ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage


Immigration Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily August 11, 2004
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 9000+ readers

Editor's Comments

Tension Between House And Senate

Most people agree that immigration law needs reform, the devil lies in the details. The underlying institutional tension that exists between the House and Senate highlights the difficulty any immigration law reform intiative must overcome. Members of the Senate and the House are fundamentally different. Because of widespread gerrymandering by the States, the House of Representatives consists of members with extreme positions on both the left and the right. Chamber rules make it difficult for the minority in the House to influence House actions. Therefore, consensus on issues including immigration, is difficult in the House and such consensus is less necessary for the House to conduct business. Contrast this with the Senate, where the absence of gerrymandering results in members who tend to be more moderate, and thus better able to reach a consensus. Also, the Senate rules give even an individual Senator considerable influence over Senate actions, making consensus critical for conducting Senate business in an orderly way. Given that the Senate is more inclined to compromise and therefore not incidentally, pro-immigration, there exists an institutional tension between the Senate and the House (where anti-immigrationists often succeed in upsetting the legislative cart). The resulting institutitional House-Senate tension is what may have driven President Bush before 9/11 to consider a sweeping immigration agreement with Mexico through a treaty, which would have to be ratified by the Senate but which would bypass House approval. This institutional tension has received little press coverage but is nevertheless an essential factor to be borne in mind in the large-scale immigration reform that will likely follow the November elections.


Distinguished Panelists For Removal Seminar

"The Three Rs: Removal, Relief and Review" features a number of distinguished practioners, as follows:

Lory Rosenberg is the founder of IDEA Legal Consultations (c), and presently is the director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership at the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. She is a featured columnist for Bender's Immigration Bulletin and an adjunct professor at American University, Washington College of Law. Ms. Rosenberg served as an appellate immigration judge on the United States Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995-2002, reviewing over 15,000 appeals and personally authoring over 500 opinions. She is the co?author of Immigration Law and Crimes, and writes, teaches and trains on the immigration consequences of crime, right to counsel, fair hearings, waivers, removal defense, and asylum/refugee law. She was elected in 2004 as a director on the AILA Board of Governors, where she previously served from 1988-91. Ms. Rosenberg practiced before INS, EOIR and the federal courts for 18 years and was the first director of the AILF Legal Action Center. She has a bachelor of fine arts degree in television and film production from New York University, and received her law degree from Northeastern University School of Law. Her work is guided by a strong belief in due process and the rule of law.

Lisa Brodyaga graduated in 1974 from Catholic University School of Law, Washington, D.C., and spent a year there teaching legal research and writing. She also spent a brief period at Antioch School of Law, creating a program to help special admittees, who were having difficulty making the grade by the end of their first year, and then moved to California. After two years in a law collective in San Jose, she came to the Rio Grande Valley, Texas, in 1977. Since 1981, Lisa have been certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. At about that time, she became deeply involved with the work on behalf of the Central Americans, as a result of which, she co-founded Refugio Del Rio Grande, Inc., a non-profit, 501(c)(3) "refugee camp" on a 45 acre wilderness near San Benito, Texas, where she still serve as a volunteer attorney. Most of her current work is on behalf of lawful permanent residents, caught up in the web of the 1996 amendments. The bulk of her practice consists of litigating immigration cases in the federal courts, although she still represent a few refugees and other immigrants (and U.S. citizens), in administrative proceedings.

Harvey Kaplan received his J.D. at Boston University in 1974, and his B.A. at Clark University in 1968. He established his own law firm in 1977. Harvey united forces with Maureen O'Sullivan and Jeremiah Friedman to form KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN & FRIEDMAN in 1990. He has taught at Northeastern University School of Law from 1982 to the present time. He has also taught immigration law at Harvard Law School. Harvey has been named in "Best Lawyers in America" from 1991-present, and was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's (AILA) first Mentor Award in 1992. Harvey was also the recipient of the Third Annual Carol King Award from the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild for excellence in the practice of immigration law. Recently, he received along with Maureen O'Sullivan, AILA's 2002 Elmer Fried Award for excellence in teaching immigration law.

Michael Maggio is a nationally recognized authority on numerous complex areas of immigration law . He is past President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's (AILA) District of Columbia Chapter and Chief Legal Advisor to the Tahirih Justice Center (, as well as an adjunct professor of immigration law at American University's Washington College of Law for nine years. Mr. Maggio lectures and writes extensively, especially on waivers of inadmissibility and ethics. He has served as counsel on many significant cases decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Federal Courts, most notably, Filartiga v. Pena, the Alien Tort Act case that first established the now well- settled proposition that aliens may sue in U.S. courts for human rights violations abroad. Mr. Maggio was named last year by The Washingtonian Magazine as one of the "75 Best Lawyers in Washington", and "Washington's Best Immigration Lawyer." He has been listed in the book, The Best Lawyers in America every year since 1991. His firm, Maggio Kattar, represents individuals, corporations and other institutions worldwide.

