Consequences of Padilla V. Kentucky

Annie Banerjee, an immigration lawyer based in the Houston area, offers insightful commentary about a crucial case involving a wronged Vietnam veteran.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, deciding that if an immigrant is wrongly advised by his criminal defense attorney about the immigration consequences of a crime that the pertinent information is prejudiced and cannot serve as grounds for automatic deportation. Padilla, a Vietnam veteran, had been a permanent resident for more than 40 years. He was charged with drug distribution charges in Kentucky and his criminal defense attorney had instructed him to plead guilty, and that such a pleading would have no immigration consequences. The state of Kentucky said that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence. The attorney was wrong, and Padilla was sent for deportation. The March 31, 2010, Supreme Court decision reverses the Kentucky court and also rejected the federal government’s position (which had been adopted by several courts) that a noncitizen is protected only from “affirmative misadvice” and not from a lawyer’s failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea.

Annie Banerjee, an immigration lawyer based in the Houston area, found this judgment particularly intriguing. “What is astonishing is that this conservative Supreme Court recognized that deportation laws are extremely harsh now. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation. Immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes, “Banerjee explained.

According to Banerjee, criminal defense lawyers have an affirmative duty to learn and advise clients about the immigration consequences of a crime.

This Supreme Court decision was applauded by the American Immigration Council.
“The right to counsel is at the inner core of our criminal justice system,” concluded Banerjee.

To learn more, visit Visatous.com.

I-140 Equivalency Ins & Outs

Lottery-picked employment-based visas go like hotcakes and professional people striving to come to America can easily be left out. But then there’s the Second Preference, albeit with some caveats.

Ever heard of the I-140 Educational and Work experience equivalency? Immigration is the only niche within the legal arena where quotas are still allowed. It is common knowledge that employment-based visas, such as the coveted H-1B, aren’t easily obtained by professionals wishing to immigrate to the United States from India and China. These are populous nations teeming with qualified professional people, and their national quotas get filled quickly resulting in lengthy wait times, especially for third preference visas. So it is only natural that everybody is striving for the Second Preference. Fine and dandy, but there are some caveats.
For instance, your experience must be post-degree and a pre-Petitioning Company. You say that you have experience in the same job at the petitioning company? This isn’t enough because if the employer is able to train the beneficiary, he’d prefer training an American – not you.

Oh, you have a Master’s Degree? If it’s not from the U.S., the problem of congruence can arise – as your Masters isn’t likely to match your Bachelors as a credential.

Did you know that evaluations are for advisory purposes only, and that the USCIS does not have to follow them? In the same vein, work experience can’t be substituted for years in a degree program – as the H-1B allows.

Recommendations by the Nebraska Service Center for Degree equivalency could also be pertinent.
If you do possess a U.S. master’s degree – if it’s in the field required, no additional documents would be required.

Your 4 year bachelor’s degree + 2 year master’s degree obtained in India with need to be “subbed” by degrees in the same or related fields to equal a U.S. master’s degree.

If you possess a 3 year bachelor’s degree + 1 year postgraduate diploma + 2 year master’s degree obtained in India, to become acceptable for educational preference you’ll require degrees in the same or similar field or a bachelor’s degree + one additional year of education, to measure up. If you have 5 years of progressive experience, this combination could be acceptable as a master’s degree equivalency.

Before selecting an immigration lawyer in Houston Texas, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at Visatous.com.