deportation

Trump Administration Considers the Expansion of Immigration Detention Centers

By Peek & Toland on April 6, 2017

The setting up and growth of immigrant detention centers was one of the most controversial parts of former president Barack Obama’s immigration policy.

His successor Donald Trump is considering an expansion of the centers.

In January, The Hill reported Trump’s transition team asked the Department of Homeland Security about the agency’s ability to expand the use of its immigrant detention centers.

The report was originally sourced from Reuters. It said the team requested a large dossier of immigration information including details of the aerial surveillance effort. This program was set up by Obama in 2010. The aerial surveillance was intended to apprehend drug trafficking and illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexican border. It was later discontinued by Obama.

Reuters reported the requests were made at a meeting on Dec. 5 between immigration officials and the transition team.

Immigrant detention centers may be expanded

The team was also reported to be seeking information about the feasibility of building a border wall.

Trump made the building of a border wall a centerpiece of his election campaign. He said he would make Mexico pays. He later suggested U.S. taxpayers would pay but he would force Mexico to reimburse them.

Mexico has consistently stated it will never finance a wall. Many prominent politicians said they are concerned about the cost.

The United States Has More than 180 Immigrant Detention Centers

The United States has as many as 180 immigrant detention centers, reports NOLO. Texas houses some of these facilities. Typically, they are in rural areas far away from cities.

There are government-run and private centers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lists 21 of its facilities in Texas.

The centers are controversial.  Typically, families are broken up with men and women being housed separately. Some centers have immigration courts and asylum offices inside their perimeters.

Detention Watch Network says the United States already has the largest immigrant detention center network in the world. It says in 2013, about 441,000 people were detained in a “sprawling system.”

ICE is required to maintain at least 34,000 detention beds at any one time. It relies on a network of county jails and private facilities, states Detention Watch Network.

The network’s Expose and Close report in 2012 listed alleged poor conditions at many of these facilities including inadequate access to medical care and legal counsel.

The controversy over indefinite detention in these facilities was challenged in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016. The case concerned mandatory bond hearings for immigrants facing deportation hearings.

As well as looking at data on immigration detention centers, Trump’s transition team demanded all executive orders and directives sent to immigration officials by the Obama administration.

On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country.

He softened his tone in December when he said he would immediately focus deportations on up to 3 million illegal immigrants with criminal records.

His timetable would necessitate an expansion of immigrant detention facilities in the United States.

This is a time of extreme uncertainty for undocumented immigrants. If you are facing detention and deportation, we can help you. Call our Austin immigration lawyers at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Immigration

Tagged with: ,

Court to Decide if “Crime of Violence” is Too Vague in Deportation Cases

By Peek & Toland on December 7, 2016

When an undocumented immigrant commits a crime of violence he or she faces deportation and loses possible recourse to fight it such as cancellation of removal or withholding of removal.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court is to look at the “crime of violence” definition amid concerns it’s an unconstitutionally vague term.

Recently, The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Lynch v. Dimaya. The justices will decide whether part of the definition of “crime of violence” is too vague and possibly unconstitutional following a hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit stated the deportation standard needs to be very clear.

Crime of violence definition to be ruled on by U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will look at the “crime of violence” definition

The justices pointed to the harsh consequences of deportation. They noted the relief that’s available in other criminal cases isn’t available in deportation cases.

The “crime of violence” definition is important in the context of the Immigration and Nationality Act. When an undocumented immigrant is found to be guilty of an “aggravated felony” he or she is deportable. The immigrant is deemed to be ineligible for relief from deportation. This relief usually takes the form of.

  1. 1 Withholding of removal – a special order issued by an immigration judge for an immigrant who would face a 50 percent or higher chance of persecution on return to their home country.
  2. Cancellation of removal for resident aliens who are convicted of certain offenses.

At Peek & Toland we help many undocumented immigrants in cancellation of removal proceedings in Texas. In some cases, these immigrants have been convicted of crimes.

Aggravated felonies include convictions for “a crime of violence.” They are defined as offenses which carry a term of at least one year in prison.

Defining a Crime of Violence

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines a crime of violence as follows.

“An offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

It’s not as straightforward as it seems. The nation’s highest court has stated the analysis of offenses to ascertain if they meet a standard should entail the “categorical” method. This means the judge considers the category of crime and decides whether it fits into the standard for a crime of violence.

The case of Lynch v. Dimaya concerned burglary. While a resident may face violence during burglary if the burglar is confronted, it’s a gray area. The immigration judge decided it was a crime of violence and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and said the crime of violence definition was unconstitutionally vague and could lead to inconsistencies.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now look at this definition further. If the crime of violence phrase is deemed too vague by the justices, it may end up in the hands of Congress to work out a more precise definition.

If you are in need of cancellation of removal or withholding of removal our Austin family immigration lawyers can help. Contact us here for a consultation.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Criminal Defense

Tagged with: , ,

Immigrant Who Used Fake SSN Wins Victory in Cancellation of Removal Case

By Peek & Toland on October 19, 2016

Cancellation of removal cases are seldom successful when an immigrant is convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.”

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals was incorrect in a recent ruling. It decided an undocumented immigrant wasn’t eligible for cancellation of removal because she used a fake Social Security number to work in the United States.

Undocumented immigrant wins cancellation of removal case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on the case of Arias v. Lynch in August.

The case concerned the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under this legislation, the attorney general has the discretion to cancel the pending removal of an undocumented immigrant from the country unless the immigrant has been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the attorney general has the discretion to cancel an undocumented immigrant’s removal. But there are exceptions. A key one is when the immigrant is convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude.”

The Seventh Circuit held the Board of Immigration Appeals was incorrect. The board concluded the law relating to fake SSI numbers involves moral turpitude in all instances and negated cancellation of removal.

The decision was not a complete victory for the undocumented immigrant. The 2-1 decision suggested an undocumented immigrant who used a fake SSI number to pay taxes and support his or her family. However, the case was sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration.

What is Cancellation of Removal?

Cancellation or removal is also called cancellation of deportation. Our Austin immigration attorneys write about it in more detail here.

There is a traditional form of cancellation of removal or deportation for a non-permanent resident or cancellation for an abused and a non-permanent immigrant.

Our attorneys have won many cancellation of removal cases. Our successes include the case of an undocumented immigrant arrested for assault. We were successful in securing cancellation of removal. In the case, we pointed out his wife, a U.S. citizen, was chronically ill and three children depended on him.

The term “moral turpitude” has been used loosely in the law and attempts to get a clear definition have failed.

However, the lack of clarity in the law means you should hire the services of an experienced Austin immigration attorney in cancellation of removal cases. Contact Peek & Toland here.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal

Tagged with: ,

Teen Immigrants from Central America are Targeted in Crackdown

By Peek & Toland on October 18, 2016

Teen immigrants from Central America are being targeted for crackdowns by the federal authorities. They are even being arrested when they are walking to school, according to media reports.

The teen immigrants recounted their ordeals to the 11Alive News station in Atlanta, Georgia. Our Austin cancellation of removal attorneys, are aware of similar stories across the country.

Teen immigrants from Central America face deportation

Operation Border Guardian is aimed at Central American immigrants who have just turned 18, 11Alive News reported. They came to the U.S. illegally as children and are now being lined up for possible deportation.

Although many of the teens live in the United States and go to school here, they face an uncertain future.

The report featured Pineda Chavez who recently turned 18 and faces the grim reality of being an undocumented immigrant living in the United States.

She was picked up in Atlanta and taken to a detention center in Irwin County, Georgia.

Teen Immigrants From Central America Face Deportation/h2>

The TV reporters spoke to Pastor Larry Campbell of Corners Church of Christ in Norcross, whose church has 14 Central American families who have teenagers facing possible deportation under Operation Border Guardian. They came to the United States as children.

The deportation of teens from Central America has provoked a furor among refugee advocates who point out many of these young people fled intimidation, gang warfare and violence at home. If you flee from persecution you can claim asylum. However, asylum applications must be filed within a year of entering the United States.

In an article on March 9, The New York Times reported more than 28,800 people from Central America who had been apprehended at the border were repatriated to their countries.

In January, federal authorities rounded up 120 migrants and targeted them for deportation, sparking anger from some Democratic lawmakers and refugee groups.

The New York Times reported many of these migrants were young children. Fewer than half of them were represented by lawyers in their asylum cases. Most of the migrants are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, three of the most dangerous countries in the world.

At Peek & Toland , we are concerned about the fates of these teen immigrants who are being held in detention camps only to be sent back to danger in their home countries.

If you need representation in an asylum case or cancellation of removal, please call us as soon as possible at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Immigration

Tagged with: ,

Nigerian Man Awaiting Deportation Sues Johnson County Jail

By Peek & Toland on August 24, 2016

A Nigerian national who was held in a Texas jail before being deported to his home country has filed a lawsuit against the facility operators, claiming authorities withheld treatment for his injuries.

The Dallas Morning News highlighted the disturbing case of the man from Justin who claimed he suffered bleeding ulcers and other medical problems when he was held in the Johnson County Jail.

Nigerian man sues Texas jail over treatment

As attorneys who help many immigrants fight against deportation in Texas, we were alarmed to read about the conditions Stephen Nwaogwugwu claimed he suffered at the jail.

The 56-year-old sued the operator of the Johnson County Jail. He was on probation for an obstruction of a roadway offense when he fell into the hands of the immigration authorities in January. He was deported to Nigeria.

The lawsuit stated Nwaogwugwu was suffering from no medical issues when he was incarcerated, but he subsequently developed ulcers and a condition called a rectal prolapse while he was being held in an immigration detention center at the Johnson County Jail. The center is run by a private company called LaSalle Southwest Corrections.

In the lawsuit that seeks $100,000 in damages, the Nigerian accused the jail of withholding medication and delaying treatment for his injuries. He said his condition deteriorated before he was deported to Nigeria in February where his condition was treated.

The Dallas Morning News report said Nwaogwugwu is married to a U.S. citizen.

Our Texas immigration attorneys regularly help permanent residents who face deportation being charged with a crime. See more details here.

Conditions at privately-run prisons have come under intense scrutiny over the last few months. Recently, a Mother Jones reporter went undercover at a privately-run jail in Louisiana.

If you are facing deportation, either as an undocumented migrant or a permanent resident, it’s important to get experienced legal representation as soon as possible. Our Austin-based immigration and criminal defense lawyers can help. Call us at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Jail Release

Tagged with: , ,

Undocumented Youth from Central America Face Deportation

By Peek & Toland on August 11, 2016

Some of the saddest stories of deportation we see as Texas immigration attorneys concern those young people who arrive from Central America in the hope of a better life in the US only to be subsequently deported.

The wave of young people from Central America is a relatively new phenomenon. In 2014, violence and an upsurge of gang activity in countries like El Salvador and Honduras led to a migration of thousands of young people.

Young people from Central America face deportation

In a report, Center for American Progress noted how by July 2014, more than 57,000 children had arrived in the United States. It was a figure that was twice as high as the number of kids who reached the border in 2013. Many of them were alone.

The report noted that most of the unaccompanied children and families had started their long and dangerous journeys in part of Central America dubbed the “Northern Triangle,” where a combination of soaring levels of violence, gang activity, and poor economic conditions prevail.

Recently, the Citizen-Times described the plight of Elmer Reynoso-Reynoso, a former student from Asheville in North Carolina who was held in the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia

The report said he arrived in the United States two years ago as an unaccompanied minor. As many as 2,000 young people from Central America arrived in North Carolina alone around the same time.

Although the authorities said there is no reason to think Reynoso-Reynoso is a threat to public safety, and he recently became a father, he was picked up for missing a court hearing and hit with an order for removal.

Like many other migrants, he is in limbo. The backlog that’s faced by the immigration courts means it can take years to process the young people. Minors who have relatives in the United States are reunited with family while they wait for a hearing. Others are placed in detention centers and other temporary accommodations.

In 2015, along as many as 33,700 unaccompanied young people from Central America were placed in the custody of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Thousands of young people pay large sums of money and face many dangers to come to the U.S. However, they believe the risks are worth taking. The Citizen-Times interviewed Fatima Aguilar, Reynoso-Reynoso’s girlfriend, who is the mother of his child.

She made the hazardous journey from El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor at the age of 14 in 2014, facing severe heat under a car seat.

She said there are many more opportunities for Central American migrants in the United States.

Our Texas immigration attorneys have recorded a number of successes in cancellation of removal cases for immigrants from Latin America. In many cases, these migrants have few resources and can’t speak English.

Our bilingual attorneys can help you through every stage of fighting deportation. We realize it seems daunting at first, but we take over the burden of fighting your case. Call us today for a consultation at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Immigration

Tagged with: , ,

Trump’s Plan to Deport 11 Million People Would Pose Logistical Challenges

By Peek & Toland on July 15, 2016

Donald J. Trump’s vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and to build a wall between the United States and Mexico is seldom out of the news. However, less attention has been paid to how the GOP nominee for President would achieve his aim.

In a recent article the New York Times, a news organization that has been critical of Trump, wrote he has “typically provided scant details” on how he would meet his aims and his policies on immigration fail to add up.

Although Trump has promised to provide more details about his immigration plans, major questions remain.

Donald Trump's immigration proposals are controversial

Trump has outlined a number of key immigration proposals that were noted on CNN, namely:

  1. The United States would build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.
  1. He would impose a nationwide system to verify workers’ legal status, increase the number of immigrations and customs enforcement agents threefold and put in place a tracking system to identify people who remain in the U.S. when their visas expire.
  1. He would reverse a U.S. law that gives American citizenship to any child born in the United States, regardless of whether the child’s parents are undocumented immigrants. Every year about four million children of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. become citizens because they are born here, states The Los Angeles Times.
  1. Trump would suspend the issuance of any new green cards, providing a pause for U.S. employers to hire from a “domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.”
  1. He would remove about 11 million undocumented immigrants, deporting them to their native countries.

The deportation plan would present a challenge on a monumental scale and be a radical immigration reform. Deportations in recent years have peaked at about 400,000 annually, and 11 million would be unprecedented. Experts have warned just finding the immigrants alone would be difficult, and police officers would have to demand proof of residency or citizenship during random stops or traffic stops. It’s a scenario that threatens the development of a police state, critics say.

Michael Chertoff, who oversaw an increase in immigration enforcement when he was a Secretary of Homeland Security under former President George W. Bush, told the New York Times it was impossible to envisage the deportation of 11 million people without the apparatus of a police state.

Large scale raids would probably be required and the Obama administration’s focus on deporting those who had committed crimes would likely be muddied.

The New York Times article raises the prospect of a mass internment camp building program. At present, there are about 34,000 beds. There would need to be as many as 300,000, it states.

There’s also the issue of the judicial backlog. Presently, there are 57 immigration courts that face backlogs of as long as two years for a hearing. The federal government would face opening up dozens of emergency courts and appointing hundreds of new judges.

These logistical hurdles just relate to the deportation plans. The funding and building of the wall would be another massive headache and Trump’s insistence that Mexico would pay for it appears to be less than credible.

Recently, an article in Business Insider warned that in addition to the incredible human costs related to the deportation plan, losing 11 million workers and potential employees could lead to the loss of billions of dollars from the U.S. economy.

If you or a loved one is facing deportation, it’s important to talk to an experienced Austin immigration attorney as soon as possible. Contact the attorneys at Peek & Toland , to help you better understand your options and start the process of securing legal status in the United States. Call us at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Immigration Reform

Tagged with: , , ,

More than 19,700 Convicted Criminal Immigrants Were Released in 2015

By Peek & Toland on July 1, 2016

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) released almost 20,000 undocumented criminal immigrants who had been convicted of offenses last year with Texas and California seeing the most releases.

An analysis of the figures by the Center for Immigration Studies stated ICE released 19,723 illegal immigrants with a criminal conviction. They had 64,197 convictions between them.

  • Thousands of criminal immigrants are released

Between 2013 and 2015, Texas and California released 10,000 to 30,000 undocumented immigrants with convictions, the analysis stated.

The Center for Immigration Studies pointed out more than 200 people convicted of murder were released and more than 900 people convicted of sex crimes.

The Center for Immigration Studies is known for its tough line on immigration. However, it’s worth noting that traffic offenses and DWIs accounted for 12,307 of the offenses committed by those released last year.

Media reports also referred to the difficulties the U.S. can face in deporting undocumented immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes.

CBS News reported how the U.S. repeatedly tried to deport Jean Jacques to Haiti after he served more than 10 years in a state prison for attempted murder and violations of parole. Haiti would not take him back.

He was released last year by ICE and killed a young woman from Connecticut six months later.

Although these kinds of tragedies are rare, they make headlines. Donald Trump, the Republican Presidential nominee, has pledged to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. The difficulties ICE has faced getting countries such as Haiti to accept people with convictions confirms how difficult these mass deportations could prove to be.

Sarah Saldana, the Director of ICE, provided written testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in April that revealed how more than 86,000 undocumented immigrants who were convicted of criminal offenses were released from FY 2013 to 2015.

ICE appears to have made some progress in reducing the number of releases. The number of illegal immigrant offenders released fell from 36,007 in 2013 to 30,558 in 2014. It was down by another 10,000 last year.

Reports revealed about half of the 19,700 people who were released in 2015 were set free on bond by immigration judges. ICE pointed out it has no control whatsoever over the decisions of U.S. immigration judges, while 2,000 releases were in compliance with a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court 15 years ago which places a six-month cap on the time immigrants can be held in detention in absence of special circumstances.

At Peek and Toland, PLLC, we specialize in fighting deportations in Texas. We also defend those who are accused of crimes by federal agencies.

If you are facing serious allegations or deportation, we can help. To find out more about how the vastly experienced lawyers at Peek & Toland can assist you and your case, contact us at today (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Criminal Defense

Tagged with: ,

Inaccurate Legal Advice over the Deportation Risks in Criminal Proceedings Can Be Challenged

By Peek & Toland on June 22, 2016

When non-U.S. citizens are convicted of crimes, they can face deportation or other immigration consequences if legal advice is suspect and their defense attorneys fail to alert them to the potential dire effects a guilty plea can have on their immigration status.

When this happens, their case can be reopened under a writ of Habeas Corpus. Our Austin criminal defense and immigration lawyers find ourselves dealing with a considerable number of these cases. If the defense attorney you hired failed to warn you of the probable immigration consequences of a conviction, your case could be reopened.

bad legal advice can result in your criminal case being reopened

It’s only applicable to non-citizens who were convicted after March 2010, the date when a landmark ruling was made.

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Padilla v. Kentucky, concerned the professional obligation lawyers have to alert their clients about the consequences for the immigration process that flow from pleading or being found guilty.

In the case that was decided on March 31 2010, Padilla, who was a lawful U.S. permanent resident more than four decades, faced deportation after pleading guilty to drug-distribution charges in Kentucky.

He later claimed that his attorney failed to advise him of the threat of deportation before he entered the plea. He said the lawyer told him he should not worry about deportation because he had lived in the United States for such a long time. Padilla said he would not have entered a guilty plea and would instead have gone to trial had he known about the deportation threat.

The Kentucky Supreme Court denied him post-conviction relief. The justices said the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a lawyer does not protect defendants from incorrect advice about deportation because removal from the country is merely a “collateral” consequence of a criminal conviction.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling of Kentucky’s highest court. The justices said deportation is a “drastic measure” rather than a collateral consequence, and because it’s now almost inevitable that a vast number of noncitizens will be deported if they commit a crime, accurate legal advice is more important than ever before.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority. He said lawyers must give accurate advice about the deportation consequences of criminal proceedings and this forms a part of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, in particular when the immigration law is “succinct, clear and explicit.”

The court found Padilla’s lawyer should have informed his client that a guilty plea carried a deportation risk. The fact he did not rendered him constitutionally deficient.

The U.S. Supreme Court said legal representation must fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and there must also be “a reasonable probability,” that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for the mistakes.

Habeas Corpus is a fundamental concept that underpins freedom in the western world. It goes back a long time before 2010. Its origins can be traced to Magna Carta signed by the English King John I in 1215, which provided that: “No man shall be arrested or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

It’s a mechanism our attorneys use in cases when immigrants have not been properly warned of the possible consequences of deportation for their future. It’s used to challenge the legality of imprisonment. It has also been used very successfully by our Austin criminal defense attorneys to re-open cases after March 2010 when defense counsel failed to properly warn a noncitizen of his or her risk of deportation or future inadmissibility to become a U.S. citizen.

As Texas-based criminal and family immigration attorneys, we do a lot of work in helping to prevent deportations. We are ideally positioned to help noncitizens who continue to receive inaccurate legal advice in criminal proceedings which can drastically impact their immigration status.

Our team is standing by to help you in this complex legal area. To find out more about your rights and how the seasoned lawyers at Peek & Toland can help you and your case, contact us at (512) 474-4445.

Posted in Immigration, Uncategorized

Tagged with: , , ,

Sheriff in Houston Backs Programs to Deport Illegal Immigrants

By Peek & Toland on May 23, 2016

Deportation is a harrowing process that can split families apart. Although deportations are less common now in Texas than a few years ago, one sheriff has incurred the anger of local activities by supporting jail programs that work with immigration officials to deport undocumented immigrants who are convicted of crimes.

Last month Breitbart reported how Ron Hickman, the sheriff of Harris County, is supporting the controversial program in the face of opposition.

Notwithstanding his cooperation with the program, Hickman met representatives of United We Dream, an anti-deportation group, last month.  Immigration lawyers and other members of the Houston community were also at the meeting.

Plans to deport undocumented inmates in Houston spark protest

The program in question is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program 287(g). Harris and Carrollton police departments are signed up in Texas.

The program allows law enforcement officers to identify inmates who are not lawfully in the country when they are in the Harris County jail. Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can then detain and possibly deport them on their release.

The Breitbart report said of about 120,000 inmates held annually in the Harris County penal system, 1,831 individuals were detained by ICE officials in 2015, representing about 1.5 percent of the jail’s population.  However, only 167 inmates who were detained in the jail on criminal charges were ultimately deported.

Houston Public Media reported that Harris will be reviewing the program in June.  Hickman pointed out at a recent meeting of the Harris County Commissioners that it is not a “high volume activity,” and an average of about nine people a month were deported from January of 2015 to September of the same year under the ICE program.

Deportations were rampant in the United States before President Obama announced his “deferred action” plans in 2012. An article in Fortune.com described how Obama earned himself the nickname of “deporter in chief” during his first term of office as he removed about 400,000 noncitizens every year — more than any administration in U.S. history. Read more on our website about deferred action.

Although mass deportations are less common than a few years ago, the existence of the 287 (g) program in Houston and elsewhere, demonstrates how targeting of inmates is still taking place.

If you or a loved one is facing possible deportation or any other immigration nightmare, you should consider contacting our experienced Texas deportation defense attorneys today at (512) 474-4445 or see our questions and answers about deportation.

Posted in Cancellation of Removal

Tagged with: , ,

How Can We Help You?

Our team is standing by to help. Call us at (512) 474-4445 or complete this form to send a message about your legal situation.