Archive | Litigation RSS feed for this section

FOBR Olsi Vrapi Tries to Represent a Child in Artesia, New Mexico

21 Jul

kob ice facility artessia

Olsi Vrapi is a Friend of Benach Ragland who practices in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  He recently found himself on the front line of the battle of how to handle the major influx of refugee children at the Southern Border.  In this chilling blogpost entitled “The Artesia Experience,” Olsi describes his experience visiting his client in the new facility in Artesia, New Mexico where the government is detaining Central American children and families.  His conclusion is brutally honest:

My impression of the Artesia makeshift detention center is that it is a due process travesty.  Is it really coincidence that a detention center was set up overnight in the middle of nowhere where the closest immigration lawyer or non-profit (which by the way can’t provide direct representation) is 3+ hours away?  In the few weeks it has been in operation, there have been no non-profits doing legal orientation programs, there are no non-profits that provide direct representation to those detained there and asylum interviews and hearings are happening so fast and are so short that even the most diligent detainees can’t get counsel fast enough to be advised before they are interviewed or are given any meaningful opportunity to tell their stories.  It appears the government is paying lip service to due process and just going through the statutory and regulatory requirements as fast as possible so they can give a semblance of compliance while the airplane to central America is warming its engines in nearby Roswell.  This is the same as a child being asked to clean his room, and he stuffs everything under the bed to “comply” with the command and ends up making it worse, except in our cases it’s not a matter of putting dirty laundry in the hamper, it’s women and children that can get killed if returned home.  As a father of three small children, I can’t help the kids’ analogies.

To make matters worse, Congress is using the crisis as an attempt to roll back well-established asylum protections.  Yesterday, Dree Collopy wrote about the horrendous legislation being proposed by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) that would undermine critical protections for refugees and asylum-seekers.  As bad as the current system is, Congress can make it worse.  The Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition has a good summary of the legislation and provides a quick link to contact Congress.

Thanks to Olsi for representing families in Artesia and sharing their story with the world.

We will keep you informed about pro bono opportunities and donation opportunities as this crisis continues to unfold.

 

Catholic University Law Students Develop Novel Legal Argument that is Gaining Traction in the Courts

8 Jul

This post was written by Adilene Nunez and Francisco Lopez, law students at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law.

 

Meeting our client and gaining his trust

In the fall of 2013, a man sat in an office at Catholic Charities awaiting our arrival. Neither of us had ever advocated on behalf of a client, so we were both nervous. Although our professors trained us in our clinic about how to interview a client and how to gather the facts and evidence to build a strong case, we were not sure what to expect from our client.

We walked into the office where our client, Joe[1], was waiting. We spoke with him about our Immigration Litigation Clinic, explained our roles, and began the process of getting to know our client. We listened to his story and asked him questions. He was concerned, however, with our abilities to represent him. He didn’t say it, but it was notable in his face. Joe was reserved and had few things to say at this initial meeting. He did not smile. When we asked him the reason for his visit to Catholic Charities, Joe responded that in his quest to become a lawful permanent resident, he had been defrauded by a notario. Immediately, we both understood why Joe was apprehensive, and we recognized that we would have to work to gain his trust.

stop notario fraud

            Over the next few months, we had extensive meetings with Joe, constantly called him with questions or requests for documents, and we made sure that he was always aware of what we were doing and what the next steps would be. Gathering facts and getting the client to open up and trust us was a difficult process because Joe fled his native Guatemala during the civil war and he had never told anyone such private, personal, and painful details. However, Joe fled his native country over thirty years ago, so at times it was difficult for Joe to remember details of the trip that placed him in deportation proceedings. It was our compassion and diligence that, in the end, led Joe to say to us, “Yo confió en el trabajo que están haciendo,I trust in the work you are doing, as he smiled at us.

