Immigration Attorney in RI

Testimonial from an Immigration Client

We are typically very involved in the lives of our clients during the handling of their defense or family court matters. Friends and family are sometimes moved to share their recommendations...

“Mr. MacDonald is a man of his word. He did everything he said he would and in a timely manner. I am so happy we hired his services to help my friend stay in the United States. I highly recommend him to anyone who has criminal convictions that may result in deportation.”

 ~ John Q.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Immigration Charges Dismissed in Removal Matter

Immigration Attorney John MacDonald announces the dismissal of all charges in immigration matter against his client.

FACTS: Client in removal proceedings based upon a 2005 conviction for a Rhode Island domestic assault.

Client needed this plea vacated because he could not qualify for cancellation of removal.

RESULTS: On May 12, 2011, both the plea and conviction were vacated based upon defects in the plea colloquy.

On June 22, 2011, all criminal charges were dismissed by the City prosecutor at pre-trial and the client’s removal proceedings were terminated.

Client is now eligible to pursue citizenship.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Same Sex Marriage and Green Cards

Same Sex Marriage and Green Cards

An omission in the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, serves as an opening to deny same sex couples the right to sponsor their partner for a green card. This omission conveys, in effect, that if you are a US citizen who happens to be in a same sex marriage, you must leave the country to maintain your togetherness with your partner. The omission denies same sex couples the ability to petition for their partner, and therefore subjects them to the risk of being in the country illegally.

The article below proposes not a change to the immigration laws, merely an executive order from the President that directs the executive branch of the government, not the citizens of the country, to rectify the omission by allowing same sex partners to sponsor their spouses for green card and legal immigration status in America.

A portion of the article follows below.

Same-Sex Green Cards: The Case for a Presidential Executive Order 2011

Melanie Nathan
Dec 30, 2010

At the federal level of government in the United States, laws are made almost exclusively by legislation. Legislation originates as an Act of Congress passed by the Congress of the United States; such acts were either signed into law by the President or passed by Congress after a presidential veto.

Legislation is not the only source of regulations which have the force of law. There is also judge-made common law and constitutional law. The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

When it comes to immigration matters, the standing law is that covered by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the USA. This law cannot be changed, without the involvement of Congress through an amendment process. However I believe that when it comes to the regulations to effect the intent behind the law or something that unexpectedly and detrimentally impacts the law, the President of the USA can provide an executive order to adjust the circumstances, so impacted.

I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the Defense of Marriage Act to deny the de facto relationships of same-sex couples. I believe President Clinton who signed it into law would attest that it was never his intention to cause American citizens and Residents in same-sex relationships to have to exile the USA to pursue their Constitutional right to happiness. However Americans in the USA, in same sex relationships are denied the possibility to sponsor a partner for a green card.

Accordingly I believe that President Obama has the power to effect an Executive Order on behalf of same-sex couples who are specifically excluded by DOMA, from participating in the US Immigration laws. This quest would specifically denote a right by way of process to an American (citizen or resident) and not a right to an immigrant; the right of the American to Petition for a same-sex partner to reside in the USA, that is currently excluded via laws that simply fail to include the de facto situation, thereby causing extreme hardship to American Families.

I do not believe the Immigration law needs to change for this to happen in the short term; I do not believe that this reflects in any way shape or form on the marriage equality debate. It does not seek to change DOMA and nor does it impact the Immigration Act as we know it, at all.

There have been many early executive orders during all Presidencies; the State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln’s Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862. An executive order is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government, generally to staff of the executive branch and not to the citizens of the country. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically reserves all federal legislative authority to Congress, not the president.

However here what would occur would be the President ordering the inclusion of same-sex partners under existing law, based on the de facto existence of relationships, the anomaly caused by State law that endorse such relationships, while the Federal government fails to secure the right of the American to remain at home in a relationship of their choice.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Crime of Illegal Immigration

Naturalization is still the best way to immigrate to any country. Following the legal rules and guidelines imposed by a society assures the most successful transition into the daily activities and lifestyles of that society. This is also the safest and most successful way of becoming a United States citizen currently in this country.

