ACDs in New York and Immigration

          The Immigration Consequences of Adjournments in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD's)

In New York, the Adjournment upon Contemplation of Dismissal ("ACD") is a common method used by criminal courts use to deal with less serious offenses. A judge will adjourn a matter, usually for six months. During that time a defendant has to avoid rearrest.  The the matter is then dismissed at the end of six months and does not result in a conviction or judgment of guilt.

There are generally no immigration consequence for an "ACD" because the underlying matter has been dismissed and the accused stands in the same position in the eyes of the law as before the arrest. It does not eliminate the disclosure requirement found on many immigration petitions, however.  An applicant for an immigration benefit still has to disclose an arrest to USCIS or DHS when asked.  For instance, an individual who would like to apply for citizenship has to disclose his/her arrest to USCIS and answer any questions related to the applicant's good moral character that may arise.

The above informational only. It is not legal advice.  Contacting an experienced immigration attorney prior to applying for any immigration is the best way to protect your rights in this type of situation.

Immigration Policy and the Founding Fathers

Thanks to Mark Curley of Curley Law, in Omaha, Newbraska for posting the following link on Facebook.  We live in an age where people regularly look to the intent of "Founding Fathers" as  a benchmark for making decisions about the direction towards which the Unites States is heading.  In the case of immigration, Elizabeth Cohen suggest that time spent in the United States and good behavior have been the hallmarks for granting citizenship rights to immigrants, both legal and illegal.

Opponents of immigration reform have raised the issue of border security as an issue that needs to be addressed before permitting people currently here illegally to adjust status that of lawful permanent resident (LPR). The border argument may or may not be a red herring, but in this global era, we should also consider laws that facilitate a freer of flow of labor across borders, rtather than restricting it.   The North American Free Trade Agreement, for istance, signed during the Clinton Administration, tore down many trade barriers that existed between Canada, Mexico and the United States.  Capital and ideas flow freely between the signatories, but the free movement of labor is stymied by laws that effectively slow the flow of labor entering the United States.  

It is encouraging that business and labor groups are working to develop such a program.    It could normalize the relationship between the economies of the United States.  Resolving such an issue may begin the process of having to determine whether "time spent" and "good behavior" warrant a grant of citzenship rights.  What would the Founding Fathers have to say? I am interested. 



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-illegal-immigrants-become-citizens-lets-ask-the-founding-fathers/2013/02/01/ec3cca66-6bba-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html?fb_ref=sm_btn_fb