Careen Shannon

In light of the failure of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level in recent years and in the face of increasing concern about the impact of illegal immigration on local communities, many state, county, and local lawmakers have enacted their own laws and ordinances aimed at the undocumented population and the entities that employ them. Some laws address the employment of undocumented workers by requiring employers to utilize the federal government's Web-based "E-Verify" employment eligibility verification system to verify the work status of new hires. Others prohibit employers from hiring unauthorized workers and punish noncompliance with the denial of business licenses or contracts for work with a state, county, or municipality. Of course, it is already a violation of federal law to employ undocumented non-citizens, so any penalties for these violations are in addition to penalties already set out under federal law. These state laws raise troubling preem...

Immigrants are often easy prey for bogus or incompetent attorneys, "notarios," scam artists, and other bad actors who take advantage of immigrants’ limited knowledge of U.S. law, lack of English fluency, and lack of cultural knowledge to charge exorbitant fees for wild promises of green cards and citizenship that the bad actors cannot - or in some cases never intended to - deliver. Such exploitation is merely a symptom, however, of the larger problem of inadequate access to competent legal counsel by foreign nationals seeking to navigate our labyrinthine scheme of immigration laws, regulations, and policies. Contrary to popular belief, not all of these foreign nationals are "illegal aliens" who slipped over our southern border; many are entitled to obtain lawful immigration status, if only they had adequate guidance from qualified counsel to help them seek it. Unfortunately, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel in immigration proceedings (even...

There is no recognized constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings in the United States, only a "privilege" to be represented "at no expense to the Government," notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate penalty for failing to comply with what are mostly civil immigration laws can, in the most fundamental way, be more severe than a criminal sentence: removal — essentially, banishment — from the United States. This article envisions an America where no one would be detained, deported, and exiled without the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the grounds for such drastic action against them. Published in the University of the District of Columbia Law Review, David A. Clarke School of Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2014.

... Circuit), Judge Noel Ann Brennan (US Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, New York), and Michael D. Patrick ... 43 See, eg, Jojo Annobil, The Immigration Representation Project: Meeting the Critical Needs of Low-Wage and Indigent New Yorkers ...

The U.S. immigration court system is in crisis.  It is overwhelmed, politicized and ineffective. Its judges are also not independent decisionmakers, as the immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice. In this article I co-authored with Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., we look at what a reformed, independent immigration court system could look like. It is clear that we will not have a fair and functioning immigration adjudication system until some kind of large-scale reform is undertaken.

In light of the failure of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level in the early 2000's and in the face of increasing concern about the impact of illegal immigration on local communities, many state, county, and local lawmakers enacted their own laws and ordinances aimed at the undocumented population and the entities that employ them.  Some laws address the employment of undocumented workers by requiring employers to utilize the federal E-Verify Program  to verify the work status of new hires.  Others prohibit employers from hiring unauthorized workers and punish noncompliance with the denial of business licenses or contracts for work with a state, county, or municipality.  Of course, it is already a violation of federal law to employ undocumented non-citizens, so any penalties for these violations are in addition to penalties already set out under federal law.  These state laws raise troubling issues of federal preemption.

Published in the Albany Government Law Review, Vol. 3. Issue 1 (2010).  This article was adapted from the introduction to Fragomen, Shannon, and Montalvo, STATE IMMIGRATION EMPLOYMENT COMPLIANCE HANDBOOK, copyright 2009 Thomson Reuters, and was used as adapted with permission of the publisher.

Immigrants are often easy prey for bogus or incompetent attorneys, "notarios," scam artists, and other bad actors who take advantage of immigrants' limited knowledge of U.S. law, lack of English fluency, and lack of cultural knowledge to charge exorbitant fees for wild promises of green cards and citizenship that the bad actors cannot—or in some cases never intended to—deliver. Such exploitation is merely a symptom, however, of the larger problem of inadequate access to competent legal counsel by foreign nationals seeking to navigate our labyrinthine scheme of immigration laws, regulations, and policies. Contrary to popular belief, not all of these foreign nationals are “illegal aliens” who slipped over our southern border; many are entitled to obtain lawful immigration status, if only they had adequate guidance from qualified counsel to help them seek it.

Unfortunately, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel in immigration proceedings (even in cases where deportation is at stake), and competent private and nonprofit resources are limited. After illustrating the nature of the problem with some real-life stories of immigrants who have been victimized by fraudulent service providers, and discussing the current state of the law with respect to what constitutes the inadequate practice of immigration law and who is legally permitted to represent immigrants in immigration matters, this report proposes changes to local, state, and federal law and policy that would help to combat fraudulent activities by unscrupulous nonlawyers and inadequately trained lawyers alike. These and other proposals are put forth in an attempt to help lay the groundwork for ensuring that immigrants in need of competent legal counsel can access the help to which they should be entitled.

Published in the Fordham Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 2 (November 2009).

State (and some local) governments have struggled to find ways to protect immigrants from exploitation by persons falsely holding themselves out as immigration lawyers or claiming expertise as notarios or immigration consultants. Existing legislation ranges from attempts to regulate the activities of nonlawyer immigration service providers (ISPs) by delineating prohibited practices; to requiring ISPs to post a bond or register with the state; to specifically restricting the provision of immigration assistance for compensation by any nonlawyer who is not accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals to transcription, translation, document procurement and related clerical tasks. A comparative look at the current law in New York—and at suggestions that enforcement would be enhanced if ISPs were required to obtain a li-cense—on the one hand, and at a new law in the State of Washington that seeks to ban the activities of ISPs altogether on the other hand, highlights both the advantages and shortcomings of these approaches.

To sidestep the pitfalls associated with licensing or otherwise regulating ISPs, officials might consider an alternative approach, and replace laws regulating ISPs with laws that specifically target, and ban, the unautho-rized practice of immigration law and that mete out serious punishment for egregious, willful violations—while providing legitimate nonprofit religious, charitable, and community-based organizations with no mens rea to do harm with the opportunity to avoid sanctions if they seek rec-ognition and accreditation by the BIA.

Published in the Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (December 2011).

There is no recognized constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings in the United States, only a "privilege" to be represented "at no expense to the Government," notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate penalty for failing to comply with what are mostly civil immigration laws can, in the most fundamental way, be more severe than a criminal sentence: removal — essentially, banishment — from the United States. This article envisions an America where no one would be detained, deported, and exiled without the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the grounds for such drastic action against them.

Published in the University of the District of Columbia Law Review, David A. Clarke School of Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2014.

In this article I co-authored with Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., we discuss why legislation proposed in August 2017 that would create a merit-based immigration system would likely do more harm than good.

Published in The Current: The Journal of PLI Press, Vol. 1, No. 2, Autum 2017 (© 2017 Practising Law Institute).

In this article I co-authored with Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., we take a look at the history of the Diversity Visa Lottery, which has recently come under fire as the White House and Congress have sought (unsuccessfully) to make a deal on immigration. A lottery is probably a crazy way to run an immigration program. But even if you believe in #MAGA or #AmericanFirst, dismissing the virtues of diversity in immigration is short-sighted for all sorts of reasons.

Published in February 2018 in The Current: The Journal of PLI Press, Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 2018 (© 2018 Practising Law Institute).