Firm News and Updates
July 1, 2021
Two SuperLawyers (tm) Rising Stars (again) - 2021
Two SuperLawyers (tm) Rising Stars (again) - 2021
We are proud to announce that two of our attorneys were selected as SuperLawyers Rising Stars. Carlo Brooks celebrates his third year on the list. Edith Nazarian has made the list for an incredible fourth year in a row. This year, Berke Law Offices, Inc. was the only Southern California law firm to have two associates selected in the immigration law category.
April 29, 2021
We're Vaxxed and Ready!
We're Vaxxed and Ready!
Most of our staff is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and have returned to working at our Canoga Park location. We are taking live meetings and consultations again. When making an appointment, please let the receptionist know whether you are fully or partially vaccinated. During the pandemic we developed good tools and procedures for handling matters remotely and we can still accommodate requests for remote interactions if that is your preference.
July 17, 2020
DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT USCIS MUST ACCEPT NEW DACA APPLICATIONS
DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT USCIS MUST ACCEPT NEW DACA APPLICATIONS
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled today that USCIS must accept new DACA applications. After the Supreme Court's decision holding that DACA was improperly repealed, USCIS took the position, wrongly, that it was only required only to accept applications for renewal and it continued to reject NEW applications from first time filers. The ruling doesn't only affect first-time filers though. It has implications for persons who may not have renewed their DACA after a previous grant and persons who were denied DACA but have subsequently become eligible. Read more here.
June 24, 2020
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://themilsource.com/2020/06/23/us-citizenship-immigration-services-claims-supreme-courts-daca-decision-has-no-basis-in-law/Berke Law Offices, Inc. founding member, Robert G. Berke, was quoted extensively in the above article by Joseph Lyttleton for The Millenial Source.
Immigration advocates have celebrated the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.The court’s decision, however, has not been unanimously lauded. A statement by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the day after the court’s ruling called DACA “illegal” and criticized the court’s decision as having “no basis in law.”
Robert G. Berke, an immigration lawyer in California, called the statement “inflammatory” and expressed astonishment that a government agency would publicly undermine the highest court in the land. Historically, it is uncommon for a nonpartisan agency like USCIS to take such a publicly partisan stance and it’s unheard of for one to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
USCIS criticizes the Supreme Court
On June 19, USCIS Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow released a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold DACA. It opened by stating, “Today’s court opinion has no basis in law and merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program.” It continued, “The constitutionality of this de facto amnesty program created by the Obama administration has been widely questioned since its inception. The fact remains that under DACA, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens continue to remain in our country in violation of the laws passed by Congress and to take jobs Americans need now more than ever.”
Berke says this statement was remarkable for multiple reasons. “USCIS is a benefits agency, not an enforcement agency. It is supposed to be apolitical and bound by the rule of law. For an agency to show this level of disrespect for the Court that governs it is outrageous.”
He is especially concerned for the precedent.
“Respect for the judiciary is a cornerstone of civil society. When a populace does not trust the Courts to administer justice, the society is on its last legs. For a government agency to denigrate the Court like this is the beginning of the end.”
He also refuted the idea that the Supreme Court’s decision was without basis in law. In fact, upholding DACA was not about determining the program’s legality. The court determined that the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal the law “wasn’t done in a procedurally correct way.”
“To cause the people to question the legitimacy of the legal process at the Supreme Court,” Berke warned, “is too wrong to be ignored.”
What is USCIS?
US Citizenship and Immigration Services was created on March 1, 2003, effectively replacing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Its creation was part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The aim of creating USCIS was “to enhance the security and efficiency of national immigration services.” It did this by splitting up the responsibilities of the INS into three separate agencies: USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
While ICE and CBP enforce immigration restrictions, USCIS was intended to focus “exclusively on the administration of benefit applications.”
“The idea,” Berke explained, “was that by separating benefits from enforcement, people wouldn’t be discouraged from applying for things they were eligible for. Thus people who could normalize their status were still encouraged to do so, while people who couldn’t had to worry about heightened enforcement actions.”
The evolution of USCIS
Allowing benefits distribution to be run independently of enforcement meant that immigrants with legal status didn’t run the risk of being caught up by vast enforcement actions that often can’t easily distinguish between immigrants with a legal status and immigrants without.
