Posted on March 23, 2015 in Personal Injury

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 20, 2015 in Immigration

If you have applied for asylum or convention against torture (CAT) relief in the United States, the process to determine your eligibility for it can be complex and confusing. There are different levels of hearings, and there may be one, or there may be many. Before you begin the process in earnest, it may help to get an idea of what it is typically like.

The Master Calendar Hearing

The first experience many will have in the immigration system is the master calendar hearing. After receiving a notice to appear (NTA), you are scheduled for an initial hearing in front of a judge. A master calendar hearing is done to assess you and your case, but no legal determinations will be made right now. The judge will ask you questions, but mostly it is a chance to appear, to prove you are serious about obtaining legal status.

You will be called before a judge, usually by your Alien Registration Number (“A-number”) rather than your name. An interpreter will be provided if English is difficult for you—it is always best that you accept the help if you think you may need it, as a misinterpretation of the charges on the NTA can be a death blow to your chances at asylum if you give a wrong answer. Afterward, you will be required to admit or deny each charge on the NTA, and tell the judge what forms of relief you are seeking (asylum, voluntary departure, withholding of removal, CAT relief, et cetera).

The rest of the hearing typically has to do with scheduling. For example, if you need more time to prepare your evidence as to why you should be granted asylum, or if you do not yet have an attorney and want time to find one, you can ask for a continuance. Or, at times, some asylum applicants elect to have their case put on an expedited track, which means they must be ready within 180 days to present their case at an individual merits hearing.

The Individual Merits Hearing

Unlike the master calendar hearing, when you have an individual merits hearing, it is adversarial—in other words, you will be trying to argue your case (via your attorney) for why you should be granted relief, against a prosecutor who will try to argue that it should not be granted. You will present your story and your supporting witnesses’ stories and evidence in order to do this, and it is imperative that you know your story as well as you can. It is easy to confuse dates and names, but judges tend to be unforgiving if you do so; a simple mistake can sometimes appear to be made out of guilt. Generally, truthfulness and consistency are the traits you should be aiming to convey.

Very rarely, a Department of Homeland Security attorney who is prosecuting your case will stipulate as to certain points of your asylum claim (DHS is the parent agency of Immigration & Customs Enforcement). However, most of the time, you will have to present evidence on all your contentions. Witnesses and documents must be consistent, and even though an immigration judge is sometimes not the most patient or understanding person, you must not lose your temper.

At the end of the hearing, the judge will issue his or her verdict. You do have the right to appeal if you receive an unfavorable decision, but you may have to do so via your attorney and not in person, depending on your situation.

A Good Immigration Attorney Can Make The Difference

Going in front of the immigration court can be terrifying, and most people freely admit they need all the help they can get. The experienced Chicagoland immigration attorneys at Mevorah & Giglio Law Offices have been handling asylum claims for years, and know the ins and outs of the process. We will do our best to help you. Contact our offices today to discuss your options.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 20, 2015 in Family Law

The corporal punishment/child abuse debate was re-sparked in the last six months due to the widespread coverage one football player received with regards to injuries he perpetrated against his son while inflicting corporal punishment.The authorities found, however, that he had crossed the line, that he went beyond providing punishment to his child, but inflicted serious physical harm against him. The line drawn between corporal punishment and child abuse is a very thin one, and many states are reviewing their current laws to see whether it is possible to make the line more pronounced and more likely to protect the rights of children and the rights of parents to be free of government intervention in how to raise a family.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 18, 2015 in Personal Injury

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2015 in Personal Injury

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 13, 2015 in Family Law

U.S. residents are known for being extremely entrepreneurial and innovative. Now, more than ever, the concept of start-ups and crowdfunding/sourcing are becoming increasingly popular as this allows for everyday people to take an idea and, with very little investment, turn it into a business venture with the opportunity for growth.

The well-known adage is that personal relationships and business never mix. But more and more, power couples are surfacing and becoming successful specifically because they are functioning as a marital unit. More likely than not, having your spouse be your business partner creates a situation where any profit or loss is shared with the person who you trust the most. As many couples who run profitable businesses will attest, it is all about communication, creating ground rules, and sometimes a postnuptial agreement for more complex decisions for the marriage and business.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 13, 2015 in Immigration

In the United States, those applying for asylum must qualify under the 1951 Geneva Convention definition of a refugee. This means that they must be able to prove a “well-founded fear” of returning to their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group (PSG). While four of these grounds are fairly straightforward, the ‘membership in a particular social group’ criteria is often used as a catch-all of sorts. Its definition remains disputed in U.S. law.

General Definition

Generally speaking, many judges define a particular social group as a group of people viewed as a threat by a government based on one characteristic they all share, usually an immutable (unchangeable) physical or mental trait or an experience. Examples in the past have included homosexuals, former gang members or people of a shared ethnicity. One trend that seems to help define the term further is that the characteristic shared must not be subjective. For example, “rich people” would be a poor attempt to define a particular social group, because “rich” is entirely subjective.

Another factor that many judges seem to consider is if the group is visible as a PSG within its own society. Victims of rape at the hands of soldiers may be a particular social group in the sense that they share a characteristic which is not transient or subjective, but they are often invisible in their home society. If a group is invisible in its home society, there is no real reason for them to fear persecution. In short, a particular social group is most likely to be recognized if it is comprised of people who share some kind of immutable characteristic (experience, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), and if it is at least somewhat visible in the home country.

Application in the System

The U.S. immigration system has only just begun to give credence to many particular social groups that one might assume were already classified as such. However, many cases do not reach the courts or are not appealed to a court where a final ruling can be made. There remains a fair amount of debate as to what actually constitutes a PSG, and rulings have been inconsistent, but the definition is widening, which can be a salvation for some that would otherwise have found it difficult to gain asylum.

The most recent example is in September 2014, when a court ruled in Matter of A-R-C-G- that female survivors of domestic violence in Guatemala who were “unable to leave their relationships” constituted a PSG for asylum purposes. While the Board of Immigration Appeals made it clear that particular social group status would still be determined on a case by case basis, A-R-C-G- makes it easier for those in gender-based PSGs to qualify, provided there is enough governmental involvement (or lack of control over those involved) in their persecution.

Contact an Experienced Asylum Attorney

It is always a good idea to apply for asylum under as many grounds as you think are possible, but “particular social group” has always been a bit of a wild card. Even with trends now changing to be a little more clearly defined for the potential asylee, having competent representation is critical. The Chicagoland immigration attorneys at Mevorah & Giglio Law Offices are ready, willing, and able to put the benefit of their years of experience to work for you. Contact us today to discuss your options.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 11, 2015 in Personal Injury

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 09, 2015 in Personal Injury

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 07, 2015 in Immigration

Very often, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) solicits assistance from state and local police agencies in attempts to catch up with undocumented immigrants. When this occurs, a person may be placed under an immigration detainer. This practice has been condemned by activists as extrajudicial, and various states are in the process of eliminating them. However, detainers are still used in many other states.

How Detainers Work

If a state or local law enforcement agency (LEA) receives a detainer request, it is intended to advise the local LEA that they have someone in custody that is of interest to ICE. It is also intended to serve as notice that ICE would like to take custody of the person after the local LEA has exhausted their time with them. Sometimes, ICE requests that the LEA extend their hold on the person if possible. If the detainer is complied with, ICE is then able to take custody of the person after the LEA’s time with them expires.

This is not, despite belief to the contrary, a requirement. State agencies are not bound by law to obey requests for detainers, and indeed, the LEA may not hold anyone beyond 48 hours unless they are arrested. Detainers may also only be placed on non-U.S. citizens; any U.S. citizen who finds him or herself under detainer may have a case for false imprisonment.

Pushback from State Agencies

While the system has no doubt contributed to the arrest of a number of undocumented immigrants, it has also created very real problems for the people it is supposed to protect. U.S. citizens have been held on immigration detainers before, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment—one cannot be held in detention while a court tries to figure out if the detention is appropriate or not.

Allegations of racial profiling have also been made; it is alleged in several suits currently pending that ICE officials unjustly held United States citizens or immigrants with documentation, usually of Latino origin, on detainer solely to ‘run checks’ or investigate their immigration status. This is unacceptable under both the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth.

Also, certain state agencies have simply stopped cooperating with ICE detainers, citing the excessive drain on their own, far more limited resources and personnel. On his way out of office in January, departing governor Pat Quinn issued an executive order prohibiting state law enforcement agencies from complying with ICE detainers. Such an order, while somewhat controversial, is entirely within the scope of the governor’s power.

Governor Quinn argued that one of the main issues with the detainer system is that it discourages the undocumented from interacting with police—even if they are not culpable in the crime in question—because they fear deportation. The argument can be made that if the undocumented community is entirely estranged from law enforcement, it may not only adversely affect crime rates within the community, but it can also make it harder to reach the undocumented in non-criminal matters as well.

Get Help From a Professional

If you or a loved one have been the subject of an immigration detainer—rightly or wrongly—having a good attorney on your side can make all the difference. The Chicagoland immigration attorneys at Mevorah & Giglio Law Offices have years of experience in these matters, and we are ready to help you. Contact us today at 630-932-9100.

Continue Reading ››