Zachary Nightingale is a 1996 graduate of Stanford Law School, who received his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989, and a Masters degree in Mathematics from Stanford University in 1991. He has been with the firm since 1996. His practice focuses on deportation defense and federal court litigation, with an emphasis on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Mr. Nightingale was honored with the 2003 Jack Wasserman Memorial Award for excellence in litigation from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). He has spoken regularly at local and national conferences of AILA, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and was a member of AILA's 2002 Annual Conference Program Committee.

Gail Pendleton is a nationally recognized advocate and expert on the immigrant provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and on asylum and human rights issues for immigrant survivors of violence. She also specializes on the impact of post 9/11 enforcement practices on immigrants rights (with an emphasis on impacts for survivors of gender violence). Gail is a co-chair and co-founder of the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, which is continuing to set important legal precedents for the rights of immigrant women at the federal level. Gail received the American Immigration Lawyers Association's (AILA) Human Rights Award in 2001 and the National Lawyers Guilds Carol King award for promoting social justice in 2002. She received her undergraduate degree in 1981 from Harvard/Radcliffe, and her J.D. in 1985 from NYU School of Law.

The deadline to register for this info-packed seminar series is Tuesday, August 17th. For more info, detailed curriculum, and registration information, see: (Fax version:

Featured Article

Characteristics of Chinese Human Smugglers
Sheldon Zhang and Ko-lin Chin write "Understanding that both immigrants and smugglers consider transnational human smuggling more of a "good deed" than a crime may help explain why so many otherwise law-abiding people become involved in human trade."

Keep on top of the latest in immigration law! Attend ILW.COM seminars! You can attend ILW.COM phone seminars from the convenience of your office! For more info on the seminars currently available, please click here:

Immigration Law News

6th Circuit Discusses INA 241(a)(5) At Length
In Warner v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3676 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2004), the court said that the application of INA 241(a)(5) to orders of exclusion issued before April 1, 1997 (IIRIRA's enactment) was not impermissibily retroactive where Petitioner illegally reentered the US after April 1, 1997 because Petitioner was on notice of the consequences of his illegal reentry before he chose to illegally reenter the US. The court also said that removal orders in INA 241(a)(5) include exclusion and deportation orders and that IIRIRA section 309(d)(2) specifically provides for such an interpretation and since IIRIRA section 309(d)(2) was not merely a transitional rule, orders of removal include orders of exclusion for purposes of INA 241(a)(5) and finally the court further said that section 245(i) had no effect upon section 241(a)(5)'s preclusion of other relief.

Expedited Removal Increases While Some Mexicans Granted Extended Stay
The Kansas City Star reports "The Homeland Security Department plans to begin deporting illegal immigrants more quickly while allowing some Mexicans on short-term legal visits to stay in the US for up to a month."

Attorney listings on ILW.COM are searched 200,000 times/year! Each attorney listed is searched an average of once each day! Just one new client will pay for the entire year's fee! Click here for more info:


Help Wanted: Immigration Attorneys
Berry, Appleman & Leiden LLP, a global corporate immigration law firm, seeks experienced attorneys with minimum 3+ years of solid business immigration experience for our San Francisco office. Our attorneys work in a fast-paced, high volume practice with advanced practice tools and a state-of-the-art case management system. Experience in a range of business immigration matters, ability to provide exceptional client service, experience managing legal assistants, and superb analytical, organizational and case management skills are expected. We strive for excellence in legal practice in a collegial environment, promoting cooperation and learning from each other. We offer competitive salary and benefits. Submit your cover letter, resume & writing sample to or fax to 415-391-1642.

Help Wanted: Immigration Legal Assistant
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., Maryland's largest independent law firm outside of Baltimore city (75+ attorneys), seeks an immigration legal assistant. Experience desired in: employment-based IV (EB-1, EB-2, EB-3), NIV (E-1, E-2, H-1B, L-1A, L-1B, O-1), family-based IV, naturalization, AOS, consular processing, I-9 compliance/employer sanctions, and litigation. College degree and 1+ years of experience required. Ideal candidate possesses superior analytical, organizational, and communication skills. Must be proficient in word processing, spreadsheet, and immigration forms applications. Duties include heavy client contact, legal research, and immigration petitions. Work with a team of experienced immigration attorneys and professionals who are passionate about the practice of immigration law in a fast-paced, collegial setting with large law firm resources. Excellent salary/benefits package offered. If you enjoy challenging work with direct client contact and are equally passionate about immigration law, we want to hear from you. Send resume to Maura Bowen, HR Manager by fax 301-230-2891 or email

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
The Law Offices of Michael J. Gurfinkel, an immigration law firm, seeks an associate attorney for its Los Angeles office. Ideal candidate should have minimum 3+ years extensive experience in all immigration law areas, including removal/deportation, AOS interviews, family and employment based petitions, and consular processing. Must be willing to travel outside Los Angeles area. Please send resume + salary requirements to Millie by fax: 818-543-5802 or email:

