Tag: Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Categories
Updates

Facing Deportation: What Happens When a U.S. Citizen Spouse Denies Your Marriage?

Facing Deportation - When a U.S. Citizen Spouse Denies Your Marriage
Share this:

For marriages of less than 2 years involving a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen, the initial green card is issued with a two-year conditional period. Before these two years expire, the non-citizen spouse must file to remove these conditions to obtain a green card with a ten-year validity period. But what happens if the U.S. citizen spouse becomes uncooperative, despite the couple still living together? Worse, what if the USCIS denies the joint petition for removal of conditions, putting the non-citizen spouse at risk of deportation? Let’s delve into the case of Maria and John

Maria and John’s Story

Maria, a young college graduate, met John, a U.S. citizen, while working as a guest relations officer at a popular beach resort in the Philippines. Their relationship blossomed, leading John to file a fiancé visa for Maria upon his return to the United States. The visa petition was approved, and Maria traveled to the U.S. to be with John.

During her initial stay, Maria noticed alarming changes in John, who was 20 years her senior. He became increasingly forgetful, his behavior erratic, and his mood swings frequent. Despite these challenges, Maria remained a patient and loving wife. However, they lacked sufficient proof of marriage—no photos together, no joint documents, as they lived with John’s family and didn’t pay rent.

When USCIS called them for an interview to remove the conditions on Maria’s residency, they were interviewed separately. The immigration officer concluded that Maria had entered into a fraudulent marriage, denying the petition. Maria was shocked. Upon reviewing the USCIS decision mailed to her, she realized John had made inconsistent statements during the interview, including an admission that the marriage was solely for Maria to obtain a green card. Maria suspected John’s worsening memory lapses had caused him to forget critical details of their relationship.

Now facing deportation for alleged marriage fraud, what legal steps can Maria take?

Maria’s Deportation Proceedings

When a non-U.S. citizen faces removal due to a denied petition for removal of conditions, the burden of proof lies with USCIS to establish grounds for terminating the conditional resident status. For her defense, the applicant can present new, material, and relevant evidence that was not previously submitted during USCIS proceedings.

Given the lack of joint documents and photographs, Maria must provide testimonial evidence from individuals who can attest to the authenticity of their marriage. Financial and property arrangements vary among couples, and some may have better documentation than others. In Maria’s case, her joint tax returns were her only significant documents. She was advised to gather witnesses who could detail their marital relationship.

Importantly, Maria did not have the opportunity to present this evidence during the USCIS interview. Immigration court provides the ideal forum to present additional evidence to prove her marriage was entered into in good faith.

Besides testimonial evidence, Maria can demonstrate that John has been clinically diagnosed with dementia, explaining his inconsistent answers during the USCIS interview. This crucial evidence could have significantly impacted her case.

With the submission of testimonial evidence and John’s medical records, Maria successfully proved her case in court and retained her green card.

Options for Others in Similar Situations

For those not as fortunate as Maria, an immigration judge, with the assistance of legal counsel, may accept an INA Section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver if the charge for terminating conditional residency relates to marriage fraud.

This case highlights the importance of gathering substantial evidence and leveraging all available legal avenues to demonstrate the legitimacy of a marital relationship, even under challenging circumstances.

Categories
Updates

The “Johnson Memo”: ICE to Prioritize Enforcement

Share this:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tae Johnson released its ICE memorandum known as the “Johnson Memo” and laid out three priorities for enforcement:

  • national security,
  • border security and
  • public safety.

The new memo applies to every stage of enforcement, from deciding whether to arrest someone to deciding whether to deport them.

Presumed priorities are defined in the memo under these 3 categories.

For the third presumed priority under public safety, the individual must have been convicted of an aggravated felony or trigger the gang participation prong and must pose a threat to public safety. ICE officers are instructed to consider various factors before deciding to arrest or deport. These factors include: first, the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency of the criminal activity; and second, presence of mitigating factors, including, but not limited to:

  1. Personal and family circumstances;
  2. Health and medical factors;
  3. Ties to the Community;
  4. Evidence of rehabilitation; and
  5. Whether the individual has potential immigration relief available.

