[TAX & LAW] 변호사(KO, USA, IL) 이재욱 Office Map
LAW OFFICE [ TAX & LAW ] 세금과 법률
I P

Hello everybody! Translate this page:

You can translate the content of this page by selecting a language in the select box. This Website provides diverse language translation by Google Translation button. You can find translation menu at the upper left corner of this website. You can select your own language for the translation of the pages you want to read in your own language.
∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"

[한국변호사, 미국변호사, 일리노이 변호사, 세무사 이재욱] → [의뢰인이 비용을 지불하고 적법한 해결을 원하는 것이라면 개인과 기업을 위한 모든 법률문제를 서비스하고 뭐든지 대리해드립니다. ]
∗ 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 왔으며, 이를 바탕으로 국내거래나 국제거래를 비롯하여 개인과 기업이 당면한 어떤 문제도 모두 해결해 드립니다.
관련된 업무분야는 아래 매뉴항목을 참조하십시요. 아래 업무 메뉴는 예시이며, 메뉴에 없는 서비스도 모두 제공합니다. 주저하지 마시고 사무실을 내방하여 이재욱변호사의 축적된 경험과 학식과 지식을 이용하여 상담부터 받으세요. 본 사무실에서 해결해드리지 못할 경우 다른 해결방안을 제시해드립니다.

∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"


ATTORNEY [ licensed to practice in KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ] LEE, JAE WOOK
∗ [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]
For more information for the services Attorney LEE provide for the foreigners who want for legal services in Korea, Please do not hesitate to click the below MENU link for "SERVICES FOR FOREIGNERS".

∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"


상담료
선임료
소개
위치
| 민사
상속
이혼
부동산
| 세무
조세
행정
주식분쟁
| 병역법
기소중지
병역면제
국외여행
| 특허
지적재산
상표권
침해소송
| 형사재판
고소
고발
| 미국이민
VISA
영주권
SERVICE
| SERVICES
FOR
FOREIGNERS
| |
→   미국 이민,비자,영주권
→   미국이민뉴스
→   PRACTITION TIP
→   U.S.A. Tax News
→   미국이민 범죄행위 Defend 서비스
→   미국 이민사기 범죄 Defend 서비스
→   비거주자,영주권자의 상속세,증여세
→   미국 부동산거래실무
→   비거주자,영주권자의 양도소득세
→   비거주자,영주권자의 소득세
→   미국세금(U.S. TAX)
→   재산상속,분쟁,이전,세금
→   C VISA
→   FATCA
→   USCIS AFM(DHS)
→   FBAR
→   9 FAM VISAS(DOS)
→   PERM (Labor Certification)
→   Consular Process(DOS)
→   E1, E2
→   F visa
→   H visa
→   J visa
→   K visa
→   L visa
→   O, P visa
→   R visa
→   S visa
→   T, U visa
→   V visa
→   WAIVER(추방,입국불허면제)
→   체류기간연장(NIV EOS)
→   비이민비자 신분변경(NIV COS)
→   inadmissibility 입국불허사유
→   deportability 추방사유
→   조건해제(Removal of condition)
→   EB2, NIW(국익면제)
→   고용이민
→   가족이민
→   영주권 신분변경(AOS)
→   투자이민(EB-5)
→   LPR TRAVEL 영주권자 해외여행
→   DACA, DAPA
→   VAWA
→   legal english
→   AAO불복
→   연방법원항소
→   Immigration Court 항소
→   BIA항소
→   ICE 이민집행
→   CBP 세관 및 입출국관리
→   Removal 추방
→   일리노이주법 기초
→   캘리포니아법 기초
→   미 연방법 기초
→   캘리포니아 부부공동체법
→   캘리포니아 가족법
→   캘리포니아 민사소송법
→   일리노이 민사소송법
→   일리노이 가족법
→   미국 연방헌법
→   PT


From Here, POtentIAL CAuses Of ICE's HOMe RAId MIsCOnduCt Starts !


POtentIAL CAuses Of ICE's HOMe RAId MIsCOnduCt

the prevalence of constitutional violations occurring during ICE's home raids campaign can likely be attributed to a number of interrelated factors, including, at least: 1) a series of 2006 ICE policy changes which altered the arrest expectations of ICE's primary interior enforcement squads; 2) the fact that suppression motions are an ineffective deterrent to ICE officers; 3) the barriers that the vulnerable target population of ICE home raids faces in availing themselves of traditional civil remedies for government misconduct; and, 4) management, training and supervision failures by iCe.