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorneys
Jackson & Hertogs, based in San Francisco, CA, seeks experienced associates to work in multifaceted roles on a wide range of both nonimmigrant and immigrant cases. Successful candidates must be highly accountable individuals who take initiative and consistently deliver exceptional client service. Ideal candidates should possess the following: JD and licensed to practice law in the US; 2-5 years experience in employment-based immigration law; strong legal research and writing skills; highly motivated and detail oriented; excellent oral and written communication skills; excellent PC skills including Word, Excel, Powerpoint, email applications and immigration database/forms software. ARIA software experience preferred. Submit cover letter, resume, writing sample and references to Jennifer Wadhwa, Human Resources at: Jackson & Hertogs, 170 Columbus Avenue, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94133 or

We carry advertisements for Help Wanted: Attorney, Help Wanted: Paralegal, Help Wanted: Other, Positions Sought, Products & Services Offered, etc.
For information on advertising in the classifieds please click here

For a listing of current immigration events please click here
For services/products of use in your law practice please click here

Letters to the Editor

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email:

Dear Editor:
There really is no basis in reality for allowing naturalized US citizens to petition a throng of adult brothers and sisters. Likewise, with elderly parents and unmarried or married sons and daughters of naturalized US citizens. If these families simply wanted to be reunited, then the US immigrants have the option of simply returning to their home countries. Obviously, many family-based petitions are intended not only to provide family unity, but to provide the later-petitioned family members a better life than they had in their home country, thus making them economic refugees, who often contribute little or nothing to the American society - not even learning the English language, or assimilating into main-stream American culture. I am all for immigration, the legal way. I will be so bold as to propose eliminating all family immigration except non-visa-status-violating spouses and minor children of US citizens and permanent residents - yes, that would eliminate family based preferences 1, 2, 3, and 4 - a bold move that although controversial, will, as you say "break the legalization logjam", and trim the lure of the "carrot factor" substantially. But this must be done in conjunction with a total overhaul of our immigration laws, the installation of a well-founded and reasonable guest worker program, the relaxation of the university degree/specialty occupation H-1B concept, in favor of a more realistic "Work Permit", a provision for substantial criminal penalties and total banishment for all law violators. Couple this with an enforceable demand for respect of law and nation by Americans as well as foreigners, and we just may be headed toward taking control of an out-of-control immigration problem.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Editor:
Abolish family immigration to give room for legalization of illegal aliens? Family unity and family immigration are the foundation of America. Tear down this fundamental principle of the nation and build an image of this country century back when the immigration meant bringing in laborers and slaves to fill the needs for hard labors? Am I missing something? What about its implication for hidden agenda that racists have been advodating to balance the racial mix in this country by changing family-based immigration system? Remember that family-based immigration sources come from recent immigrants of last one century, mostly Asians, and there are no fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, childrens, and sons and brothers for earlier immigrants, mostly European Americans and Jewish Americans, who are qualified for the immigration based on the family ties under the current immigration system. This kind of argument, I am afraid, may inflame unintended misunderstanding in some segments of the community. Something to think about before Immigration Daily repeatedly advocates this volatile notion.

Matthew Oh, Attorney at Law
St. Paul, Minnesota

Dear Editor:
Your proposition of reducing family immigration in favor of raising the number of employment based immigrants assumes that family immigration does not provide for a pool of eligible workers. In fact it does. The immigrant parents are usually are immediate entrants in to the labor market. Their children will be future entrants into the labor market. The idea of reducing family immigration in in favor of boosting the numbers of employment based immigrants assumes that the pool of potential immigrants is a tube of toothpaste: squeeze it at one end and the toothpaste oozes out at the other end. Squeeze family immigration and there'll be more employment-based immigrants. That is simply not true. The problem with our dwindling labor supply is the direct result of our intolerance for immigration. By reducing the number of H-1B visas that can be issued annually and by increasing the filing fees, increasing the arbitrary decisions on these applications--it is inevitable that companies will find other ways to get sources of labor at even cheaper prices than if they brought in foreign workers here legally. Small or new businesses struggling to survive here need a pool of cheaper labor and that has been supplied by illegal workers. Every job exported to other countries means that more jobs that Americans had are also lost. If we could bring in 3 computer programmers, instead of exporting the whole department to India, we would be preserving jobs for other computer programmers who are American citizens. Yet we don't see it that way, because we have such an entrenched bias toward foreign labor.

Mary L. Sfasciotti, Attorney at Law
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Editor:
Would you please offer articles that do not require additional registration by the news carriers who ran them? Or a link that bypasses the demand that I "sign up" before I can see your highlighted articles. This is occurs with annoying frequency and I should not have to jump through invasive hoops after I have already signed up to receive Immigration Daily - which I do appreciate.

Michael James Skinner, Esq., Immigration Services Program Coordinator
Latin American Health Institute

Editor's Note: We are aware of this issue and are considering eliminating newspaper links for this and other reasons. We expect to make a final decision on this matter before the end of the summer.

An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Send Correspondence and articles to Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. Opinions expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Editorial Advisory Board
Marc Ellis, Gary Endelman

© Copyright 1999-2004 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM