Lee & Garasia, LLC
Se Habla Espanol
Tel: 732-516-1717
Toll Free: 888-404-5876
Experience, Accessibility, and Excellence
for Over 20 Years
“When it comes to immigration, I go to Paris and Angie–and trust me, I know a lot of lawyers all over the world.”–Renzo Gracie, Brazilian Jiujitsu and MMA Legend 
Read More
“Lee and Garasia are excellent lawyers, punctual and professional. They are dedicated to going above and beyond the usual level of service to meet your client’s needs. Their staff is very knowledgeable, friendly and polite. I would highly… recommend this firm to anyone.”
Read More
“I would definitely recommend Mr.Lee and Garasia as an immigration attorney because they did a great job with my case i.e. of Adjustment of Status (i-485). Mr. Lee helped us in each and every detailed information and prepared to the best of it. It was all well done and would like to appreciate.”
Read More
“I would like to thank my lawyer Mr Lee & Garasia and the staff for all immense help and patience throughout this entire process, I really appreciate your constant attention to my case, as well to my questions and my concerns. You’ve really made this process much more comprehensive to me, which I greatly appreciate.”
Read More
“Mr. Lee and Ms. Garasia did a great job with my renewal of my permanent residence application. They help prepare the paperwork with such a great attention to details and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time.”
Read More
“Mr. Lee did a great job with the renewal of my permanent residence application. My case was very time sensitive and they worked really fast on my case with great detail and accuracy. I will recommend the law firm every time.”
Read More
“I would recommend Attorney Paris Lee for anybody who needs immigration consultation. Mr. Lee is THE lawyer who respects and cares clients. Mr. Lee is professional and honest. Bottom line, preparation for the results and NO BS!”
Read More
“Stalin – Lee did a wonderful job, Got my wife her visa in one year. He is extremely helpful and knowledgeable. I would highly recommend him for all your immigration needs.”
Read More
“Hello. I appoint him as my immigration lawyer and that way he solved my cases was truly amazing. He was so honest and knowledgeable for his work. He solved my all family immigration issues and because of his effort we were able to get done our immigration work done successful. Thank you lee and garasia.”
Read More
“Lee & Garasia stand for accountability and responsibility. They are reliable, honest and are always constructively looking for a solution. A big thanks :)”
Read More

Important Third Circuit Decision Regarding Mandatory Detention

On April 22, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important precedential decision concerning the temporal reach of mandatory detention, which heretofore, at least in this Circuit recently, had been circumscribed by District Court rulings. In Sylvain vs. Attorney General, the Court ruled that despite the dilatory gap between the individual’s conviction and when he was ultimately taken into custody, the mandatory detention statute nevertheless dictated his detention.

Michael Sylvain was a legal permanent resident, who over the years, had been convicted of ten drug related offenses, his most recent being in 2007. Four years later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deemed him deportable based on those convictions. Moreover, ICE determined that he was subject to mandatory detention and as such, was not eligible for a bond hearing. Mr. Sylvain petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the mandatory detention statute did not apply to him. The court agreed, and granted him a bail hearing. The government subsequently appealed.

Mandatory detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C.§1226(c)(1), which mandates that immigration authorities “ take into custody any alien who [has committed various deportable/inadmissible crimes] when the alien is released.” The alien can then be detained indefinitely during the pendency of the legal proceeding. The words “when…released” and how they are to be interpreted were the focus of the ruling.

The Third Circuit ruled in the government’s favor. According to the Court, the statutory authority of the government to take an individual into custody was not attenuated by the delay accompanying its exercise of its power. In other words, the government did not lose its authority to subject Mr. Sylvain to mandatory detention despite the four years it took in doing so. The court found that even if an alien has already left custody, nothing within the statute vitiates or dilutes the officers’ authority to take and hold a removable individual without bond (provided that the alien falls within the delineated classes). Underlying the Court’s rationale is an apparent fear of exposing the public to dangerous aliens on account of bureaucratic inertia and negligence. Indeed, the court ended by citing the Supreme Court in United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (1990). There, it was said “the end of exacting compliance with the letter of [the statute] cannot justify the means of exposing the public to an increased likelihood of violent crime by persons on bail, an evil the statute aims to prevent.”

While seeming to solve some questions, the case arguably raises concerns over the rights of aliens and how long is too long. Mr. Sylvain had been released for four years before he was taken into immigration custody and denied an individual bond hearing to determine whether he posed a danger to society. During his time outside, he committed no further crimes and did not prove himself to be a flight risk. Apparently, the government’s reach is not confined by time, at least in the Third Circuit, even though individuals charged with criminal crimes are protected by statutes of limitations and entitled to bail hearings under almost all circumstances. Would the Court’s ruling be any different if the delay were ten years, or twenty? Only future litigation will tell.