This blog post is Part 3 of our Mini-Series On Cancellation Of Removal for non-lawful permanent residents, an important component of our deportation defense services.

“Torn Apart,” blared the Riverside Press Enterprise. A front page story, the article described a family’s ordeal, whose mother was deported to her home country a few weeks earlier.

The woman, age 31, had lived in the United States since age 2. She was brought here by her parents, along with her brother, in 1979 with valid border crossing cards. The family was supposed to leave. Instead, they stayed.

Today, the woman is married to a U.S. citizen. She has four U.S. citizen children, three from a previous relationship. Her parents are U.S. citizens.

Before she was deported, she sought Cancellation of Removal. She lost at her immigration trial, and then lost an appeal.

The story is common to most immigrant communities across the nation.

This blog post is Part 2 of our Mini-Series On Cancellation Of Removal for non-lawful permanent residents, an important component of our deportation defense services.

In 1996, as part of the Illegal immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), Congress tightened the hardship formula in deportation court cases involving immigrants lacking legal authority to reside here.

The change, though creating a supposedly more rigorous standard of judicial review, did not eliminate that hardship factors must still be assessed under a totality of the circumstances test.

However, it did affect the permutation of direct and indirect hardship factors necessary for relief from removal.

This blog post is Part 1 of our Mini-Series On Cancellation Of Removal for non-lawful permanent residents, an important component of our deportation defense services.

Time and time again, immigrants facing deportation are baffled when I explain their family’s hardship may not be strong enough to win their Cancellation of Removal case.

“I’m the main breadwinner,” they explain. “If I’m not here, how will my wife be able to pay the house bills, feed my kids, and keep them clothed?”

“Isn’t this hardship?”

“Yes, it is,” I explain, “but for immigrants living here without permission, hardship under Cancellation of Removal means the worst of the worst situations.”

My client, an immigrant from China, had been summoned to an interview with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Prudence dictated hiring a certified translator to attend the appointment with us.

My client was only 30 – 40% fluent in English. I know 0% Chinese.

Back in my days as a political science professor, I would point out how candidates scapegoat politically powerless individuals for self gain.

Like undocumented immigrants.

Since they cannot vote, their ability to fight back is nearly non-existent.

Prior to April 1, 1997, Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(c) provided a waiver for certain lawful permanent residents who were rendered deportable by a criminal conviction.

But on that day, the constitutional promise of immigration due process dimmed, and deportation defense died.

Almost.

Left in a coma-like state by Newt Gingrich and his Congressional cronies, the concept of fairness in immigration law became a political farce, if not a national tragedy.

The implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsbility Act (IIRAIRA), as noted in Newt Gingrich: The Grinch Who Stole Immigration Reform, was intended to eliminate nearly every avenue of legalization for immigrants.

At the time, I was an immigration lawyer in Escondido. I knew we had officially entered the dark ages of immigration law. There was no turning back. The gauntlet had been thrown down. It was fight or flight time.

Among the casualties, section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Newt Gingrich as the new savior of immigration?

Bah! Humbug!

When the idea of a deportation review panel was initially floated, I was skeptical it would get off the ground.

Now, given recent information shared by Janet Napolitano, DHS Secretary, in testimony before Congress, I think something resembling review panels will be implemented.

Otherwise, Obama risks further alienating immigration reform advocates at a time when his need for their electoral support is growing.

However, as a Riverside immigration attorney, I still doubt the panel will live up to its advance billing.

The immigration judge was not in a good mood.

Before my client’s removal hearing began, the judge scolded the government attorney.

As a deportation defense lawyer, it was clear the Immigration and Customs Enforcement war on immigrants was causing administrative problems for the immigration court.

“I am putting you on notice,” noted the judge, “that I am closing my courtroom down at 11:30 sharp.”