The recent immigration debate often overlooks the fact that many of the people being removed from the country are labeled as criminals, when in fact their only crime may be the situation that is getting them removed to begin with; their illegal immigration status.

An article from npr.org regarding the current immigration situation follows below.

Immigration Enforcement Working, Numbers Show

by Ted Robbins

This year promises to be another contentious one for U.S. immigration politics. The new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has indicated it will take an even harder line against illegal immigration.

But while some politicians paint the Southern border as lawless and out of control, the numbers don't support that, says Doris Meissner, the former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"It really is astonishing that all of the enforcement data show us that the trend is that enforcement is making a difference," says Meissner, who is now with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Numbers from the Department of Homeland Security show a drop in apprehensions along the border — from more than 1 million five years ago to less than half a million in the past fiscal year. Fewer people are attempting to cross because there are fewer jobs available.

A Decade-Long Trend

But the trend began a decade ago, long before the recession began.

"This has been something that took hold when we started resourcing the borders — adding the infrastructure that was required, the technology — and that drop has continued," says Deputy Customs and Border Protection Commissioner David Aguilar.

Enforcement away from the border has also picked up. The government removed about 400,000 illegal immigrants from inside the U.S. last year — a small increase.

The biggest shift was a decision made two years ago to go after what the government calls "criminal aliens," or illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the U.S. They now make up half of all illegal immigrants removed. Interior enforcement resources, though, are still small compared with border enforcement.

And there's still one place left where relatively large numbers of people still cross the border illegally: Arizona.

But even those numbers, says Aguilar, are low compared with what he used to see. There were 219,000 apprehensions last year in Arizona, less than half the number a decade ago. And despite high-profile incidents like the killing of a border patrol agent last month and a southern Arizona rancher last March, the FBI reports that overall violent crime in Southern border states is way down from a few years ago.

Real And Perceived Impacts

But Meissner says concerns and antipathy are "at an absolute high point."

It's not about the numbers, Meissner says. It's about the real and perceived impact immigrants are having on the country.

"And, underneath it all, the kind of cultural issues of how much immigration is changing us: What it means to the identities of communities, how different groups of people are being incorporated," she says.

Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh is targeting illegal immigrants who have children in the U.S. He wants to change the way the Constitution grants those children citizenship.

"We believe that the current policy of giving citizenship based on your GPS presence in the U.S. at birth is a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment," he says.

Kavanagh and legislators from 13 other states will announce a plan Wednesday they hope will result in the Supreme Court's reviewing the way birthright citizenship is applied.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Married Couples Need to File Taxes Together for Immigration

Naturalization and Taxes

When you are going through the naturalization process in the United States, and you are married, it is in your best interest to file your tax returns as a married couple.

Although in some very rare instances, a tax professional may advise you that filing separately will bring greater savings overall, unless they will be willing to provide you with a letter for immigration, stating the reasons why they advised you to file separately as a married couple, you will be much safer filing a joint return.

Filing as Head of Household gives the USCIS the impression that you are not living together as a married couple anymore. Also, married filing separately can give the impression that you are not being honest in reporting income.

Finally, if you are close to the five year point on your permanent residence status, and feel that none of this will affect you, think again. The USCIS is much less likely to take you at your word when your five years is up, if you are found to be having problems with your tax situation beforehand.

In all immigration and naturalization matters, seek the advice of an experienced legal professional.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Immigration Story with a Happy Ending

Immigration and naturalization stories are typically not inclined to happy endings, so when a story can provoke at least a smile, it is well worth repeating.

Immigration Attorney John MacDonald found the following article regarding citizenship noteworthy and shares it below.

Woman Receives Naturalization Certificate After 27 Years

By Christine Lin

NEW YORK—Stories about immigrants waiting decades to receive their prized citizenship certificates conjure images of tortured legal proceedings and tears of frustration, but this one warrants a few laughs.

