by Chhayal on April 19, 2011
Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the preliminary injunction against 4 sections of Arizona SB 1070. The legality of the four distinct provisions of SB 1070 at issue, each involved the same basic question: whether its enactment was “preempted” by federal law and therefore prohibited under the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit found each provision explicitly conflicted with, or created an obstacle to the enforcement of, federal law.
- Section 2(B). The court first upheld the injunction against the infamous provision requiring state police to check the immigration status of all individuals in custody and of any person stopped in public whom officers “reasonably” suspect of being in the country illegally. As we previously speculated, the Ninth Circuit found the provision preempted by the same law responsible for the controversial 287(g) program. In a happily ironic twist, the court held that the existence of the program—which allows local police to enforce immigration laws under federal supervision—bars states from turning their officers into freelance immigration agents.
- Sections 3 and 5(C). The court also upheld the injunction against two provisions whose legality was always considered dubious—one making it a state crime to fail to carry immigration papers, the other to work (or even solicit work) without federal authorization. All three members of the court found these provisions unconstitutional because Congress left no room for states to regulate the carrying of federal immigration documents, and because Congress decided to penalize employers, not employees, for the hiring of undocumented workers.
- Section 6. Finally, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction against the provision authorizing state police to arrest noncitizens for any prior offense that could trigger deportation from the country, even if prosecutors previously declined to bring charges. In so doing, the court rejected Arizona’s argument that state police have “inherent authority” to arrest persons for being unlawfully present in the United States. As the court acknowledged, a decision of the neighboring Tenth Circuit reached a different conclusion, increasing the odds that the challenge to SB 1070 will reach the Supreme Court.
by Chhayal on March 24, 2011
Arizona Senate rejects 5 anti-immigration bills in one day last week, after sixty chief executives signed a letter to the Legislature saying the harsh immigration measures were having “unintended consequences”. The letter cited unintended consequences to include boycotts, lost jobs, canceled contracts, and publicity so bad that businesses with Arizona in their names were suffering. Glenn Hamer, chief executive of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the reaction to Arizona’s anti-immigration bills had already cost the state $15 million to $150 million in lost tourism revenue.
Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22tue3.html
by Chhayal on February 17, 2011
Many people when filing for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy fail to consider whether a portion, if not all, of their tax refund belongs to the bankruptcy estate. General rule is that the day you file for bankruptcy, all of your assets, including your tax return, unless exempt is considered to a part of the bankruptcy estate.
General Rule on Tax Returns and Bankruptcy: Local custom of Bankruptcy Courts and Trustees may vary, but generally the part of the tax refund that belongs to the bankruptcy estate is the part that was accrued before the date that you filed for bankruptcy. For example, if you file for bankruptcy on December 30th, the bankruptcy estate includes 364/365ths of the income tax refund for that year. If someone files on February 1st , the entire yet to be received refund for the previous year can be considered part of the bankruptcy estate, as well as the 1/12th of the refund for the year of filing.
Not understanding this issue before filing for bankruptcy could become a problem. It is important to consider this issue as well as the implication of filing bankruptcy as it relates to your other assets before filing. Speaking with an experienced bankruptcy attorney can help you better plan prior to filing a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. For example, if a filer is expecting a big return, some attorneys will delay the bankruptcy filing until the filer has received their refund and spent it on necessities. In many situations, the filers use the tax refund for the purposes of paying for the filing expenses and attorney’s fees.
Call for a Free Consultation Today: 602.266.2169.
*The information provided in this web site is for general information purposes only and must not be regarded as legal advice. The law changes periodically and we make no representations that any of the information is accurate. You are not to make any inference from this website that our firm represents you or would be able to represent you; or that the information contained herein applies to your specific circumstances. You must seek legal counsel to ascertain your rights and obligations.
by Chhayal on February 16, 2011
Don’t become a victim of dishonest immigration consultants often known as “notarios.” Immigration consultants, notary publics, and notarios cannot represent you in the immigration process. These people—especially notarios—prey on immigrants, often from the same ethnic community as the notarios themselves. Often Notarios or Document Preparers do not understand the legal requirements under Immigration Law, and by failing to do so, prevents or delays favorable approval of immigrant benefits. Don’t be a victim to Notario Fraud.
Read more here about the steps you can take to stop Notario Fraud at: http://www.stopnotariofraud.org/
by Chhayal on February 4, 2011
Arizona lawmakers this week filed four bills for consideration effecting how U.S will recognize children of illegal immigrants. At issue, of course, is the 14th Amendment provision that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Arizona legislation aims to get a court to rule that a child born in the U.S. is a citizen only if either parent is a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant.
Senate Bill 1309 defines an Arizona citizen as someone “lawfully domiciled” in Arizona who is born in the U.S. and is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It defines individuals who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or a legal permanent U.S. resident. House Bill 2562 and Senate Bill 1308 would require Arizona to create separate birth certificates for children who are deemed to be Arizona citizens under House Bill 2561 and those who are not. It also seeks permission from Congress to form compacts with other states doing the same thing.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/01/27/20110127arizona-birthright-bills-introduced.html#ixzz1D1VVxOUZ
by Chhayal on February 4, 2011
Despite the grant of an injunction blocking parts of the Arizona trailblazing law, at least 15 state legislatures are considering measures modeled after provisions of SB1070 that made Arizona the first state to allow police to question the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. In July 2010, a U.S. district judge granted the Obama administration’s request for an injunction blocking parts of the trailblazing law, which raised many legal questions, including whether local officials can legally enforce federal immigration law and whether such local enforcement could lead to unconstitutional racial profiling.
An article from MSNBC highlights the legislation proposed in at least 15 other states, all modeled after Arizona SB1070.
by Chhayal on January 5, 2011
The US Courts website has an informative series of pages on bankruptcy entitled:
by Chhayal on January 5, 2011
The Washington Post has an article on Birthright Citizenship.
As we head into the new Congressional term, this debate over “anchor babies” is likely to be hotly debated.
Although this has been tested by the Supreme Court at various times throughout the past 100 years, the debate continues to pick up steam in light of several states passing more stringent anti-immigrant legislation.
We find the following quote apropos:
“Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists” ~ Roosevelt, Franklin D.
by Chhayal on January 4, 2011
Patel Law P.L.C is a supporter of the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
This important organization was formed to fill the gap in representation left by the absence of a public defender system in immigration removal proceedings.
We are passionate about this work, and the principle of Constitutional rights for detained immigrants.
Please visit their website for more information on this vital project.
“Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrations and revolutionists” ~ Roosevelt, Franklin D.
by Chhayal on January 4, 2011
