For those of you who have had family members or friends taken by ICE or just have a hunch that they may have been picked up by ICE, there is available an online search system to access information of whether or not your loved one has been detained. By clicking on the link below, you can search for your loved one either by their A# or by using their biographical information.

ICE DETAINEE SEARCH LINK

On Thursday, August 23, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, with ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Deportation Officers and ICE Immigration Enforcement Agents, filed a federal civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Dallas. The law suit named Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, and ICE Director, John Morton, as the Defendants. The purpose of the lawsuit was to seek an injunction against a directive issued by Secretary Napolitano on deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. undocumented as children. The directive essentially ordered all ICE agents to stop placing certain illegal foreigners in the U.S. into deportation proceedings.

The directive was initially passed as an executive order by President Obama back in June of this year. Critics claimed that it was a political move in order for the President to obtain Hispanic votes. Whatever the reasoning behind the executive order, the Hispanic community has definitely been moved.  In June, coinciding with the President’s executive order, Secretary Napolitano issued the directive to ICE agents to stop placing those affected by the order in deportation proceedings.

On August 15, 2012, the USCIS began accepting applications for deferred action for childhood arrivals.

The 10 ICE agents initiating the lawsuit claim that they have been put in a catch-22 situation. Either they break the law by not deporting illegal immigrants or they disobey their superiors by not following the Department of Homeland Security’s directives. The Defendant group of ICE agents are being represented by Kris Kobach, who has informally advised the Romney campaign on immigration. Kobach has been an active supporter of cracking down on illegal immigration, having written the controversial immigration laws currently being challenged in court in both Arizona and Alabama.

Undoubtedly, the outcome in court will rely on arguments of prosecutorial discretion. For those applying for deferred action, this case can definitely cause an uncertain future as to whether or not such an application would be in the applicant’s best interests.

Question:
I was recently deported a second time for being unlawfully in the U.S. and received a permanent bar to entry on my deportation order. When is the earliest that I can apply for a waiver to come into the U.S.?

Response:
The general rule is that there is no waiver of inadmissibility when individuals have acquired a permanent bar to entry due to unlawful presence. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. In addition, non-immigrants may later be admitted as a matter of discretion. In those circumstances (with the exception of asylees and refugees), the person applying for a waiver of the permanent bar and consent for entry must be outside of the U.S. for a period of 10 years before he/she is able to submit a waiver request.

Suspect:
Mr. Argus Brown. Non-U.S. Citizen.

Assignment:
To discover how a crime or bad acts can impact admission into the U.S.

History:
In 1998, Mr. Brown bought a false passport and green card and tried to enter New York. He was caught at customs and convicted of an aggravated felony for fraud against the government and identification document offenses. He was sentenced to time served and deported, being subject to a 20 year bar to entry into the U.S. for his aggravated felony conviction. One year later, Mr. Brown was in the U.S., having entered without a proper inspection by a customs officer. Further, Mr. Brown had entered the U.S. without obtaining consent of the Attorney General of the U.S. and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to re-apply for admission into the U.S. After undergoing another trial, Mr. Brown was subsequently deported a second time, incurring another 20 year bar to entry into the U.S.

Resolved:
Mr. Brown is unfortunately in the situation where he may have jeopardized any future opportunity to be admitted into the U.S. Typically, when a person receives a bar to reenter the U.S., there is an opportunity to apply for a waiver of the bar by obtaining permission from the Attorney General of the U.S. and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for to enter the U.S. The opportunity for this often arises towards the end of the total time of the bar to entry imposed against an individual.

In Mr. Brown's case, however, there may be no solution to a subsequent admission into the U.S. The U.S. government takes criminal convictions and some misdemeanors very seriously. An immigration office may deny admission into the country on the grounds of crimes of moral turpitude, drug offenses, multiple offenses, and prostitution. Examples of such offense can be murder, crimes of domestic violence, aggravated assault, tax evasion, etc...

In Mr. Brown's case, he had been deported twice from the country, obtaining a 20 year bar of entry. Further, his conviction of an aggravated felony is classified as a crime of moral turpitude that stays on his record. Because of Mr. Brown's bad acts, he is likely to be consistently denied admission into the U.S. for the future.

In the event that Mr. Brown is able to later obtain a waiver of the bars to entry and pass into the country with a valid visa without a denial of entry, Mr. Brown may have problems later should he wish to immigrate completely into the U.S. through applications for permanent residence or even for naturalization. The criminal conviction will remain on his record and could be the key reason for denial of any future immigration applications. In this instance, Mr. Brown's bad acts may have completely jeopardized any future plans or hopes for living in the U.S.

As seen on Examiner.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, last Wednesday, in a case titled Kawashima v. Holder, that filing a false tax return is a deportable offense.

The petitioners (the Kawashimas), husband and wife, in the case had been lawful U.S. permanent residents (i.e. green card holders) since 1984. In 1997, the husband was convicted of filing a false corporate tax return that understated the couples’ income thus depriving the U.S. of owed tax revenue. The wife was convicted of assisting the husband in filing the false corporate tax return.