In 2018, though, USCIS began sending out summons to the Immigration Court, known as a Notice to Appear (NTA). They had become part of the removal (or deportation) proceedings. This was a reversal of the original purpose of the agency, which was to ensure immigrants with legal status (including DACA recipients) felt secure in their ability to get their benefits without the fear of being wrongfully prosecuted.
In fact, Berke argues, while it may be assumed that removal proceedings only target undocumented immigrants, in reality, immigrants with legal status are caught up in enforcement frequently. They then get stuck in an immigration court system that is already overwhelmed with cases where they then struggle to prove their legal status.Meanwhile, actual criminals and terrorists – the stated target of most immigrant enforcement actions – don’t respond to NTAs, so they aren’t apprehended.Berke, who represents DACA recipients (or Dreamers), also pointed out that the USCIS’ mission statement changed in February 2018. It was formerly:“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”
Now, it is:
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
“Recognition of the US as a nation of immigrants,” Berke notes, “was omitted.”
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://themilsource.com/2020/06/23/us-citizenship-immigration-services-claims-supreme-courts-daca-decision-has-no-basis-in-law/Berke Law Offices, Inc. founding member, Robert G. Berke, was quoted extensively in the above article by Joseph Lyttleton for The Millenial Source.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services claims the Supreme Court’s DACA decision “has no basis in law”
US Citizenship and Immigration Services claims the Supreme Court’s DACA decision “has no basis in law”
Immigration advocates have celebrated the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.The court’s decision, however, has not been unanimously lauded. A statement by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the day after the court’s ruling called DACA “illegal” and criticized the court’s decision as having “no basis in law.”
Robert G. Berke, an immigration lawyer in California, called the statement “inflammatory” and expressed astonishment that a government agency would publicly undermine the highest court in the land. Historically, it is uncommon for a nonpartisan agency like USCIS to take such a publicly partisan stance and it’s unheard of for one to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
USCIS criticizes the Supreme Court
On June 19, USCIS Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow released a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold DACA. It opened by stating, “Today’s court opinion has no basis in law and merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program.” It continued, “The constitutionality of this de facto amnesty program created by the Obama administration has been widely questioned since its inception. The fact remains that under DACA, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens continue to remain in our country in violation of the laws passed by Congress and to take jobs Americans need now more than ever.”
Berke says this statement was remarkable for multiple reasons. “USCIS is a benefits agency, not an enforcement agency. It is supposed to be apolitical and bound by the rule of law. For an agency to show this level of disrespect for the Court that governs it is outrageous.”
He is especially concerned for the precedent.
“Respect for the judiciary is a cornerstone of civil society. When a populace does not trust the Courts to administer justice, the society is on its last legs. For a government agency to denigrate the Court like this is the beginning of the end.”
He also refuted the idea that the Supreme Court’s decision was without basis in law. In fact, upholding DACA was not about determining the program’s legality. The court determined that the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal the law “wasn’t done in a procedurally correct way.”
“To cause the people to question the legitimacy of the legal process at the Supreme Court,” Berke warned, “is too wrong to be ignored.”
What is USCIS?
US Citizenship and Immigration Services was created on March 1, 2003, effectively replacing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Its creation was part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The aim of creating USCIS was “to enhance the security and efficiency of national immigration services.” It did this by splitting up the responsibilities of the INS into three separate agencies: USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
While ICE and CBP enforce immigration restrictions, USCIS was intended to focus “exclusively on the administration of benefit applications.”
“The idea,” Berke explained, “was that by separating benefits from enforcement, people wouldn’t be discouraged from applying for things they were eligible for. Thus people who could normalize their status were still encouraged to do so, while people who couldn’t had to worry about heightened enforcement actions.”
The evolution of USCIS
Allowing benefits distribution to be run independently of enforcement meant that immigrants with legal status didn’t run the risk of being caught up by vast enforcement actions that often can’t easily distinguish between immigrants with a legal status and immigrants without.
In 2018, though, USCIS began sending out summons to the Immigration Court, known as a Notice to Appear (NTA). They had become part of the removal (or deportation) proceedings. This was a reversal of the original purpose of the agency, which was to ensure immigrants with legal status (including DACA recipients) felt secure in their ability to get their benefits without the fear of being wrongfully prosecuted.
