So I've gotten a bit too emotionally involved with a provider (hey, it happens) and now I am worried about how much trouble she has gotten herself into. This is in So. Calif. She was busted, for the third time I believe, for prostitution. She hadn't even completed her community service from the last bust.
Now, here is the wild card. Though she grew up in the U.S. she was not born here and her folks never thought it important to get her U.S. Citizenship (they are both citizens). Her green card has expired and she hasn't had the paperwork to get it renewed. So...
How much time could she do and what are the odds of her being sent back to an Asian country that she never really lived in, knows no one and doesn't speak the language? Wish I didn't care so much and could just walk away. Thanks.
Is that the one you are referring to? If so, it does not have expiration date once it's issued by INS. It seems to me that she has not yet have all her info disclosed to you. There is more to her story but nowaday our goverment is "fighting" terrorism and protect the citizen of this country, so let me suggest for a lawyer to help her.
Holding a Green Card means you have permmanent residence and it does expire. You have to renew it after ten years of getting the card - there is an expiration date on the card. You also have to stay a law abiding citizen to get the green card renewed - so all green card holders stay safe and stay smart!
If the she was born here she is a citizen - babies get a social and birth cert. here. I dont get this one honestly.
It sounds as if she has a visa, not a green card. She needs an immigration attorney now. Ordinarily, a visitor cannot correct (renew) an expired visa here - the visitor must leave the country then reapply. The arrests, of course, just complicates things more.
she may already be a citizen by operation of law, depending on when her parents were natzed. Or, if she has a long term residence (cards expire, but residence doesn't) she may be defensible under 240A(a). Or, she may be dead meat, ESPECIALLY IF SHE DOESN'T GET A LAWYER ASAP!!
By green card (a term used for almost any alien document in So. Cal.) I mean a resident workers permit, I believe it's called. By long term residence, she does not have a recent continual residence, but attended grade school through high school in California, with a couple years in the middle overseas while father was stationed elsewhere (not her home country) in the Navy.
Is 240A(a) a Federal immigration code?
Yeah, she needs a lawyer pronto. I can't visit her until this weekend and will recommend any money earmarked for bail ($25,000) be used for an attorney.
If her parents were citizens at the time of her birth then she is a citizen regardless of where she was born. Since you say she has a work permit I presume her parents were naturalized later, but it is (barely) possible that someone made a mistake and issued the permit without realizing she is a citizen.
If your friend is indigent she can get a public defender. Most are competent, but they never have as much time for each case as they should. She'll probably be a lot better off with a private attorney, but if her only options are a P.D. or nobody then the P.D. is the way to go.
In addition to a criminal attorney she needs to consult with an immigration lawyer. Some criminal lawyers know quite a bit about immigration law since aliens make up a large fraction of criminal defendants, but most don't and some know just enough to be dangerous. A criminal lawyer who doesn't know what he's doing can arrange a result that would be great for a citizen but that needlessly gets the alien deported. Most prosecutors (or at least most of those who handle cases with alien defendants) DO know quite a bit about how immigration law and criminal law interract and many will try to lead uninformed defense counsel to make precisely this kind of mistake.
-- Modified on 10/4/2005 3:04:27 PM
Prostitution is one of the conduct based grounds for deportation or inadmissibility (See 8 U.S.C. 1182(a); 8 U.S.C. 1227). See an attorney ASAP.
Sidone, you discredit yourself when you make broad/general statements disparaging a large group of attorneys.
This can come into play several ways: the obvious one is because of specific listing in 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(D), BUT ALSO because the code sanctions "crimes of moral turpitude" separately, in several ways. The question is how the various provisions may cause problems based on her history or plans.
The whole mess is complicated by the fact that it doesn't come up nearly as often as it could (enforcement priorities), and also that there are often a variety of waivers available.
Men can get in the same trouble, it's just that they almost never do.
But some of the obvious posters (the ditzes who advertise their intention to naturalize) need these warnings tattooed on their palms.
I'm not sure why you think I disparaged a large group of attorneys.