Keeping the case on the docket

On its face, Joe’s case appeared to be a straight forward adjustment of status case. He was a Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) beneficiary,[2] a model resident, and hard working individual. However, as we continued to research the issues in our case, like advance parole and admission, we realized that our biggest struggle was going to be convincing the immigration judge to keep the case on her docket. That was because, statutorily, someone who returns to the United States on a grant of parole, generally, cannot adjust status in front of an immigration judge.[3] We wanted to keep the case in front of the immigration judge because Joe’s case had been pending in immigration court for almost thirty years, he had been deceived and defrauded by a notario, and if the judge chose to send the case to USCIS for adjudication, we would not be able to see the case through until the end as the representatives Joe trusted.

We spent about five months conducting extensive research and we had several meetings with our supervisors to work on strategy and to craft creative legal arguments. There were times when we felt extremely overwhelmed from our research because it seemed that we were dealing with a novel issue. Joe’s facts were complicated and involved two eras of immigration law: present day and pre-IIRAIRA immigration law.

We needed to prove that Joe had already been admitted, so he would not be designated an arriving noncitizen.[4] Being classified as an arriving noncitizen in immigration court leaves limited options for individuals in removal proceedings.[5] Therefore, an arriving noncitizen classification should not be conceded too easily. However, Joe was a TPS beneficiary, a status that we hoped we could use to our advantage in proving Joe’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status. We wanted to argue that when Joe was granted TPS he was inspected and admitted into the United States, as this would allow Joe to adjust his status in front of the immigration judge. Admittedly, arguing that a grant of TPS is an admission was going to be a challenge as we had more negative than favorable case precedent on the matter.[6] The case that was most favorable, Flores v. USCIS,[7] was not binding; it was merely persuasive authority arising outside of our circuit. The plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, and case precedent formed our argument in Joe’s favor.

Additionally, with the help of our professors, and after several individual moot hearings, we composed two briefs, one was the brief in support of Joe’s adjustment application, and the second was a supplemental brief where we argued that Joe’s grant of TPS was an inspection and admission. We planned the supplemental brief as a last resort and developed persuasive oral arguments for our individual hearing before the immigration judge.

briefs

Joe was very cooperative and maintained a positive attitude throughout this process, even after we explained the possibility that the immigration judge might not be able to exercise jurisdiction over his case. He said that he had faith in us and in the work that we had done, and that he could only hope for the best. Joe was different from the person we met in the fall. He smiled and felt comfortable communicating with us. He went from stoic to wanting to make us laugh. We were glad to see him happy.

Finding justice for Joe

When Joe’s individual hearing date arrived in late April, we were confident that we had done everything possible to prepare for Joe’s case. Our goal was to convince the immigration judge that both the regulation and case law supported our position that she could exercise jurisdiction over Joe’s case. Joe appeared confident about offering his testimony and communicating his story to the immigration judge. However, things did not go as planned. The immigration judge couldn’t move beyond the charging document. Since Joe’s case had been pending for about thirty years, his charging document was an Order to Show Cause, and since Joe had most recently returned to the country on a grant of advance parole the immigration judge believed that an Order to Show Cause wasn’t the proper charging document.

After a lengthy discussion with Joe, our supervisors, and DHS counsel, we all agreed that termination of the proceedings was the best option. So while we were unable to tell Joe’s story that day and give the many reasons why he deserves to be granted permanent residency, he now seeks adjustment of status before USCIS without the procedural encumbrances of deportation proceedings. Despite the unfinished nature of Joe’s case that day, Joe received closure because, by terminating deportation proceedings, we removed the impediment that precluded him from adjusting his status before USCIS for all of those years. It was not justice denied for Joe; it is merely justice delayed for Joe and his family.

Balt Imm Ct

Setting our own precedent

While we did not achieve the result we wanted that day in court, we were very proud of our work. As student attorneys, we were novices when it came to complex immigration issues, but we did not allow this to discourage us. The challenges we encountered with finding positive binding precedent did not change our position that our client deserved to become a lawful permanent resident. We persisted in finding an answer for our client.

We wrote a persuasive supplemental brief using various legal authorities. Despite the fact that the immigration judge could not accept jurisdiction, she complimented us on our work. We wanted others to benefit from our hard work, so we shared a redacted copy of Joe’s brief with the American Immigration Council, an organization that was litigating the issue of whether TPS was an inspection admission. A few weeks after Joe’s individual hearing in April, we saw that the American Immigration Council had developed arguments similar to our innovative arguments that TPS may constitute an inspection and admission. In Ramirez v. Dougherty,[8] Ramirez a TPS beneficiary from El Salvador, was seeking to adjust his status. Ramirez argued that he should be granted LPR status based on his TPS status. It was reassuring for us to see that the very same arguments we made in our brief were compelling enough to succeed in a different circuit.

circuits

It showed us that with the guidance of our brilliant professors, we were capable of dissecting the complicated immigration statute to develop strong, persuasive analysis. It also was a valuable lesson learned that when the law doesn’t seem to be on your client’s side, you can develop creative legal arguments to change it.

The toughest part was saying goodbye

Although Joe’s case was riddled with complications and complexities, the toughest part wasn’t getting creative with the regulations and case law. The toughest part of this entire process was saying goodbye to our client after the individual hearing. We got to know Joe not just as a client, but as a person, as someone for whom we were confident we could get justice. Joe got to know us and wished us success in our future careers as attorneys. We got to know his wife and his children. We learned about his dedication to his family. We spent time with Joe and his family at their home during our witness preparation sessions. We grew to care about Joe as both a client and as a friend. And best of all, Joe was able to trust an attorney through this process. He had been so terribly hurt by the notario that we were both pleasantly surprised when Joe finally opened up and put his trust in us. On our last phone call with Joe as his student attorneys, he thanked us for working with him. We told our client, and friend, that the honor was ours. This was truly one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences in our professional careers.

[1]Name and other identifying information have been changed.

[2] Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian benefit found under Section 244 of the Act. The Department of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS because conditions temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely or if a country cannot handle the return of its nationals. The Attorney General may designate a country for TPS if the country has an ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, or if there are other extraordinary conditions preventing a noncitizen from returning to the country. See INA § 244(b)(1).

[3] A parolee is considered an arriving noncitizen under 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(q). An arriving noncitizen is an applicant for admission who is coming or attempts to come to the United States at a port-of-entry.

[4] There are three classifications in removal proceedings: (1) an arriving noncitizen, (2) a noncitizen present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled, or (3) a noncitizen who has previously been admitted, but is now deportable. See generally INA § 240(c).

[5] Matter of Silitonga, 25 I&N Dec. 89 (BIA 2009) (immigration judge has no jurisdiction to adjudicate an adjustment of status application for an arriving noncitizen unless the noncitizen has been placed in removal proceedings after returning to the United States on advance parole to pursue a previous filed application); Matter of Oseiwusu, 22 I&N Dec. 19 (BIA 1988) (arriving noncitizens are generally ineligible for bond);

[6] Matter of Sosa Ventura, 25 I&N Dec. (BIA 2010) (TPS does not create an admission); see also Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 386 (4th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that adjustment of status is not an admission for purposes of a waiver of a criminal ground of inadmissibility under Section 212(h) of the Act); but see Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013) (arguing plain language in the context of section 244 of the Act and the broader context of the statute as a whole show Congressional intent that TPS beneficiaries can adjust under section 245 of the Act).

[7] 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013).

[8] C13-1236Z, 2014 WL 2439819 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2014)

 

 

BR “Stars” at American Immigration Lawyers Association Conference

26 Jun

Panoramic_Boston

The Benach Ragland crew just returned from the annual conference of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Boston, Massachusetts.  The annual meeting is the largest gathering of immigration lawyers and provides an opportunity for lawyers to learn from each other and improve their services to their clients.  This year, Benach Ragland attorneys Dree Collopy and Andres Benach, served on the conference faculty.  On Friday, Dree spoke on a panel that encouraged lawyers to think about issues in removal proceedings that go beyond the availability of relief entitled “Challenges and Strategies Beyond Relief.”  On Saturday morning, Andres served as a “Star” on the “Litigating with the Stars” panel, which challenged lawyers in the audience to think through common (and uncommon) scenarios and share their strategy.  The “stars” then critiqued the answers.  It was, indeed, a pretty sharp group of lawyers, as the stars gave out lots of “9s” and “10s.”

AILA also asked Andres to serve a third year as a member of the amicus curiae committee, the committee that decides which cases AILA will support with amicus briefs and prepares briefs on behalf of the organization.  In 2013-14, the committee submitted sixty briefs.  Dree was chosen again to serve as the Chair of the AILA asylum committee.  Thomas Ragland will continue to serve on the Federal Court Section Steering Committee.

The highlight of the conference was Saturday evening, when AILA gave its 2014 Joseph Minsky Young Lawyer Award for Outstanding Contributions in the Field of Immigration and Nationality Law.  In presenting her with this award, AILA cited Dree’s full caseload at Benach Ragland, as well as her leadership of the Catholic University Law School Immigration Clinic and her stewardship of the AILA National Asylum Committee.  Lastly, AILA noted that DrDree2ee is writing the upcoming edition of AILA’s Asylum Primer, a practical how-to for anyone seeking to represent an asylum seeker.  AILA subsequently published Dree’s speech accepting her award on its Leadership Blog.  Dree cited the humanitarian crisis on the border, the lack of due process, and the failure of the political branches to address the serious policy issue of immigration:

We are now faced with a humanitarian crisis at our borders.  CBP and ICE officers are using excessive force, inhumane detention conditions, and “no process” removals. We are faced with immigration courts fighting against insufficient resources, overcrowded dockets and cabined legal discretion. And we are faced with a renewed assault on our asylum system by Congress and the agencies themselves.

Yet, no actions are taken by those in power to fix our system. Instead we have a Congress that points fingers and strikes a pose in Capitol Hill hearings and an Administration which, on the back of an immigration reform-focused campaign, has taken to putting Band-Aids on gashes rather than treating the underlying wounds.

Until we have leaders who are going to work together to solve real problems that affect real people, American businesses, and separated families, it is up to us. It is for these reasons that this award is only the beginning of my journey.

After the awards ceremony, BR and many FOBRs headed out for a night of dancing, before getting back to the work that we knew awaited us.

 

GUEST BLOG by Catholic University Law Students: “From Tragedy to Triumph, One Man’s Second Chance”

1 May

Ana and Brittni

By Ana Sami and Brittni Downs, CUA Immigration Litigation Clinic Students

Our work with Joe* started with a bang. Our Immigration Litigation Clinic had just begun when we were assigned his case and told that he had a master calendar hearing scheduled within a few days. With the help of our supervising professors, Dree Collopy and Michelle Mendez, we rushed to prepare for our first court appearance. Although we were nervous for our first court appearance, which we did not anticipate would happen so soon after our first meeting with Joe, our nerves were overshadowed by the urgency of his case. Joe found his way to Catholic Charities after an Immigration Judge had given him one final chance to find legal counsel. Since immigration removal proceedings are civil as opposed to criminal, Joe did not have access to government appointment counsel, and therefore, needed to find a pro bono attorney on his own. It was meant to be; Joe’s need was met with our desire to represent an indigent individual before the U.S. Immigration Courts. From September through April, we developed and prepared Joe’s case.

The Master Calendar Hearing

Our first court appearance went smoothly given the short time we had to prepare. While it was a quick master calendar hearing, it gave us an opportunity to get to know our judge, and to become accustomed to interacting with DHS counsel. As we were the first team in our clinic to appear in court, we were excited to recount to our classmates our experiences and tell them what we had learned. We enthusiastically provide our classmates tips, just as we benefited from their courtroom tips as their own cases progressed. While we did not know much about Joe at the time of the master calendar hearing, it was clear that he needed us. After the whirlwind of the first hearing settled, we buckled down and began meeting with Joe more. We learned about him in small increments. Joe’s story began as a young car mechanic in Sierra Leone. He explained to us that he, his wife, and three young children escaped the war-torn country of Sierra Leone in the late 90’s when Joe’s aunt assisted him in applying to come to the United States. Getting Joe’s paperwork together, however, was fraught with dangers. Because the U.S. embassy in Sierra Leone had been evacuated as a result of the dangerous conditions, Joe would have to travel through a war zone to neighboring Guinea and stay in a U.N. refugee camp for a full year in order to process his diversity visa paperwork. Throughout this time, Joe lost many family members at the hands of the “rebels” who killed indiscriminately.

Learning about Joe’s Tragic Past

After narrowly escaping death, Joe was finally able to bring his family to the United States. Although Joe was now in a safe country where his life was significantly better and where he went on to have three more children, he would often think about the brutality he witnessed in Sierra Leone, which to this day, weighs heavily on his mind. As time went on, Joe had a couple of run-ins with the law, but paid his fines and learned his lesson. Although Joe was a permanent resident, one of his run-ins with the law resulted in a misdemeanor conviction and was the type that could prompt the Department of Homeland Security to try to deport him. That day came ten long years after his conviction and after his fines were paid, despite the fact that he had kept a clean criminal record since then. Being placed in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court so long after his conviction took Joe by surprise and it could not have come at a worse time, as Joe was struggling to find employment.

Developing the Legal Strategy

Upon reviewing the facts and the law, along with our professors, we decided that Joe qualified for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Cancellation of Removal. We began learning the law of LPR Cancellation, and found out that the issues on Joe’s record did not disqualify him from this type of relief. However, while Joe qualified statutorily, discretion would weigh heavily to determine whether he would be granted LPR Cancellation. In our quest to construct a complete picture of Joe’s life and to prepare a court filing that would meet our burden of proof, we quickly learned that gathering information and preparing his evidence would require herculean efforts because Joe did not possess many of the documents we needed. In addition, his living situation was unstable, and therefore he was unable to maintain organized records.

Joe’s Wife Succumbs to Breast Cancer

While gathering documentation from such a vulnerable client was tough, nothing could have prepared us for what we heard on the line one cold January morning, a few days after school was back in session following our holiday break. Joe’s voice quivered over the phone as he said, “My wife just passed away.” Joe’s wife tragically passed away in the hospital after a long bout with breast cancer. We were in shock, especially because we had just communicated with Joe’s wife a few weeks ago as she happily recounted that she had just become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and then expressed her concern about Joe being in removal proceedings. Our worry for Joe grew as a flood of traumatic memories surrounding death and loss overwhelmed him. While we gave Joe space to grieve, we knew now, more than ever, that our mission to keep him here for the benefit of his U.S. citizen children was vital.

Preparing for the Individual Hearing

The race to collect documentation continued as our filing date in April was fast approaching. But, throughout the daily tasks of gathering information, we also had many memorable moments during the course of our representation of Joe. Perhaps the most solemn memory of our many long hours of meetings with him included the time when we read him the final draft of his affidavit, which we had worked tirelessly on to make sure it was an accurate representation of his life and voice. He sat and silently listened to his own story recounted to him, his head slightly bent. As we finished, reading the last sentence to him aloud, a stream of tears flowed silently from his somber eyes. Joe’s story was heartbreaking and we had to be the best and strongest possible advocates for him.