In fact, Berke argues, while it may be assumed that removal proceedings only target undocumented immigrants, in reality, immigrants with legal status are caught up in enforcement frequently. They then get stuck in an immigration court system that is already overwhelmed with cases where they then struggle to prove their legal status.Meanwhile, actual criminals and terrorists – the stated target of most immigrant enforcement actions – don’t respond to NTAs, so they aren’t apprehended.Berke, who represents DACA recipients (or Dreamers), also pointed out that the USCIS’ mission statement changed in February 2018. It was formerly:“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”
Now, it is:
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
“Recognition of the US as a nation of immigrants,” Berke notes, “was omitted.”
May 7, 2020
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://themilsource.com/2020/05/06/what-are-the-legal-stakes-for-dreamers-if-daca-is-terminated/
Berke Law Offices, Inc. founding member, Robert G. Berke, was quoted extensively in the following article by Joseph Lyttleton for The Millenial Source.
In the first year of his presidency, United States President Donald Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started by his predecessor, President Barack Obama. The termination of the program has been temporarily halted by several lawsuits that have argued that the Trump administration’s action was illegal.
In November 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments related to these legal challenges. A final ruling by the justices is expected no later than June 2020. If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, hundreds of thousands of people currently living in the country could face loss of employment and deportation.
DACA has provided stability to more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants whose status in the country had been uncertain. The policy granted those who had arrived illegally in the country as children and had no criminal record permission to remain in the country without fear of expulsion for a period of two years, with the possibility of renewal and work permits.
Those immigrants who are protected under the Obama-era program are known as “Dreamers” (often styled DREAMers).
The name references the DREAM Act, legislation that was first proposed in Congress in 2001 but has yet to be approved by both chambers. This act, which would have offered similar protections as DACA, stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.
The Millennial Source contacted legal professionals who have experience in the field of immigration and personal experience assisting Dreamers. They spoke on DACA, the Trump administration’s termination of the program and the effect it will have on DREAMers they represent.Speaking for the Dreamers
Asked if any of his clients would be directly affected by the Trump administration’s actions, Robert G. Berke stated, “Yes. The fallout will be tremendous.”
Berke, owner of the Los Angeles-based Berke Law Offices, opened his firm in 1990 and has spent his career focused on immigration law, criminal law and attorney disciplinary matters.
“If DACA were to disappear,” J.J. Despain told The Millennial Source, “it would be a huge reversion.” Despain is the managing attorney for the Boise, Idaho office of Wilner & O’Reilly Immigration Lawyers. Prior to working with Wilner & O’Reilly, Despain oversaw the DACA renewal process at the Austin-based Catholic Charities of Central Texas.
“I do have a lot of clients who have had DACA for years,” Despain explained, “which has provided them some stability and livelihood. They do not have lawful status permanently, but they are able to get legal authorization to work and can renew that authorization every two years. And they have the confidence that, as long as they follow the rules, they can at least stay in the United States in that DACA ‘limbo,’ which is better than no immigration status at all.
“Often, DACA can be the gateway to something that does get them permanent status, like being married to a US citizen,” Despain continued.
“The lives that many of these young people have built will be in jeopardy. Many of them would suddenly have no immigration status. And what’s more is that immigration authorities would know who and where they are and who knows what the authorities would do with that information.”
Berke offered a similar assessment, saying that many Dreamers have built lives in the US.
“Some are not so young anymore: many DACA recipients have become parents already.”
Asked about the state of mind of the Dreamers they work with, Despain and Berke both talked about an overriding sense of anxiety.
“For those who have no other options,” Berke said, “they are suffering from the anxiety that always accompanies uncertainty.”
“My clients who have DACA are overwhelmingly anxious,” Despain affirmed. “They are watching the news and they know that the Supreme Court will be making a decision that will affect their lives. I get calls and emails from them often and more often as the Supreme Court’s decision approaches… unfortunately I don’t have any answers for them yet.”
The legal status of DACA and Dreamers
In January 2018, before the termination of DACA went into effect, Judge William Alsup, a District judge in San Francisco, blocked the order. Alsup ruled that the Trump administration had to “maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis.” Though the program remains in place, lawsuits and appeals have infused uncertainty into the equation, with the Supreme Court set to have the final word on the matter.
“I don’t expect there to be ‘immediate’ consequences,” Berke explained of what he thought would happen if the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration. “I do expect there to be immediate risks. Very few, if any, DACA recipients are going to be subjected to expedited removal. Our clients who may have had outstanding orders or administratively closed cases have, for the most part, already began building their safety nets or plan-Bs.