I said, "Some criminal lawyers know quite a bit about immigration law since aliens make up a large fraction of criminal defendants, but most don't . . ." Saying that some know "quite a bit about immigration law" is obviously not disparaging. Saying that most DON'T know "quite a bit about immigration law" is also not disparaging, since all it says is that they are not experts in that field. My statement was objectively true but not disparaging of anyone.
I did not suggest that these criminal lawyers are incompetent at what they do; I merely said they are incompetent at what IMMIGRATION lawyers do. There's nothing wrong with this state of affairs; the reason we have immigration lawyers in the first place is that other lawyers don't know how to practice in this area. Most criminal defense lawyers also don't "know quite a bit" about tax law or corporate law even though criminal cases often implicate these fields.
Next I said that "some know just enough to be dangerous". This is also true, and I am familiar with more than a few cases which prove this point. "Some" does not imply "most"; it just implies "more than zero". Once again, this is an objective truth and not a broad generalization - let alone a false one.
Or did you mean my comment that "Most prosecutors (or at least most of those who handle cases with alien defendants) DO know quite a bit about how immigration law and criminal law interract and many will try to lead uninformed defense counsel to make precisely this kind of mistake." Saying that most prosecutors have this extra knowledge does not disparage them, and saying that "many" take advantage of their opponents' ignorance is also true. "Many", like "some", does not mean "most"; it means "a non-trivial fraction". Since the conduct I describe is legal and since prosecutors have no duty to help defense counsel get a better result for the defendant, I don't think this can be called disparaging either.
The only other possibility is that you were referring to the comment that most public defenders "are competent, but they never have as much time for each case as they should." Saying that most P.D.s are competent is the opposite of disparaging them, and saying that they don't have enough time for their clients is a factual statement about the workloads they are forced to carry and not about their own abilities or work habits.
The only group I disparaged was the group of defense lawyers who know just enough immigration law to be dangerous. I see nothing wrong with disparaging them - at least the ones who act as if they are immigration experts but harm their clients in ways a real expert would have avoided.
-- Modified on 10/4/2005 8:26:01 PM
"but if her only options are a P.D. or nobody then the P.D. is the way to go."
way overworked, and therefore doesn't have the time to put on a case that is often needed.
I think that's what sid said, and I think it's less disparaging than just a sad observation.
That's exactly what I said. Pointing out that PDs are forced to handle more cases than any attorney could thoroughly defend does not mean they are bad lawyers. It means they are prevented from doing their jobs as well as they could. But having an attorney who can only give you a limited amount of time is better than not having one at all.
even assuming you were sure of all the facts - and I will bet SHE isn't sure of all of them - the possibilities are enough for several bar exams.
Yes, INA 240A(a) corresponds to 8 USC 1229b(a).
VERY IMPORTANT that the criminal and immigration lawyers work together from the beginning.
"By green card (a term used for almost any alien document in So. Cal.) I mean a resident workers permit, I believe it's called. By long term residence, she does not have a recent continual residence, but attended grade school through high school in California, with a couple years in the middle overseas while father was stationed elsewhere (not her home country) in the Navy.
Is 240A(a) a Federal immigration code?
Yeah, she needs a lawyer pronto. I can't visit her until this weekend and will recommend any money earmarked for bail ($25,000) be used for an attorney."
She's pretty much a goner. Expired work permit and 3 prostitution arrests (convictions?) mean her chances of being deported are almost 100%. Don't pay her bail as she is almost guaranteed to skip on you. Have her speak with an immigration attorney.
...AND a probation violation case from her previous bust, which means she'll certainly do time (three's the charm), and if they run an immigration check, they'll probably put an INS hold on her. So the odds of her being sent back are quite good. She needs to get lawyered up PRONTO.
The last time I talked to her she was believed that if she got married to a citizen (not me!) the whole immigration situation would be taken care of. I told her that I thought INS looked very closely at those situations and wasn't sure that it would work. Is this just a commonly held misconception? Or is it a real solution?
marriages to a USC, ESPECIALLY by someone with 3 prostitution convictions, is going to get the microscopic review; and if she is denied, that's YET ANOTHER ground of deportability. Entirely apart from the fact that judges hate people who try to con the system.