Prioritizing enforcement is a dramatic departure from the prior administration policy of deporting families who have lived for years in the United States, terrorizing immigrant communities and a reported increase in “collateral” arrests of individuals who were separated from their families.

The Johnson Memo is only an interim memo, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary will publish new rules for ICE officers, likely within 90 days. If you or any family member is at risk of removal or arrest, or has a final order of removal, it will be best to contact our office to determine if you fit the criteria for a presumed priority or not. Since this Memo does not completely take out ICE’s authority to apprehend, detain and remove individuals, one may want to have his or her case analyzed to determine whether it falls outside the presumed priority and if available reliefs are available.

Categories
Updates

Unauthorized Use of Social Security May Result in Removal

Share this:

Fernando entered the United States in 2010 without a valid visa. To be able to work in the United States, he used a social security number of another individual illegally. In 2015, he was convicted of the “use of an unauthorized social security number” in violation of federal law (42 USC 408(a)(7)(B). Later the Department of Homeland Security charged Fernando as being removable because his criminal conviction was considered as conviction of a crime against moral turpitude (CIMT). He was ordered removed by the Immigration Court as his cancellation of removal was denied. Fernando’s appeal to BIA was denied and on petition for review the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA decision.

In a similar case pending with the Supreme Court, the Pereida, a long time resident of the United States with U.S. citizen children was put in removal proceedings. He has an underlying case of unauthorized use of social security number but his criminal conviction was a misdemeanor state offense of criminal impersonation under the Nebraska criminal statute. The immigration court ordered him removed considering the conviction as a crime against moral turpitude. BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.  The case is still pending with the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard in October 2020 and no decision has yet been rendered.

Case to Case basis

While the two cases are similar in facts, the second case of Pereida was a state conviction while that of Fernando was clearly a federal crime. Legal arguments will be centered on whether the elements of the state crime corresponds to the federal offense listed on the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Conviction for unauthorized use of social security number is a crime against moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. But each case is different. The underlying offenses must be analyzed on whether they clearly fall under the federal offense grounds for removal. Also, legal counsels should be able to look into any post-convictions relief if they are available to lessen or erase the immigration consequences of the crime.

On President Biden’s first day of office, he issued an Executive Order revoking Trump’s 2017 Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior. Thus, ICE, USCIS and CBP released a Memorandum focusing only on removing individuals who are threats to national security, border security and public safety. Conviction of a crime against moral turpitude for unauthorized use of social security is a fraud offense and does not fall under these priorities. However, without clear directives from ICE, favorable discretion may or may not be exercised to not enforce removal of those with misdemeanor offenses and with strong family ties.

Pathway to Citizenship 

In the meantime, it would be best for those still waiting to avail of the “pathway to citizenship” to be good citizens and to stay away from engaging in unlawful activities to avoid complicating future immigration applications. Or better yet, to have your case assessed if you have criminal case history to determine possible legal options of obtaining permanent resident status or availing of future options to “pathway to citizenship.”

Categories
Updates

3 Categories of Immigrants Who Risk Being Stripped of U.S. Citizenship

Share this:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in June 2018 the establishment of a Denaturalization Task Force within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The new USCIS office will focus on investigating cases of naturalized U.S. citizens and determine whether they will be recommended for denaturalization.

From among the 20 million naturalized U.S. citizens, who are at risk of being stripped of their U.S. Citizenship?

Denaturalization may be found in Section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are only certain legal basis to denaturalize an individual and this is initiated by the government through the federal district courts. In the past, it was seldom utilized except in extreme cases like in denaturalization of former Nazis who lied about their past who illegally procured naturalization.

In 2008, Operation Janus was launched by the Department of Homeland Security and identified 854 individuals who had prior removal order, criminal convictions who were able to naturalize. These individuals’ fingerprint records were missing from the centralized DHS database. Now the current administration is planning to refer 1,600 more cases to the Department of Justice for denaturalization.