Joe’s application slowly came together with the help of his friends from church and his family. We sought their assistance in many ways, from being witnesses to arranging rides so that Joe could meet with us at Catholic Charities. Meeting with him was tough as Joe had found a job that required him to work throughout the night, meaning that he needed to rest during normal business hours. Joe would often come to our meetings restless, no doubt because of the fatigue, but also because he was anxious about his fast approaching case. The lack of sleep and the loss of his wife were too much for Joe to handle on some days. Joe’s strong faith in God and his love for his children were the anchors that he clung to during his darkest moments. And yet throughout the tumult of his days, Joe would periodically call us simply to say thank you, and to say that he would pray for us. Little did he know these small glimmers of hope he held in his heart would carry us to the end.

Our professors arranged a time in which we would be able to practice in a moot with a guest Judge and DHS attorney. Our classmates played the roles of our client and witness. The moot was the best practice we received that was as close to a real hearing as possible. We had to learn to think on our feet, to object to DHS counsel’s questioning when necessary, and, in general, pay close attention to every minute detail from our client’s demeanor, to the Judge’s reactions and commentary. While we had many practice moots with our professors, we felt especially prepared and confident after our formal moot. After all of our preparation, we knew we had a firm grasp on all the possible scenarios that could arise on our hearing date. This preparation in itself gave us confidence and helped to steady our nerves.

The Judge Grants Joe LPR Cancellation of Removal Relief from Removal

Our victory finally came on April 24, 2014 when the Immigration Judge in Arlington Immigration Court granted Joe LPR Cancellation of Removal. All those hours of preparation had come down to that one moment, and it was worth every last bit of effort we had exerted in those final days. We felt prepared to address both DHS counsel and the Judge, and had practiced enough with Joe so that we knew he would be comfortable on the stand. It felt invigorating to have a dialogue with the Judge, and to properly address DHS’s concerns within the direct examination of our client. In the end, the Judge thanked us for our efforts in taking the case pro-bono, thanked our professors for their guidance, and concluded that Joe was deserving of relief.

Brittni Ana and client

We had worked with Joe tirelessly throughout what seemed to be an emotional roller coaster. When we felt the pressure mounting, our professors’ steadfast presence around us held us upright. With the tremendous support of our classmates, we knew we would not waver. Throughout it all, the thought of Joe’s younger U.S. citizen children, ages 9, 11, and 12, who we have never met, but whose photos we carried with us, fueled our resolve to keep their father here so that they would not suffer another tragic loss. While there is more we are invested in doing to help Joe, like finding a good counseling center so that he may receive the emotional help he needs, we took a few moments to relish in our success. Outside the courtroom, smiles of relief came across all our faces. We took pictures outside of the court as mementos of our triumph, and we were thankful and extremely pleased with the outcome.

We can think of no person more deserving of a second chance than Joe. While we facilitated Joe’s journey in seeking relief from removal, we became students of his example of courage, faith, and tenacity. Joe’s devout belief in a better tomorrow, despite tremendous obstacles, will forever remain with us as a source of eternal strength.

 

* An alias has been used.

Cancellation Victory (well, sort of)

22 Apr

A couple of months ago, I got to enjoy my fifteen minutes of fame when my client became the poster child for problems caused for immigrants in immigration court by the government shutdown.  I wrote a blog piece, wrote another for the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association and, next thing I know, I am speaking to Robert Siegel of NPR’s All Things Considered and people I have not heard from in decades called me to say they heard me on the radio.  But, eventually, my fame wore off and I still had to fix this young woman’s situation.