On Wednesday, a Dominican grandmother finally received her papers, after a 27-year-long wait for a notification letter to arrive from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Unbeknownst to Jenis Martinez, the letter had already arrived—only it was jammed behind her mailbox, where it remained unseen for nearly three decades.

Jenis Martinez became a citizen of the United States in 1975. After having misplaced her original citizenship certificate, she applied for a new one in 1983. USCIS promptly mailed her a letter, letting her know that she could pick up her new certificate on Dec. 22, 1983. Unfortunately, she did not find that letter until earlier this year.

Martinez, a grandmother and breast cancer survivor, went to the USCIS district office on Wednesday to receive her certificate from USCIS New York District Director Andrea Quarantillo before a gathering of reporters—exactly 27 years from the date that she could have picked it up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Immigration Issues Decided in Padilla v. Kentucky

Immigration Attorney John E. MacDonald Speaks on the Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky

On December 8, 2010, Attorney John E. MacDonald, Esquire spoke at the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ annual Fall Continuing Legal Education Seminar regarding Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure. Attorney MacDonald presented an update relative to the recent Supreme Court Immigration ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky. The seminar encompassed effective strategies and tactics for providing effective assistance of counsel, and avoiding removal in criminal and immigration matters.

The case of Padilla v. Kentucky is a precedent setting Supreme Court case involving the rights of a criminal defendant to be informed regarding the possibility of deportation when entering into plea agreements, or being found guilty of all but the most minor criminal offenses. With the recent changes to the Immigration laws, private counsel is now in the position of having to inform criminal clients about the possibility of deportation in all but the most obscurely referenced Immigration laws. In all criminal cases involving immigrants, counsel must at least inform the client that the chance of deportation exists.

Attorney MacDonald is known for his experience in Criminal matters that also involve Immigration issues, and when asked about his engagement to speak at the CLE seminar dealing with this issue stated, “Padilla is a landmark decision from our Supreme Court. It places an affirmative duty on criminal defense lawyers to properly advise their clients as to the immigration consequences of a plea. Lawyers can no longer turn a blind eye to the harsh immigration consequences that may result from a plea to a criminal case.”

The CLE seminar took place on Wednesday December 8, 2010 from 4:00 to 7:00PM at the Frank Licht Judicial Complex, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Post-Conviction Relief Immigration Lawyer MacDonald announces the resolution of a case.

Post-Conviction Relief Lawyer John E. MacDonald announces the successful resolution of another case.

2009 conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon vacated after a contested post-conviction relief hearing in Providence Superior Court.

Client was never advised by his attorney that his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon constituted an aggravated felony conviction under immigration law.

After hearing, the trial court found that pursuant to the United State’s Supreme Court’s decision of Padilla v. Kentucky, the attorney had a duty to fully advise client about the certainty of deportation.

Client is now eligible to re-open and terminate removal proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RI Criminal Attorney MacDonald Speaks on the Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky

On December 8, 2010, Attorney John E. MacDonald, Esquire will speak at the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ annual Fall Continuing Legal Education Seminar regarding Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure. 

Attorney MacDonald will present an update relative to the recent Supreme Court Immigration ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky. The seminar will encompass effective strategies and tactics for providing effective assistance of counsel, and avoiding removal in criminal and immigration matters.

The case of Padilla v. Kentucky is a precedent setting Supreme Court case involving the rights of a criminal defendant to be informed regarding the possibility of deportation when entering into plea agreements, or being found guilty of all but the most minor criminal offenses. With the recent changes to the Immigration laws, private counsel is now in the position of having to inform criminal clients about the possibility of deportation in all but the most obscurely referenced Immigration laws. In all criminal cases involving immigrants, counsel must at least inform the client that the chance of deportation exists.

