Miami Immigration Lawyers Blog

Deportation Defense is an area of Immigration Law which concentrates on defending a person from being deported from the United States. Revilla Law Firm and Miami immigration lawyer Antonio Revilla are dedicated to providing high-quality deportation defense before USCIS, the Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Federal District Courts, and the Federal Courts of Appeals.

Our goal is to keep you in the United States. There are various forms of relief that are available to those that the U.S. government seeks to keep out of the United States. To avoid deportation certain waivers can be used to accomplish this goal. If you are convicted of certain crimes such as crimes involving moral turpitude, even if they are aggravated felonies, or 30 grams or less of marijuana you may be eligible for a waiver under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"). A grant of this type of waiver will help you become a permanent resident or help keep your residency depending on the circumstances.

If you have a conviction for an aggravated felony which occurred before April 24, 1996, and before April 24, 1997, for certain crimes, you may be eligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Act. A grant of this waiver will result in preventing the loss of residency.

If you are a lawful permanent resident and you have a conviction for a crime that is not an aggravated felony you may be eligible for cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents. You must establish certain requirements under the Immigration Act. You should consult with a competent Immigration Attorney to see if you are eligible to apply for this form of relief before the Immigration Court.

If you are accused of committing fraud, including marriage fraud, by the U.S. government you may be eligible for a waiver under sections 212(i) or 237(a)(1)(h) under the Act.

If you are inadmissible based on a health-related ground you may be eligible for a waiver under section 212(g) of the Act. Once again a grant of this waiver will help you become a lawful permanent resident.

The requirements for each waiver vary, so they should be thoroughly examined through a consultation with a competent Immigration Attorney. Miami Immigration Lawyer Antonio Revilla handles asylum cases from all parts of the United States. To be eligible for asylum, past or future persecution based on political opinion, race, membership in a particular social group, including homosexuality, nationality, or other serious harm must be established. While an asylum application must be filed within one year of entering the U.S., there are extraordinary circumstances which excuse the failure to file within the deadline.

If you have been physically present in the United States for more than ten years and you have a spouse, parent, or child who is a lawful permanent resident or a United States citizen you may be eligible to apply for cancellation of removal for certain non-lawful permanent residents. It must be established that your removal from the U.S. will result in exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to your qualifying, immediate relatives. To apply for this form of relief you must be in removal proceedings. If the Immigration Judge grants your application you become a lawful permanent resident.

Decisions from the Immigration Court can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Certain decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals can be appealed to the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. Likewise, certain cases from the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Certain cases can be brought to the Federal District Courts such as Writs of Mandamus, where it is requested that a Court mandates that an entity such as the Department of Homeland Security take action on a particular case, or Writs of Habeas Corpus, where it is requested that an individual be released from unlawful detention.

Immigration Holds
Revilla Law Firm's unique combination of criminal defense and former U.S. immigration prosecutorial experience provides our clients with the ability to successfully lift Immigration Holds or Detainers. In many cases Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement will place a hold on an individual who has been arrested for a crime. The result is that this person cannot be released from jail even after placing a criminal bond. Often times this hold is illegal or improper because there is no conviction of the criminal charge.

A proposed Arizona-type bill was recently drafted for the state of Florida by Rep. William Snyder (R). The proposed Florida immigration law would parallel Arizona's controversial immigration law in that it will require police to check the legal status of individuals where reasonable suspicion exists regarding their status in this country.

However, this proposed bill will not apply to Canadians and Western Europeans, as these individuals will be excluded from providing proof of status due to a provision that allows for them to be presumed legal in the United States. In other words, only certain non-citizen individuals will be required to carry papers under this proposed legislation while Canadians and Western Europeans will be exempt.

According to Snyder, the provision for Canadians was included due to the vast amount of Canadians that spend their winters in Florida. "What we're doing there is trying to be sensitive to Canadians," Snyder said in a radio interview. "We have an enormous amount of Canadians wintering here in Florida. That language is comfort language."

It appears that under this legislation, what Snyder deems "comfort language" only applies to a select few. The provision would allow the police to assume legal status if the person has a Canadian passport or a passport from any visa waiver country, which typically apply to countries in Western Europe. This essentially means that only certain individuals, non-white hispanics for one, will be targeted under the law, a practice that lends itself to racial profiling, which is unconstitutional. Latino and immigration rights groups are strongly opposed to the bill.

The proposed bill is being supported by Rick Scott, the Florida Republican candidate for governor. As the mid-term elections are upon us, Miami Immigration Lawyer, Antonio Revilla, wants to encourage everyone to exercise your right to vote on November 2nd, as this law, if passed, will affect hundreds of thousands of individuals who are not protected under this legislation.

An individual may move to reopen or to reconsider a previous decision by filing a timely motion with an Immigration Judge or the BIA. A motion to reopen can be filed to introduce new or additional evidence that is material but was not available at the original hearing.

A motion to reconsider can be filed with the court to seek a reexamination of the decision based on alleged errors of law and facts. Unless an exception applies, a party may file only one motion to reopen and one motion to reconsider. With a few exceptions, a motion to reopen proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the final removal order, while a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the date of the final order.

An exception to the time and numerical limitations of filing a motion to reopen is a joint motion to reopen. A joint motion to reopen is a motion where the government and the respondent, through counsel, agree to move the court to reopen removal proceedings. This generally occurs when there is new evidence such as an approved family-based petition through marriage, which was not available prior to the issuance of an order of removal.

An in absentia order of removal is one that is entered when you are not present in court. A motion to reopen removal proceedings based on an in absentia order of removal may be successful when it can be shown that you did not receive the notice of hearing. The filing of a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order of removal based on a lack of notice serves as an automatic stay of your removal.

If you would like more information about Motions to Reopen, contact Revilla Law Firm today to schedule your Free Initial Consultation 305-858-2323.

Federal Judge Susan Bolton dismissed challenges to a civil rights lawsuit against Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law, enabling the case to proceed despite motions to dismiss filed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and other defendants.

The lawsuit, which questions the constitutionality of the Arizona law, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and nonprofit Friendly House, among other advocacy and labor groups. Additionally, the lawsuit charges racial discrimination and unlawful search and seizure, and had also sought an injunction against the immigration law. However, the Judge deemed the injunction moot, as there is a preliminary injunction already in effect pursuant to the Justice Department's lawsuit. The Justice Department had previously filed a lawsuit against the state, and the court issued a preliminary injunction on the more controversial provisions of the law, although some parts of the law are in effect.

For instance, the injunction restricts police from inquiring about immigration status or requiring papers. The injunction also prevents making it a crime for an undocumented individual to solicit, apply for or perform work, and further prohibits authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person if there's cause to believe they are in removal proceedings.

According to a recent report, there have been more illegal immigrants placed in removal proceedings under the Obama administration than in previous administrations. In fact, an October 6th press release generated by the Department of Home Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) reported that a record-breaking 392,000 undocumented immigrants were deported nationwide in fiscal year 2010.

The number of deportations marks a staggering 70% increase in removals from the previous administration. According to ICE, approximately 195,000 of the deported individuals were convicted criminals, a strategy that is part of the administration's effort to prioritize deporting criminal aliens who might pose a threat to public safety. The deportation of unauthorized immigrants with criminal backgrounds is being emphasized by DHS and ICE with strict law enforcement policies in an effort to fight crime and protect the safety of the American people.

As immigration issues become more contentious and the need for immigration reform becomes more crucial, many people do not realize that border security is not only stronger, but there are more people being placed in deportation proceedings than in the past. These facts are often understated, leaving many opposed to the concept of comprehensive immigration reform. Traditionally, DHS prioritizes their efforts in detaining criminal aliens; however, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that anybody with an order of removal is still fair game.

The rhetoric among anti-immigration reform politicians has been that they are willing to support some form of immigration reform if there is an increase in border security. The evident increase in border security should satisfy these politicians, along with those who are hesitant to support immigration reform. There is clearly an increase in security since the Obama administration has detained and deported more individuals than under previous administration. Unfortunately, our country still remains divided on the issue and each day more and more families are being torn apart.