“Strategically, our focus right now is looking at each affected client’s circumstances to make sure that they can have some stasis until more pragmatic thinking begins to shape the conversation. In this regard, the current administration’s lack of pragmatism and forethought can be turned to [our] advantage since history teaches that most attempts to deal with immigration monolithically on either the benefits or enforcement side have turned into legal morasses.”
When the Trump administration initially struck down DACA, those who were already grandfathered into the program were permitted to stay on it and even renew their work permits once more. It is possible that the Trump administration would offer a similar stopgap measure after a Supreme Court decision, but that isn’t assured.
“If the DACA program ends entirely,” Despain warned, “anyone who was previously dependent on DACA will have to find an alternative, if there is one. Some alternatives may be even better than what they had before, so it wouldn’t be only bad news. But it would be a significant change, for good or bad.”
Tackling immigration reform
Immigration policy reform has been called the “third rail” in American politics for decades. To take any action on it can appear to be a lose-lose proposition, almost certain to anger some proportion of the population. Appear too lenient on so-called “illegal immigration” and you anger conservatives, support strict border control and deportations and you turn off liberals.
In both his 2016 campaign and this year’s election, ending illegal immigration to the US has been one of Trump’s chief policy positions. In his June 2015 campaign announcement speech, Trump emphasized how he would be strong on border control.
“The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” Trump claimed. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump’s administration has worked to limit all immigration, not just that of undocumented people. It has sought to limit legal immigration based on financial means and religious belief, as well as placing stricter restrictions on asylum seekers.
Speaking with The Millennial Source on the Trump administration’s actions, David Reischr, a lawyer with Pro Bono LegalAdvice.com, said the practical effect of terminating DACA has been negligible so far.
“The Trump policy has mostly been a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Reischr said. “Other than a stoking of base animosity against DACA recipients, there [has] been at present no legal consequence to my clients from Trump’s actions.”
Though Obama passed DACA and campaigned on providing a pathway to citizenship, his administration was also highly focused on deportations, albeit with a specific focus on people with criminal records.
Comparing the first three years of their administrations, Obama deported more people than Trump. Though both deported fewer people than previous administrations.
Despite the shortcomings of the Obama administration, Trump’s immigration policy has an even darker underpinning according to Berke.
The Trump administration is currently guided by the agenda of Stephen Miller, the Senior White House advisor who has been called “the architect of the president’s assault on immigration.”
With Miller crafting Trump’s immigration policy, the laws have favored white, wealthy immigrants over nonwhites and the poor.
“For the first time in my 30-year career, cruelty seems to be a dominant (if unspoken) policy,” Berke said. “I have been quite shocked by how willing various officers (and even judges) who I thought were normal, decent people were to enforce cruel policies.
“In fairness, I have also been quite pleasantly surprised by how many left their jobs (nice, cushy federal jobs!) because they were unwilling to enforce cruel policies. I hope one day those people will be remembered as heroes.”
Is DACA worth saving?
Despite the legal efforts to preserve the program, DACA has its critics even among those looking to protect undocumented immigrants. In Berke’s perspective, the program was poorly implemented and had obvious shortcomings as a long-term solution.
“The DACA program was flawed and uncertain from the get-go,” Berke told The Millennial Source. “We were very cautious at the outset of the program because it appeared to involve a ‘leap of faith.’”
There was considerable risk for undocumented immigrants to sign up for DACA. They had to tell the government, in Berke’s words, “‘I’m here. I entered without permission, I have no authorization to be here and I thus admit that I can be deported from the United States. And by the way, here’s where I live if you or some future administration should decide at some point in the future to deport me.’”
Berke says the program turned out to be “a bad bet by the Obama administration,” made with good intentions but insufficient foresight. The Trump administration’s shift on immigration has exposed the flaws in DACA, well-intentioned as it might have been.
Despain’s outlook on the program is rosier.
“I do believe DACA is an effective policy. Before DACA, many people in the United States who were law-abiding and productive people were being held back because they simply weren’t born in the United States and had no mechanism for establishing immigration status.
“DACA made it possible for thousands to work, go to school, open businesses and create jobs and start families, because they did not have the threat of immigration consequences hanging over them. DACA was for the immigrants who even hardcore opponents of illegal immigration would likely agree are beneficial to our society and contribute amazing things to the country.”
The politics of immigration
Whether the Supreme Court upholds DACA or allows it to be struck down, one thing is clear: immigration will remain a hot-topic issue for years to come in the US.
