Lee & Garasia, LLC
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

Immigrants Not Entitled to Periodic Bond Hearing After Detention

| Mar 12, 2018 | Detention Facilities, ICE

Although it inexplicably escaped much attention, the Supreme Court finally issued its ruling on Jennings v. Rodriguez late last month. In a 5-3 decision, the high court ruled that non-US Citizens are not entitled periodic bond hearings while being detained by the Department of Homeland Security. The impact of this ruling is momentous and will have enormous ramifications for immigrants-both legal and undocumented-who are apprehended and detained by ICE.

In its ruling, the Court was careful to distinguish its prior holding from Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 (2001), in which it ruled that an alien who has been ordered removed may not be held in detention longer than reasonably necessary to effectuate the removal. In that case, six months was determined to be a presumptively reasonable period of time in which the government should be able to remove someone. If after that time, the detained individual can demonstrate that the government is unlikely to secure removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government would have to either justify why further detention is warranted or release the person. It is perhaps from this case that many people believe a detained individual should be released or at least given an opportunity to see a judge after six months. However, the Court clearly distinguishes this case from Zadvydas, noting that the statutes pertaining to those ordered removed are not the same as the ones relevant to those currently in proceedings. In short, the clear language of the provisions applicable to detention for asylum and removal proceedings (1225(b)(1) and (b)(2)) unambiguously refer to detention for a finite time, ie., as long as the asylum case is under consideration, or as long as removal proceedings are in effect. In fact, the Court notes that 1226(c) is even clearer in mandating detention until proceedings are concluded. 1226(c) is the notorious provision that implements “mandatory detention” of criminal aliens, mandatory meaning mandatory, unless the individual were to qualify for a very limited exception. Nowhere in the statutory language, the Court notes, is there reference to a time threshold after which a hearing is required.

What is particularly frightening about this case is that its reach is not limited to only discrete segments of the immigrant population. It virtually applies to any immigrant-essentially anybody who is not a US Citizen-who falls under the rubric of 1225(b)(1), (b)(2), or 1226(c). In practical terms, lawful permanent residents who are determined by ICE to fall under mandatory detention could be held indefinitely as long as their cases are pending. When you consider that the courts are, in some cases, more than 2 years behind, the time spent awaiting a hearing is punitive and draconian in itself.

Fortunately, this is not the last word. The Supreme Court predicated its ruling on statutory interpretation and left open whether detainees are entitled to periodic bond hearings on constitutional grounds. In the meantime, though, immigrants charged with crimes need to be especially wary of immigration consequences. If in doubt, consult with an immigration attorney.

The above is general information only and not to be relied upon as legal advice. It does not create an attorney client relationship, nor should it be relied upon as advice in lieu of consultation with an attorney. 

Findlaw Network