The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Are Illegal Aliens Eligible for Unemployment Benefits?

The answer to this question seems pretty straightforward.  Aliens who are not authorized to work in the United States are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, or UI, in any state.  Unfortunately, over the years, illegal aliens have been paid millions of dollars in UI benefits nationwide. The reason for this is quite simple.  Many of these illegal aliens were not identified by state Employment Security Agencies as illegal aliens who were not eligible for such benefits.

If there were merely a way to screen claimants’ Social Security numbers adequately, the SESAs would be able to quickly identify which claimants are illegal aliens and are therefore not eligible to receive UI benefits.  There is a system in place called E-Verify, which is a voluntary program in all states except Arizona.  The system is coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration as a means of determining the validity of a person’s Social Security number (i.e., whether the actual SSN is a real number or whether the SSN matches the employee’s name or that of another person).  Many employers now use this voluntary system as a means of determining a potential employee’s eligibility to legally work in the United States.   

In a similar fashion, if the SESAs used E-Verify, or some other comparable system, as a means of determining whether a claimant who is seeking UI benefits is eligible to legally work in the United States and is therefore also eligible to receive UI benefits, then certainly the abuses of illegal aliens seeking UI benefits would be curtailed.  Millions of dollars have been erroneously paid to illegal aliens who applied for UI benefits by state agencies that were unable to verify the SSNs used by these illegals.   If a system was in place to adequately screen these claimants’ SSNs, then certainly the benefits could have been paid to unemployed workers who were truly eligible to receive such benefits because they were legally eligible to work in the United States (e.g., U.S. citizens, permanent residents, foreign workers with Employment Authorization Documents under eligible visas).  Now, for foreign workers who are legally eligible to work in the United States under non-immigrant visa categories such as the H-1B, H-2A and H-2B, the question as to whether those individuals are eligible for UI benefits is another discussion altogether (which I will reserve for another day).  For now, it is clear that illegal aliens are not eligible for UI benefits.  Unfortunately, because there is no mandatory system used by the various states to determine the validity of the claimants’ SSNs, the abuses may continue (and millions of dollars lost) unless an effective screening method is employed, in my opinion. 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

Are Waivers Available to Lawful Permanent Residents With ‘Aggravated Felony’ Convictions Under the INA?

An issue of significant concern for some lawful permanent residents is the impact of a criminal conviction on their immigration status.  That is, could certain types of felonies subject those individuals to immediate removal proceedings, or is there still a waiver available to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act?  A waiver under the former Section 212(c) of the INA is available to those lawful permanent residents with “aggravated felony” convictions who pleaded guilty or who were convicted after trial prior to April 24, 1996. (INS  v. St. Cry.)  Whether a waiver is available to an individual who availed himself of the right to trial depends on the federal circuit court of appeal with jurisdiction over the court. A waiver under 212(c) is available to lawful permanent residents with convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude who pleaded or went to trial prior to April 1, 1997.

When determining eligibility for Section 212(c) relief based on a plea, the starting point is the date that the plea was agreed to by the individual.  In many criminal jurisdictions, the plea is agreed to before sentencing. Sometimes the plea is orally agreed to by the defense and the prosecution prior to going to court and putting the agreement on the record.  The significant date is the date that the plea was agreed to by the parties, not necessarily when the criminal judge accepted the plea. A complete copy of the record of conviction should be obtained to determine the exact date of the plea agreement.  In addition, to be eligible for 212(c) relief, the individual must not have been convicted and served more than five years in prison after Nov. 29, 1990.  If the individual was convicted before Nov. 29, 1990, and served more than five years after this date, he or she is still eligible for 212(c) relief.   An individual who was convicted after Nov. 29, 1990, is ineligible for 212(c) relief if he has served more than five years in prison.