“I feel it is important to note,” Berke stated, “that the ‘issue’ of ‘illegal immigration’ is a made up one solely for purposes of making press releases or fear-mongering.”
Politicization has made immigration nearly impossible to tackle effectively, even as there are members of both major political parties who sincerely want to see the nation’s policies fixed.
“Our country has reached a state of political polarization in which the parties cannot work together,” Berke lamented. “I don’t think there’s any lack of desire from majorities in both parties to reach sensible reform, but Congress has been impotent since around 2010.”
Neither political party can claim a moral high ground on the issue, Berke claims, with some of the most “mean-spirited” amendments to the US’s existing immigration laws being passed under Democratic administrations.
Even well-meaning actions have only made the system more convoluted. The “deferred action” as offered by DACA was not a new concept in American politics when the Obama administration authorized it with the program.
Decades of like-minded policies have created a system in which entering the country illegally and gaining amnesty has, at times, been a more realistic – if not easier – option than seeking legal residence.
“If you want to stop illegal immigration,” Berke explained, “you must make legal immigration a practical possibility.”
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://themilsource.com/2020/05/06/what-are-the-legal-stakes-for-dreamers-if-daca-is-terminated/
Berke Law Offices, Inc. founding member, Robert G. Berke, was quoted extensively in the following article by Joseph Lyttleton for The Millenial Source.
What are the legal stakes for DREAMers if DACA is terminated?
What are the legal stakes for DREAMers if DACA is terminated?
In the first year of his presidency, United States President Donald Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started by his predecessor, President Barack Obama. The termination of the program has been temporarily halted by several lawsuits that have argued that the Trump administration’s action was illegal.
In November 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments related to these legal challenges. A final ruling by the justices is expected no later than June 2020. If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, hundreds of thousands of people currently living in the country could face loss of employment and deportation.
DACA has provided stability to more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants whose status in the country had been uncertain. The policy granted those who had arrived illegally in the country as children and had no criminal record permission to remain in the country without fear of expulsion for a period of two years, with the possibility of renewal and work permits.
Those immigrants who are protected under the Obama-era program are known as “Dreamers” (often styled DREAMers).
The name references the DREAM Act, legislation that was first proposed in Congress in 2001 but has yet to be approved by both chambers. This act, which would have offered similar protections as DACA, stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.
The Millennial Source contacted legal professionals who have experience in the field of immigration and personal experience assisting Dreamers. They spoke on DACA, the Trump administration’s termination of the program and the effect it will have on DREAMers they represent.Speaking for the Dreamers
Asked if any of his clients would be directly affected by the Trump administration’s actions, Robert G. Berke stated, “Yes. The fallout will be tremendous.”
Berke, owner of the Los Angeles-based Berke Law Offices, opened his firm in 1990 and has spent his career focused on immigration law, criminal law and attorney disciplinary matters.
“If DACA were to disappear,” J.J. Despain told The Millennial Source, “it would be a huge reversion.” Despain is the managing attorney for the Boise, Idaho office of Wilner & O’Reilly Immigration Lawyers. Prior to working with Wilner & O’Reilly, Despain oversaw the DACA renewal process at the Austin-based Catholic Charities of Central Texas.
“I do have a lot of clients who have had DACA for years,” Despain explained, “which has provided them some stability and livelihood. They do not have lawful status permanently, but they are able to get legal authorization to work and can renew that authorization every two years. And they have the confidence that, as long as they follow the rules, they can at least stay in the United States in that DACA ‘limbo,’ which is better than no immigration status at all.
“Often, DACA can be the gateway to something that does get them permanent status, like being married to a US citizen,” Despain continued.
“The lives that many of these young people have built will be in jeopardy. Many of them would suddenly have no immigration status. And what’s more is that immigration authorities would know who and where they are and who knows what the authorities would do with that information.”
Berke offered a similar assessment, saying that many Dreamers have built lives in the US.
“Some are not so young anymore: many DACA recipients have become parents already.”
Asked about the state of mind of the Dreamers they work with, Despain and Berke both talked about an overriding sense of anxiety.
“For those who have no other options,” Berke said, “they are suffering from the anxiety that always accompanies uncertainty.”
“My clients who have DACA are overwhelmingly anxious,” Despain affirmed. “They are watching the news and they know that the Supreme Court will be making a decision that will affect their lives. I get calls and emails from them often and more often as the Supreme Court’s decision approaches… unfortunately I don’t have any answers for them yet.”
The legal status of DACA and Dreamers
In January 2018, before the termination of DACA went into effect, Judge William Alsup, a District judge in San Francisco, blocked the order. Alsup ruled that the Trump administration had to “maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis.” Though the program remains in place, lawsuits and appeals have infused uncertainty into the equation, with the Supreme Court set to have the final word on the matter.
“I don’t expect there to be ‘immediate’ consequences,” Berke explained of what he thought would happen if the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration. “I do expect there to be immediate risks. Very few, if any, DACA recipients are going to be subjected to expedited removal. Our clients who may have had outstanding orders or administratively closed cases have, for the most part, already began building their safety nets or plan-Bs.
“Strategically, our focus right now is looking at each affected client’s circumstances to make sure that they can have some stasis until more pragmatic thinking begins to shape the conversation. In this regard, the current administration’s lack of pragmatism and forethought can be turned to [our] advantage since history teaches that most attempts to deal with immigration monolithically on either the benefits or enforcement side have turned into legal morasses.”
When the Trump administration initially struck down DACA, those who were already grandfathered into the program were permitted to stay on it and even renew their work permits once more. It is possible that the Trump administration would offer a similar stopgap measure after a Supreme Court decision, but that isn’t assured.
“If the DACA program ends entirely,” Despain warned, “anyone who was previously dependent on DACA will have to find an alternative, if there is one. Some alternatives may be even better than what they had before, so it wouldn’t be only bad news. But it would be a significant change, for good or bad.”
Tackling immigration reform
Immigration policy reform has been called the “third rail” in American politics for decades. To take any action on it can appear to be a lose-lose proposition, almost certain to anger some proportion of the population. Appear too lenient on so-called “illegal immigration” and you anger conservatives, support strict border control and deportations and you turn off liberals.
In both his 2016 campaign and this year’s election, ending illegal immigration to the US has been one of Trump’s chief policy positions. In his June 2015 campaign announcement speech, Trump emphasized how he would be strong on border control.
“The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” Trump claimed. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump’s administration has worked to limit all immigration, not just that of undocumented people. It has sought to limit legal immigration based on financial means and religious belief, as well as placing stricter restrictions on asylum seekers.
Speaking with The Millennial Source on the Trump administration’s actions, David Reischr, a lawyer with Pro Bono LegalAdvice.com, said the practical effect of terminating DACA has been negligible so far.
“The Trump policy has mostly been a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Reischr said. “Other than a stoking of base animosity against DACA recipients, there [has] been at present no legal consequence to my clients from Trump’s actions.”
Though Obama passed DACA and campaigned on providing a pathway to citizenship, his administration was also highly focused on deportations, albeit with a specific focus on people with criminal records.
Comparing the first three years of their administrations, Obama deported more people than Trump. Though both deported fewer people than previous administrations.
Despite the shortcomings of the Obama administration, Trump’s immigration policy has an even darker underpinning according to Berke.
The Trump administration is currently guided by the agenda of Stephen Miller, the Senior White House advisor who has been called “the architect of the president’s assault on immigration.”
With Miller crafting Trump’s immigration policy, the laws have favored white, wealthy immigrants over nonwhites and the poor.
“For the first time in my 30-year career, cruelty seems to be a dominant (if unspoken) policy,” Berke said. “I have been quite shocked by how willing various officers (and even judges) who I thought were normal, decent people were to enforce cruel policies.
“In fairness, I have also been quite pleasantly surprised by how many left their jobs (nice, cushy federal jobs!) because they were unwilling to enforce cruel policies. I hope one day those people will be remembered as heroes.”
Is DACA worth saving?
Despite the legal efforts to preserve the program, DACA has its critics even among those looking to protect undocumented immigrants. In Berke’s perspective, the program was poorly implemented and had obvious shortcomings as a long-term solution.
“The DACA program was flawed and uncertain from the get-go,” Berke told The Millennial Source. “We were very cautious at the outset of the program because it appeared to involve a ‘leap of faith.’”
There was considerable risk for undocumented immigrants to sign up for DACA. They had to tell the government, in Berke’s words, “‘I’m here. I entered without permission, I have no authorization to be here and I thus admit that I can be deported from the United States. And by the way, here’s where I live if you or some future administration should decide at some point in the future to deport me.’”
Berke says the program turned out to be “a bad bet by the Obama administration,” made with good intentions but insufficient foresight. The Trump administration’s shift on immigration has exposed the flaws in DACA, well-intentioned as it might have been.
Despain’s outlook on the program is rosier.
“I do believe DACA is an effective policy. Before DACA, many people in the United States who were law-abiding and productive people were being held back because they simply weren’t born in the United States and had no mechanism for establishing immigration status.
“DACA made it possible for thousands to work, go to school, open businesses and create jobs and start families, because they did not have the threat of immigration consequences hanging over them. DACA was for the immigrants who even hardcore opponents of illegal immigration would likely agree are beneficial to our society and contribute amazing things to the country.”
The politics of immigration
Whether the Supreme Court upholds DACA or allows it to be struck down, one thing is clear: immigration will remain a hot-topic issue for years to come in the US.
“I feel it is important to note,” Berke stated, “that the ‘issue’ of ‘illegal immigration’ is a made up one solely for purposes of making press releases or fear-mongering.”
Politicization has made immigration nearly impossible to tackle effectively, even as there are members of both major political parties who sincerely want to see the nation’s policies fixed.
“Our country has reached a state of political polarization in which the parties cannot work together,” Berke lamented. “I don’t think there’s any lack of desire from majorities in both parties to reach sensible reform, but Congress has been impotent since around 2010.”
Neither political party can claim a moral high ground on the issue, Berke claims, with some of the most “mean-spirited” amendments to the US’s existing immigration laws being passed under Democratic administrations.
Even well-meaning actions have only made the system more convoluted. The “deferred action” as offered by DACA was not a new concept in American politics when the Obama administration authorized it with the program.
Decades of like-minded policies have created a system in which entering the country illegally and gaining amnesty has, at times, been a more realistic – if not easier – option than seeking legal residence.
“If you want to stop illegal immigration,” Berke explained, “you must make legal immigration a practical possibility.”
January 30, 2020
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/1238467/cannabis-delivery-co-users-denied-class-cert-in-tcpa-suit
Congratulations to Shant Nazarian, Berke Law Offices, Inc. attorney for an excellent win.Here's how it was reported in the news:
By Sarah Jarvis
Law360 (January 29, 2020, 10:24 PM EST) -- Customers of a cannabis delivery service were refused their bid to certify a class action complaint accusing the company of sending them unsolicited texts after a federal court found that there weren't enough of them to warrant class treatment.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II said in Tuesday's order that the customers, led by plaintiffs Alex Derval and Morgan Simmons, failed to meet the numerosity certification requirement for their claims that Xaler, a company that delivers cannabis in the Los Angeles area, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Though Derval and Simmons alleged in their complaint that there were thousands of proposed class members, they said in a separate filing that that number was at least 20 to 40 people.
They said the numeric threshold was met because Xaler has hundreds of reviews from different customers on the cannabis business directory website Weedmaps.com, and at least some of those customers must have received unwanted text messages. They submitted screenshots of 78 different reviews to the court, but Judge Wright said the reviews only support the idea that Xaler had 78 customers, at most.
"The reviews do not support that any of those customers received unwanted text messages, revoked consent to receive messages or continued to receive messages after revocation," Judge Wright said. "Evidence of possible class membership is not evidence of actual numerosity."
Counsel for both parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
The proposed class was any cellphone owner in the U.S. who received at least one marketing text message without consent via an automatic telephone dialing system from Xaler as early as four years before the complaint was filed in March 2019. Derval and Simmons had sought statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each proposed class member, and their complaint included counts of both negligent and willful violation of the TCPA.
Despite texts stating that customers could opt out of receiving the messages by responding "STOP," Derval and Simmons said they both received several messages after they did so in late 2018 and early 2019.
Similar TCPA proposed class actions against cannabis-related companies have cropped up in recent months, including in California's Northern District and in Washington. The proposed classes in those cases have not yet filed motions to certify the classes.
Derval and Simmons are represented by Farmon Javad Rahimi of Los Angeles Legal Solutions APLC, Jared M Hartman of Semnar and Hartman LLP and Sara F Khosroabadi of SKB Law APC.
Xaler is represented by Robert G Berke of Berke Law Offices Inc.
The case is Alex Derval et al. v. Xaler et al., case number 2:19-CV-01881, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Editing by Michael Watanabe.
