Prosecutorial Discretion and Joint Motion to Reopen

To the friends of Kong Xin's family and supports of the Mandarin Tokyo restaurant in Marshfield, Massachusetts, thank you for agreeing to help with a letter of support. As the immigration lawyer who is preparing Kong Xin's deportation defense case, I'm writing to give you some background on his case and to offer guidance on how to make your letter of support have as much impact as possible.

Kong Xin is currently in jail in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because he has a in absentia order of removal or deportation from more than ten years ago. Kong Xin was ordered to be deported at a hearing he didn't attend. Through miscommunication with his former lawyer, Kong Xin missed his hearing because he never had actual notice of the time and date of the hearing.

Even though Kong Xin is married to a U.S. citizen and has U.S. citizen children, he cannot apply for a green card because he has this existing order of removal or deportation. To removal this obstacle, he needs the Immigration Judge to reopen his deportation order, which would allow him to apply for a green card through marriage and request a hearing that may allow him to be released upon the payment of an immigration bond.

As Kong Xin's immigration lawyer, I believe that the best strategy is to ask attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security to join Kong Xin in requesting that the Immigration Judge reopen his case. You may have heard in the news that the Obama Administration recently issued new guidelines for prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases. The stated goal is to prioritize the deportation of criminals, while treating more favorably those who present positive equities. Along these lines, we are asking attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to reopen Kong Xin's case out of the goodness of their hearts.

In support of our request, we would like a letter from you explaining why you believe the Department of Homeland Security should join Kong Xin in making this request. It is important for your letter to be based on your own personal experience and to be as detailed as possible. Your letter should address the following:

1. Discuss your relationship with Kong Xin. Describe how you met him, how long you have known him, and under what circumstances you interact with him. Please give examples from your own personal experience showing that Kong Xin is a good person who takes care of his family and contributes to his community.

2. Describe the extreme hardship that Kong Xin's wife and children would face if he were deported to China. While Kong Xin would certainly suffer, it is much more important to explain how Kong Xin's U.S. citizen family would suffer if he were deported. 

3. Describe how important Kong Xin is to you and your community and how his forced deportation and possible absence would negatively impact you and the community at large.

Make sure your letter includes your name, address, and whether you are a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. Your letter should be addressed to "Dear Sir or Madam" at:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of District Counsel
26 Federal Plaza - Room 1237
New York, New York 10278

Re: Request for Joint Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order of Removal
Kong Xin CHEN, A073-649-669
Detained

Do NOT send your letter directly to the Department of Homeland Security. Please send it to me by February 15, 2012 or as soon as possible thereafter. I will submit your letter, along with others, in a packet of other documentation. Your letter should be dated and signed in ink. Above your signature, please include the words: "Under the pains and penalties of perjury, I declare that this statement is true and correct to the best of my information and belief." Notarizing your signature would be helpful but is not essential or required.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. On behalf of Kong Xin and his family, I would like to thank you in advance for your help and cooperation.

Finally, at least for the time being, I do NOT recommend that you call a Massachusetts politician (e.g., Senator Scott Brown, Congressman Bill Keating) or alert the media. Our first and most important effort should be gathering as many high quality letters of support as possible. After we submit our formal request for prosecutorial discretion, we can shift our focus to media and congressional assistance.

I will be posting more information on Kong Xin's case as soon as I know more.

Boston Immigration Court News

This week, I had a detained deportation trial in Boston Immigration Court. My client, a permanent resident who had lived in the United States for over twenty years, was facing deportation to Pakistan, a country where he knew no one and didn't speak the language. He entered Boston Immigration Court in chains and an orange jumpsuit and walked out of court knowing that he would soon be a free man and a could continue his life in the U.S. with this green card.

Allow me to explain how I won the case:

The Department of Homeland Security had arrested my client and detained him at the Plymouth County House of Correction in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Interestingly, my client was arrested in Connecticut but because Hartford Immigration Court has not detained docket, he was transferred to a facility in Massachusetts so that his deportation trial could be placed on the docket of Boston Immigration Court. In Boston, Immigration Judge Steven Day exclusively handles the detained docket for all deportation cases in all of New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire).

