Thread: Supreme Court Critical Immigration Issues

October 2nd, 2009
Critical Immigration Issues


When the Supreme Court convenes next week, their docket will include two cases that will have a significant impact on immigrants. The cases explore the intersection of the criminal justice system and immigration, and immigrants' access to federal court review. Both cases present the Supreme Court with opportunities to reaffirm that immigrants must be afforded fair process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The first case, Padilla v. Kentucky, set for October 13, will examine the important role that lawyers play in safeguarding the rights of immigrants. The Court will decide whether a criminal defense attorney has the obligation to provide foreign-born defendants with advice about what impact their criminal case will have on their immigration case. It will also decide whether defendants have a remedy when defense attorneys provide incorrect advice.

The second case, Kucana v. Holder, set for November 10, deals with immigrants' access to federal court review - review that provides necessary oversight of government decision-making in immigration cases. The case will decide whether circuit courts have jurisdiction over certain decisions (motions to reopen) by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

"Fundamental principles of fairness should compel the Court to rule in favor of Padilla and Kucana," said Beth Werlin, attorney at AILF's Legal Action Center. "Given the stakes, namely potential deportation and in some cases, permanent banishment from the U.S., the Supreme Court should carefully consider these cases and then reaffirm that immigrants are entitled to fair process."

An adverse decision in either case has the potential to reverse favorable decisions from other courts. This is a particularly acute concern in Kucana: the Seventh Circuit's decision conflicts with all the other federal courts of appeals' decisions that have considered whether motions to reopen are reviewable. The Supreme Court's decision will likely resolve the issue for all the federal courts.

http://www.hvpress.net/news/138/ARTICLE ... 10-02.html

The Court will decide whether a criminal defense attorney has the obligation to provide foreign-born defendants with advice about what impact their criminal case will have on their immigration case.

I don't think the criminal defense attorney has any expertise in immigration law. That should be the job of the defendant's immigration attorney.

Why is it that illegals seem to benefit by our laws but break our laws?

Originally Posted by vortex

The Court will decide whether a criminal defense attorney has the obligation to provide foreign-born defendants with advice about what impact their criminal case will have on their immigration case.

I don't think the criminal defense attorney has any expertise in immigration law. That should be the job of the defendant's immigration attorney.

I felt the same way vortex. It's like expecting your OBGYN to be a podiatrist on call. A specialist in criminal defense, should not have to deal with immigration law too, which is a civil case.

That foreign born defendant needs to hire an immigration attorney to explain it to him. I'm sure immigration attorney's brought this to the SCOUS and not defense attorneys. Also, the illegal alien is not before the immigration court, when he's defending a criminal case.

What are they trying to do? Create another loophole for illegal aliens to appeal their immigration cases and delay deportation? This is stupid... Well in the other court, with the other attorney, he didn't tell me...

I think they are asking too much of criminal defense attorneys.

Dixie

I think they should get no representation, anyone can ask just one question...Did you enter the United States illegally? if the answer is yes, it is simple you broke the LAW and there should be no further question needed, the answer is deport! plain and simple.

Now if you came on a visa and over stayed and their are extinuating circumstances, ( maybe in the hospital, on what you thought was your death bed) then look at the case, other wise deport!

We are talking about rights law breakers should not have!