Former ICE Attorney Pleads Guilty to Forging an Immigration Document
Former Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney, Jonathan Love, pleaded guilty after prosecutors said he forged a document to make it look like a Mexican immigrant who wanted to stay in the U.S. was ineligible to do so.
The immigrant, named Ignacio Lanuza, arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1996. He was caught by ICE in 2008 and the following year, married his girlfriend, a U.S. citizen.
While he was in ICE’s custody, Lanuza signed an I-826 form, which acknowledged that he was in the country illegally but that he had a right to appear before an immigration court. Based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen and the fact that he had been in the U.S. consistently for more than 10 years, Lanuza should have been eligible to stay in the U.S. legally.
But when Love took Lanuza’s case in 2009, he altered the I-826 form to make it look like Lanuza had not been in the U.S. for more than 10 years consistently. He changed dates and other information and forged Lanuza’s signature on another document.
Lanuza was deported based on the evidence presented by Love at his hearing. However, he was later allowed to come back after Love’s illegal conduct was discovered.
Love’s plea deal ensures that he will not be allowed to practice law for 10 years and requires him to pay $12,000 in restitution to Lanuza, spend 30 days in custody, and perform 100 hours of community service. He is also required to spend a year under supervision.
Love’s motives remain unknown.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jan/16/immigration-lawyer-pleads-guilty/
Recent Court Case Illustrates Barriers that Impede Immigrant Workers
Ganga Mantena is an Indian immigrant who legally arrived in the U.S. in 2000 on an H-1B visa. In 2003, Mantena changed employers and joined Vision Systems Group, Inc. (VSG). VSG obtained a new H-1B visa on Mantena’s behalf and agreed to sponsor her for a green card. As part of this process, VSG obtained an alien labor certification for Mantena in 2006. In 2007, Mantena filed an I-485 for an adjustment of status in order to obtain her green card. Her application was not reviewed for years, due to the large volume of employment-based permanent residency visa petitions for immigrants from India.
In 2009, Mantena decided to change employers. This was legal under the provisions of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, which allows individuals to change jobs or employers while preserving the validity of all documents filed on his/her behalf by the original petitioning employer. At the time, Mantena met all of the necessary criteria. Mantena notified USCIS in writing about her change of employment and she requested a continuation of her I-485 processing. Mantena’s new employer, CNC Consulting, Inc. also sent a letter to USCIS confirming that Mantena’s new position paralleled her previous one.
A year after Mantena left VSG, the president of VSG pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with an immigrant petition filed on behalf of a different VSG employee. Consequently, USCIS revoked all of the petitions filed by VSG on the grounds that all of them could be fraudulent.
On June 8, 2012, USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) Mantena’s I-140 petition to VSG. They explained in the NOIR that the information contained in the petition was considered unreliable because of VSG’s fraudulent activity. USCIS gave VSG 30 days to submit evidence in support of Mantena’s I-140 petition.
The NOIR was only sent to VSG. VSG, which Mantena’s alleges was no longer in business at the time, failed to notify Mantena or CNC of the NOIR. On October 19, 2012, USCIS revoked Mantena’s I-140 petition but Mantena was given no notice of the revocation. Because the approval of the I-140 petition filed on Mantena’s behalf by VSG was no longer valid, USCIS denied Mantena’s I-485 adjustment of status application. Only then did Mantena hear of the problems with her application.
Mantena filed multiple motions to have her I-485 denial reopened and reconsidered and the I-140 revocation reversed. USCIS denied her request on the grounds that a beneficiary of a visa petition is not an “affected party” for the petition and that Mantena, in her standing as a beneficiary, did not have the ability to reopen her case. USCIS maintained that because VSG was notified and they were the affected party, all notification requirements were met.
Shortly thereafter, Mantena filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York challenging USCIS’s revocation of her approved I-140 petition and the denial of her I-485 application. She asserted that these actions violated USCIS’s own regulations and deprived her of constitutional due process rights.
The court dismissed Mantena’s first claim on the grounds that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Regarding her second claim, the government moved for judgment on the pleadings and the court granted it.
Following this ruling, Mantena filed for an appeal. Both of her claims were validated by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who vacated the judgments of the district court.
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.