U.S. SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS FEDERAL CONTROL OVER IMMIGRATION In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S._____(2012) (Decided June 25, 2012), the United States Supreme Court ruled on Arizona statute S.B. 1070. […]
A lawyer advising a non-citizen client in a criminal matter has an added duty: to advise the client of the immigration consequences, if any, of a criminal conviction. Failure to advise that results in a deportable consequence or some other immigration detriment, such as inability to naturalize or exclusion, could be the grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla that could result in the underlying conviction being reopened and vacated.
The US Supreme Court issues a landmark decision that could affect the reopening and reduction of criminal sentences if the alien was given poor advice or no advice on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. Notable is the concurrence (agreement) by Justices Alito and Roberts.
In the convoluted world of H-1B non-agricultural temporary worker processing, this case stood out as a good example of the seamier side of hiring foreign workers. In Castellanos-Contreras, et al […]
