San Francisco and San Jose Criminal Immigration Defense Lawyers
Returning Legal Permanent Residents with Prior Crimes: Avoiding Traps and Pitfalls
A recent client of ours, a resident of California's Central Valley
and 19 year U.S. legal permanent resident (LPR), was returning home via
Phoenix International Airport after attending his father's funeral in Mexico. At the Phoenix airport,
Customs Border Protection discovered that he had a nine-year old conviction
for simple possession of cocaine. CBP took him into custody, away from
his wife, child, construction job, and new home, and remanded him to the
Florence Immigration Detention Center outside of Phoenix. He was detained
without bond, and as an arriving alien
beyond the custody authority of the Immigration Judge, he could not be released, even though he clearly qualified for relief
from deportation, had an otherwise spotless criminal record, and had a
family at home who desperately needed him.
Our office succeeded in blocking his deportation and getting back his green
card. However, the months he spent incarcerated had plainly left its scars
on my client, his wife, and his young child.
Our client's situation is not uncommon. DHS is subjecting legal permanent
residents to an ever-tightening noose, with the goal of identifying, detaining,
and removing those non-citizens convicted of, or who are suspected to
have committed, crimes in the U.S. or abroad.
In addition to actively investigating certain priority criminal violators,
DHS has set up a series of passive "checkpoints" to identify
non-citizens with criminal backgrounds. For instance, LPRs are required
to submit to
biometrics when applying for
permanent residency, renewing an
expiring I-551 green card, applying for a re-entry permit for extended foreign travel, when applying to
remove the condition on permanent residency, or pursuing
naturalization. They are also subject to investigation as petitioners for family members
under the Adam Walsh Act, which
prohibits citizens and permanent residents convicted of certain sex offenses from
petitioning family members for an immigrant visa, but in the course of
DHS investigation, may also be found-out in connection with other offenses,
and thereby subject to possible removal.
As federal and state law enforcement agencies have in the last several
years effectively linked up their offender databases, these checkpoints
have become extremely effective at identifying LPRs with law enforcement
records, and at
mistakenly sweeping up immigrants who do not.
The most perilous checkpoint however for LPRs is the Customs and Border
Protection window at the U.S. airport or port of entry. Now, under
US Visit and the
DHS Northern Hemisphere Travel Initiative, returning LPRs must present their passports and I-551 green cards to
gain entry into the United States, as well as submit a fingerprint scan.
Now linked to the massive (and massively
inaccurate) federal-state law enforcement database, LPRs who previously came and
went in and out of the U.S. are now finding themselves being referred for
deferred inspection and even being referred for
removal and deportation proceedings, based on long ago arrests and convictions.
Practically all of our client who have faced this calamitous process had
no idea what they were in for when they decided to travel abroad temporarily
form the U.S. Many of these clients had long ago criminal issues that
they thought were completely resolved when they did their time in jail
and completed probation, or when their charges were dismissed. Most of
them had also travel abroad many times before without incident, and believed
their permanent residency to be in good standing. Once taken aside at
the airport, and told they were facing deportation from the U.S., these
clients are devastated to learn that they could lose everything they had
built up in the United States.
Returning LPRs however are not just vulnerable to trouble for criminal
convictions. DHS may also initiate a case for removal for crimes that
a CBP officer can get the LPR to confess to, whether actually committed
or not. Under INA s. 212(a)(2)(A)(i), any LPR who merely
admitsto having committed either a crime involving moral turpitude or an offense
relating to a controlled substance is subject to exclusion from the United
States and potential loss of permanent residency. In a recently publicized
DHS training article for CBP inspectors, DHS officers are instructed on how to intimidate and confuse returning
LPRs, under the difficult and fearsome circumstances of a CBP inspections
interrogation, into confessing crimes that they might have been arrested
for but subsequently cleared. To quote,
For example, an officer encounters an alien with an arrest for cocaine
possession but no conviction. He should not ask: "Have you ever knowingly
possessed a controlled substance?" Rather, he should assert: "I
see you've been involved with cocaine. Are you still dealing drugs?"
When confronted with the very serious offense of trafficking in cocaine,
many criminal drug users, will immediately deny this offense while equivocating
on the lesser offense of cocaine possession. Experience indicates that
if this individual actually was involved with cocaine, they will likely
admit to it if questioned properly.
Sounds straight forward, doesn't it? Get the LPR to admit to a crime
he committed, even if he wasn't convicted for it. And yet, the literature on
false confessions is already well established. And so are the punitive conditions faced
by arriving non-citizens at deferred inspections that tend to promote
baseless admissions. Clients have advised our firm that upon arriving
exhausted from lengthy travel, of being forced to wait hours, cooling
their heels, awaiting their CBP interrogator. While waiting, there is
often little or no food provided, restricted access to medication and
restrooms, denial of sleep, and no contact with family or an attorney
who might help.
Worse is the deception practiced by CBP officers. Clients have advised
us that they believed themselves compelled to agree with whatever the
CBP inspector asked, and of being threatened with deportation if they
refused to cooperate. And why cooperate? Based on what our clients have
told us, because of false promises that by going along with the CBP inspector,
they would be allowed to go back to their families, their homes, and their
jobs. I suppose that this is what is meant by proper questioning.
In the end, DHS will continue to innovate novel control methods for immigrants
in the United States. It's up to lawyers and advocates to defend our
clients' rights under these difficult and overreaching conditions,
and most importantly, to educate the immigrant community before trouble
strikes. For immigrants with criminal issues, the most important step
they can take to protect themselves is to consult with an attorney or
legal service organization on how best to navigate these checkpoints.
Often, immigrants can do quite a lot in preparation for these encounters
with DHS, first to mitigate the damage and preserve their permanent residency,
but also to keep alive the opportunity to eventually become United States citizens.