Tax & Law (세금과 법률) 변호사(Korea, U.S.A. IL.) 이재욱 taxnlaw.co.kr
ID PW
[TAX & LAW] 변호사 이재욱
Attorney(KOREA, U.S.A., IL.)   LEE, JAE WOOK'S OFFICE
Attorney LEE, JAE WOOK'S OFFICE   [ LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ]
[개인과 기업을 위한 모든 법률문제를 서비스합니다.]
1997년부터 20년이상의 노하우를 가지고 웬만한 개인과 기업이 평생에 걸쳐 경험할 수 있는 거의 대부분의 민사,형사,행정,조세,국제거래,국제계약,이민,탄원,진정,고소,고발,제안,협상,중재,조정,업무대행,대리 사건의 자문과 소송과 계획안 제출대리 업무을 경험하고 처리해 왔습니다. 국내거래나 국제거래를 비롯하여 개인과 기업이 당면한 어떤 문제도 모두 해결해 드립니다. 주저하지 마시고 사무실을 내방하여 이재욱변호사의 축적된 경험과 학식과 지식을 이용하여 상담부터 받으세요. 본 사무실에서 해결해드리지 못할 경우 다른 해결방안을 제시해드립니다.
[FOR FOREIGNERS - ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEGAL SERVICES in Counseling, Application and LITIGATION & TRIAL IN COURTS and TRIBUNALS in KOREA]
INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE, CIVIL, REAL ESTATE, PERSONAL INJURY, DAMAGES, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, FRAUD, PENAL LAW, CRIMINAL TRIAL, FELONY, GUILTY PLEA, LEASE, RENTAL LAW, IMMIGRATION, INVESTMENT, TAX, INCORPORATION, TRADE, CONTRACT, DISPUTE IN CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, REFUGEE, REMOVAL, VISA, PERMANENT RESIDENCE, CITIZENSHIP]
상담료
선임료
소개
위치
| 민사
상속
이혼
부동산
| 세무
조세
행정
주식분쟁
| 병역법
기소중지
병역면제
국외여행
| 형사재판
고소
고발
| 미국이민
영주권
시민권
VISA
| KOREA
INVEST
VISA
REFUGE
| |
↓   미국이민뉴스
↓   미국이민뉴스


↓  Case: Lee v. United States (No. 16-327)

Dear Immigration Committee Members:
  
Our partners at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC are filing a merits-stage amicus brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case, Lee v. United States, to advocate for immigrant families and communities and emphasize the harms of deportation.  As the brief is focused on sharing some stories, they would like you to contact them with any stories you may have for inclusion.
  
NAPABA joined AAJC at the cert stage in this case and will be joining them on the attached draft brief.
  
They need the stories ASAP as they must have the final copy on Wednesday, Feb. 1. Please contact them directly at amicus@advancingjustice-aajc.org if you have any suggestions.
  
Case:               Lee v. United States (No. 16-327)
  
What’s at Stake for Immigrant Families?
  
This case is about the harsh penalty that immigrant families faces when family members encounter the criminal justice system. Under current immigration laws, a conviction for even a minor non-violent offense, like simple drug possession, can subject non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents that have lived in the U.S. for decades, to mandatory deportation.
  
The consequences are devastating. As a result of a conviction that may lead only to probation or a suspended sentence, lawful immigrants can face permanent banishment from the U.S. and be sent to countries where they have no family, do not speak the language, and are at continuing risk of impoverishment, persecution, or death. Recognizing the life-altering cost to defendants and their families, the Supreme Court has mandated warnings before a non-citizen defendant pleads guilty to an offense that qualifies for automatic deportation.
  
The constitutional right to a warning is ineffective, however, unless defendants have access to a meaningful remedy that accounts for the full harms of deportation. Mr. Lee’s case illustrates the unfairness in ignoring those harms. After living in the U.S. lawfully for over 25 years, Mr. Lee pleaded guilty to possession of ecstasy. He told his attorney that he wanted to avoid deportation, and only agreed to a plea after his attorney advised (incorrectly) that he would not be deported to Korea. Despite the Sixth Circuit’s recognition that justice was not served by “exil[ing] a productive member of our society to a country he hasn’t lived in since his childhood for committing a relatively small-time drug offense,” the court found no prejudice and declined to grant Mr. Lee a remedy for his counsel’s ineffective assistance. The court concluded that it was irrational for Mr. Lee to demand a trial, since the evidence against him was allegedly strong.
  
It is critical that the Supreme Court confirm that a remedy is available to Mr. Lee and others confronting the same dilemma. For many defendants and their families, it is rational to risk a longer sentence by going to trial, rather than accept a plea that will lead to certain deportation. Focusing only on alleged proof of guilt—while ignoring the strength of family ties and other connections to the U.S.—improperly ignores the devastating humanitarian harms of deportation, and eliminates one of the only tools available to immigrant families to keep their families together—the right to insist on a trial when a family member faces mandatory removal from the U.S.
  
Summary of Planned Amicus Brief:
  
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC and pro bono counsel from Wilmer Hale are drafting an amicus brief for immigrants’ rights groups supporting Mr. Lee. The brief focuses on explaining why non-citizen defendants and their families are entitled to a remedy for mistaken pleas that accounts for the harms of deportation in all cases.  The brief will:

Tell the stories of other defendants in Mr. Lee’s position and explain why they would rationally elect to go to trial;
Explain the harsh circumstances that defendants experience following deportation to their country of origin and the resulting harms on family members left behind in the U.S.; and
Highlight how U.S. immigration policy has long recognized the importance of family unity and point out that the same legal principle should apply in assessing whether defendants are prejudiced by mistaken pleas that permanently separate them from family members.
Your Immigration Committee Co-Chairs






  목록보기
수정하기
  [HOME]  [bitly]  [반전해제]

Copyright 1999-2019 Zeroboard / skin by zero
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.