Memphis Immigration Court is not an independent, Article III, court of law. Rather,
it is an administrative law court falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, a component of the Executive Office forImmigration Review under the Department of Justice. The court in Memphis has
jurisdiction over all non-detained removal proceedings originating in Arkansas,
Tennessee and Northern Mississippi. As we're located in Arkansas, the vast majority of our clients facing removal end up in Memphis. Our cases involving detained immigrants will find themselves before
one of the Louisiana courts and we sometimes have clients who find themselves
before the Dallas or Kansas City immigration courts either because they are
placed there by accident or they live in eastern Oklahoma or southwest
Missouri. Regardless, Memphis is the general rule... 80 Monroe Avenue, Memphis, TNPhoto courtesy of Google
As such, it might be helpful to get to know the Memphis Immigration C…
Like the Memphis Immigration Court, the LaSalle Immigration Court is not an independent arbiter of the law. Instead, it is an administrative law court. It is the sub-agency of another agency tasked with enforcing the laws as that agency sees fit.
Practically speaking, what this means is the immigration judges are not judges at all. Rather, they are attorney employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and they have to do whatever the Attorney General, currently everyone's least-favorite Southern caricature, Jeff Sessions, tells them to do.
Looking specifically at the LaSalle court, this agency's sole purpose is to adjudicate the removal proceedings of detained immigrants. Individuals who have been detained from all over the mid-South, particularly Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tenn…
Siniauskas does not look kindly on DWIs... Siniauskas Summarized
This February, the Board published its decision in Matter of Siniauskas, holding:
(1) In deciding whether to set a bond, the IJ should consider the nature and circumstances of the respondent's criminal history, but family and community ties generally do not mitigate the danger he or she poses to society; and
(2) A DWI is a significant adverse consideration in determining whether a respondent is a danger to the community in bond proceedings. Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018).
In other words, having a family to care for and being an overall good citizen should not outweigh an applicant's criminal history and having a DWI is a particularly bad kind of criminal history. Id.
Mr. Siniauskas had been arrested four times for driving under the influence ("DUI"), resulting in three convictions. Id. at 208. He fell into ICE custody following the fourth arrest. Id. Two of the convictions and the f…