Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

In light of the immigration law recently passed in Arizona, similar legislation has been proposed in other states and, unfortunately, Michigan will be no exception. House Representative Kim Meltzer announced on May 7, 2010 that she is in the process of drafting and will be introducing an immigration bill modeled after the Arizona law in the Michigan Legislature. Though the actual bill has not yet been introduced, Representative Meltzer has been speaking publicly about the contents of the fledgling bill.

In particular, the proposed bill would give Michigan law enforcement the authority to inquire about an individual's immigration status if they have been stopped for any lawful reason. The stopped individual can be questioned about and required to prove their lawful status on the spot. Any individual that cannot prove their lawful status risks being arrested. Interestingly, according to Representative Meltzer, a Michigan Driver's License would be acceptable proof of lawful status. This begs the question, will the inability to produce a Michigan Driver's License lead to the presumption that an individual is not lawfully in the United States?

Representative Meltzer has stated the bill would prevent law enforcement from solely considering race, color or national origin when questioning an individual about their immigration status. The exact language of the bill remains to be seen, but based on Representative Meltzer's comments race, color and national origin can be a consideration, just not the only consideration. If the bill is in fact drafted in such a fashion, it would essentially be giving law enforcement the ability to discriminate and racially profile. Regardless of the reasons, discriminatory conduct and racial profiling should never be tolerated, let alone legalized by the Legislature.

There are several immigration-related bills that have been introduced in the Michigan Legislature not patterned after the Arizona law, including one which was just passed into law. The new law requires employers that are servicing public contracts to verify the legal status of their workers. The new law also prevents cities and counties from enacting legislation that restrains local authorities enforcement of immigration-related laws, otherwise known as sanctuary ordinances. There are also bills pending in the Michigan Legislature that require heightened scrutiny and additional verification of the employment authorization of foreign national workers.

With each immigration law passed at the state level, the immigration system becomes more and more fractured at the national level. Michigan is not the first state, and it certainly will not be the last state, to try to address the national system's deficiencies through mis-guided policies at the state level. These state immigration laws are a clear indication of more to come and Congress would be wise to reform immigration at the national-level before each state takes it upon itself to enact its own immigration law.

Many permanent residents consider attaining a green card to be the final step in the immigration process. Most green cards are valid for 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely. Consequently, a surprisingly large number of permanent residents renew their green cards for decades and never naturalize or, in other words, become citizens of the United States. While it is true that the green card provides a foreign national with the ability to live and work permanently in the United States, there are a multitude of benefits conferred to U.S. Citizens for which green card holders are not eligible. All permanent residents should be aware of the advantages of U.S. Citizenship and make an informed decision about naturalization.

First, U.S. Citizenship is not a status that needs to be maintained or renewed and, barring the existence of any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining citizenship, cannot be revoked. Accordingly, U.S. Citizens can travel abroad for extended periods of time without the risk of abandoning their privileges to live and work in the U.S. A U.S. Citizen can even live permanently in another country and return to the U.S. as often or as little as they desire. A naturalized citizen can obtain a U.S. passport and avail themselves of the U.S. Government's assistance abroad. As U.S. Citizenship cannot be revoked except for fraud or misrepresentation, U.S. citizens are immune from deportation. While it is certainly not assumed that any foreign national would willfully or intentionally violate the law, if placed in such circumstances a green card holder would be deportable whereas a U.S. Citizen would not.

Continue reading "Why Is Citizenship Better Than A Green Card?" »

The American Bar Association recently released an executive summary on the findings of a study conducted to understand the current U.S. system for removal. It discribed the current system as "crisis." The study focused on the four governmental bodies that handle removal cases, namely the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. Not surprisingly, the report found that the four governmental bodies have actually contributed to the problems associated with the overwhelming number of removal cases and "are not doing as good a job as they should" in providing fair decision making and due process. To rectify these problems, the executive summary suggests a complete overhaul of the current removal system, but also provides scaled-back reforms that would require less political impetus to be realized.

With the goals of ensuring political independence and adjudicatory fairness, as well promoting greater efficiency and professionalism, the executive summary proposes three alternatives for revamping the system. The first option would be to create an independent Article I Court to replace the Immigration Courts and BIA. The trial function of the Immigration Courts and the appellate function of the BIA would both be handled by the Article I Court. The second approach would, similarly, eliminate the Immigration Courts and BIA, but replace them with an executive adjudicatory agency. The third, and final, proposal is considered the hybrid approach. The Immigration Courts and BIA would be replaced by an administrative agency that would handle trial-level cases and an Article I Court that would hear appeals. The executive summary ultimately concludes that the Article I Court is the best option, with the administrative agency being a close second. Despite the apparent advantages of the hybrid approach, the authors of executive summary do not endorse this method "since it is too complex and too costly relative to the other two options."