Besides, you said she had a green card, and it sounds likely. Marriage to a USC by an LPR proves nothing.
She needs to stop dreaming and GET A LAWYER!!
She is wrong. They will look very closely at her situation and her convictions, if any will certainly invalidate any residency by marriage claims.
these days, virtually everybody who is booked gets their status checked, and if they are a forn natl, legal or not, there WILL be a hold.
by an attorney inadvertantly doing more harm than good? I went on line an looked at the charges. She has 4, 2 involving prostitution and 1 involving interferring with an officer and/or resisting arrest and 1 involving trespass. A PD may normally plead for whatever will get the least amount of time, which may be the prostitution/disturbing the peace. But because of the "moral turpitude" (sic?) issue re immigration it may be better to plead on the resisting and or trespass, even with a longer term, to avoid that issue. Or, I may not know my ass from a hole in the ground.
In general that's what I had in mind, though I'm not sure about the particulars of your hypo.
Keep in mind that the PD doesn't get to decide what she pleads to; he and the DA have to reach an agreement and the court has to accept it. The DA might offer a deal that looks good but which would make her ineligible to stay here. It might even make her ineligible to return for a long time. If she doesn't know that then she might take the deal. But if she knows what the deal entails she might decide she's better off taking her chances at trial.
She got out before I could see her. She was not involved in any prostitution herself (this time) only acting as a lookout. She pled to being the lookout and interferring with an officer and was given time served. She doesn't seem to share my sense of urgency in dealing with her INS problems and is the sort of person that just waits for things to happen to her. I'm afraid CuriousGeorge is right. I do care for her and have a great time just hanging out with her, but this all appears to have more impact on me emotionally than it does on her.
There are no INS problems that she could reasonably deal with now that she has 4 convictions. Sorry but that's just the way it is and I think she knows it. She got very lucky they didn't run a check on her status or she'd be in federal detention awaiting deportation hearings now. She's just going to have to fly under the radar if she wants to stay here. If she goes to the INS she'll be held - 100% guarantee.
The facts I have are the same you have - 4 convictions for a non-US citizen who has an expired resident visa. Hastla la vista baby (or T'zaichen if she's Chinese). If she goes to the INS based on those facts she'll be held - and that IS 100% true.
Unfortunately for her she can't even try and get a fake identity and apply for political asylum because her fingerprints are already on file due to her arrests/convictions.
-- Modified on 10/14/2005 6:45:37 PM
(1) We don't know what the convictions were for, or when. The code section and date of arrest is often critical.
(2) We can't be sure of her status. The limited facts suggest that she is most likely a green card holder (resident status does not expire of itself, even if the document does); but we don't have the facts to be sure she is neither a US citizen by derivation, nor an overstayed non-immigrant.
Number of convictions does not matter as much as nature of conviction (to include code section) does. You can have any number of DUIs, or some other misdemeanors, and not be deportable. OTOH, a 40 year old diverted or expunged possession for sale or cultivation of any measurable amount of MJ still makes you an "aggravated felon".
Nor is it a good idea for anybody to think they can BS the system with a phony ID or political asylum. These guys may not be geniuses, but remember, this is what they do for a living, every working day of the year; and anybody who thinks they'll going to get over on them first time out of the box, is high.
You might guess I've been all those places, done all that, and worn out many T-shirts. Moral of the story is (1) if you're in trouble, get a good lawyer, and (2) you can't care about something more than she does.
My point is that I am basing my reply on the facts we were given - 4 convictions and an expired entry here. If she turns herself in to ICE/INS that is a 100% guarantee hold and deportation hearing. Read my message carefully this time before you reply again please.
(1) Permanent resident status does not expire. The documents do, but that is not ground for deportation. It can be voided or abandoned, but only conditional resident status expires. Neither of those is a visa status.
(2) Entries do not expire; only status does. The code used to define entry as unrestrained physical presence in US territory until the concept was abandoned by the reform act of 1996, in favor of a concept of admission.