ICE's 2006 Performance Policy

in 2006, ICE issued three policy memoranda which set forth a series of dramatic changes in its enforcement strategy that collectively set the stage for the Bush Administration’s widely publicized campaign of immigration home raids.71 Prior to 2006, ICE Fugitive operation teams (Fots), consisting of approximately seven agents each, were expected to arrest 125 target “fugitives” — people who had been ordered deported but remained in the united states
— per year. Moreover, 75% of those arrests were required to be what ICE termed “criminal aliens.” in early 2006, however, ICE increased each Fot’s annual arrest quota from 125 arrests per year to 1000 arrests per year without any attendant increase in the size of the teams. overnight, Fots were expected to become eight times more efficient. simultaneously, the new
2006 quota system elimINAted the requirement that 75% of the arrests needed to be “criminal aliens.” several months later, in september 2006, ICE issued a further change which, for the first time, permitted Fots to count “collateral” arrests of civil immigration status violators
toward their new increased arrest expectations.72

these policy changes incentivized the pattern of unlawful behavior set forth above in at least two ways. First, it placed tremendous pressure on ICE agents to meet the new inflated arrest expectations. it seems no coincidence that the issuance of iCe’s
2006 Performance Policy coincided with ICE's increased use of home raids and the spike in complaints of misconduct arising therefrom. the pressure of the new expectations likely contributed to ICE agents’ disregard for law and policy in their zeal to meet their new performance expectations. second, the abandonment of the requirement to focus on “criminal aliens” and the permission to count collateral arrests of civil immigration status violators toward their arrest expectations likely contributed to the pattern of ICE agents seizing non-target residents without legal basis, and illegally searching homes for proof of immigration status and alienage without permission. the permission to count collateral arrests may also account for the high percentage of wrong or stale addresses raided by ICE agents.73 Agents are not incentivized to take the time necessary to gather reliable intelligence on targets; rather, the 2006 Performance Policy encourages them to raid any house where they believe or suspect they may find immigration status violators. By focusing on the easier to locate civil immigration violators, instead of the harder to locate dangerous targets, ICE agents were able to make more arrests in pursuit of their new arrest expectations. unfortunately, the increased arrest numbers come at a significant cost, not only in terms of the constitutional violations occurring during home raids, but also because the focus on collateral arrests has caused a significant decrease in ICE's efficiency at capturing their purported priorityargets: dangerous crimINAls and terrorists.74

it seems no coincidencethat the issuance of ice’s
2006 performance policy coincided with ICE's increased use of home raids and the spike in complaints of misconduct arising therefrom. the pressure of the new expectations likely contributed to ICE agents’ disregard for law and policy
in their zeal to meet their new performance expectations.



by focusing on the easier to locate civil immigration violators, instead of the harder to locate dangerous targets, ICE agents were able to make more arrests in pursuit of
their new arrest expectations. unfortunately, the increased arrest numbers come at a significant cost, not only in terms of the constitutional violations occurring during home raids, but also because the focus on collateral arrests has caused a significant decrease in ICE's efficiency at capturing their purported priority targets: dangerous crimINAls and terrorists.74



Lack of suppression Motions in Removal Proceedings

In criminal proceedings,

the exclusionary rule is one of the primary mechanisms
        a) we rely upon
        b) to ensure
                i) police comply with constitutional search and seizure requirements;

1) however,
        a) there are three factors
                i) which significantly undermine the deterrent effect
                        A) of suppression motions
                                I) on ICE agents.

First,

suppression motions are extremely difficult
        a) for respondents
                i) to win
        b) in immigration court.

In 1984,

the supreme Court made clear that
        a) suppression is not generally available
                i) in immigration court.75

The Court did, however, leave the door open
        a) for suppression
        b) in cases of
                i) “egregious” or
                ii) “widespread”
                        A) constitutional violations.

subsequently,
        
        a) lower courts and
        b) the Board of immigration Appeals (BiA)

1) have recognized that
        a) egregious constitutional violations do warrant suppression
                i) in removal proceedings.

While the definition
        a) of “egregiousness”

  remains murky and largely unsettled,

1) one thing remains clear:

        a. proving an “egregious” constitutional violation remains a significantly higher hurdle
                i) than is required
                        A) in criminal suppression motions.76

Second,

there is only a relatively small subset
        a) of deportation cases
        b) where suppression motions can alter the outcome
                i) of the proceedings.

Suppression motions are inconsequential

1) if ICE has an alternative source
        a) of evidence
        b) wholly independent of the constitutional violation.

Suppression motions are, therefore, only useful
        a) in the uncommon instances
                i) where there is some ambiguity
                        A) about whether or not the respondent is actually a united states citizen.

ICE bears the burden of proving that
        a) a person is not a citizen
        b) before the person can be deported.

If the only evidence
        a) ICE has
        b) of the person’s nationality

    was obtained
        a) through an egregious violation of the constitution,

1) then a suppression motion may bear fruit.

However,

in most other circumstances,

a suppression motion —
        a) even if granted —

1) would be futile.

FINAlly,

largely because of these first two factors,

1) unlike criminal practICE,
2) suppression motions have not traditionally been a standard part
        a) of removal defense practice.

Thus,

unlike their police counterparts,

1) most ICE agents have never been called
        a) to testify and
        b) account for their conduct
                i) at a suppression hearing.

Accordingly,

the threat
        a) of evidence being excluded
                i) due to the unconstitutional conduct of ICE officers

1) does not act
        a) as an effective deterrent
                i) to ICE agents
                        A) carrying out home raids, or
                        B) conducting other types of operations.

While the exclusionary rule has played a critical role
        a) in deterring Fourth Amendment violations
                i) in the criminal context,

1) the factors
        a) set forth above,
        b) together,

   work to make suppression motions
        a) in deportation proceedings
        b) relatively rare occurrences and
   undermine the deterrent value of such motions
        a) on ICE officers’ conduct in the field.

Barriers to Civil Remedies

Due to a variety of systemic and cultural factors,

1) immigrants are amongst the most vulnerable
        a) of populations
        b) in this nation’s legal system.

Fifty-two percent
        a) of the foreign born population

1) are limited english proficient.

Immigrants
        a) are also disproportionately poor and
        b) are significantly more likely to be lacking in basic education.77

Accordingly,

many immigrants simply lack
        a) the inclination and
        b) financial resources
                i) to hire private counsel.78

Immigrants are also often
        a) unfamiliar with The U.S. legal system and
        b) unaware of their rights
                i) under domestic tort law.

In addition,

many victims
        a) of home raids

1) are
        a) held in immigration detention
                i) following the raids
                ii) on their homes and
        b) then deported —
                i) limiting their opportunities
                        A) to pursue civil lawsuits.

These realities make it extremely difficult
        a) for immigrants
                i) who are the subject of Fourth Amendment violations
                        A) during ICE home raids
                ii) to avail themselves of traditional civil remedies.

Accordingly,

traditional civil remedies are also ineffective deterrents
        a) to unlawful ICE home raids.

Management and Oversight failures by ICe

FINAlly,

ICE official policy has been crystal clear
        a) for some time
        b) that officers
                i) cannot enter or search homes
                        A) without judicial warrants or consent and
                ii) may not seize persons
                        A) without a reasonable suspicion
                                I) that the person is illegally in the united states.79

However,

notwithstanding these clear official policies,

the evidence indicates that
        a) ICE agents are not routinely observing these agency policies.

This type of disconnect
        a) between agency policy and practice

1) is likely indicative of management, training and oversight failures
        a) by ICE supervisors and officials.80








IMPACt Of ICE HOMe MIsCOnduCt On LOCAL LAW enfORCeMent And PuBLIC sAfety



Up To Here, POtentIAL CAuses Of ICE's HOMe RAId MIsCOnduCt Ends !




Copyright 1997-2019 TAX & LAW (세금과 법률)
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례(온라인이 아니라 대법원이 종이책으로 출간한 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집)에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.
따라서, 이 곳에 기재된 대법원 판례에 혹시라도 귀하의 성명과 인적사항이 있다면, 그것은 귀하의 것이 아니며, 귀하와 동명이인이거나 가상의 인적사항이라는 점에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 이를 귀하의 인적사항이라고 주장하신다면, 귀하는 본 사이트가 아니라 대법원에 그러한 점을 적시하여 공개된 (종이책으로 출간된 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집) 판례의 내용을 전부 직접 수정을 해줄 것을 스스로 주장하십시요. 본 사무실에 연락하실 부분이 아닙니다.
[OFFICE MAP] ↓