Attorney MacDonald is known for his experience in Criminal matters that also involve Immigration issues, and when asked about his engagement to speak at the CLE seminar dealing with this issue stated, “Padilla is a landmark decision from our Supreme Court. It places an affirmative duty on criminal defense lawyers to properly advise their clients as to the immigration consequences of a plea. Lawyers can no longer turn a blind eye to the harsh immigration consequences that may result from a plea to a criminal case.”

The CLE seminar will take place on Wednesday December 8, 2010 from 4:00 to 7:00PM at the Frank Licht Judicial Complex, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

New RI Immigration Law Will Copy Arizona

RI Immigration Lawyer MacDonald found the following article regarding a scheduled change to the RI Immigration laws that would follow the new Arizona Immigration laws. The AZ laws have been shot-down by a Federal Court following the filing of a lawsuit by the Obama administration. The full article concerning these precedent setting and landmark decisions in Immigration law follows below.

Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation

August 19, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law – a ruling that is now being appealed.

Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.

Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.

In addition, Alabama House Republicans announced this week that they would seek to “push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law.” This law would “create a new criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama,” said Alabama’s House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard.

In Florida, proposed legislation against illegal immigration has been retooled to address some concerns raised by a federal judge who blocked the bill, though it would still allow Florida state police to enforce immigration law.

In all, there are 22 states considering copycat legislation from the Arizona law against illegal immigration, according to the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), a group that advocates for stricter immigration enforcement.


The law prohibits racial profiling and gives state residents the right to sue local agencies for not complying with the state law.

In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Obama administration said the United States should not have a “patchwork” of 50 different immigration laws. In late July, U.S. District Judge Susna Bolton ruled against most of the major elements of the Arizona law, halting their implementation. That ruling is now in the appeals process.

“We do not expand on federal law,” Florida state Rep. William Snyder, sponsor of the bill in his state, told CNSNews.com. “We do not change penalties. The goal is not to create a new immigration framework at the state level.”

Snyder, the chairman of the Florida House Criminal Justice Committee, said his staff attorneys have taken the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton into consideration in re-crafting their bill for the next state legislative session.

Snyder said the office of state Attorney General Bill McCollum has reviewed the legislation, as has committee attorneys, and they believe it will withstand a potential legal challenge from the Obama administration.

McCollum, a GOP candidate for governor, supports the legislation. However, Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican-turned-Independent candidate for U.S. Senate, opposes the proposal.


In Rhode Island, a bill that was introduced late in the session last year, and thus never reached a vote, is expected to be reintroduced in the 2011 session. Its two lead co-sponsors hope to have a bipartisan bill that will withstand a legal challenge after they meet with Arizona officials.

“It exactly mirrors the Arizona law,” Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, told CNSNews.com. “We will tweak the bill.”

Palumbo will be going to Arizona with Rhode Island state Rep. Joseph Trillo, a Republican.

Their legislation would essentially codify an existing executive order signed in 2008 by Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering state police to assist federal immigration officials.

This is Carcieri’s final year in office, so Palumbo said it is important to put the force of law behind what has already been Rhode Island policy. State troopers report illegal immigrants they encounter for speeding and other offenses to the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Because of the executive order, corruption was discovered in the Department of Motor Vehicles, with drivers licenses being sold to illegal aliens, Palumbo said.

In New Jersey, state Rep. Allison Little McHose, a Republican, introduced a series of proposals that focused primarily on requiring employers to verify the legality of workers, and preventing state benefits from going to illegal aliens.

“New Jersey continues to be a sanctuary state for illegals because they know they can come to the state and receive many free benefits, like medical care,” McHose said in a statement. “The benefits may be free for those receiving them, but not the rest of the public because these costs are borne by the taxpayers.”

Other states with proposals that mirror the Arizona law are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

“We are very pleased to announce 22 states are now following Arizona’s lead to pass versions of a law that has the support of 60 percent to 81 percent of Americans according to polls,” said ALIPAC President William Gheen in a statement. “State and federal candidates are rushing to display their support for Arizona’s law and immigration enforcement. We will not stop until all American states are protected from this invasion as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.”


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.