Thread: Mukasety sets limits on Immigrants Right to a Lawyer.

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration has decided that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey says in a 33-page decision that the Constitution does not entitle someone facing deportation to have his case reopened based upon shoddy work by a lawyer.

Mukasey says Justice Department officials do have the discretion to reopen such cases.

Immigrants rights groups say Mukasey's decision rejects decades of established legal practice. Mukasey's ruling comes less than two weeks before the Bush administration leaves office. Democrat Barack Obama takes the oath as president on Jan. 20.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/...VNMaBmeumyFz4D

These illegal aliens' rights groups need to be quiet. Deportation is a civil punishment, and the appeals process nowhere near the appeals process for criminal actions. We can only DREAM of criminal sanctions against the illegal aliens.

Seaturtle it is 7/04/1776 - 01/20/2009 as that is the date when Obama has the constitutional authority to surrender what is left of this country to the Mexican government, the drug cartels and the terrorists who will destroy it.



Mukasey's ruling will be overturned by Obama. Remember Obama supported SB-2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Amnesty, not Reform) with another of it's provisions which would have required taxpayers to cover the costs of immigration attorneys for illegal aliens fighting deportation, even those convicted of identity theft (which Obama wanted to legalize -another provision in that bill) and other crimes as rape, child molestation, assault, weapons charges and armed robbery if they weren't already granted amnesty also proposed in that disaster called a bill. The government has absolutely no respect for and is completely indifferent to the plight of suffering Americans who have lost jobs, had their identities stolen by illegal aliens or are victimized by those committing numerous other crimes with no legal right to be in this country.

SeaTurtle wrote:

These illegal aliens' rights groups need to be quiet. Deportation is a civil punishment

Personally, I don't view deportation as a punishment (it's an entitlement).

Attorney General Michael Mukasey says in a 33-page decision that the Constitution does not entitle someone facing deportation to have his case reopened based upon shoddy work by a lawyer.

There are alot of things that the Constitution DOES NOT ENTITLE ILLEGAL ALIENS to have, even though THEY THINK IT COVERS THEM TOO.

Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors


Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: January 8, 2009

The Bush administration has issued a ruling that illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to effective legal representation in deportation hearings, closing off one of the most common avenues for appealing deportation decisions.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Michael B. Mukasey

The ruling, by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, concerns three appeals by people ordered to be deported who said their cases had been hurt by mistakes by their lawyers. Mr. Mukasey wrote in an opinion released late Wednesday that “neither the Constitution nor any statutory or regulatory provision entitles an alien to a do-over if his initial removal proceeding is prejudiced by the mistakes of a privately retained lawyer.â€

Last-minute Bush administration immigration changes could affect California
By Matt O'Brien
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/08/2009 09:04:20 PM PST


SAN FRANCISCO — In its waning days, the Bush administration is ushering in last-minute immigration policy changes that could have a major effect on Bay Area courtrooms, workplaces and immigrant communities.

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey ruled this week that foreign nationals have no automatic right to a lawyer in deportation cases, overturning a common claim through which immigrants represented by incompetent lawyers could get another hearing before being deported.

"This has been entrenched in the law for such a very long time that people have grown to rely on it," said San Francisco immigration lawyer Karl Krooth. "That's perhaps the real tragedy here. I think there's been something very big taken away from the immigrant population."

The Department of Justice defended the move, saying it was rooted in Mukasey's interpretation of the Bill of Rights and was meant to standardize legal practices across the country.

"There is no right provided to aliens, illegal aliens, who are going before immigration judges for counsel," said department spokesman Charles Miller. "They can, of course, provide their own counsel."

Nadine Wettstein of the American Immigration Law Foundation called the move "a real power grab by the administration" that will have devastating effects on people who are already easy to victimize.

"It's very significant for a lot of people, especially for people in California, who had a problem with their prior lawyers," Wettstein said. "If the lawyer didn't do what the lawyer was supposed to do, this says they don't have any constitutional or legal right to complain."

Krooth said desperate immigrants who hire the most affordable, but sometimes inexperienced lawyers to help with immigration documents often do not find out until years later that they were poorly represented.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Associated Press that immigrants need to take responsibility in choosing an attorney. He also said the government has been trying to prevent lawyers from dragging out cases unnecessarily.

