Dream Act

By siteadmin | August 5, 2011

An undocumented University of California, Davis, student, who was scheduled to be deported, has won a temporary reprieve following more relaxed deportation guidelines.

Mandeep Chahal, 20, who arrived in this country at age 6, was slated to be deported with her mother. Her friends and advocacy groups launched a national campaign to halt the deportation. On the day she was scheduled to be deported officials decided not to enforce the deportation order, reportedly under new guidelines permitting “prosecutorial discretion.” John Morton, director of immigration enforcement, recently announced the guidelines, which allow special consideration for children and college students.

Last year, Congress considered, but failed to pass, the Dream Act, which would have given students like Chahal a break. The Morton memo outlines several considerations that must be weighed in exercising prosecutorial discretion:

Factors to Consider When Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to

• the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;

• the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;

• the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;

• the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;

• whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;

• the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;

• the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;

• whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;

• the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;

• the person’s ties to the home country and condition in the country;

• the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;

• whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;

• whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; ;

• whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;

• whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;

• whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely;

• Whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;

• whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime; . and .

• whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.

This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative. ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should always consider prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis. The decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE’s enforcement priorities.