what-up-with-that

As way of background, my client, a 21 year old college junior who has been here since she was four years old, applied for cancellation of removal from the Immigration Judge.  Cancellation is available to an individual who has been unlawfully present in the U.S. for at least ten years, possesses good moral character and whose removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent or child.  Congress has decided that only 4000 cancellation cases should be granted every year.  For many years, the 4000 quota was enough for the entire country.  However, as the Obama administration put many more people into removal proceedings, more people applied.  And guess what?  Given a day in court, more people were able to convince judges that they were good people with longstanding ties to the U.S. and deporting them would cause their families tremendous hardship.  By December 2012, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge announced that they had run out of cancellation visas for the entire fiscal year, which had started barely two months earlier.  My client had a hearing in December 2012, in which she was informed by the Judge that there were no more cancellation grants available and the case would need to be continued.  The case was reset until October 2013.  The irony at that time was that she had originally been scheduled in October 2012, when cancellation numbers were available, but had to be rescheduled when the court was shut down due to flooding in lower Manhattan as a result of Hurricane Sandy.10155981_741506099222830_2694746367904436600_n

Fast forward to October 2013 and the government shutdown cancels her latest hearing.  The New York, upon reopening, quickly sent out a hearing notice for March 30.  However, on March 28, the court called me to inform me that the case would need to be rescheduled because the judge had been selected for jury duty!  We were rescheduled for April 18 at 2:00 PM, a date that greatly concerned me as it was Good Friday.  Sure enough, the court called the day before and asked us to come in earlier, which we happily did.  At the hearing, the government informed the court that it agreed with our request to grant our client cancellation of removal.  It took all of fifteen minutes.  The Judge was glad to do so, but explained that there are no cancellation numbers and that my client would be placed in the queue based upon the date and time of her case and would be notified when a number became available to her.  The case could not be “granted” until then.  So, my client, while relieved that she will ultimately be granted, remains in a precarious limbo by another absurd anomaly of our immigration laws- that only 4000 of these may be granted in a given year.  Who knows where Congress got that number?

Here's where Congress got the 4000 number!

Here’s where Congress got the 4000 number!

My client is just one of millions of people left in a state of limbo by Congress’ inability to address the crisis of immigration law.  In this case, my client has DACA and I probably could have gotten the removal case dismissed.  The government stipulated to relief, meaning she would get her green card.  It is hard to say that, in this one case, the problem is the administration.  Like all other arbitrary caps and quotas, such as the H-1B cap, the former cap on asylee adjustment, and caps on immigrant visas, Congress needs to act.

GUEST BLOG: Catholic University Law Students Win Protection for South African Client!

20 Mar

Judy and Tarun

By Judith Muñoz and Tarunpal Dhillon, Student Attorneys with the Catholic University Law School Immigration Litigation Clinic

 

We met our client, Tanya,[i] for the first time on December 18, 2013 at the Baltimore Immigration Court. She stood behind a glass door, in a navy blue jumpsuit, handcuffed and shackled. As she told us her story of survival in South Africa, a few points became very clear about our client: she is a source of inspiration, a fighter, and a seeker of justice. Her story is similar to that of David and Goliath.  She is an individual who, against all odds, dared to question and challenge a powerful, dominating, and resourceful enemy. The enemy in our client’s story is not a single individual but an all-powerful entity, consisting of hundreds of corCorrupt SA police 1rupt men going against the very principle of righteousness they vowed to abide by and the very principle of justice they vowed to uphold – the South African Police. The South African Police conspired with a notorious criminal gang to target and harm our client, Tanya, due to a deeply rooted animosity surrounding the controversial death of Tanya’s brother, a former police reservist.  Tanya had sought answers from the corrupt South African Police regarding her brother’s death, answers the police did not want to give.  For that, she became their target.

Fleeing imminent death threats, Tanya came the United States with a J1 visa in 2005. Once in the United States, Tanya obtained a U visa as a victim of domestic violence. In 2011, however, Tanya’s U visa was revoked after she was found guilty of a criminal offense during which she was acting in self-defense against her abuser. She was placed in removal proceedings before the Baltimore Immigration Court, and ultimately, she was ordered removed to South Africa, the very country she had fled years before. Although she had an appeal pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security deported Tanya to South Africa.  In an effort to hide and protect herself from the police and the gang, Tanya relocated and took extreme measures to change her identity. