McClatchyDC recently reported that several of the women being held in family detention in Karnes City, Texas, are pregnant. The women learned about their
pregnancies after being given a urine test soon after being detained, and
one of the women stated that she had not received any off-site medical
care for her pregnancy. This detention directly contradicts the Fall 2014 DHS memorandum outlining enforcement priorities for ICE.
The two family detention facilities in Texas were newly constructed as part of the Obama administration's aggressive response to last year’s surge of migrant families fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Mothers and children are being detained in these jail-like facilities.
The article states that Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she thinks the detention of mothers violated policy guidelines issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. In
a November 2014 memorandum, Johnson said that “absent extraordinary
circumstances,” field agents should not detain pregnant mothers and
primary caretakers of children.
I have personally dealt with clients who were detained by ICE in Texas, transferred to the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York where I regularly visit and represent clients in the Batavia Immigration Court. I have had clients who were granted prosecutorial discretion by ICE in Buffalo, New York after Borowski Law made written requests. These clients then returned to their families in Texas only to be again detained by Texas ICE, without regard for the decision made by the very same agency's other field office to release the non-citizen on parole or on bond. Our office has been told, flat-out, by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Texas that they will take enforcement actions that directly contradict the Fall 2014 Johnson memorandum. Our advice moving forward to all of our clients will be to "stay out of Texas."
This advice, of course, is of no help to the roughly 760 mothers and children being held at the "family detention centers," two of which are in Texas and one of which is in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
We must mobilize and ask the Obama administration to take action to end family detention now.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Bond Granted for First Afghan Soldier: Major Jan Arash, In a Contested Bond Hearing Over DHS Opposition
Matthew Borowski successfully argued a bond motion for Major Jan Arash today and the judge granted a $25,000.00 bond, over the opposition of DHS. We are glad a bond was granted, but it is an exceptionally high bond especially considering that Major Arash entered the country legally and has a strong claim for asylum.
We need your financial support to get Major Arash out of detention. Please consider donating. If we reach our goal of $25,000.00 we can bond Major Arash out of detention and greatly increase his chances of gaining asylum.
Borowski Law will be seeking bond for the other two soldiers, Captain Aminyar and Captain Askarzadeh, on October 22.
More coverage and information will be posted to the Afghan Soldiers blog. Visit the Afghan Soldiers blog and donation page at http://afghansoldiers.com/
Saturday, September 27, 2014
WIVB CBS News 4 Interviews Matthew Borowski Regarding Afghan Soldiers
Buffalo Immigration Lawyer Matthew Borowski was interviewed on September 26, 2014 by WIVB CBS News 4 regarding the three Afghan soldiers who left their training exercise in Cape Cod and allegedly crossed over the Canadian border.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Deportation Case Terminated Due to Successful Post-Conviction Motion
We just won another deportation case! Our client had an aggravated
felony conviction (drug trafficking) that made him ineligible for most
forms of relief from deportation. We pursued post conviction relief in
state court and we were able to re-open his case so he no longer had a
final criminal conviction. It was a long road and a lot of hard work,
but we did it. Last week we filed a Motion to Terminate in the Batavia
Immigration Court and our client was released from detention yesterday.
He is now home with his family, and we're preparing to fight the next
round in the battle (ensuring his conviction doesn't stick, so ICE won't
be able to put him back into removal proceedings.)
The reality is that I can't win every single deportation case -- sometimes the facts are just stacked against us. Not every case results in a happy ending, no matter how hard we try. When we can get a case terminated and reunite a family, it's a good day in the life of an immigration lawyer, and it makes the hard work worth it in the end.
The reality is that I can't win every single deportation case -- sometimes the facts are just stacked against us. Not every case results in a happy ending, no matter how hard we try. When we can get a case terminated and reunite a family, it's a good day in the life of an immigration lawyer, and it makes the hard work worth it in the end.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
New BIA Precedents Modify the Law on "Particular Social Groups" in Asylum Cases
The BIA issued two new decisions on February 7, 2014 which may have a profound effect on asylum claims.
An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal seeking relief based on “membership in a particular social group” must establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question. (3) An applicant has the burden of demonstrating not only the existence of a cognizable particular social group and his membership in that particular social group, but also a risk of persecution “on account of” his membership in that group.
The new wording requires a showing that the individual's membership in that particular social group makes him or her "socially distinct" within the society in question. The previous requirement was "social visibility" which was being applied by many immigration judges to require the group to be noticeably visible in society -- what the BIA has now termed "ocular visibility" (ocular being that which is connected to the eyes or vision).
The new precedent decisions from the BIA are beneficial as they clarify that groups which may not be visible out on the streets - such as closeted gay men - can be considered members of particular social groups for asylum purposes. Under the new precedents, whether a social group is recognized for asylum purposes is determined by the perception of the society in question, rather than by the perception of the persecutor.
The cases are Matter of W-G-R- and Matter of M-E-V-G-.
An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal seeking relief based on “membership in a particular social group” must establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question. (3) An applicant has the burden of demonstrating not only the existence of a cognizable particular social group and his membership in that particular social group, but also a risk of persecution “on account of” his membership in that group.
The new wording requires a showing that the individual's membership in that particular social group makes him or her "socially distinct" within the society in question. The previous requirement was "social visibility" which was being applied by many immigration judges to require the group to be noticeably visible in society -- what the BIA has now termed "ocular visibility" (ocular being that which is connected to the eyes or vision).
The new precedent decisions from the BIA are beneficial as they clarify that groups which may not be visible out on the streets - such as closeted gay men - can be considered members of particular social groups for asylum purposes. Under the new precedents, whether a social group is recognized for asylum purposes is determined by the perception of the society in question, rather than by the perception of the persecutor.