"The broad concept is completely valid. Deportation cases are not criminal proceedings, therefore nobody has a right to any kind of attorney — let alone a good one," said Krikorian, whose center seeks more restrictions on immigration.

Another federal immigration policy change, which takes effect two days before President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, was meant to streamline the hiring and housing of foreign guest workers for seasonal industries.

Growers and worker advocates in California's vast farm belt were unimpressed.

"It sets up a false pretense that the problem has been solved," said San Joaquin Valley farm industry advocate Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League. "The Bush administration is trying to get this thing out so that they did something."

Cunha said a minority of employers are pleased with the changes to the H-2 temporary worker visa program, but most of them are in places such as New England, Kentucky and Florida, which have no local workers to tap.

In contrast, California has an agricultural workforce of 400,000 people, the majority of whom are immigrants with questionable legal status, Cunha said. Rather than more cumbersome guest worker programs, Cunha said the country needs a way to recognize the critical immigrant workforce it already has by allowing a path to legal residency for undocumented farmworkers.

www.contracostatimes.com

[quote]In explaining his ruling, Mr. Mukasey said that the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer applied only in criminal cases and that deportation was a civil action. He wrote that the due process clause, part of the 5th and 14th Amendments, applied in criminal and civil proceedings but that the guarantee of due process applied only to actions of government and not to actions by private individuals like an immigrant’s lawyer.

“There is no constitutional right to counsel, and thus no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, in civil cases,â€

AG Mukasey: Aliens Have No Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
Joe Palazzolo
01-09-2009

Attorney General Michael Mukasey ruled Wednesday that aliens have no constitutional right to challenge the outcome of their deportation hearings based on their lawyers' mistakes.

Mukasey's 34-page opinion is binding on the nation's 53 immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which are overseen by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review.

The ruling dispenses with a 15-year-old precedent, established in Matter of Lozada, that allowed aliens to obtain a new hearing due to lawyer error. While aliens have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Lozada acknowledged their right to effective assistance under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The opinion does not rule out aliens succeeding on a claims of ineffective assistance, but it is expected to sharply reduce their chances. Immigration judges and the BIA will have complete discretion in assessing the claims, and the opinion raises the standard for prevailing under them. Aliens must show that their attorneys' failings were "egregious" and that they likely affected the outcome of the case.

"Although the Constitution and the immigration laws do not entitle an alien in removal proceedings to relief for his lawyer's mistakes, the Department of Justice may, as a matter of administrative grace, reopen removal proceedings where an alien shows that he was prejudiced by the actions of private counsel," Mukasey wrote.

Immigrants rights groups were sharply critical of the opinion. "There's been a long-standing constitutional right recognized by the agency to obtain a new hearing due to counsel error," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "The attorney general has no abruptly eliminated that constitutional right."

While aliens may still try to appeal the BIA decisions to the federal appellate courts, Gelernt says he expects most panels will adhere to Mukasey's ruling on constitutional grounds. The ACLU and other groups intend to lobby Congress and the incoming administration to scrap Mukasey's opinion, Gelernt said.

The attorney general signaled his intent to review the precedent in August, when he ordered the BIA to hand over three recent opinions that dealt with ineffective assistance claims.

Mukasey, in his opinion, noted that the legal landscape has changed since Lozada was decided in 1988. While several federal appellate courts, including the 1st, 2nd and 9th circuits, recognize either a statutory or constitutional right to effective assistance for aliens in removal proceedings, rulings from the 4th, 7th and 8th circuits have rejected the notion.

"I conclude, as have a growing number of federal courts, that the Constitution does not confer a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings," Mukasey wrote. "The reason is simple: Under Supreme Court precedent, there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under the Due Process Clause or any other provision where -- as here and as in most civil proceedings -- there is no constitutional right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, in the first place."

The core of the argument is that due process clause only guards against actions that can be attributed to the government. But aliens have no constitutional right to counsel, unlike criminal defendants, so the government is not responsible for the conduct of their privately retained lawyers.

More than a dozen organizations and individuals filed amicus briefs, opposing a rollback of Lozada, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Immigration Law Foundation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The groups argued that due process right to a full and fair hearing on the merits include a specific right to effective assistance.

www.law.com

Added one of the articles from above to the Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-3882--0-0.html