los Angeles County, CA 3 5963 1247 21% Dallas County, TX 4 2815 136 5% Miami-Dade County, FL 5 2521 368 15% From TRAC Report

The Illogical Immigration Consequences of Drug Convictions

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

USCIS Policy Alert: Family-Based Conditional Permanent Residents

USCIS Policy Alert, PA-2023-33, dated December 12, 2023https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20231212-Family-BasedCPRs.pdf U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding family-based conditional permanent residents. The update clarifies what noncitizens must do to change the basis of filing in cases of waivers based on battery or extreme cruelty. It also clarifies that if a noncitizen’s conditional permanent resident status is terminated for failing to timely file Form I-751, they may be eligible to adjust permanent resident status on a new basis. This is true even if USCIS issues a notice of termination of conditional permanent resident status before the noncitizen files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Under the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, a noncitizen obtains permanent resident status on a conditional basis for two years if: To remove the conditions on their permanent resident status, conditional permanent residents generally must file Form I-751 within the 90-day period before the two-year anniversary of when they obtained conditional permanent resident status. The new guidance, Volume 6 of the Policy Manual, is effective immediately and applies prospectively to applications filed on or after December 12, 2023. On that date, this policy update will supersede the guidance found in Chapter 25.1 of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), related AFM appendices, and related policy memoranda. The guidance contained in the Policy Manual is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance on the topic. Policy Highlights Summary of Changes Affected Section: Volume 6 > Part I, Family-Based Conditional Permanent Residents • Adds content to previously reserved chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and adds content to previously reserved sections A, B, C, D, E, F, H, and I in chapter 3. USCIS may also make other minor technical, stylistic, and conforming changes consistent with this update. Citation: Volume 6: Immigrants, Part I, Family-Based Conditional Permanent Residents [6 USCIS-PM I] (Chapters 1-7).

Affirmative Asylum Applicants Must Provide Interpreters Starting September 13, 2023

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that affirmative asylum applicants must bring an interpreter to their asylum interview if they are not fluent in English or wish to proceed with their interview in a language other than English, starting September 13, 2023. Sign language interpreters are the only exception to this requirement. USCIS continues to provide sign language interpreters as a disability accommodation. Follow the instructions on your interview notice to request this disability accommodation. If you need an interpreter and do not bring one, or if your interpreter is not fluent in English and the language you speak USCIS may consider this a failure to appear for your interview and dismiss your asylum application or refer your asylum application to an immigration judge. USCIS will make such determinations based on “good cause” on a case-by-case-basis. Requirements To Be An Interpreter For An Asylum Interview The interpreter must be: Who CANNOT Be An Interpreter The interpreter must not be: On Sept. 23, 2020, USCIS published a temporary final rule (TFR) due to COVID and health guidelines that were in place to stop the spread at that time. The TFR has expired and with the expiration of the TFR, USCIS is reverting back to the long-standing regulatory requirement for an affirmative asylum applicant to provide an interpreter under 8 CFR 208.9(g).