BERKE LAW OFFICES, INC. IN THE NEWS:https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/1238467/cannabis-delivery-co-users-denied-class-cert-in-tcpa-suit
Congratulations to Shant Nazarian, Berke Law Offices, Inc. attorney for an excellent win.Here's how it was reported in the news:
Cannabis Delivery Co. Users Denied Class Cert. In TCPA Suit
By Sarah JarvisCannabis Delivery Co. Users Denied Class Cert. In TCPA Suit
Law360 (January 29, 2020, 10:24 PM EST) -- Customers of a cannabis delivery service were refused their bid to certify a class action complaint accusing the company of sending them unsolicited texts after a federal court found that there weren't enough of them to warrant class treatment.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II said in Tuesday's order that the customers, led by plaintiffs Alex Derval and Morgan Simmons, failed to meet the numerosity certification requirement for their claims that Xaler, a company that delivers cannabis in the Los Angeles area, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Though Derval and Simmons alleged in their complaint that there were thousands of proposed class members, they said in a separate filing that that number was at least 20 to 40 people.
They said the numeric threshold was met because Xaler has hundreds of reviews from different customers on the cannabis business directory website Weedmaps.com, and at least some of those customers must have received unwanted text messages. They submitted screenshots of 78 different reviews to the court, but Judge Wright said the reviews only support the idea that Xaler had 78 customers, at most.
"The reviews do not support that any of those customers received unwanted text messages, revoked consent to receive messages or continued to receive messages after revocation," Judge Wright said. "Evidence of possible class membership is not evidence of actual numerosity."
Counsel for both parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
The proposed class was any cellphone owner in the U.S. who received at least one marketing text message without consent via an automatic telephone dialing system from Xaler as early as four years before the complaint was filed in March 2019. Derval and Simmons had sought statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each proposed class member, and their complaint included counts of both negligent and willful violation of the TCPA.
Despite texts stating that customers could opt out of receiving the messages by responding "STOP," Derval and Simmons said they both received several messages after they did so in late 2018 and early 2019.
Similar TCPA proposed class actions against cannabis-related companies have cropped up in recent months, including in California's Northern District and in Washington. The proposed classes in those cases have not yet filed motions to certify the classes.
Derval and Simmons are represented by Farmon Javad Rahimi of Los Angeles Legal Solutions APLC, Jared M Hartman of Semnar and Hartman LLP and Sara F Khosroabadi of SKB Law APC.
Xaler is represented by Robert G Berke of Berke Law Offices Inc.
The case is Alex Derval et al. v. Xaler et al., case number 2:19-CV-01881, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Editing by Michael Watanabe.
September 6, 2019
In just ONE dayRemoval proceedings terminated based on vacated conviction for domestic violence (Attorney Shant Nazarian)Major drug trafficking conviction vacated pursuant to Cal. Pen. C. section 1016.5 (Attorney Carlo Brooks)Naturalization grant after LPR Cancellation grant, numerous criminal convictions (Attorney Robert Berke)
In just ONE dayRemoval proceedings terminated based on vacated conviction for domestic violence (Attorney Shant Nazarian)Major drug trafficking conviction vacated pursuant to Cal. Pen. C. section 1016.5 (Attorney Carlo Brooks)Naturalization grant after LPR Cancellation grant, numerous criminal convictions (Attorney Robert Berke)
August 15, 2019
TRAVEL WAIVER BAN WAIVER GRANTED FOR CITIZEN OF IRANSpecial thank to Sonal for her exceptional work assisting Robert Berke on the caseAccording to reports, less than 3% of these waivers have been granted nationwide.
TRAVEL WAIVER BAN WAIVER GRANTED FOR CITIZEN OF IRANSpecial thank to Sonal for her exceptional work assisting Robert Berke on the caseAccording to reports, less than 3% of these waivers have been granted nationwide.
July 4, 2019
Closed for 4th of July
June 1, 2019Closed for 4th of July
CONGRATULATIONS EDITH NAZARIAN and CARLO BROOKS ON BEING SELECTED AS SUPERLAWYERS RISING STARS FOR 2019
May 28, 2019
Welcome Carlos Serrano, our new media manager
Berke Law Offices, Inc. is happy to announce the newest addition to our staff, Carlos Serrano, who has recently graduated from CSUN with a degree in business law, who, in addition to assisting the attorneys with legal tasks, will also be overseeing our presence in the media. All media inquiries should be directed to carlos@berkelegal.comWelcome Carlos Serrano, our new media manager