No announcement yet.

Article: DREAMers Do Need Lawyers by Lory Rosenberg


  • Article: DREAMers Do Need Lawyers by Lory Rosenberg

    DREAMers Do Need Lawyers

    by Lory Rosenberg

    A Rude Awakening

    Dreamers should not be discouraged from consulting with responsible, knowledgeable, and ethical immigration lawyers who have comprehensive experience with the immigration laws. However well-intended Mssrs. Durbin's and Velasquez's video message of August 6, 2012 may be, it is a gross distortion to suggest that immigration lawyers who offer legal services to Dreamers who are applying for deferred action are taking advantage of them. It is patently inaccurate to say, as Mr. Durbin states in the video, that all but a very few Dreamers will need to use lawyers, and it is misleading to suggest that lawyers and notarios are one and the same with respect to presently perpetrating "scams" or even charging fees for deferred action representation and related legal work.

    Dreamers do need lawyers. What they do not need is mixed messages, overgeneralizations, or misguided efforts to insulate them from fraud that inadvertently leaves them at a disadvantage in reaching their dreams.

    "Don't Hire a Lawyer" – What?

    Immigration lawyers with comprehensive immigration law knowledge and practical experience are informed, honest, forthright and ethical in consulting with and representing potential Dreamer deferred action candidates. We are bound to zealously represent the best interests of our clients and our clients receive enormous value from us. Some of us work in private practice and some work in non-profit organizations, and most all of us provide pro bono services, sometimes at the request of Mssrs. Durbin and Velasquez for their constituents. Our comprehensive understanding of the complex provisions of the entire immigration statute permits us to identify and grapple with real and potential problems - often before they can cause permanent damage - and allows us to develop creative and effective legal solutions for our clients. Furthermore, the quality representation we provide discourages and counteracts fraud and delivers the real benefits to which Dreamers may be entitled.

    With all due respect for their commitment and years of concrete efforts to pass the Dream Act legislation and other needed immigration reform, Mssrs. Durbin and Gutierrez are doing a serious disservice to those Dreamers whom they hope to help, not to mention perpetuating an undeserved and insulting confusion between licensed immigration lawyers who are dedicated to their clients, and notarios who are practicing law without a license or may be engaged in defrauding Dreamers. It is precisely because of the risk of harm from nefarious scammers and the importance of each Dreamer's future with respect to all immigration benefits for which s/he may qualify that individual consultation and representation by responsible, knowledgeable and ethical immigration lawyers is so critical and should be promoted.

    No Second Chances

    The reality is that no one can know the number or proportion of cases in which legal counsel will not only be needed, but essential to securing deferred action status under the program. Individual obstacles that may exist and issues that may arise in adjudication of a deferred action application must be identified, addressed, and resolved, and this can best be done with the help of an experienced immigration attorney, before the Dreamer comes forward, presents himself or herself to USCIS, and submits an application for deferred action. In reality, the process may be simple and straightforward only for those who prepared by first consulting with counsel.

    The reality is that USCIS has made clear that those who do not qualify fall under an exception to the guarantee of confidentiality that accompanies the deferred action program and they will be referred to ICE for removal hearing write-ups. Accordingly, the advent of this temporary deferred action program necessitates, at the very least, an initial professional legal consultation and evaluation to determine whether a potential Dreamer qualifies for the benefits sought in the application and to highlight any defects that need to be addressed and corrected before s/he applies.

    The reality is that later will be too late. A Dreamer candidate must establish that s/he possesses the necessary qualifications and has one opportunity to do so. A plethora of questions still exist as to what type and amount of evidence will be sufficient to satisfy each of the qualifiers, ranging from proof of presence in the United States and school enrollment records, to the absence of "significant misdemeanors" and the characterization of "minor" misdemeanors and driving offenses. Nonetheless, the strict rules announced by USCIS do not permit either motions to reopen or appeals.

    Value Added

    Nothing prevents a Dreamer candidate from handling his or her own individual application for deferred action. Self-assessment, however, has its pitfalls. Wouldn't it be preferable for that Dreamer candidate to engage experienced counsel for the benefit of his or her insights and expertise? Doesn't it seem important to review collateral issues such as taxes, use of social security numbers, and related factors that may need to be resolved? Moreover, wouldn't it be valuable for a Dreamer to know whether s/he might be eligible for other, additional immigration benefits? Wouldn't it be "worth it," given the impact on a Dreamer's future.

    Most knowledgeable, responsible and ethical immigration attorneys would balk at the notion of providing anything less than a comprehensive consultation to examine all aspects of a Dreamer candidate's background, and current status, as well as possible eligibility for any and all benefits under the INA. Although the deferred action program provides a temporary status, a potential Dreamer also may be able to demonstrate eligibility for a status of a more permanent or enduring nature. These circumstances warrant a full and complete legal consultation. In fact, early accounts indicate that Dreamer consultations with expert immigration counsel have resulted in the identification of the candidates' eligibility for U, T, and other visas, and even include a case in which U.S. citizenship was determined to exist!

    As Mssrs. Durbin and Velasquez emphasize in their video, there are "narrow" requirements that accompany the deferred action program and not every student will qualify. It would be naive to assume the deferred action adjudication process will be wholly benevolent and forgiving, or to ignore DHS's track record in other discretionary programs, particularly given the outspoken opposition from representatives of some employees within the agency. This reality underscores the need for involvement at the outset of expert immigration counsel with proven experience evaluating eligibility, establishing qualifications, and documenting applications to satisfy evidentiary standards that will be subject to close scrutiny.

    In my view, every individual Dreamer intending to make contact with USCIS and apply for deferred action should consult with an expert immigration lawyer for an overall status and eligibility assessment, as well as an evaluation of where s/he stands at present in relation to his/her goals. The potential issues are serious and consequences can be long lasting. The value that experienced immigration counsel brings to a lawyer-client relationship with a Dreamer candidate more than supports payment of appropriate legal fees for services that may be rendered, and indeed, can prove to be priceless. Now, did someone mention lawyers and notarios in the same breath?

    About The Author

    Lory Rosenberg is a former member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Presently, Ms. Rosenberg is a consultant, collaborator and coach at IDEAS CONSULTATION and COACHING, LLC

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM