Maryland Man pleads guilty to immigration scheme

A 29 year old man, Robert Fred Majia, from Maryland, pleaded guilty to an immigration scheme that he and a co-conspirator had going from approximately, December 2007 until June 2009.  It appears that Majia and a conspirator charged people for immigration services which they never provided. Some instances consisted of individuals bringing Majia and his conspirator $5,000 or more for assistance with immigration documents. Mejia and co-conspirator completed immigration documents, even went as far as taking their fingerprints, however, they never actually filed any documents on behalf of their clients. Moreover, to make it seem even more real and to entice people into their scheme, Majia dressed as an ICE employee, even drove a vehicle that was similar to a police car.  As a result of this scheme, approximately 50-250 victims lost between $400,000-$1million. 

I have to say that I am not surprised at this story.  In fact, I am surprised that more people are not caught doing similar schemes.  Perhaps, this man went a little beyond what I have seen and heard from clients and colleagues by impersonating ICE officials, but all in all, this seems to be a very common scheme.   A lot of paralegal services offer immigration assistance and assistance in obtaining divorces to individuals.  They even have ads in the paper advertising their services.  I believe, I even spoke about this in one of my previous posts.  When clients call them, they give them a much cheaper price than an attorney would give for the same services.  However, these people often do not know what they are doing, they collect money from these clients and then they disappear, allowing their clients to think that everything has been done and everything is good.  Then when clients get an NTA notice and attempt to contact the individual whom they paid and who was suppose to provide them with immigration services, those people are nowhere to be found.  And when finally, they seek help from an attorney and the attorney does some research, it comes to light that nothing was ever done for these people and they are now in deportation proceedings. Sometimes, however, those services do provide immigration assistance, however, sometimes, it is best if they did not.  Because of their lack of legal knowledge, they always make mistakes, which often makes things worse for their clients, sometimes those errors are irreversible.   

I cannot say this often enough, how important it is to make sure you get assistance for  immigration issues, or any other legal issues which you may be faced with from a licensed attorney, knowledgeable in that area. Perhaps you may pay a little more for such services than you would to someone who is not an attorney, but at least you will know that things will get done correctly. Because even if you do save money at first by going to a paralegal service or some other non-attorney who offers to help you with your situations, 9 out of 10 times, you will still end up seeking services from an attorney due to ineffective or lack of assistance that you get from such individuals, in which situations, you are likely to pay much more money to fix a problem, then you would have if you had done things properly in the first place. After all, it is your livelihood that is on the line... it is not the time or place to start looking for the cheapest answer. 

Dream Act

Yesterday, September 21, 2010, the Dream Act, yet again, failed to pass. Senate, voted 56-43 against the Dream Act, despite hundreds of thousands of calls, faxes and emails to the Senate.  This act is alleged to have an impact thousands of youths.  If,  and when it passes it would enable undocumented immigrants who entered the US when they were younger than 16 years old, who have lived in the country for more than five years, and who have a high school diploma or a GED, a chance to become an American citizen.  People who meet these requirements will have to complete two years of military service or earn a college degree in exchange for their green card.  Additionally, these individuals must demonstrate good moral character. 

It has been years since Dream Act was first proposed and it keeps getting the cold shoulder from the Senate. Why?  Obama promised to push this through and as is evident, has failed to do so. A lot of people are waiting for this reform and are getting disappointed. It keeps them from moving on with their lives.  This false hope that they are living with and the thought of "well maybe one day".... is not necessarily good.  As a result, we have people who are living out of status in this country and are not returning home in hopes that this Act will be passed.    Although, I have read comments of those that oppose this bill, but for the most part, such comments come from the less educated, who do not fully understand the immigration process and what this Act can do for the US.
The supporters of this Act are not giving up and are more united than ever! They are convinced that this Act will eventually pass.  I say... Way to Go... and Hope that the Act Passes as well, as I think it will serve the United States well. 

Interesting Matrimonial Case

A very interesting case was just recently decided by Justice Robbert Bruno, a New York Court Judge... in fact so interesting that I could not hold myself back and not share this case. A woman was seeking a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment, claiming that her husband refused to have sex with her since their honeymoon in 1979.  Wait, before we all start feeling bad for the lady... it gets better.... miraculously however, this woman, despite her claim of not having sex with her husband in nearly 30 years... just happened to be the mother of 2 kids which she has had way after he honeymoon in 1979.  OOPS.  After the attorney reminded her that she has 2 kids with the husband, Plaintiff quickly changed her story and said the last time she had sex with the defendant was in 2001 .  However, her story changed one more time, when defense attorney cross-examined her and asked when was the last time she had sex with her husband, she stated it was "over three (3) years".... OOOPS again!  Didn't she just say last time she was intimate was in 2001... wouldn't that be more like over 7 years!!!  Not quite sure who prepped her for her testimony...but lady... get your story straight.  Wait.. it gets EVEN BETTER!!!! Imagine that.  A brief background on the law of constructive abandonment:  the person who is pleading constructive abandonment must prove that despite repeatedly requesting sexual relations from the other spouse, she/he was refused such relations, such refusal was unjustified, willful and continued for more than 1 year.  The key point here is that a request must have been made and declined.  Ok... so now that we all brushed up on the law... here is the kicker: when asked how often she asked her spouse to have sexual relations with her during that time, the Plaintiff simply admitted that she never requested her husband to have sexual relations with her.  UMMM ok... so what was the problem here????
I think I do not need to give my two cents on the sophistication of this particular Plaintiff, however... we must wonder who prepared her for the inquest. I mean... isn't it our duty as attorneys to explain to our clients what the law is... and guide them appropriately?  If a woman comes into an office seeking a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment, isn't it our job to explain what constructive abandonment is??? And more importantly, isn't it also our job to advise the client how important it is to tell the truth and not perjure herself??? Why else do clients hire attorneys???? Not just to pay us a retainer... I presume, but rather to give some legal advice.  Seems reasonable enough, right? And I know sometimes, even with my own client, no matter how much you explain to them the law, and prepare them for depositions or trial, so that they know what to expect.... they sometimes baffle us and start saying things, you never heard before, which were never disclosed to you before, and you sit there with you head in your hands thinking... OMG (among other pleasantries that come to mind) and then scold the client about not disclosing the information, making up facts and lying under oath.  I admit all of that happens, and it happened to me... where you are sitting there looking like you, as the attorney are the idiot, when in fact, the client just started blurting out things you never even knew about or discussed.    I truly hope this is the case here, otherwise, I would suggest her attorney take some brush up courses on the law, ethics and proper client preparation.

To read the opinion go to: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14276577943439993992&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

9th Anniversary of September 11

I want to start by giving my deepest condolences to all of the victims of the horrific events surrounding September 11, 2001 and their families.  No matter how much time passes from that unfortunate day in history, we will never forget what happened, where we were, who we were with, what we saw and what we heard on that dreadful day 9 years ago.

As may be expected, I also want to throw my two cents as to the controversy surrounding ground zero. As an attorney, I always try to look at both sides of the coin, so here it is.  This Country is a melting pot, full of immigrants from all over the world.  If we really dig deep down in history, most of the people living in this Country are a product of immigrants, whether it be first generation, second generation or 10th generation, but somewhere there was a great great grandfather, who came here from another Country many years ago.  If this Country decided, long ago, that it will open its doors to different nations and accept and welcome immigrants from all over the world, it must do so without discrimination. Therefore, if this Country decided to allow people of Muslim descent to settle here, then by all means, we should treat them with respect and equally as we would any other immigrant who settles here. We should allow them to practice their religion as we would any other nationality. And if they want to build a mosque, so be it.  But what about building a mosque next to ground zero?  Well, that's where my other side of the coin comes in.

We all know the details surrounding the 9/11 attacks, who was behind it and how it was orchestrated, so lets not review the known facts. Why do Muslims want to build their mosque near the location, where those with their same belief, thought it was OK to kill thousands of innocent people and destroy thousands of lives? In my opinion, that is insensitive and has a much deeper purpose than what one Imam said was to unite the religions.  It was mentioned that the Center would include a recreation center to be used by all and have a place for all religions.  Do you really think Jews, Christians, Catholics, or other religions would go to the Muslim Center to pray?  I doubt it.  It is just inappropriate on so many levels. It is a recipe for disaster, including riots and protests, and doubtfully they will all be peaceful.Even now, before anything is even built, the talk of it is causing such tension, and in a way is dividing this Country. Perhaps intentionally so, don't you think?  Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said, in his response to Giuliani, that if he knew that the plans of building a mosque would cause such tension, he never would have put his plan into action.  I mean come on, don't insult us.  Is he seriously trying to say that he thought that when New Yorkers would hear that a mosque is going to be build near the place of tragedy that was caused at the hand of Muslim extremists, it would go over well?  I don't believe it.

I am for all religions, and in my practice as an immigration attorney, I believe that all should be treated equally and fairly.  But there is a time and place for everything.  And ground zero is not the place for a mosque. Muslims can built a mosque anywhere they want, but building it near ground zero, is much more than freedom of religious, it is nothing less than a bold statement  and perhaps even a spit in the face to the victims and all those that oppose it.

Again... just my two cents.

Asylum Denial Rate Drops

According to the Justice Department data, the Asylum denial rate is the lowest it has been in 25 years. Some of the explanations that are given in such a drastic decline may include a decrease in asylum requests being filed and  tendency of asylum seekers to be represented by an attorney.  Records show that approximately 91% of those seeking asylum are represented by an attorney, as opposed to a merely 51% who retained counsel 25 years ago. Therefore, having a competent attorney representing an asylum applicant will likely lead to a better outcome as opposed to those who attempt to go through the process on their own. Despite the aforementioned, there is a great disparity between judges in their asylum rulings. For instance, in New York Immigration Court, you have one judge who denies about 6% of asylum case and another judge who denies approximately 70% of asylum cases.

What do we take away from this story?  Basically, it is a good sign that asylum denial rates are dropping and that more and more people are represented by attorneys.  However, in my practice, I see a lot of "services" offering help to foreigners, who, for the most part are not familiar with the immigration rules and regulations, and oftentimes, these services do more harm than good. I have clients who come to me after spending thousands of dollars paying such services, be it paralegal services, or just individuals who advertise such services.  For the most part, the applications are completed incorrectly, are incomplete or otherwise inadequate. Moreover, when my clients attempt to contact these people after they have received a notice to appear in court, these people either disappear or refuse to offer any additional help, claiming they have done everything they could to help them.  And since these people are not licensed professionals,chances are there are no retainers and no obligation that they carry out their job with due diligence and zealousness as is required from a licensed attorney. It is usually better to pay a little more to a licensed attorney, then be in a position to pay twice, as most of my clients who have gone with such services are now doing.

Cancellation of Removal appeal granted

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted an appeal from an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision denying cancellation of removal to native of Mexico and a Permanent Resident (PR) of the US based on prior convictions.  PR appealed to the BIA, BIA acknowledged that PR has had 3 criminal convictions in Illinois, one for unlawful possession of firearm, one for possession of cocaine and one for resisting arrest.  PR also had several arrests, which did not lead to a conviction. Moreover, BIA acknowledged that his work and tax history were not so great either. Nonetheless, his application for cancellation of removal is strongly supported by his connections to the US. BIA indicates that he came to the US as an infant and lived here almost his entire life, has been married to a US citizen for several years and has 4 US daughters, who he presently visits regularly and supports financially. Mother of the daughters and PR's soon to be ex-wife, testified very favorably for the PR. Furthermore, PR presently resides with his father who is also a permanent resident, and has 5 siblings, all of whom are US citizens.  All in all, BIA decided that PR's ties to this Country are substantial and decided to give him a final chance to stay in the US, thereby, reversing the IJ's decision.  Although, the BIA did point out that this will be his last chance, and if he gets into any more trouble with the law he will be deported.

As to my thoughts on this matter: I have to agree with the BIA. In this particular case, PR has very strong ties to the US and despite his criminal convictions, the hardships that will be suffered by his family here in the US who are US citizens, outweighs his less then perfect background. This is also a good example which shows that just because an IJ makes an unfavorable ruling, there is still hope.  There is always the process of appeal and the possibility of reversal of the IJ's decision.