New York Supreme Court Allows Jury to Consider Undocumented Alien's Immigration Status in Valuing Tort Claim for Lost Wages
On June 12, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, issued a decision that allowed the plaintiff, an undocumented alien who was pursuing a tort claim, to offer evidence of probability that his asylum application would succeed so the jury could evaluate his claim for lost wages. Maliqi v. E. 89th Street Tenants, Inc., Index No. 23309/06 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. June 12, 2009). Under the federal immigration laws, undocumented aliens are not allowed to work. In tort claims where lost wages are concerned, defendants often attempt to use the plaintiff’s illegal immigration status as an absolute legal bar to recovery. In most states, the courts will allow recovery for back wages on the theory that the employer should not benefit from the employee’s labors, especially if its lax application procedures allowed the employee on the organization’s payroll. The issue of how to handle claims of lost future earnings has resulted in different approaches in the various states. Most states agree that an individual’s undocumented status is not an absolute bar to recovery. This is especially the case where the employer either knew of the employee’s lack of work authorization or did not have procedures in place to properly evaluate that work authorization. E.g. Balbuena v. IDR Realty, 6 NY 3d 338 (2006). The question is how does the plaintiff prove that he is legally entitled to the lost future earnings claimed? In the Maliqi decision, the court recognized that the plaintiff’s immigration status was a relevant consideration on any lost future earnings claim. If he remained undocumented, then he had no legal right to future wages. If his asylum claim was granted, however, he might. In a novel approach, the court resolved this conflict by allowing the plaintiff to offer evidence to the jury regarding the likelihood of success for his asylum claim. In essence, the court held that the length of time during which the plaintiff might continue legally earning wages in this country and the prospect of his deportation are factual issues for the jury to determine. (From EBG's Immigration Newsletter)
DHS' Krome Detention Center in Miami launched a new program aimed to speed up immigration court proceedings immigrants facing deportation.
“This program is extraordinarily important because there are people in the detained setting that are giving up their rights’ to stay in the country,” said Linda Osberg-Braun, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s South Florida chapter.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced today that federal immigration arrests surpass drug arrests. The official release, which I reproduce here below, states:
federal suspects arrested and booked by the U.S. Marshals in 2005, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Material witness (20 percent), immigration (15 percent) and weapons (11 percent) arrests increased at the fastest annual rate from 1995 to 2005. In 2005, immigration (27 percent) was the most prevalent arrest offense followed by drug (24 percent) and supervision violations (17 percent). Forty percent of all suspects arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service were arrested in 1 of 5 federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border, including Arizona, New Mexico, the Southern and Western Districts of Texas, and the Southern District of California. Nearly 1 in 4 (23 percent) of all suspects arrested in 2005 were arrested in the Southern and Western Districts of Texas.
The federal government reorganized key federal law enforcement agencies following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The U.S. Customs Service and Secret Service transferred from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives transferred from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice; and the Immigration and Naturalization Service moved DOJ to DHS. In 2004 and 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) referred nearly half (45 percent) of all suspects handled by U.S. attorneys, compared to 33 percent of suspects referred by Justice agencies. Suspects referred for federal prosecution by the Treasury Department were 2 percent of all suspects referred in 2004 and 2005, down from 20 percent five years earlier. From 1995 to 2005, the likelihood of being prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison increased. Sixty percent of suspects referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted in 2005 (from 54 percent in 1995). Ninety percent of defendants charged with a federal violation were convicted (up from 84 percent in 1995), and 79 percent of defendants convicted in 2005 were sentenced to prison (up from 67 percent in 1995). Thirteen percent of the defendants convicted in 2005 were sentenced to probation (down from 24 percent in 1995).
2005 was more than three times greater than the average growth in U.S. resident population (1.1 percent) over this period. Suspects referred in federal judicial districts with an average population of more than five million U.S. residents grew at a faster rate than less populated districts. Suspects handled by U.S. attorneys in districts with an average population of less one million U.S. residents were declined for further prosecution at a higher rate (36 percent) than in more populated districts (20 percent). Felony convictions in federal court (25 percent) increased at faster rate than in state court (5 percent) from 1996 to 2004. In 2004, 1 in 5 convictions of state and federal weapons felons were handled in federal courts—more than twice the percentage of state and federal weapons felons convicted in federal court in 1994.
The U.S. Court of Appeals received 14,644 filings in 2005—an increase of 44 percent from 1995. About 4 in 10 appeals filed in 2005 were for drug offenses (41 percent), followed by immigration (17 percent), weapons (16 percent) and violent (5 percent) offenses. Appeals filed by immigration offenders increased an average 25 percent per year from 1995 to 2005. At yearend 2005, 375,600 persons were under some form of federal supervision—62 percent were in secure confinement, including prison and pretrial detention. Thirty-eight percent were under federal supervision in the community, including pretrial release and post-sentencing supervision.
AmericasNewsToday reported that 16 foreign nationals and corporations have been indicted in Miami on charges of illegally exporting potential military and explosives components to Iran. I reproduce here below the entire article: “A federal grand jury in Miami, Fla., has returned a Superseding Indictment charging eight individuals and eight corporations in connection with their participation in conspiracies to export U.S.-manufactured commodities to prohibited entities and to Iran. The defendants are named in a thirteen (13) count Indictment – returned on Sept. 11, 2008 and unsealed today -- that includes charges of conspiracy, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo, and making false statements to federal agencies in connection with the export of thousands of U.S. goods to Iran. The charges were announced today by R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, U.S. Department of Justice; Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; Adam Szubin, Director, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC); Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); and Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants purchased, and then illegally exported to ultimate buyers in Iran, numerous "dual use" commodities. "Dual-use" commodities are goods and technologies that have commercial application, but could also be used to further the military or nuclear potential of other nations and could be detrimental to the foreign policy or national security of the United States. In this regard, the Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants caused the export of 120 field-programmable gate arrays, more than 5000 integrated circuits of varying types, approximately 345 Global Positioning Systems ("GPS"), 12,000 Microchip brand micro-controllers, and a Field Communicator. All of these items have potential military applications, including as components in the construction of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The charges announced today are the result of an extensive inter-agency investigation into the use of U.S.-made goods in the construction of IEDs and other explosive devices used against Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charged in the Superseding Indictment are: Ali Akbar Yahya, an Iranian national and naturalized British citizen; F.N. Yaghmaei, a/k/a " Farrokh Nia Yaghmaei," an Iranian national; Mayrow General Trading, Atlinx Electronics, Micatic General Trading, Madjico Micro Electronics, a/k/a "MME," and Al-Faris, all Dubai-based businesses; Neda Industrial Group, an Iran-based business; Bahman Ghandi, a/k/a "Brian Ghandi," an Iranian national; Farshid Gillardian, a/k/a "Isaac Gillardian," a/k/a "Isaac Gill," an Iranian national and a naturalized British citizen; Kaam Chee Mun, a/k/a "Brian Kaam," a resident of Malaysia; Djamshid Nezhad, a/k/a "Reza," a resident of Germany; Ahmad Rahzad, a/k/a "Saeb Karim," an Iranian national; Majid Seif, a/k/a "Mark Ong,"a/k/a "Matti Chong," an Iranian national residing in Malaysia; and Eco Biochem Sdn BHD and Vast Solution Sdn BHD, Malaysian businesses. The defendants are charged with purchasing and causing the export of U.S. goods to Iran through middle countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, England, Germany, and Singapore. More specifically, the charges in the Indictment are as follows:
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida certified as the 
class all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed on a "piece-rate" basis at the Florida operations of Ag-Mart Produce Inc. from June 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. On July 18, the federal district court certified a plaintiff class of Mexican agricultural workers who sued a Florida tomato grower for allegedly paying them less than minimum wage (Mesa v. Ag-Mart Produce Inc., M.D. Fla., No. 2:07-CV-47-FtM-34DNF, class certified 7/18/08). Piece-rate tasks included laying plastic, irrigation, planting, staking, tying, picking, and removing plastic and stakes after harvest, according to the six-page order signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard. The order adopted the March report and recommendations by a magistrate judge that the class of potentially 3,000 plaintiffs be certified on counts contained in a 2007 civil complaint alleging that the company routinely paid the workers less than the minimum wage mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The defendant company, which operates as Santa Sweets Inc. in its grape tomato growing operations in Florida, also allegedly 
violated the recordkeeping, wage statement, and payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, according to the lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Migrant Farmworker Justice Project. The lawsuit, with 177 named plaintiffs, also alleges minimum wage violations of the FLSA but does not seek class certification, as that law provides its own statutory framework for collective actions, the magistrate's report noted.
A decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered this past Monday the reinstatement of 33 janitors in Los Angeles who were fired because their Social Security numbers did not match the government’s database. The janitors worked for Aramark Facility Services (“Aramark”) at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. After receiving “no-match” letters in 2003 stating that 48 employees’ Social Security numbers did not match the federal database, Aramark gave the employees three (3) days to clear up the problem. A number of them were able to fix their problems, but 33 could not and were fired. 
Aramark gave its employees to return with further documents and the arbitrator’s finding that Aramark had no “convincing information” of immigration violations, the employees’ failure to meet the deadline simply is not probative enough of their immigration status to indicate that public policy would be violated if they were reinstated and given back pay. Therefore, the district court erred and the award must be confirmed." (Aramark v. SEIU, June 16, 2008.) 
Today’s issue of the San Francisco Chronicle states that the “decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not address the legality of the administration’s so-called no-match rule, which a federal judge [Charles Breyer] blocked in October. That rule would threaten employers with civil fines and criminal prosecution unless they fired workers who failed to clear up discrepancies between their Social Security numbers and government records. But in ordering the Los Angeles janitors rehired with back pay, the court said employees can’t be fired merely because the Social Security number they submit differs from the number in the government’s files - a major issue in lawsuits over t he administration’s plan." 
the decision. In the decision Judge Holcomb Hall noted that Aramark’s three-day time limit given to the employees to resolve their no-match problems was much shorter than the timetable provided by the Bush administration’s proposal, which would give an employer 93 days to obtain a matching Social Security number from an employee before facing penalties for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. This case could certainly have an impact in our state. 