Lastly, to be eligible for 212(c) relief when the individual is charged under Section 237 or the former Section 241, the charge of removability must have a statutory counterpart in section 212.   An “aggravated felony” under Section 237 may not necessarily have a statutory counterpart in Section 212.     Nevertheless an argument can be made for fitting many aggravated felonies into the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude in Section 212.   In general, in order to establish a claim under 212(c), the equities of granting the waiver need to outweigh the negative aspects of the particular case.  This needs to be done with the use of sufficient supporting documentation by an astute criminal defense or immigration attorney on behalf of the lawful permanent resident seeking the waiver under the former Section 212(c).  The facts of the particular case, including the lawful permanent resident’s prior arrest/criminal history, if any, could obviously affect his or her prospects of prevailing on the 212(c) claim.  That being said, a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” may be subjected to removal proceedings. However, the availability of the 212(c) waiver still offers him/her some glimmer of hope.

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

Adjustment Status for K-2 VISA Holders: Deciphering the ‘Aging Out’ Problem

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, indicates that the child of a fiancée who accompanies or follows to join his parent may enter the United States with a K-2 visa. The child is defined as an unmarried person under the age of 21.  Prior to the 1986 Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments to the act, or IMFA, a fiancée visa holder automatically obtained legal permanent residence upon his or her marriage to a U.S. citizen.   After the IMFA was promulgated, the K-1 fiancées were given the opportunity to apply for their green cards rather than obtaining that status automatically prior to 1986.       

The issue that was not explicitly addressed by the IMFA was the issue as to whether K-2 visa holders (the children under 21 of K-1 fiancées) were able to apply for adjustment of status.   To alleviate this problem, the attorney general assisted in the enactment of federal regulations providing a basis for K-2 visa holders to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. The former INS established that the adjustment of status of a K-2 visa holder derives from the parent’s newly acquired status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. The issue that arose before the Immigration Service was determining whether the K-2 visa holder must have been under 21 at the time his or her adjustment of status application was decided or simply under 21 at the time the adjustment of status application was filed.

The answer to this question is extremely critical.  If the Immigration Service determines that the K-2 visa holder must be under 21 at the time his or her adjustment of status application is decided, then many K-2 visa holders could conceivably “age out.” This means that many K-2 visa holders will miss their window of opportunity to become lawful permanent residents because they will likely be over the age of 21 by the time their adjustment of status applications are fully adjudicated, especially given the backlog of such applications before the USCIS.  On the other hand, if the Immigration Service determines that the K-2 visa holder must merely be under 21 at the time his or her adjustment of status application is filed, then there will no longer be an “age out” problem. That is, so long as the adjustment of status application on behalf of the K-2 visa holder was timely filed when he or she was under the age of 21, then he or she can become a lawful permanent resident even if the adjustment of status application is fully adjudicated when the applicant is over the age of 21.

Fortunately, there is a district court case in Northern California, Verokin v. Still (2007), that held that the K-2 visa holder must merely have been 21 at the time his adjustment of status application was filed in order to be eligible to apply for adjustment of status.  In 2008 and 2009, there have been other district courts across the United States that have followed suit, thereby correcting the problems created by the local Immigration Processing Centers that erroneously denied the adjustment of status applications of K-2 visa holders because those applicants were over 21 at the time their applications were decided.  Now, it is abundantly clear:  So long as the K-2 visa holder was under 21 at the time his adjustment of status application was filed with the USCIS (and assuming all other eligibility requirements under the INA are met), then the K-2 visa holder should be granted the opportunity to become a lawful permanent resident.  This is wonderful news for many parents who previously believed that their K-2 children were in a terrible predicament.

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

The E-Verify System of DHS: Is It an Effective Means of Preventing the Hiring of Illegal Aliens?

The E-Verify System used to be called the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification program.  It was originally created by Congress in 1997 as a voluntary pilot program designed to give employers a faster, electronic way of verifying an employee’s Social Security numbers.  This program, now called E-Verify, is run by the Department of Homeland Security in conjunction with the Social Security administration.  It is used today by almost 70,000 employers nationally.  It is primarily a voluntary program in all states except Arizona.

Advocates of the program say that its use by employers is a necessary step toward curtailing the hiring of undocumented workers.  Proponents also suggest that the use of the E-Verify System by employers will free employers from having to become “document” experts by allowing the employers to utilize an electronic system of determining whether an employee is legally eligible to work in the United States.  Moreover, by preventing illegal aliens from securing jobs with U.S. employers, proponents argue that the E-Verify System will allow more qualified U.S. Workers to secure much needed jobs over illegal aliens, especially in our turbulent economy.

Opponents of the E-Verify System, however, point to the system’s low accuracy rate (approximately 94 percent) and the strong possibility that qualified workers, including legal immigrants, will either not be hired into these positions or fired because the system had erroneously indicated that these employees were ineligible for employment in the United States.

Under the current program, workers who are given a “tentative non-confirmation” (meaning that there is a discrepancy with the Social Security number they have provided), have eight business days to resolve the discrepancies in the federal database.  Employers who voluntarily use the E-Verify System are not punished if they are found to unknowingly hire an undocumented worker. 

This month all federal contractors and subcontractors will have to start using the program when hiring new employees.  In addition, a recent version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by the House of Representatives included the E-Verify mandate that all employers receiving federal stimulus money utilize the E-Verify System.  Obviously, this has stirred the debate even further between advocates and opponents of the E-Verify System.

Whether the final Stimulus Package includes the E-Verify mandate remains to be seen.  What is clear is that employers do need a fast and effective way to determine whether current or potential employees are eligible to work in the United States. The question is whether the E-Verify System operated by DHS is the means of fulfilling that goal.  Only time will tell whether this system is the answer. 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

The E-2 Visa Category: A Viable Pathway for Pursuing the American Dream or a Dead End?

Nationals of countries that have treaties designed to promote trade and investment between the United States and the other countries can obtain visas to work in the United States. These visas are called E-visas.   There are two types of E visas:  E-1 Treaty Trader and the E-2 Treaty Investor.  The E-2 visa category is useful for entrepreneurs, managers and employees who need to live in the United States to oversee a major investment made by the foreign national. The treaty investor must have invested or be in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital in an enterprise that he or she will develop and direct and that will not be a marginal enterprise entered into solely to earn a living.           

Nationals of qualifying treaty countries who have made a significant investment in the United States may qualify for Treaty Investor status.  There is no set minimum level of investment that may qualify for E-2 visa status, but the lower the investment the less likely one is to qualify.  Not only must the investment be in an operating business, but a substantial part of the investment must have been made before applying for E-2 status.  Moreover, employees of qualified treaty persons or business organizations may be classified as investors if they have the treaty nationality.  However, eligibility for E-2 status on the basis of employment with a qualified person or organization requires an appropriate position. The duties must be executive or supervisory. 

On the surface, the E-2 visa category appears to be a viable pathway into the United States for entrepreneurs willing to make a substantial investment in an enterprise in the United States.  In 2006, there were 164,795 E-2 visa admissions in the United States, up from 143,786 in 2005.    There is one significant problem with the E-2 Visa category, however.   Although the holder of the E-2 visa can renew their visa every two years, this individual will never be permitted under the current USCIS guidelines to apply for lawful permanent residence here in the United States.  These visa holders cannot work outside their enterprise to supplement their income.  They cannot obtain a homestead exemption nor can they obtain permanent driver’s licenses.    If these E-2 visa holders retire or sell their businesses, they must return to their native country.    These E-2 visa holders can only apply for lawful permanent residence if they switch to a different visa category to the extent that they can do so.   

In short, although the E-2 visa category is a viable way for a foreign national to gain entry into the United States under the guise of making a significant investment in an enterprise in the United States, this visa category really does not afford the foreign national the opportunity to become a lawful permanent resident and ultimately a U.S. citizen if that is his or her goal.  Unless there is some type of immigration reform that would eventually allow the E-2 visa holder the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residence, the E-2 visa really does not help the foreign national who holds it in the long run. 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

Securing Our Nation’s Borders: The First Step Toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform

On Oct.6, 2006, former President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act, a first step toward our nation’s efforts to control our borders and reform our immigration system.  In early 2006, Bush presented a vision for immigration reform.  The Secure Fence Act was a part of this vision, and the former president worked with Congress to pass the remaining elements of this plan.  Through the use of physical barriers and cutting edge technology, the act was designed to assist our ICE border patrol agents in making our borders more secure.  The act called for the authorization of the construction of over 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border; more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and illumination to prevent people from entering the United States illegally; and the increased use of advanced technology including satellites, cameras and aircraft to reinforce our infrastructure at the border. 

From 2001 to 2008, federal funding for border security has increased from $4.6 billion to $10.4 billion.  In 2008, ICE doubled the number of border patrol agents since 2001 to more than 12,000 agents.  The former president also deployed the use of thousands of National Guard members to assist the border patrol agents.  In 2008, technology at the borders was vastly improved, which included the aforementioned fencing and vehicle barriers.  Through 2008, ICE has apprehended and returned home more than six million people who entered or attempted to enter the U.S. illegally.  In addition, the detention facilities have been expanded in order to allow the border patrol agents to continue working to end “catch and release” at our southern border.

As of February 2009, the U.S.-Mexico border fence with a price tag of $2.6 billion was nearly complete. The fence, which is not continuous, currently stretches from San Diego, Calif., to Brownsville, Texas.  Nearly all of the 89 miles of border fencing planned for the El Paso, Texas, sector, which includes New Mexico, has been constructed at a cost of more than $228 million.  Left to be completed is a two-mile section in San Elizario, Texas, a small town between Fabens and the Ysleta Port of Entry.  This section will be completed in the spring of 2009. 

Although opinions are mixed as to the effectiveness of the border fence or whether such a measure is ethical, it clearly is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.  More focus needs to be made by the Mexican government toward providing its citizens with adequate jobs and opportunity in order to curtail the number of Mexican citizens who choose to cross the U.S. border to seek what they believe to be a better life.   Concurrently, the United States needs to develop a visa program that would allow these Mexican citizens the opportunity to find employment, at least in the short-term, in the United States on a temporary basis.   At the very least, the border fence, with its hefty price tag of $2.6 billion, has served to significantly curtail these illegal crossings for the foreseeable future.  In addition, it has shifted the focus back to the Mexican and U.S. governments, which are now faced with the unenviable task of providing employment opportunities on a legal basis for these Mexican citizens who are really doing nothing more than attempting to seek a better life for themselves and their families.

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

The Top 10 Immigration Issues in 2008 – Nos. 5 Through 1

Continuing with our countdown, here are the top five immigration issues in 2008:

5. Immigrants Ruin the Environment … Excuse Me?

In 2008, proponents of population stability pointed to immigrants as the main reason for global warming. That’s right. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report admonishing immigrants to remain in their native countries to avoid raising global CO2 levels by coming to the more highly populated United States. Yet another advocacy group in support of water conservation blamed immigrants for an impending water crisis in the United States. Do these people have anything better to do with their time?           

4. Ban on Travel of HIV-Positive Immigrants Lifted

In mid-2008, Congress repealed the ban that prevented HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services was directed to remove HIV from its list of communicable diseases during the George W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, by December 2008, the DHHS still had not followed Congress’s directive.  

3. Is the Mexico-United States Border Fence the Right Approach?

Under the Bush administration, Congress enacted the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Under this proposal, the Department of Homeland Security was instructed to construct a 700-mile fence between the United States and Mexico from California to Texas. Some immigration advocates characterized the construction as a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Up through 2006, nearly 500,000 illegals crossed the border each year. Although the statistics appear to show a decline in the number of illegals crossing the borders, some immigration advocates still question whether such an approach is a humanitarian one and whether the billions of dollars allocated for the construction of this fence would be better utilized in other ways. Stay tuned for a broader discussion of this ongoing debate.  

2. The Second Largest ICE Raid in American History

In mid-2008, ICE conducted a raid at Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa.  The raid resulted in the arrest of 389 undocumented workers that was, at that time, the largest raid under the George W. Bush administration at a single site. Despite protests from the local community, the meatpacking plant was fined for various workplace violations. Members of the company’s management were also charged with various immigration violations.  Unfortunately, two of the managers charged seemingly disappeared.  

1. The Largest ICE Raid in American History

In August 2008, ICE arrested 595 undocumented workers at Howard Industries in Laurel, Miss. This was, to date, the largest ICE worksite enforcement raid in U.S. history. Of the 595 persons arrested, 106 people avoided detention based on humanitarian reasons. The management of Howard Industries was not charged with any federal crimes. The plant remains open today.

 Now that a new administration is under way, immigration will likely make the news once again in 2009 but hopefully in a much more positive light.

 View top issues 10 through 6 here:

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
www.dmclaw.com

Top Immigration Issues in 2008

Although immigration was not at the forefront of the 2008 presidential election campaigns of either Sen. John McCain or President Barack Obama (obviously solutions to this country’s recession, healthcare and an end to the war in Iraq were of higher importance, and for good reason), there were many significant news stories affecting immigration in 2008.  These were the top immigration issues in 2008:

10.   Why Aren’t Candidates Talking About Immigration?

In 2008, hardly anyone in the media wanted to discuss immigration.  It must have been all of the hoopla surrounding the failed 2007 immigration reform bill that was too much to bear.  For whatever reason, none of the candidates wanted to discuss it.  Even two weeks before the November elections, Gov. Sarah Palin indicated that she did not know how many illegal immigrants were living in Alaska.  McCain declined to answer a survey about immigration. The issue was never even discussed in a single presidential or vice presidential debate.

9.   What’s Up With the Visa Waiver Program?

Despite the failure of the visa waiver program as indicated in a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, several new countries became members of the program in November 2008. The chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, Dianne Feinstein adamantly opposed the expansion.  Feinstein indicated that she will make the program much more stringent in the future by increasing oversight.

 8.   Your Tax Rebate Check Is Coming; Or Is It?

In 2008, tax rebate checks were only given out to people with valid Social Security Numbers, a document that can be extremely difficult for new immigrants to get.  So for those who used an ITIN to file their tax returns, these individuals were not able to get their rebate checks.  Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service posted the notice only a day before the filing deadline, which was too little time for those without valid Social Security Numbers to submit paper filings.  Those individuals affected by this snafu were able to file an amended return by Oct. 15, 2008.

7.  Naturalization Ceremonies Occur Overseas for Spouses of Military Veterans.

In early 2008, the National Defense Authorization Act was amended to allow the husbands and wives of military members to become naturalized U.S. citizens overseas where their spouses were stationed.  From January through September 2008, nearly 20 military spouses became naturalized U.S. citizens in ceremonies in South Korea, Japan and Germany. 

6.  Obama and McCain Are U.S. Citizens; Or Are They?

In 2008, rumors swirled on the Internet that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate was a fraud and that he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to run for president.  The uproar went even further to include McCain.  Apparently, some in the public contended that McCain did not meet the natural-born citizenship qualification because he was born on a U.S. Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone.  Everything worked out, of course, and we all now know that Obama made history in 2008. 

For the top five immigration issues in 2008, stay tuned! 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
[email protected]  

Obama-Biden: Can They Fix Our Country’s Immigration Woes?

Now that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have reached the precipice of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections, they now face a multitude of challenges in 2009 in bringing back our country to a position of prominence that has not been seen since the days of William Jefferson Clinton.   Among those challenges are pulling our country out of its deep economic slump, implementing a feasible and expedient withdrawal plan for our troops in Iraq and providing a solution to this country’s vast immigration problems.  

Obama’s past record on immigration issues is excellent.  He, along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), introduced the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that USCIS application fees are fair and reasonable, which is a huge factor in why there are many illegals in this country.  The prohibitive cost of application fees is sometimes a deterrent for certain individuals who wish to file these applications to protect their immigration status.   Obama’s introduction of this bill (particularly for N-400 citizenship applications) helps keep the filing fees affordable for permanent residents who wish to become U.S. citizens.  Obama also assisted in the introduction of legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed of FBI background investigations. Obama also introduced a proposal to create a system so that employers can accurately verify that their workers are legally eligible to work in the United States.  In addition, Obama has previously championed amendments that put greater emphasis on keeping families together.

 

The current immigration problems that Obama and Biden face are vast.  The undocumented population has grown in epic proportions in recent years.  Each year, at least 500,000 people or more enter the United States. illegally or legally enter the United States but overstay their visas..  In addition, ICE raids appear to be, at times, largely ineffective.  Despite a great increase in ICE raids in recent years, there were only a little over 3,000 arrests in 2006.  Finally, our current immigration system is clearly overwhelmed, forcing legal immigrants to wait years and years for applications to be approved.  For instance, the wait time on approval for certain petitions for alien relatives (particularly for single siblings) is upward of 20 years.  This is clearly unacceptable. 

 

Obama and Biden pledge to fix our immigration system to increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and to meet the overwhelming demand for jobs that U.S. employers often cannot fill with qualified U.S. workers.  Obama and Biden also want to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers by imposing severe penalties on those companies that do so, including hefty fines and possible jail time.  Similarly, Obama supports the hiring of additional Border Patrol personnel and implementation of new technology at our borders and various ports of entry to protect the integrity of our borders. 

 

Finally, an issue of utmost importance to many immigrants in this country, both legal and illegal, is finding a solution to the problem of the ever-increasing undocumented population.  Obama and Biden support a system that will allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and have the opportunity to ultimately become U.S. citizens.  Many illegal immigrants in this country continue to live in fear of being arrested and deported, even though they have worked, paid their taxes timely and stayed out of legal trouble the entire time they have been in the United States.  For the families of these illegal immigrants, some of whom are already U.S. citizens, the stress is even greater.  These individuals must also live with the fear that their family members who do not have a valid or current visa to allow them to stay in the U.S. legally will be arrested and deported thereby losing their loved ones forever.   Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring that this does not happen. 

 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.

Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

[email protected]

Strict Penalties Imposed by ICE Upon Employers Harboring Illegal Aliens

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Worksite Enforcement Investigations focus on those employers involved in criminal activity or worker exploitation. This type of employer violation frequently involves document fraud, human rights abuses, alien smuggling and/or harboring illegal aliens and has a direct link to the employment of unauthorized workers. In recent years, ICE has stepped up its Worksite Enforcement Investigations against unscrupulous employers who have habitually engaged in this pattern of criminal behavior leading to many arrests, convictions and deportation of undocumented workers.

In February, ICE agents executed a federal search warrant at a Los Angeles-area computer cartridge manufacturing plant, arresting current and former company workers on criminal charges and another 100 employees on immigrations violations.  In Springfield, Ill., the former owner of a local restaurant was sentenced in January to 18 months in a federal prison for harboring illegal aliens at his buffet restaurant. The sentence resulted from a criminal worksite enforcement investigation conducted by ICE.  Xian Xi Ye, 41, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 18 months in prison for harboring illegal aliens and was also ordered to pay a $2,500 fine within one year.  Xian, an illegal alien from China, will be turned over to the ICE and subjected to deportation proceedings upon completion of his prison term.  Xian pleaded guilty in September 2007 to providing housing, employment and transportation to the illegal aliens who worked at this restaurant.

Also in January, a federal jury in Springfield, Miss., convicted a former George’s Processing Inc. employee of harboring an illegal alien and inducing an illegal alien to enter or reside in the United States.  Dora Ruiz, 33, of Monett, Miss., was found guilty of two counts contained in an Oct. 16, 2007, federal indictment.  Ruiz was found guilty of aiding and abetting others to harbor an illegal alien at George’s Processing and of aiding and abetting others to induce an illegal alien to enter or reside in the U.S. between December 2005 and May 2007.  This verdict marks the first trial conviction in an active investigation arising from the ICE worksite enforcement operation concluded at George’s Processing in May 2007. 

Yet another example of a successful ICE Worksite Enforcement initiative was the arrest in January of this year of Ji Quan Yang, 40, of Bardstown, Ky.  Yang is the president of Asian Garden Inc., According to the ICE affidavit, ICE agents observed young Hispanic and Asian workers being transported from a duplex in Bardstown to the China Star Buffet and Grill where they were employed.  He owned automobiles at the duplex.  Investigation revealed that many workers were illegal aliens who were brought to Kentucky by Yang himself.  Many of these individuals worked upwards of 80 hours per week for cash derived from dividing tips. The trial is scheduled for later this year.

There are many more ongoing ICE worksite enforcement investigations at this time which target those employers who knowingly harbor illegal aliens. Unlike in years past where such activity was not aggressively targeted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, ICE is committed to punishing those unscrupulous employers who deliberate refuse to comply with our nation’s strict immigration laws by hiring and harboring illegal aliens for their own monetary gain. 

Rob C. Tonogbanua, Esq.
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
[email protected]