My client was facing the prospect of being deported because of a criminal case that had concluded many years before. Initially, Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged my client with having a criminal conviction that was classified as "aggravated felony." But, after I reviewed the record of conviction (especially the plea colloquy), I realized that, in fact, he had pled guilty to a divisible statue. This means that he was convicted of a statute that included several different offense, some of the included offenses were aggravated felonies, while others were not.

Based on this research, I successfully challenged Immigration and Custom's Enforcements' allegation that my client had an aggravated felony conviction. This was a crucial victory because even though my client was still deportable, by eliminating the aggravated felony conviction, my client became eligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents.

Cancellation of removal is essentially a way of asking the Immigration Judge for a second chance. The standard is a balancing of the equities where the Immigration Judge weighs a range of factors including the severity of the applicant's criminal offense, the recency of the criminal record, the hardship imposed by a possible deportation, as well as any other positive or negative equities.

In support of my client's application for cancellation of removal, I prepared a detailed affidavit of his proposed testimony in Immigration Court. This gave my client an opportunity to tell his life story. Most importantly, he explained why he was unlikely to have problems with the law in the future. And, at the end of the deportation hearing, Boston Immigration Judge Steven Day granted the application for cancellation of removal, a hard won victory for my client.

If you or someone you know is facing deportation and needs and aggressive and effective attorney for representation in Boston Immigration Court, please call me. I'd be happy to review your case and help out outline a winning deportation defense strategy.

Boston Immigration Court News

Boston Immigration Court has announced the appointment of a new Immigration Judge. Steven Day, a retired Marine and former appellate attorney with the Office of Immigration Litigation, will be filling the vacancy created when Immigration Judge Francis Cramer retired. As with custom, Immigration Judge Steven Day will complete in-house training program at for immigration judges and then serve temporarily at Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey. Immigration Judge Steven Day is expected to begin hearing deportation cases in Boston starting in April.

In another big personnel change, Immigration Judge Eliza Klein will be leaving Boston Immigration Court and has accepted a transfer to the Chicago Immigration Court. This is a transfer she had requested. She will arrive in that Immigration Court during July. So, with Judge Klein's departure, it remains to be seen who will fill this vacancy on the bench in Boston Immigration Court.

As a Boston-based immigration lawyer specializing in deportation defense, I'm well aware of the Boston Globe reported today here. The docket in Boston Immigration Court is overwhelmed with deportation cases.

So, based on this article, if you are in deportation proceedings, how long can you expect to wait before Boston Immigration Court processes your immigration case?  The answer depends on a number of factors.  People with no relief from removal or deportation tend to have their cases processed more quickly.  The long delays mostly impact people who have application for relief such as cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or asylum.

To give you an example how these delays play out, in December of 2009, I appeared before an Immigration Court in Boston for a master calendar hearing. I turned in pleadings indicating that I was seeking relief from deportation in the form of cancellation of removal with an I-601 waiver for misrepresentation.  An Immigration Judge would likely need  three and a half hours for to conduct a full merits hearing.  The Immigration Judge scheduled another master calendar hearing in December of 2010, where I'm expected to appear and turn in my application for relief.  The Immigration Judge will then schedule an individual hearing, which is a trial date.  I expect that this hearing will be in mid-2012.

So for my client, the entire process of seeking relief from deportation in Boston Immigration Court will take more than 3 years.  This delay is more than a minor inconvenience. During this time, he is unable to travel outside the United States to see his ailing mother.

One ray of hope is that a new Immigration Judge will replace Boston Immigration Judge Cramer, who retired last summer.

Boston Deportation Defense Attorney

Can you be deported for a nolle prosequi criminal disposition?

As an immigration lawyer based in Boston, Massachusetts with expertise in deportation defense in Immigration Court, I often meet with immigrants who are  confused as to the immigration consequences of their criminal dispositions. One of the frequent questions I get is related to a nolle prosequi disposition.

Immigration laws take a unique view of the definition of conviction.  Consequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or an Immigration Judge might consider your criminal case to be a conviction even though, when you went to District Court, the judge told you that your criminal case would be dismissed.