Acknowledging that overarching changes would take significant time to implement, if ever fully realized, the executive summary makes recommendations for smaller scale initiatives that could be undertaken to foster more immediate change. The suggestions, which would require the enactment of legislation, include:

• Requesting additional immigration judges;
• Permitting all eligible non-citizens to adjust to lawful permanent residence or eliminate bars to entry;
• Amending the definition of "aggravated felony" and eliminating retroactive application of such provisions;
• Curtailing the use of the administrative removal process by DHS and the use of expedited removal for non-citizens at the border or within the U.S.;
• Amending the definition of "crime involving moral turpitude";
• Eliminating or narrowing the mandatory detention provisions to persons who are clearly a risk;
• Restoring judicial review of discretionary decisions under an abuse-of-discretion standard;
• Permitting the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals to remand cases to the BIA for further fact finding;
• Extending the deadline for filing a petition for review of a BIA decision; and
• Establishing a right to representation in adversarial removal proceedings and for individuals in groups with special needs.

Given the current contentious political climate, reforms that can only be accomplished through legislation seem highly unlikely to come to fruition anytime soon. Alternatively, the governmental bodies should concentrate on implementing the proposed reforms that do not require legislative action. These reforms include:

• Increasing the use of prosecutorial discretion by DHS officers and attorneys and giving DHS attorneys greater control over removal proceedings;
• Requiring asylum claims arising in expedited removal proceedings be adjudicated by asylum officers;
• Reducing the use of detention and expanding alternatives to detention;
• Requiring more written and reasoned decisions from immigration judges and more written decisions from the BIA;
• Increasing training opportunities for immigration judges;
• Limiting the conduct of hearings by videoconference to procedural matters in which the non-citizen has given their consent;
• Increasing three-member panel review at the BIA;
• Permitting de novo review by the BIA of immigration judge factual findings and credibility determinations;
• Amending regulations to require BIA removal orders to contain notice of appeal rights; and
• Modifying and expanding the Legal Orientation Program to reach additional non-citizens needing legal assistance.

The executive summary's objectives are certainly honorable and commendable, but unfortunately not completely plausible given the current political climate in the U.S. The governmental bodies should, at the very least, work towards implementing the recommendations that do not require legislation. And, hopefully, they will continue to strive towards the larger reforms that are necessary to ensure independence, fairness, efficiency and professionalism in the adjudication of removal cases

Attorney Sam Shihab, co founder of the law firm of Shihab & Associates Co., LPA has teamed up with Attorney Cheryl Brikho a former partner & co-founder of Brikho & Kallabat to form Sam Shihab & Associates, LLC a boutique law firm with offices in Dublin, Ohio and Troy, Michigan. Combined, they offer over 30 years of experience in the area of Immigration Law.

Sam Shihab, Esq.

Mr. Sam Shihab offers 15 years of experience as an immigration counsel representing corporations, investors, families, and individuals in all aspects of U.S. immigration law. Mr. Shihab represent corporate clients in complex technology-related and multi-national transactions, and assist foreign scientists, engineers and information technology professionals in immigration law-related matters. He is listed in Strathmore's Who's Who.
Mr. Shihab received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering form The Ohio State University in 1984 and his Juris Doctorate in Law degree from Capital University in 1994. Mr. Shihab is member of the Ohio Bar Association and several US District Courts. He is admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio.

Cheryl Brikho, Esq.

Ms. Cheryl Brikho Offers 16 years of experience, with the last 15 years of which were exclusively dedicated to serving clients in the area of immigration law. She is an accomplished immigration attorney with a reputation for commitment and excellence. Ms. Brikho has successfully represented individuals as well as fortune 500 and smaller companies in all aspects of employment immigration law. Ms. Brikho has personally appeared in over 600 hearings and interviews and has successfully filed several thousand petitions and labor certifications before the USCIS, its predecessor agency the INS and the US Department of Labor.

Ms. Brikho received her Bachelors degree from the University of Michigan in 1990 and her Juris Doctorate in Law from the University Of Detroit School Of Law in 1993. Ms. Brikho is an active member of the Michigan Bar Association and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). She is member of the Michigan State Bar.

Offices and contact Information

Columbus Metro: 565 Metro Place South, Suite 100, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Phone 614-791-0500. Fax 614-791-7727

Detroit Metro: 100 West Big Beaver Road Suite 200, Troy, MI 48084. Phone 248-524-0700. Fax: 248-573-0450

Nationwide: 866-665-0001