The United States as a Country of Refuge: A Short Introduction

From the early settlers, to modern-day immigrants, the United States continues to be a country of refuge. Although I heartily acknowledge, as an immigration attorney, that our system has many flaws that need to be addressed through advocacy, legislation, and litigation - the strengths and benefits of our immigration system are many times ignored in the heated debate over immigration.  In the next series of posts we'll touch upon several of the positive factors of our immigration law and policy.  

On the eve of the vote on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act ("DREAM Act"), it is important to keep things in perspective.  I for one, am a very strong supporter of this measure for many reasons that are outside the scope of this entry. A good place to start would be to acknowledge that the United States admits more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.  In 2008 for example, a total of 1.1 million individuals became LPRs in the United States as noted in a 2010 Report by the Congressional Research Service on U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions. According to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2009 are in the 12.5 million range. 

Stay tuned for future posts discussing what specific elements of our immigration law and policy make the United States a country of refuge.

Immigration Enforcement on Steroids. Precursor to Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced unprecedented immigration enforcement statistics achieved under the Obama administration, including the removal of 392,000 noncitizens - 195,000 of which were convicted criminals. Also announced was the audit of more than 3,200 employers suspected of hiring illegal labor, and the approximately $50 million in financial sanctions imposed.  

“This administration has focused on enforcing our immigration laws in a smart, effective manner that prioritizes public safety and national security and holds employers accountable who knowingly and repeatedly break the law,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Our approach has yielded historic results, removing more convicted criminal aliens than ever before and issuing more financial sanctions on employers who knowingly and repeatedly violate immigration law than during the entire previous administration.”

Who would have thought that the Obama administration would be credited with a more than 70 percent increase in removal of criminal aliens from the Bush administration.  Could this be enough to convince skeptical Republicans to consider the viability of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)? 

The way that I see it, the argument of my skeptical Tea Party colleagues goes something like this: "Are you kidding? CIR? You're insane. Look, when President Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law in 1986, the promise was that there would be a major crackdown to include tighter security at the Mexican border, that employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and that there wouldn't be a problem of illegal immigration anymore. 25 years later, we have 15 million more undocumented individuals here."  I see their point, somewhat.  These are fighting words after all, and that's why I enjoy talking to my Tea Party friends, over tea and crackers (no pun intended), and I avoid the issue of immigration altogether (most of the time).

Maybe President Obama is a genius after all (on the issue of immigration - mind you). If my conspiracy theory is right, President Obama is laying the groundwork to push CIR forward in the Spring of 2011. He'll bring all the skeptics together and say: "Now hold on, I know I'm not the father of the modern conservative movement, but you wanted troops on the border - and I gave it to you; You wanted more deportations, and I gave it to you - 70% more than your beloved President Bush; You wanted more work site enforcement, and I gave it to you; You wanted strict penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, and I gave it to you; You wanted nothing to do with "amnesty", so I gave you "comprehensive immigration reform" or "earned legalization" - pick the term you like; WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT?" Ok, maybe he won't be yelling at the end, but it sure would be nice to watch. 

El Salvador and the Persecutor Bar. Guilty by Association?

Every month our law firm features a new country on our website. This month we’re featuring El Salvador, and as you can see from the pictures, it is a beautiful country in many ways.

As many of our readers may remember, El Salvador was engulfed in a bloody civil war from 1980 through 1992 that claimed the lives of an estimated 80,000 people. The civil war, between the military-led government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), led to a huge population upheaval where many atrocities were committed from all sides involved.

On January 1992 the Chapultepec Peace Accords were signed in Chapultepec, Mexico – bringing an end to yet another bloody chapter in El Salvador’s history. A new Constitution was promulgated, the Armed Forces regulated, a civilian police force established, the FMLN became a political party instead of a guerrilla army, and an amnesty law was legislated in 1993.

In the years during and after the civil war, close to 20 percent of the entire population left El Salvador to other countries. Many of those fleeing El Salvador arrived in the United States seeking refuge and applied for asylum. Years later, in 1997, the United States passed into law the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). NACARA provided various forms of immigration benefits and relief from deportation to nationals of certain countries, including El Salvador.

A legitimate concern of U.S. immigration authorities then, and very much still today, is the awarding of immigration benefits to individuals who participated in the persecution of others during the civil war. This is referred to as the “persecutor bar”. Section 240A(c)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars persons who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of others on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, from obtaining certain types of immigration benefits.

Every year the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiates removal proceedings against individuals accused of participating in the persecution of others. Just today, as I was writing this entry, I came across a news release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) describing the arrest of a former Guatemalan special forces soldier in Palm Beach County, Florida, for lying on his naturalization application about his participation in a 1982 massacre at a Guatemalan village known as Las Dos Erres.

A concern that I have, from a legal perspective, having successfully represented several clients facing deportation based on the persecutor bar, is the government’s position in many cases that mere membership in an organization, standing alone and without any other evidence of personal involvement or culpability, is sufficient for the persecutor bar to apply. By doing so, I believe the government is adopting an impermissible and overly broad definition of the term “persecution” which is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Negusie v. Holder, Fedorenko v. U.S., and several Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions including Matter of Rodriguez-Majano, Matter of A-H-, Matter of Acosta, and Matter of Fuentes.

In preparing to represent clients being charged under the persecutor bar, I’ve had to immerse myself in the bloody history of the civil war in El Salvador.  I’ve also heard firsthand testimonies of people that lived in El Salvador during those years. In hearing their life stories I’ve been filled with immense sadness at the senseless loss of human life, reminded of the perverse potential of the human spirit, and overcome with a sense that those responsible should face justice for the sake of those victimized and the families they left behind.

I wonder though if in our pursuit to bring those responsible to justice, our judicial system might be too broadly placing culpability where none lies. Are all men, that were unfortunate enough to live in El Salvador during the years of the civil war, equally culpable? Some people have strong evidence presented against them. Other people, who served in any capacity during the civil war in El Salvador, regardless of their role or their personal involvement, are charged as “persecutors” by association only.

The first case I successfully represented involved a NACARA applicant who during the civil war served once a week in a “patrulla cantonal” or community patrol. He was a peasant farmer who guarded his hamlet with no shoes after work for 6 hours each week. When the other men in his community approached him to participate to protect themselves from possible guerilla attacks, he had no option but to agree.  Not agreeing would have ended up with him being labeled as a guerilla sympathizer, which would have put his life at real risk by death squads operating in the area. My client, who never shot a rifle, or a gun, and who was fortunate enough to serve in a hamlet with no strategic significance to either the guerilla forces or the government of El Salvador, was labeled as a persecutor and placed in removal proceedings. After a long and exhausting process, he was finally awarded his lawful permanent resident status in immigration court.

As the gray areas of the persecutor bar are more clearly defined by cases moving through our judicial system, what constitutes “persecution” (and what doesn’t) is being parsed out - but at the backs of those of whose cases we read about.

CBP On Your Side: Four Primary Programs To Address Customer Complaints

For the vast majority of travelers their experience with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is - if not pleasant per se - at least uneventful. For some travelers though, their experience is anything but pleasant. When faced with such situations, it's important to know what to do and where to go for assistance.   

Take for example the unfortunate case of a client of mine who is a full-time Pastor who was returning with his wife from a short business trip to Central America. Upon presenting their U.S. passports they were placed in secondary inspection.  This couple, who are naturalized U.S. citizens, are elderly and one of them has a hearing impediment.  They were both accused of lying because they were "too old" to have gone on a business trip, and were also accused of having fake U.S. passports because they couldn't communicate well in English and they had an accent. After all, you can't have an accent if you're a U.S. citizen - right?  Well, after several hours of questioning, that included a CBP officer wanting to force the wife to sign a document where she "confessed" to having a fake U.S. passport, they were simply released with no apologies offered. 

This case is by all means the exception - rather than standard operating procedure. That's just my humble opinion, I'm pretty sure others would differ.  I will concede however that these events happen more than what one would suspect. Although no comfort to those affected, it's important to keep things in perspective. CBP is tasked with protecting our nation’s borders from, among other things, terrorism, human and drug smuggling, and agricultural pests.  This is no small task and that is why CBP employs more than 52,000 employees to man, among other things, the 327 official ports of entry in the United States and 15 Preclearance offices in Canada and the Caribbean. CBP is also responsible for guarding nearly 7,000 miles of land border the United States shares with Canada and Mexico. At the same time CBP does all of that, they must also work to facilitate the movement of legitimate trade and travelers, as the agency processes all people, vehicles and cargo entering the United States. According to CBP's website, on a typical day in fiscal year 2008, CBP processed approximately 1 million passengers and pedestrians; 70,000 containers; and 331,000 privately owned vehicles. 

CBP has four primary programs to receive and address customer complaints. These programs are explained in CBP's Fact Sheet, which include the Passenger Service Manager program, Comment Cards, Customer Service Centers, and Port Director or Supervisor direct response program. In addition to these programs, CBP has separate procedures for submitting a complaint, reporting officer misconduct, discrimination, and illegal activity. Each program has different procedures for receiving and handling complaints. Alternatively, complainants may contact a CBP Public Information Officer by telephone at 703-526-4200. You can also see a list of questions and answers relating to the complaint process.

Travelers are encouraged to visit CBP's website to avoid delays.  On their website travelers will find useful information like CBP's Top Ten Traveler Tips and the Traveler's Checklist along with a very handy "Know Before You Go" manual for U.S. Residents.  For those family members (and we all have them - I think), that try to sneak in "empanadas" "quesitos" and a host of other native delicacies and traditional herbs and remedies, you might want to point them to CBP's list of prohibited foods and other products. 

Hopefully none of the readers have to through what my clients went through, but if they do, you now know where to go.  Safe travel to all.

Attention Lawful Permanent Residents With Past Criminal Convictions: Your Trip Abroad Might Just Be The Last One

Lawful Permanent Residents with past criminal convictions should think twice before traveling abroad. Every year the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removes scores of LPRs that were detained and placed in removal proceedings upon their return from a trip abroad. At a minimum, prospective LPR travelers should seek the guidance of an experienced immigration attorney to determine whether their particular conviction subjects them to removal from the U.S.

Although traditionally an LPR was not deemed to make a new admission into the U.S. upon his or her return if the trip was "innocent, casual, and brief", presently Congress has defined when an LPR will be regarded as seeking a new admission. This issue of "admission" is significant for an LPR who would not be subject to removal from the U.S. but who might be inadmissible upon their return from a trip abroad.

An LPR will be regarded as seeking a new admission if he or she has committed a criminal offense under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that deal with the criminal grounds of inadmissibility. The process normally works as follows. An LPR is returning from a trip abroad and presents his green card (I-551) to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer in order to be admitted. The officer reviews his/her computerized system and notices a “hit” or arrest in the person’s background. They place the LPR in secondary inspection which is a separate, more thorough screening that normally lasts several hours. In this secondary inspection the LPR is questioned about, among other things, the arrest or conviction at issue. While the LPR is waiting in the secondary inspection area, CBP officers are reviewing their data and checking with their supervisors whether they have enough to charge the LPR under one of the grounds of inadmissibility. If CBP confirms that the prior conviction is not a ground of inadmissibility, they will release the LPR and return the alien registration or “green card” back to him or her.  The LPR being released should not expect an apology from CBP - none will be forthcoming unfortunately.  Also, the LPR being released should not expect not to go through the same procedure next time around. If CBP believes that the conviction renders the LPR inadmissible, or they simply can’t confirm whether it is or not, they will confiscate the alien registration card, and issue the charging document which is the Notice to Appear (NTA). The LPR is now placed in removal proceedings, and if not subject to mandatory detention, will be released to await his or her hearing before an immigration judge.

Keep in mind that the fact that an LPR with a criminal background has managed to travel back and forth for a period of time without being detained is no protection or guarantee at all. I’ve had several clients that have traveled for years without being detained, until their last trip when the CBP officer noticed their arrest and conviction. The fact that the offense might have occurred many years ago is irrelevant for removal purposes. An LPR is subject to removal from the United States for a violation of relevant immigration laws, regardless of the length of residency or the age at which it was attained. An individual who immigrated to the United States when he was a couple of months old who is now convicted of a crime at age 65 can and will be removed, depending on the nature of the conviction.

An LPR with a criminal background should weigh his or her options carefully before traveling abroad. At a minimum the person should seek the assistance of an immigration attorney in order to make an informed decision about their travel plans.  Being aware of the possible consequences gives the LPR an opportunity to not only make an informed decision, but to prepare accordingly.