(3) There is nothing excluding the possibility that she was an LPR whose parents naturalized at a time that would make her a US citizen by derivation.
(4) It's also possible that she is an expired visa holder - we don't have the facts. Even if he specified facts, I would not trust his - or even her - intepretation without inspecting the documents.
(5) Review 8 USC 1227(a), and note that the NATURE of conviction is generally determinative, and 2ndly the length of sentence, not the number of convictions. 4 prostitution convictions do not make her any more deportable than 2 do. Date of offense is more often important than number of convictions.
(7) In reviewing the code, you will see that prostitution is not a specific ground of deportability. You have to go to caselaw to find that prostitution is regarded as a crime of moral turpitude under 237(a)(2)(A).
(8) That is complicated by the fact that an LPR is still subject to inadmissibility, and if they travel abroad, may be inadmissible for EITHER prostitution specifically, OR conviction of a crime of moral turpitude; but inadmissibility is governed by 8 USC 1182(a).
(9) Again, I would not trust his - or her - interpretation without the court records. The average defendant, let alone defendants' boyfriend, cannot tell you what section they were convicted under, and that is DECISIVE.
(10) She WAS in police custody, and ICE did not pick her up. Usually, and especially in southern CA, ICE does check everybody that is booked; and it's most likely that they did check, and decided she was not deportable - ie, in status and no deportable conviction. But it's also possible they overlooked her.
(11) Don't take my word for any of this: read the code. Deportability is described in 1227(a). Understanding status is more complex, and you would do better to read a treatise.
(12) Remember of course that nothing on this board is specific legal advice, which only a lawyer is responsible for. In fact, the entire board is a fantasy, purely for our entertainment. Obviously, it takes more to entertain some of us than others [w]
-- Modified on 10/15/2005 7:25:03 PM
-- Modified on 10/15/2005 7:28:13 PM
I guess that you are of the opinion that if you fart enough then everyone else will leave the room. Good for you. Go fart yourself into oblivion. BOZO'd.
trouble without your making it worse.
DON'T suggest bogus political asylum or other applications, and make some effort to figure out what you're talking about before you barge in, OK?
Welcome to the real world Jack. Bogus asylum cases are one of the biggest forms of immigration fraud to date. Chinese immigrants come here by crossing the border so they don't get fingerprinted and then get fake papers here and apply for asylum. There has been a huge crackdown on this type of fraud for about 3 years now.
that would get her in trouble?
Can you substantiate anything you've said here?
no ICE hold? Did she tell you if they talked to her? Your description leaves her status wide open - might be anything from illegal to US citizen, and several options between.
And although she told you she had 2 priors, even a PD might have pleaded them down. So you never know until you're holding the papers.
I'm sure they didn't talk to her - she would have told me about it. She told me everything else. Frankly, I don't think she is real clear on what she has pled to in the past. She has told me several times she has no felonies on her record. I have also learned that, according to her, her mother is not a citizen, even though she was married to an American (?), and her step-father never adopted her. We have a difficult relationship - sometimes we talk a great deal, then we talk hardly at all. We are in the hardly at all stage right now.
(1) You can't trust her understanding of legal facts.
(2) If she wanted to be saved, she'd be doing something about it.
(3) You want to improve your relationship with this girl, ignore her and find another. Get another hobby, like triathalon or Russian literature. Next time she comes to you with a problem, turn her over your knee and get her attention 1st.
I can't disagree with any of this (except the triathlon - bad knee). It's fairly clear where this relationship is headed so I am putting minimal effort into it. A relationship with someone less than half your age is difficult enough, let alone with someone who is in this profession AND has all these other issues going on. Not that I have it all together myself. Jack, you said something that really hit me a few posts back - I can't care about something more than she does (or something to that effect). I've taken that to heart.
Thank you all for your insightful posts and the time you have taken to respond. I've been involved in the legal support industry for almost 20 years and I truly appreciate it when legal professionals take time out to lend a hand and show their humanity.
I'll let you know how this all turns out. Hopefully not in the form of wedding invites! (I'm really not that stupid!)
Listen to sidone...he's the only one giving you good advice (and free at that!)