Choose a Language

  • The Immigrants' Rights Center

    We specialize in immigration law, everything from asylum, appeals, citizenship, deportation, petitions, removals, waivers, and any other immigration related issues. Please contact us for any of your immigration needs.

  • Deportation or Removal

    If you or someone you know has been detained and being held to be deported or removed, please contact us as soon as possible so we can help.

  • Women's Claims

    Abuse to women goes unpunished everyday, don't be a victim to gender-based violence. If you are a female and have been a victim to some type of gender-based violence, please contact us today so we can help. Don't wait to be abused again, next time could be the last.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Monday, May 21, 2012

IRC Orlando

Miguel Mendizabal IRC Orlando Immigrations Rights Center

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF
THE IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS CENTER

The United States is a nation of immigrants who have built the political, economic and cultural strength of this country from colonial days to the present. In times of economic difficulty or fear about national security, however, new immigrants are blamed for the problems of society and are viewed with anger, suspicion and fear.

The IRC recognizes that the United States, like every country, has the right to control who enters the country, to enforce the integrity of its borders, and to set immigration policy. While our government can determine immigration status and enforce immigration laws, it must however, act fairly, humanely and in accordance with constitutional norms of due process and equal protection, as well as adhering to U.S. obligations under international law.

The Immigrants' Rights Center (IRC) was formally established in 1991 to provide low-cost advocacy on behalf of immigrants. For more than two decades now the IRC has been dedicated to enforcing and defending the constitutional and civil rights of immigrants. Since IRC's founding, it has litigated thousands of cases in the Immigrations courts, challenged the judge’s decisions before the Board of Immigration Appeals and has sought relief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Choosing the right immigration lawyer has never been more critical. The issue of pleading a criminal charge is now at the heart of whether or not you have relief from deportation. Furthermore, any attempt to expunge, vacate, dismiss…. a guilty plea, to alleviate immigration consequences requires very specific orders (procedural or substantive).

For more details on this or other issues select a page pertaining to you or you can use the Search Our Site located to the right of this article. If you still can't find what your looking for, contact us at 407-382-4944 or email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. so we can help.

If you would like to know more about our service, click the More Information button below:

More Information

Newsflash: (Click on Article to Read More)
› ‹

The United States Supreme Court grants a Petition

The United States Supreme Court grants a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to settle dispute on whether the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel should be applied retroactive to non-citizens who entered a plea of guiltyThe United States Supreme Court grants a Petition for a Writ of Certiorar

The United States Supreme Court has agreedin Chaidez v. United States (11-820) to settle a dispute among lower courts on whether the benefit of the Court’s 2010 ruling inPadilla v. Kentucky, that requires lawyers of non-citizens to advise them more clearly on what can happen if they plead guilty to a crime, should be applied retroactive. This new case will be heard and decided in the new Term starting October 1, 2012.

In the Padilla decision, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes a right for a non-citizen living in the U.S. to be advised by a lawyer of the consequences under immigration law of pleading guilty to a crime that could lead to removal from the United States. The majority noted that, under dramatic changes recently in immigration law, removal from the United States is virtually automatic after one is convicted of an “aggravated felony.”

The Court in Padilla found, relying on the constitutional standard that a lawyer’s professional advice to a client must satisfy a minimum level of performance, that prevailing standards mandate that a lawyer for a non-citizen faced with a criminal charge must advise the non-citizen of the risk of being removed from the United States if a plea of guilty is entered. The Court also stated that if the immigration law is not clear, the lawyer’s duty is to at least tell the client that there could be adverse immigration consequences.