Understanding Immigration Law: Key Updates and Insights

March 2018

Published by the Law Offices of Alena Shautsova, 2908A Emmons Ave, Brooklyn, New York 11235

175 Eileen Way, Syosset NY 11791

Subscribe to our monthly free legal updates, SHAUTSOVA’S UPDATE.

Follow our Blog Posts commenting on the latest developments in the immigration and civil rights world

http://www.workharassmentattorneys.com/ 

http://www.russianspeakinglawyerny.com

A pair of hands cradling a globe, depicting the Earth with visible continents and oceans.

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Watch Our Videos:

3:53

Legally Speaking: An In-depth Explanation of VAWA

Legally Speaking: How to Prepare for a Marriage Based Interview

US Supreme Court Decision Regarding Immigration Bond

Author: New York Immigration Lawyer Alena Shautsova

A legal document labeled 'Power of Attorney' with the words 'Immigration Bail Bond' prominently displayed across it.

On February 27, 2018 US Supreme Court in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez stated that the lower Federal Court (the Ninth Circuit court) was wrong when held that detained immigrants have a right to periodic bond hearings.

It has to be noted that under the Immigration law, usually, in a case of a non-citizen who is being placed in removal proceedings, a person would be eligible for a bond. The case is dealing with challenges to those provisions of the laws that authorize the detention of certain aliens.The question is: if it is unconstitutional and violates people’s rights to keep them in prolonged detention without a bond. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court held that all immigrants deserve a bond: “the Ninth Circuit construed §§1225(b) and 1226(c) as imposing an implicit 6-month time limit on an alien’s detention under those sections. After that point, the court held, the Government may continue to detain the alien only under the authority of §1226(a). The court then construed §1226(a) to mean that an alien must be given a bond hearing every six months and that detention beyond the initial 6-month period is permitted only if the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that further detention is justified.” The US Supreme court disagreed.

The US Supreme Court stated that the law is clear: there is no suggestion in it that the bond must be provided periodically. This was the opinion of the majority of the Court and now is the law.

It does not mean, however, that every non-citizen will be detained indefinitely during the pendency of removal proceedings. Individuals are also allowed to challenge the detention on an individual basis. But it is very costly, of course.

“The Supreme Court sent the case the back to the lower court with two questions unresolved. First, whether indefinite detention without a chance for bail is unconstitutional. Second, whether the challenge to that no-bail provision can be brought as a class action, instead of as individual cases.” See http://n.pr/2ovBBW6.

Asylum: family as a social group and Ms-13 gang

Author: Asylum Lawyer Alena Shautsova

A diverse group of people participating in a rally, holding signs advocating for families, with law enforcement officers visible in the background.

A family as a social group for the purposes of asylum claims is a relatively new trend: the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recognized the family as a social group in 2011. The law is not settled yet, however, and many cases are hard to win at the first level, especially if the one-year deadline was lost. Many, but not all. Mr. Salgado-Sosa, a native of Honduras, was able to obtain his first victory only on a Federal court level, losing his case before the Immigration Judge (IJ) and before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Mr. Salgado-Sosa entered the US in 2005. He was served with notice to appear in 2010, and only then filed his application for asylum. At the removal hearing, Salgado-Sosa testified to and presented evidence regarding the events that led to his flight from Honduras and to the United States. Noting his family’s warnings that MS-13 continues to ask about his whereabouts, he confirmed that he remains in fear of returning to Honduras.

The Immigration Judge held that the Mr. Salgado-Sosa missed the one-year deadline and the 2009 coup in Honduras did not renew the deadline for him; the judge also stated that Mr. Salgado-Sosa did not prove nexus between the persecution and social group. The BIA agreed with the IJ.

Only Federal Court agreed with Mr. Salgado- Sosa. The Federal Court stated the respondent demonstrated nexus between persecution and a protected ground because “at least one central reason” for the harm he faced wasmembership in a social group consisting of his family. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The record, the court, stated was clear that Mr. Salgado-Sosa was attacked by the gangs because he was the relative of his stepfather and thestepfather refused to pay the gangs, and not because of his own issues with the gangs. Just because the gangs had a financial motive in the center of their actions, it did not ruin the respondent’s asylum claim.

Finally, the Federal Court also stated that the change in asylum law that came from the BIA might constitute change circumstances necessary for Mr. Sosa to revive his deadline.

The case is coming from the Fourth Federal Circuit and is an important decision that once again clarified the nexus requirement for family-social-group cases. Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, (16-1594 Doc. No. 4^th Cir., February 13, 2018).