Monthly Archives: May 2014

When Lawyers for the Other Side Reveal Your Immigration Status

briefcaseLawyers tend to take very seriously their duty to keep their own client’s confidential information — otherwise known as secrets — to themselves.

But guess what: They get a little fuzzier on the question of whether that duty extends to the clients on the other side of a case, for example in a divorce or other civil case, or in a criminal case.

And in a particularly ugly example of how this can play out, the State of Washington’s Latino/a Bar Association (LBAW) has been investigating cases of “immigration retaliation” — in which an attorney “harasses, coerces, or intimidates another person using that person’s actual or perceived immigration status.”

This comes from an article called, “The Unethical Use of Immigration Status in Civil Matters,” by M. Lorena Gonzales and Daniel Ford, in the March, 2014 issue of NYLawyer.

Put in starker terms, immigration retaliation encompasses actions like notifying immigration enforcement authorities that an undocumented person is expected to arrive at a certain courthouse on a certain date; or that a woman participating in the prosecution of a domestic violence case may have no legal status. (“May” being the operative term here — the article discusses cases where the U.S. authorities, after being “tipped off,” wrongly detain the immigrant.)

Thankfully for immigrants in the State of Washington, the state bar association issued a formal ethics opinion several years ago prohibiting lawyers from threatening to report someone to the immigration authorities in order to “gain an advantage in a civil matter.”

A fat lot of good that opinion seems to have done since then, but to drive the point home, the LBAW got the Washington State Supreme Court to issue a formal comment in 2013. That comment prohibits lawyers from making inquiries into or assertions about someone’s immigration status for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or obstruction of justice.

I wonder what’s going on in the other 49 states?

In the meantime, this is a good opportunity to remind immigrants and their counsel of the availability of the U visa, which can provide temporary lawful immigration status to non-citizens assisting law enforcement.

Justin Bieber’s Immigration Woes. Again. (Sorry.)

Demonstrating for Justin BieberJustin, please tell me you didn’t get into legal trouble again.

I say that not because I’m in a moralizing mood, and not because I’m worried about what kind of example you’re setting for your fresh-faced, adoring fans.

No, I say that for one, much simpler reason.

I thought I was done writing about whether your various run-ins with U.S. law enforcement make you, as a non-citizen visa holder, deportable. Intellectually and emotionally, I am over it.

But now readers are asking, “So, is he deportable this time? The LAPD are going after him for attempted robbery! How ‘bout it? ”

Alright, here goes.

Justin’s latest “oops” was apparently grabbing a woman’s cell phone in order to erase photos that he suspected she had taken of him. (‘Cause who wouldn’t want to snap photos of the Biebs?)

If that doesn’t sound like robbery to you, read Nolo editor Micah Schwartzach’s analysis, “Breaking Down Bieber’s Alleged Attempted Robbery.”

Noncitizens of the U.S. can be deported if they commit certain types of crimes, found in Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.). Although some crimes are named on that list, attempted robbery isn’t one of them (nor is regular robbery.)

However, his lawyers would also want to look at whether the robbery conviction (if it indeed happens, and depending on the details) meets any of the following criteria for deportability found in the I.N.A.:

  • a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed within five years ) after the date of U.S. admission and is punishable by a sentence of at least one year
  • one of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude that took place at any time after U.S. admission, where the two crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct, or
  • an aggravated felony committed at any time after U.S. admission.

As explained further in the links provided above, the short answer is that, once again, he’s probably not deportable. Unless, that is, he gets a one-year sentence for grabbing a cell phone. Stay tuned!

Wait, no, don’t stay tuned to hear it from me. That’s it. My last blog on Justin Bieber. I swear it.

California’s Missteps in Designing Drivers’ Licenses for the Undocumented

freewayNeed an example of the ambiguous, half-recognized place that undocumented persons hold in the U.S. today? Look no farther than reports of California officials’ recent efforts to come up with a design for a drivers’ license, to be available to undocumented residents of this state under the terms of a new law passed last year.

The designers were, in essence, tasked with creating a card that would be distinctly different from the drivers’ license carried by ordinary residents—which, in the absence of a national identity document, is often seen as the practical equivalent to a national identity document—but not a card that screams, “Illegal alien!” to anyone who might then be prompted toward discrimination and harassment.

The first try unfortunately failed to pass muster with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The feds deemed California’s card design, which had the code “DP” (for “driver’s privilege” rather than “driver’s license”) on the front, and the words “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes” on the back, to be too subtle. They want the latter wording moved to the front.

So, it’s back to the drawing board for the designers. I don’t envy them this task. They’re creating a card that represents layers of possible meaning, including, “I have an acknowledged place in this state, I have passed the driving exam, my rights have been recognized in other ways (such as that to attend public schools and be fairly treated by employers), but by the way, I don’t have lawful immigration status.”

Immigration reform, anyone?