The Associated Press reports a federal judge ruled that American born children of undocumented Florida residents are entitled to in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore determined that charging students high out-of-state tuition rates simply because their parents are in the U.S. illegally violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by forcing those students to unfairly pay three times as much as Florida residents. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of several Florida students who were denied in-state tuition because they could not prove their parents were in the country illegally. Children of illegal immigrants have won similar challenges in states such as New Jersey, California, Colorado, and Florida. Last month in New Jersey, a state appeals court ruled that an American born student whose parents could not prove legal status was wrongly denied financial aid and, in Colorado, the attorney general issued an opinion in 2007 stating legal state residents were eligible for in-state tuition even if their parents were residing in the country illegally. "A U.S. citizen should be treated like a U.S. citizen no matter who their parents are," State Rep. Hazelle Rogers stated. The federal court's new ruling could give thousands of students greater access to an education.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2012/09/04/judge-rules-for-students-in-immigrant-tuition-suit

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/50121.htm

*****

Cristo Vive, a Christian Social Services company engaged in unlicensed immigration consulting, has agreed to a court order prohibiting the company from offering immigration services in exchange for money, advertising its services to clients, or assisting immigrants in any way with legal matters. The temporary injunction was ordered by the 53rd District Court of Texas until trial, September 9, 2012.

*****

The Tulsa World reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case involving a Tulsa immigrant. Two years ago, the court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense attorneys to inform non-citizen clients of possible immigration consequences when accepting a plea agreement. The court was silent on whether it could be applied in criminal cases adjudicated before the decision and lower courts have been split on the issue. Among legal briefs in support of retroactivity is the case of Jorge 'George' Aguilar, a Tulsa immigrant who lived as a legal resident after arriving from El Salvador as a 10-year old with his mother. In December 2003, Aguilar, 20, and two friends were arrested for burglarizing three Baptist churches, taking mostly electronics. In 2004, Aguilar pleaded guilty to two felony second-degree burglary charges and received a deferred sentence, meaning if he stayed out of trouble for five years and paid off the court-ordered fines and restitution, the charge would be expunged. He met all the conditions and his criminal record was cleared.

During that time, Aguilar became a member of the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, which he once burglarized. He earned a GED, found full-time employment and became a volunteer helping immigrants. He also began studies to become a youth minister, with a special interest in helping troubled kids. However, despite having a clean state record, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not recognize deferred sentences and expungements. Aguilar's guilty plea meant he could have his legal residency stripped and be deported and banished from the U.S. ICE sent a notice to Aguilar in 2009 for him to appear in immigration court for possible deportation. A prosecutor in an administrative court based in Dallas exercised discretion and terminated the case without prejudice in March 2010. However, a new prosecutor reversed that decision a month later. On February 14, 2011, an immigration judge ordered Aguilar be removed from the U.S. and he was held in custody until his deportation December 9th. Pastor Nick Garland and other church members have written letters to federal officials and lawmakers on Aguilar's behalf. Aguilar's motions to vacate the guilty plea have all been turned down. Immigration attorneys are uncertain how many cases would be affected by a Supreme Court decision in favor of retroactivity.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120909_11_A1_CUTLIN884283

*****

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that state officials filed a motion asking for a rehearing on provisions of Alabama's immigration law. Last month, a federal panel of judges from the court found provisions of the law unconstitutional, including one requiring schools to check the immigration status of students at time of enrollment. The panel of judges said the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; however, the state disagrees and is seeking a rehearing on the law. The school data provision requires students to provide documentation of their birth and if the child or parents do not provide such documentation, the student is counted unlawfully present. However, students would not be banned from public schools because of immigration status based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1982 case, Plyer v. Doe. In the case of the Alabama law, the 11th Circuit panel ruled that the provision created a 'calculated policy of expulsion, seeking to make the lives of unlawfully present aliens so difficult as to force them to retreat from the state.'

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120911/NEWS02/309100021/Alabama-asks-federal-court-rehearing-immigration-law-ruling

*****

ACLU reports that a coalition of civil rights groups has appealed a federal court decision that would allow a controversial provision of Arizona's anti-immigration law to go into effect. The provision, known as the "show-me-your-papers" provision, requires police to verify the citizenship or immigration status of people arrested, stopped or detained if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The appeal against the law was filed with the Ninth Circuit eight days after U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied a request to block the "show-me-your-papers" provision of the Arizona law. The coalition asked the Ninth Circuit to suspend the provision for the duration of the appeal. The coalition of civil rights groups involved includes the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, NILC, MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Asian American Justice Center and the NAACP.

http://www.aclu.org/defending-targets-discrimination/appeals-court-asked-block-show-me-your-papers-provision-arizona

*****

The American Immigration Council reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling that will allow immigration judges to exercise good judgment in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs) whose removal from the United States would cause extreme hardship to their families. The recipient of the recent court decision, Zaman Hanif, has resided in the U.S. for more than 25 years. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2009 after a criminal conviction that resulted in four month of incarceration. Hanif sought a waiver of inadmissibility on account of the hardship his removal would create for his wife, two elderly parents and U.S. citizen children. The decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that Hanif was ineligible to present evidence of hardship based on a 2010 decision in Matter of Koljenovic was reversed as the Third Circuit stated that it would not refer to the Board's interpretation as it was at odds with the clear meaning of the INA statute. The case involved a 1996 amendment to the INA that prevents immigration judges from considering evidence of hardship in LPR removal cases. For many LPRs facing removal, the ability to obtain such hardship waivers is the only way to avoid separation from their families in the U.S. In its legal opinion, the Council argued that the BIA ignored the plain language of the statute and, in light of the recent decision, calls for the overturning of the decision in Matter of Koljenovic.

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/american-immigration-council-applauds-ruling-allowing-immigration-judges-consider-e

*****

< Back | Index | Next >

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.