Those who are most likely to be affected by the administration’s effort to strip U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens may be divided mainly into 3 categories. These are immigrants who procured their citizenship illegally because of the presence of:

  • Prior criminal conviction that was concealed: Those who concealed their criminal convictions on their naturalization applications and their criminal cases are grounds for removal may have their cases referred for naturalization. Note that criminal charges or convictions must have occurred before and during the naturalization process.
  • Prior removal cases and assumed identities: Ten (10) years ago, the U.S. government discovered hundreds of individuals who had prior deportation orders and who used different names in their green card and naturalization applications. These cases are now being investigated and may be re-opened for denaturalization.
  • Material fraud and misrepresentation. This refers to those who lied in obtaining their green cards through fraud and misrepresentation. The lie must have a relation to the eligibility for green card or naturalization to be a basis for denaturalization.

Once an immigrant is identified for investigation by USCIS for purposes of denaturalization, the matter will be referred to the Office of Immigration Litigation and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Thereafter, the case will be filed with the federal district court having jurisdiction over the residence of the immigrant being stripped of citizenship. When the case is filed with the court, the naturalized U.S. citizen may present evidence to avoid denaturalization. Note that this is a judicial process and only a federal judge may strip one of U.S. citizenship. There is a due process involved and a right to a hearing. If a citizen is denaturalized, most probably this individual will be put in removal proceedings. Whether or not he will be deported depends on available relief or waivers.

These days the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not the only agency in charge of immigration enforcement. The USCIS, with the creation of the Denaturalization Task Force, is now also involved indirectly in enforcement matters. Likewise, naturalized U.S. citizens must now realize that they no longer have a sense of permanence when it comes to their immigration status. If you believe that you fall into any of the categories of those who might be affected by this denaturalization effort of USCIS, it will be best to revisit and re-examine your naturalization application and have your case assessed by competent legal counsel. If there is a possibility of denaturalization, prepare yourself to defend yourself in the federal court and, in the worst case scenario, explore applicable waivers or defenses to avoid removal.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw)

Categories
Updates

Proposed Bills that Make Immigrant Families Vulnerable

Share this:

The year 2017 has been challenging for most immigrants. Many Filipino immigrants have been concerned with changes in federal policies and how it is affecting families and employment. The following developments have given reason for apprehensions about the future of U.S. immigration:

Attacking Family Immigration

A bill known as the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) ACT seeks to cut current legal immigration by at least 50%. The serious impact of this bill is in the big reduction of family member categories who can be petitioned, including the limitation of qualified family members only to minor children and spouse of the U.S. citizens. Under the RAISE proposal, parents, adult married or unmarried children and siblings of U.S. citizens petitions are no longer relatives who can be petitioned. In addition, the age of minor children will be reduced to those who are under the age of 18 (from the current 21). For millions of Filipinos who are beneficiaries of family petitions, this bill will be a disappointment for families who have been waiting decades for reunification with their family members. This is definitely a bill that will not bode well for family unification.

Merit-Based System

Without taking into account family unity and the needs of businesses, the RAISE Act proposes to eliminate the current employment system of immigration. It prioritizes skills over family unity by designating a point system for future immigration applicants.

Heightened Enforcement

In his first month in office, Trump released his Executive Order on Interior Enforcement where he ordered changes that now prioritizes enforcement. He ordered for a budget that hires more than 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents that may result in mass deportations. An enforcement only bill H.R. 2431 was introduced by a certain Rep. Labrado (R-ID) that dramatically expands immigration enforcement and criminalizes undocumented immigrants.

Fixing DACA

Young unauthorized immigrants are looking forward to legislation that will provide solution to their predicament given the termination of the DACA program in September of 2017. The DREAM Act was the bill that directly addressed this issue and provided for a permanent solution by granting conditional permanent status to DACA beneficiaries and allows them to become U.S. citizens in 5 years. Other bills like the SUCCEED Act also provided a permanent status but comes with restrictions. Under those bills, Dreamers will be prohibited from sponsoring their children and spouses in order to prevent chain migration. There were also provisions that compel Dreamers to sign away their rights to any immigration benefit or relief like immediate deportation without due process if they commit minor crimes such as driving without license or shoplifting.

All the above bills are contained in the White House Principles on immigration and obviously will have negative impact on many immigrants. The most disheartening proposals are the attacks on family….. the foundation of this nation and the policy behind our immigration law. Our community must continue to advocate for what is right and bring the message to our legislators in their home district this holiday season to support immigration bills that are humane and value family unity instead of forcing them apart.

I waited until December 22 to write about an immigration update hoping that I would bring the good news about a positive development on the DREAM Act. Those who are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals will have to wait until January 2018 to find out whether or not Congress will pass the DREAM Act which is the permanent fix to the DACA program for young undocumented immigrants. This holiday season will still be spent with uncertainty hanging over the future of DACA recipients. While this is a disappointment to many, I am still positive that with hopeful bipartisan support in Congress, there will be an opportunity for passage of the DREAM Act early 2018.

This Christmas, my wish is for more (not less) family unification; and, for the leaders of this country to realize the value of families and its contribution to the strength of our nation.

Merry Christmas to one and all!

Categories
Global Pinoy

Know Your Rights in Case of ICE Arrest

Share this:

At the recently concluded American Immigration Lawyers Association conference held at New Orleans, representatives from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated the lack of detention centers and beds. It was mentioned several times, that Trump’s policy on interior enforcement is being executed and they expect increase in apprehension.

If a non-U.S. citizen who is without legal status is arrested by ICE agent, what steps may be taken? What rights if any do they have at the time of arrest?

Below are the “Know Your Rights” information being disseminated by Immigration Legal Resource Center and certain non-profit organizations, which may be asserted if the inescapable ICE visit or arrest takes place.

You have the right to remain silent.

You can assert your fifth amendment right. You can refuse to speak to an ICE agent. Do not answer any questions, especially about your birth place, immigration status or how you entered the United States. Say that you want to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer.

You have the right to demand a warrant before letting anyone into your home.

The ICE agent may not enter your home without a warrant. You do not have to give permission for him to enter. It is okay not to open your door unless the agent shows you the warrant. If the warrant is presented to you, ask the agent to slip it under the door or through the window. Make sure it is signed by a judge with your correct name, address and date of birth.

You have the right to speak to a lawyer and the right to make a phone call.

It is important to have your attorney’s phone number handy. You will be entitled to make a phone call. If you do not know your attorney’s number, call a trusted friend or relative to coordinate with your attorney.

You have the right to refuse to sign anything before you talk to a lawyer.

There will be some documents that will be presented to you for signing after you are apprehended and taken into custody. Do not sign anything. If you sign without understanding the nature of the document, it is possible that you are signing a waiver of your rights to a lawyer or to a hearing. And if you waive these rights, it may result in your immediate removal without a hearing.

You have the right to refuse to show any documents before speaking with a lawyer.

When you are visited by an ICE agent, you do not have to give permission to search any of your belongings unless there is a warrant. You can ask to speak with a lawyer before you submit any documentation. Each case of an unauthorized individual is distinct and all non-U.S. citizens must be vigilant about their rights. During these challenging times, a legal advice from a professional immigration attorney becomes indispensable to figure out what legal options may still be available.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco CA based immigration attorney at Tancinco Law Offices and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or at 1 888 930 0808 or at 1 415 397 0808.)

Categories
Updates

2 Filipinos spared from deportation due to PH war on drugs

Share this:

SAN FRANCISCO — Two Filipino immigrants, who served jail terms for drug offenses but were apprehended by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and placed on deportation proceedings, were recently granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because they are potential targets of President Rodrigo Duterte’s lethal war on drugs.

One immigrant was immediately released after an immigration judge’s CAT ruling while the other remains in custody pending the written decision of the judge that could withstand an impending appeal of ICE against the still detained convict.

The two grateful Filipinos living in San Francisco chose to remain unidentified. Both men have families, are indigents and in their mid-30s. They are green card holders who were represented for free by legal advocacy group for Asians in San Francisco.

Their lawyer, Kevin Lo, is a staff attorney in the Immigrant Rights Program of the Asian Law Caucus. Lo chanced upon the two men when he visited the San Francisco immigration detention center and realized that the two Filipinos needed representation, as most people in immigration detention are usually not legally aided enough.

Claims for protection

“In evaluating the cases of the two Filipinos clients, we learned about the situation in the Philippines with President Duterte’s drug war. And when we realized that they had claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, we decided to take their cases because we know the situation is pretty serious,” Lo shared.

“We decided to make the argument that drug addicts who are deported to the Philippines has a more then 50 percent chance to be added to government watch lists and subsequently killed,” Lo explained.

Asian Law Caucus sought the help of Vicente Rafael, professor of history in the University of Washington, specializing in Southeast Asian history. “Rafael became our source for the condition in the Philippines particularly the drug war being waged by President Duterte,” Lo said.

Rafael’s declaration together with another expert’s statement proved very helpful in securing the detainees’ protection from the judge.

“We [also] submitted a big stack of articles and pictures to show that in the Philippines drug convictions typically equal torture and death,” Lo explained. “If we haven’t been able to submit the country condition confirmation that intended to show that the government’s (drive against drug offenders) is true, the ruling may not have been granted and they could have been deported.”

Scheduled to testify again

Rafael is scheduled to testify by phone on another case, in Tacoma, Washington, largely along the same lines. Nearby Seattle was where an earlier case employing the CAT appeal protection lost.

Lo wants to make clear though that the CAT is usually the last thing that people try for because it doesn’t lead to any legal status; one can still be deported when conditions change. It is also not granted very often.

“For our clients, the judge said he won’t be deporting our clients. But once Duterte is no longer in power and the drug war is no longer happening, they can be deported. So, CAT is an acknowledgement that you are deportable, but for human rights reason, you are not going to be for now,” disclosed Lo.

He says its a form of relief that applies to other people in other countries with dangerous condition of human rights. “The Duterte situation is so extreme, so rare that the head of state will be so explicit and proud that he killed so many people that started back when he was mayor of Davao City.”

Unfair deportation system

Lo also stressed that the U.S. deportation system is so unfair because even if immigrant convicts spent only a few months in a U.S. prison, they are being deported even for drug crimes that are not serious.

“Current U.S. immigration law punishes drug crimes very heavily. It is kind of funny that we are criticizing Duterte for his war on drugs, while the U.S. war on drugs, although not be as bad, is pretty extreme too,” Lo lamented.

In the deportation process, ICE will request for travel documents from the Philippines and also will turn over a copy of the deportee’s criminal record. What that means is that the U.S. is explicitly telling the Philippines that the deportee is a drug abuser or trafficker. Under Duterte, it is very likely that the deportee will be added to the drug list.

Duterte supporter Atty. Arnedo S. Valera, a practicing immigration attorney, congratulated Lo and company for “creative legal representation” in finding a relief from deportation for these two Filipinos.

Legal aberration

However, he contended that “this ruling is a legal aberration and not the prevailing case law in almost all immigration courts in 50 States. For the last decade, based on specific and unique removal issues faced by Filipino immigrants, I have been successful in obtaining asylum alleging fear of even torture under the Aquino and Arroyo regimes.”

Most likely, these liberal rulings will be appealed by the government because the fact is, under the drug policy of the Duterte administration, drug addicts who surrender and are not engaged in selling drugs and other criminal activities are sent to rehabilitation centers for treatment and drug rehabilitation.”

Duterte critic and seasoned litigator Ted Laguatan says that the present Philippine government has developed a global reputation for being engaged in state-sponsored extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

“Numerous documented reports and graphic pictures of Filipinos brutally murdered by police elements and so called ‘vigilantes’ many of whom are also police elements dressed in civilians, have been published in international publications. More than 8,000 killed since President Rodrigo Duterte sat in office,” reasoned Laguatan.

Laguatan says that while government apologists continue to deny that these killings are state-sponsored, there are so many recorded footages of President Rodrigo Duterte delivering speeches urging the police to continue with these killings and assuring them of his protection.

‘Duterte behind the killings’

“Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that Duterte is behind these killings as the styles or modes of executions are the same as those used by the notorious Davao Death Squad reputedly headed by Duterte when he was Mayor of Davao City. Moreover, the more than 8,000 killings are self-evident. They would not have happened if Duterte were not President. As such, more Filipinos in removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be using the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) to prevent their removal,” Laguatan opined.

Another eminent immigration lawyer Lourdes Tancinco noted that with the current social political environment in the Philippines, the view of the outside world on the controversial war of drugs has an impact on the fate of Filipinos abroad.

“I am not surprised that it had reached the immigration courts involving Filipinos who are facing removal. It would not be difficult to find sufficient evidence for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act considering that substantial and factual information is available in regards to the increasing number of death of people involved in illegal drugs. The courts can rely on expert opinion or organizations like the UN Commission on Human Rights,” Tancinco said.

Tancinco noted that the challenge in employing CAT is proving whether the abuse is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or any person acting in an official capacity.

–

By Jun Nucum, via @inquirerdotnet

Categories
Updates

We’re now facing Trump’s harsh immigration policies

Share this:

After eight years of being accustomed to the Obama Administration’s compassionate and humanitarian immigration policies, we’re now witnessing a 180-degree. Enforcement of immigration law will soon be heightened not only against aliens with criminal convictions, but to practically all who are violators of immigration law, including those who have overstayed their visas and those who have committed acts that are considered misdemeanors.

The Executive Order signed on January 23, 2017 relate to border security, admission of refugees and immigration enforcement. Building a physical border wall that extends 2,000 miles along the border with Mexico will cost taxpayers billions. While President Trump says that Mexico will pay for the wall, the pronouncements of Mexico’s President show otherwise. How will this be feasible? Also with a provision in the Executive Order barring political asylum seekers, what will America do with those women and children escaping persecution?

More agents

On immigration enforcement, the hiring 10,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to arrest non-citizens who have violated immigration law, detain and remove undocumented immigrants already ordered removed in the past are also part of the Executive Order.

ICE together with CBP at the border will be turned into a deportation force with the power to remove any non-citizen without due process, who in the “judgment of the immigration officer” (not an immigration judge) is a risk to public safety or national security.

For the Filipino immigrant who has already fallen out of status, there is grave concern about this aggressive immigration enforcement. There is a marked distinction between former President Obama’s Executive Action and that of President Trump.

In former President Obama’s Memorandum on Prosecutorial Discretion, he categorized certain immigrants that should be subjected to removal. There is a list of priorities that were enumerated emphasizing that those with strong family ties in the U.S. are to be accorded deferred action and will be the last on the list of priorities for removal. ICE was instructed to prioritize those with serious criminal offenses, resulting in record high removal of immigrants with criminal offenses at the same time preserving family unity.

Broad range of targets

On the other hand, Trump’s Executive Order lists a broad range of individuals that are subject to enforcement. The list includes those who (1) have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; (3) have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (4) who have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a government agency; (5) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (5) Are subject to a final order of removal, but have not departed. There is no ranking or prioritizing in this list and no reprieve from removal is mentioned to those with strong family ties in the U.S.

The effectivity date of Trump’s Executive Orders is uncertain. It is possible that ICE is already immediately acting on it. A day after President Trump signed the Executive Order, a group of ICE Officers were spotted at a non profit child care center in San Francisco, to apprehend a criminal offender. The children and workers at the center were all taken aback and eventually the ICE officers left without arresting anyone. This is alarming considering that there is an existing 2011 ICE Memorandum instructing ICE officers to stay away from sensitive places like churches and schools.

Whether the presence of ICE officers in our cities will be a common sight in the coming days is horrifying to all of us not only to undocumented immigrants. But this is just the beginning. There are concrete steps we can take. We start by writing our legislators and urge them to oppose Trump’s immigration policies of indiscriminately prosecuting and removing immigrants. Legal challenges in court will be filed to attack the constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Actions. We stand in solidarity with all immigrants and stay firm with our principles and values that made America a strong nation of immigrants.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, tancinco.weareph.com/old, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1 888 930 0808 or 415 397 0808)