What is a nolle prosequi disposition under Massachusetts criminal law

Under Massachusetts Criminal Procedure, a prosecuting lawyer may request a nolle prosequi disposition at any time before sentencing. If granted, the nolle prosequi disposition means that criminal charges are, in effect, dropped or dismissed.

Why nolle prosequi is not considered a conviction for immigration purposes

A Massachusetts nolle prosequi disposition is not a conviction for immigration purpose because in order for a disposition to be considered a conviction, it must contain both (1) a finding of guilt, a plea of guilt of the equivalent; and (2) a penalty, punishment or restraint on liberty. With nolle prosequi, no sentence is imposed and so it is a criminal disposition that wouldn't be classified as a conviction under US immigration law.

A nolle prosequi disposition must be disclosed on all immigration and visa applications even though it isn't a conviction

It is important to remember that even though a nolle prosequi disposition is not viewed as a conviction for immigration purposes, you must still disclose this disposition on all I-485, N-400 and other immigration applications, as well as on all visa applications. 

Many immigrants mistakenly believe that because their criminal case was dismissed that it is "off their record, " and they have no duty to disclose it.  But this is not so.  Again, you absolutely MUST disclose all criminal matters regardless of whether a conviction occurred.  But by disclosing that you have a dismissed criminal case, you certainly aren't admitting that you did something wrong.  You are just providing an accurate and honest answer to questions on an immigration application.  

After disclosing your nolle prosequi disposition, you have one last requirement:  And you must provide USCIS or the U.S. Consulate with a court-certified, final criminal disposition to show that the case was indeed resolved with a nolle prosequi entry.

I hope this clarifies the meaning of a nolle prosequi disposition for immigration applicants.  If you need further help or representation by an immigration lawyer based in Boston with expertise on deportation and immigration consequences of criminal matters, please call me at 617-722-0005. 

Boston Deportation Lawyer

Immigration and deportation defense lawyers now have a way to find the location of persons detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by using ICE's new online detention locator system.  If this online tool actually works as intended, this is an extremely useful development, which is long overdue. 

Until now, the location of a ICE immigration detainee was a mystery to everyone--even immigration lawyers.  After being arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE Office of Detention and Removal, the detained immigrant would be placed into a jail, the location of which remained unknown.  Tracking down a detained immigrant involved guesswork and intuition.  The only way I knew to find someone detained by ICE was simply by calling around to the records departments for South Bay (Suffolk County House of Correction), Bristol, Plymouth and the other immigration detention facilities in the Boston area.  So let's hope and pray that this online system works as planned.

Meanwhile, if you have a friend or family member who has been arrested by Immigration, please contact me.  I'd been happy to help you win their release on an immigration bond and to come up with a strategy to help them solve their immigration problem.

As an Boston immigration lawyer and expert on the marriage-based green card process, I was quoted in today's Boston Globe article discussing marriage fraud and earlier in a Boston Herald article.  I also appeared on The Boston Channel, WCVB Channel 5 news discussing deportation and sham marriages.  You can watch the news video here.  And you can read my blog on marriage fraud and green cards here.

The Boston Globe article looks at the immigration problems of 3 Pakistanis whom the Department of Homeland Security has detained in connection with the Times Square bombing.  According to media reports, they are facing the prospect of deportation or removal from the United States and are appearing in Boston Immigration Court before Immigration Judge Robin Feder.  Each are married to U.S. citizens.  But attorneys from Immigration and Customs Enforcement allege that the marriages are fraudulent. 

Can you avoid deportation by marrying a U.S. citizen?  The answer is yes . . . and no.  Let me explain.

First, if you get married after the government has initiated deportation proceedings, you will have to overcome the presumption that your marriage is sham and that the only reason you got married was to avoid being deported.  Before you can even apply for your green card, you'll have to prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that your relationship was entered into in good faith.

Many people get green cards through marriage.  But the process for getting a green card through marriage while facing deportation is totally different.  You'll have to file a stand-only I-130 visa petition and specifically request, IN WRITING, an exemption based on a good-faith marriage.  And you can file your I-485 if, and only if, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves your I-130. 

Finally, even if USCIS grants your I-130, you are not out of the woods.  You'll have to have an adjustment of status interview before an Immigration Judge who will independently review whether your relationship is a sham.  This hearing will be adversarial and the Department of Homeland Security is represented by experienced trial attorneys who will rip you to shreds on cross-examination if your marriage is sham.

USCIS doesn't take marriage fraud lightly.  If caught, you'll be barred from future visa petitions and face criminal fines of up to $250,000 and five years imprisonment.

Bottom-line:  if you are required to appear in Immigration Court and considering marriage as a way to avoid deportation, you should consult with an immigration lawyer with considerable experience in courtroom advocacy.  Call me at 617-722-0005 to discuss your immigration case.

When I go to Immigration Court in Boston, my goal is to protect my clients from deportation. I work hard to explore all options, to come up with a winning strategy and to prepare my cases in a way that ensures success. Of course, I want my clients to come away with a green card.

But the sad reality is that for some people who must appear in Immigration Court, the facts of their particular cases render them ineligible for any relief from deportation. For such cases, there is simply no way under the current immigration laws to prevent deportation. And, when faced with limited options, many lawyers routinely ask the Immigration Judge for an order of voluntary departure.

Voluntary departure permits a person to leave the United States voluntary and it removes a bar to inadmissibility that would otherwise result from being deported, i.e., receiving an order of removal. The consequences of being deported are indeed severe. If you receive an order of removal, you would be inadmissible for 10 years. And this 10 year bar runs from the date that you are physically removed from the United States, not the date that the Immigration Judge ordered your removal.

Although voluntary departure may help you avoid deportation, the consequences of failing to comply with a voluntary departure order may be worse than deportation itself.  Consider that a person who is granted voluntary departure after 1996 but fails to voluntarily leave the United States may face:

• civil penalties including fines of $3,000; and
  
• a 10-year bar from important immigration options such as cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and change of status;
  

Also, it is harder to file a motion to reopen or reconsider a voluntary departure order, although this issue has been the subject of extensive litigation and new regulations.

These stiff penalties for those who violate an order of voluntary departure do not apply to people who are given orders of removal or deportation.  And what's worse, once a person fails to voluntarily leave the U.S., the voluntary departure order then becomes an order of removal or deportation.  If such a person decides to leave the U.S. after failing to depart voluntarily as required, this later departure is considered "self-removal," which is the equivalent of deportation.

Sure, voluntary departure may sound better than deportation.  But if an Immigration Judge gives you an order of voluntary departure and you fail to depart, you may end up in a worse position than someone who simply receives an order of removal or deportation.  You should not consider voluntary departure unless you are truly prepared to leave the United States, preferably in consultation with an immigration lawyer and as part of a strategy to return to the US.  The decision becomes complicated because many people who are in deportation proceedings face additional grounds of inadmissibility for being unlawfully present in the U.S.

In short, voluntary departure is relief from deportation.  Yet given the harsh consequences, for most people, I consider voluntary departure to be a cure that is worse than the disease.

Need advice about voluntary departure in Boston Immigration Court or other immigration law issues?  Call me at (617) 722-0005 and set up an immigration consultation in my Boston law office.

I'm proud to announce that I've been re-appointed as a liaison to Boston's Immigration Court for the American Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") - New England Chapter. As a member of the Liaison Committee to the Executive Office of Immigration Review, I look forward to assisting my esteemed colleagues. 

In Boston, immigration lawyers and the Immigration Court have a tradition of warm relationship, for which we can thank the leadership of Court's Administrator Robert Halpin.  As a liaison, I'm happy to be able make a small contribution to this on-going comity.

A recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals changes the immigration process for Cubans seeking permanent residency in the United States. Pursuant to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966, Cuban nationals who appear at U.S. border posts seeking admission are generally paroled into the United States as "Cuban asylees." After entry into the U.S., Cubans can immediately apply for work permits. Then, one year after living in the U.S., Cuban nationals can file I-485 applications to adjust their status to obtain their green cards.

Although Cubans who are paroled into the U.S. have a clear path to permanent residency (getting a green card), they are placed into the deportation proceedings and, therefore, must appear before an Immigration Judge in Immigration Court.

Until recently, Immigration Judges had jurisdiction over adjustment of status applications (I-485 or green card applications) filed by Cubans, and Cubans would apply for their green cards through Immigration Court and before an Immigration Judge. The Court then could grant their green card and simultaneously take them out of removal proceedings.

But now, according to the Board of immigration Appeals in Matter of Martinez-Montalvo, 24 I&N Dec. 778 (BIA 2009), Immigration Judges have no jurisdiction over adjustment of status applications (I-485 or green card applications) filed by Cubans who have been paroled into the U.S. under the Cuban Refugee Act. Instead, to obtain green cards, Cuban parolees must file their I-485 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").

This Board of Immigration Appeals decision puts Cuban parolees in an odd situation: they must appear in Immigration Court, yet Immigration Court has no jurisdiction over the adjustment of status applications that they are eligible to file. If you are a Cuban national who is in removal proceedings, your most likely option is that your lawyer will ask the Immigration Judge to continue your case until USCIS adjudicates your I-485. The problem is that it could easily take two years for USCIS to make a decision on the I-485!

To me, this new scenario for Cuban asylees makes no sense. It clogs the docket and wastes the Immigration Court's limited resources. 

If you have questions about the deportation process, Cuban adjustment, other immigration issues, or if you are seeking an attorney to represent you in Boston Immigration Court, call my Boston office at (617) 722-0005 to set up an immigration consultation.

Boston area residents with final orders of deportation may request a stay of removal with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) by filing Form I-246 at its Burlington, Massachusetts immigration office.  In the past, there had been no filing fee for this immigration application.  But, apparently, the free ride is over.  Effective immediately, a filing fee of $155 must be paid with Form I-246 in cash, money order or cashier's check (no personal checks).

As a lawyer specializing in deportation defense who frequently appears in Boston Immigration Court, I find it fascinating that a close family member of the President appeared yesterday in our court before our own Immigration Judge Shapiro.  Zeituni Onyango, the Kenyan aunt of President Obama, is in deportation proceedings in Boston as everyone on the populated Earth knows by now.

Of course, asylum applications are confidential.  I certainly have no direct knowledge about this case.  But my experience as a deportation lawyer in Boston tells me that Ms. Onyango's immigration case has been widely reported in a way that is quite misleading.  The headline of the Boston Globe, for instance, claims that the Immigration Judge allowed Ms. Onyango to stay in the U.S. until February 2010.  What is misleading about this headline is that it falsely suggests that the Immigration Judge made a discretionary decision in favor of Ms. Onyango.  This is not at all what happened at the hearing yesterday.

Allow me to explain.  But first, some background:  In 2004, according to press reports, Ms. Onyango applied for asylum and the Immigration Court in Boston denied her application.  As a result, she received an order of removal.  The Immigration and Nationality Act allows applicants to reopen removal proceedings where the applicant can present evidence of changed circumstances that could not have been presented at the prior hearing. My guess is that the immigration lawyer defending Ms. Onyango filed a motion to reopen and argued that the conditions in Kenya have changed in a way that would affect the merits of her claim.  A second and obvious argument as to changed circumstances is that Ms. Onyango would likely be a target if she were returned to Kenya because she is now well known as the aunt of the President of the United States. 

After Ms. Onyango filed her motion to reopen her order of removal, the Immigration Court in Boston had to make a discretionary decision as to whether to grant or deny the motion to reopen.  It is clear that the Court granted her motion to reopen because if it hadn't, she wouldn't have had to appear in Immigration Court.

What actually happened in Boston Immigration Court yesterdays is that, most likely, Ms. Onyango appeared at what is called a master calendar hearing.  A master calendar hearing is usually a brief, administrative hearing in which the Immigration Judge sets up the issues in contention and, typically, schedules a merits hearing at which these issues can be addressed.

So when the Boston Globe announced that Immigration Judge Shapiro allowed Ms. Onyango to remain in the U.S. until February 2010, what really happened is that she just showed up for a routine master calendar hearing and the Immigration Judge scheduled her to return for a merits hearing.  That's it.  The Immigration Judge didn't grant her a reprieve or approve her application for asylum.  This result gives us little indication about her prospects for success in immigration court.  It does tell us that the docket of Boston's Immigration Court is so full that asylum applicants need to wait almost 12 months to have their cases heard--even if your nephew is the President!

As an immigration lawyer In Boston focusing on deportation defense, I know that each our Immigration Judges has a particular reputation and perspective.  The Immigration Judge to which your deportation case is assigned will have a great bearing on how your case is handled as well as the ultimate outcome. Immigration Court in Boston currently has the following six Immigration Judges:

Matthew J. D'Angelo
Leonard I. Shapiro
Paul M. Gagnon
Robin E. Feder
Eliza C. Klein
Francis L. Cramer

Boston Immigration Court - Schedule of Non-Detained Master Calendar Hearings:  To figure out which Boston Immigration Judge will be handling your deportation case, (assuming you a not detained) use the following schedule for master calendar hearings (FYI:  your first appearance is called a master calendar hearings):

Matthew J. D'Angelo - Wednesday morning
Leonard I. Shapiro - Wednesday afternoon
Paul M. Gagnon - Tuesday morning
Robin E. Feder - Tuesday morning
Eliza C. Klein - Thursday morning
Francis L. Cramer - Tuesday afternoon

Boston Immigration Court - Schedule of Detained Master Calendar Hearings:  For deportation cases in which the foreign national is detained by the Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, the following is the schedule of master calendar hearings or bond hearings in Boston Immigration Court:

Matthew J. D'Angelo - Tuesday afternoon
Leonard I. Shapiro - Thursday morning
Paul M. Gagnon - Wednesday morning
Robin E. Feder - Monday morning
Eliza C. Klein - Monday afternoon
Francis L. Cramer - Wednesday afternoon

Boston deportation or a removal hearing in Immigration Court often begins with a visit from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE). For the unfamiliar, these are the guys that deport people.  The immigration raid in New Bedford, Massachusetts was a fine example of the handiwork of ICE. If you are a green card holder but have a criminal conviction, you may have to contend with ICE. Overstayed your student (F1) or visitor visa (B1/B2)? ICE is the immigration agency you should fear.

In late 2007, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement moved its Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) from the 17th Floor of the JFK Federal Building in Boston, MA to a new facility in Burlington, Massachusetts.  Their new address is:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)
10 New England Executive Park
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
Phone number: 781-359-7500

If a friend or family member gets arrested in Massachusetts and taken into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE agents will most like transfer them to the immigration office in Burlington, MA for processing before being moved to an immigration detention center. Immigration bonds are now posted at the ICE Detention and Removal in Burlington, MA and not the JFK Federal Building in Boston.

Recently, with the New England Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyer Association (AILA), I toured the new ICE Detention and Removal facility in Burlington. Since my job as an immigration and deportation defense lawyer in Massachusetts is to defend immigrants who ICE has arrested, I was particularly interested to see the ICE office in Burlington first-hand.

My overall impression--ICE means business! For someone like me who fights to protect people from deportation, it was intimidating to realize that so many critical resources have been devoted to ICE's new deportation facility. Its Burlington Massachusetts deportation office is tricked-out with latest state-of-the-art electronics and a "War Room" with 100 cubicles--all filled with immigration officers hard at work figuring out how to arrest and deport people. In terms of detention, ICE's Burlington office has 4 cells, each holding about 25 immigration detainees.

Unless the Obama Administration shifts focus, I fully expect the surge in deportation cases through Massachusetts and New England to continue in 2009 and beyond.

On our tour, the ICE officers were generous hosts. I was impressed by their professionalism. We had an opportunity to meet with Bruce Chadbourne, the Director of ICE Field Office with supervisory responsibilties over Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Director Chadbourne met with us immigration lawyers and informally answered our questions at great length. I came away convinced that the ICE Burlington, MA office is committed to working cooperatively with the Massachusetts immigration attorneys to resolve any issues.