The cases are Matter of W-G-R- and Matter of M-E-V-G-.
Friday, December 27, 2013
$136,000 Spent by ICE Detaining Immigrant for Three Years Before Releasing Him
If only the mainstream American public knew the lengths to which ICE/DHS will go to attempt to deport law-abiding, hard-working permanent residents based on years or even decades-old criminal convictions. Our tax dollars are being spent to detain immigrants alongside murderers and criminals.
Business Insider reported on the story of a man who was held for three years by ICE. He was previously deported but returned to the country in 1994, and was then convicted of a controlled substance offense. He was held for three years at York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania by ICE before being released. Based on the story's details, it sounds like he was released on what ICE terms "parole" and must still report to ICE authorities periodically.
"Pierre's three-year nightmare signifies the Kafkaesque experience that some immigrants have when they're locked away with violent criminals while the U.S. government tries to deport them. Every day, thousands of legal immigrants are detained while the government tries to deport them for a past crime, according to the ACLU."
....
"Pierre's most recent serious crime was a 1996 drug conviction for which he had already served time. Pierre, a father of six kids, including two in the U.S. military, had paid his debt to U.S. society and put his life back together. It seems bizarre that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would try to detain him years after his 1997 release, but that practice is not unheard of."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/dave-pierres-nightmare-immigration-story-2013-11
Business Insider reported on the story of a man who was held for three years by ICE. He was previously deported but returned to the country in 1994, and was then convicted of a controlled substance offense. He was held for three years at York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania by ICE before being released. Based on the story's details, it sounds like he was released on what ICE terms "parole" and must still report to ICE authorities periodically.
"Pierre's three-year nightmare signifies the Kafkaesque experience that some immigrants have when they're locked away with violent criminals while the U.S. government tries to deport them. Every day, thousands of legal immigrants are detained while the government tries to deport them for a past crime, according to the ACLU."
....
"Pierre's most recent serious crime was a 1996 drug conviction for which he had already served time. Pierre, a father of six kids, including two in the U.S. military, had paid his debt to U.S. society and put his life back together. It seems bizarre that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would try to detain him years after his 1997 release, but that practice is not unheard of."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/dave-pierres-nightmare-immigration-story-2013-11
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Aggravated Felonies in Removal Proceedings - Left with (almost) no relief
I recently spoke to a detained non-citizen who is being charged with removability from the United States in the Batavia Immigration Court at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. He is charged on his "Notice to Appear" with having been convicted of an Aggravated Felony and therefore, he is removable from the United States.
So, what exactly is an Aggravated Felony?
It neither has to be a felony, nor does it have to be particularly "aggravated." It is a statutory definition that contains some serious crimes including murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, and drug trafficking crimes. It also contains some less serious crimes such as bribery, forgery or counterfeiting, or even failing to appear for sentencing. An “aggravated felony” is essentially any crime that Congress decided to label as such.
Non-citizens who have been convicted of "aggravated felonies" can be deported potentially without a removal hearing, can be held under "mandatory detention" with no bond while they wait for their case to be decided, are ineligible for asylum, cancellation of removal, or certain waivers of inadmissibility, and are ineligible for voluntary departure. They are also subject to a lifetime ban from re-entering the U.S. after deportation.
The only hope for someone convicted of an aggravated felony is to 1) use post-conviction relief to vacate the conviction and try to minimize the immigration impact of any new conviction, or 2) to apply for withholding of removal, if your home country's conditions are severe enough to make a case.
If you or a loved one has been convicted of an aggravated felony and are currently in removal proceedings, please call Mr. Borowski at 716-418-7431 to discuss your situation. Mr. Borowski represents clients in the Buffalo Immigration Court, Batavia Immigration Court and can handle cases for detained immigrants being held in the Pike County Prison in Pennsylvania, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center in Philipsburg, PA, York County Prison in York, PA, Lackawanna County Prison in Pennsylvania, Clinton County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania, Orange County Correctional Facility in Goshen, New York. Mr. Borowski is also able to handle removal cases in Ohio and Michigan.
So, what exactly is an Aggravated Felony?
It neither has to be a felony, nor does it have to be particularly "aggravated." It is a statutory definition that contains some serious crimes including murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, and drug trafficking crimes. It also contains some less serious crimes such as bribery, forgery or counterfeiting, or even failing to appear for sentencing. An “aggravated felony” is essentially any crime that Congress decided to label as such.
Non-citizens who have been convicted of "aggravated felonies" can be deported potentially without a removal hearing, can be held under "mandatory detention" with no bond while they wait for their case to be decided, are ineligible for asylum, cancellation of removal, or certain waivers of inadmissibility, and are ineligible for voluntary departure. They are also subject to a lifetime ban from re-entering the U.S. after deportation.
The only hope for someone convicted of an aggravated felony is to 1) use post-conviction relief to vacate the conviction and try to minimize the immigration impact of any new conviction, or 2) to apply for withholding of removal, if your home country's conditions are severe enough to make a case.
If you or a loved one has been convicted of an aggravated felony and are currently in removal proceedings, please call Mr. Borowski at 716-418-7431 to discuss your situation. Mr. Borowski represents clients in the Buffalo Immigration Court, Batavia Immigration Court and can handle cases for detained immigrants being held in the Pike County Prison in Pennsylvania, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center in Philipsburg, PA, York County Prison in York, PA, Lackawanna County Prison in Pennsylvania, Clinton County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania, Orange County Correctional Facility in Goshen, New York. Mr. Borowski is also able to handle removal cases in Ohio and Michigan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)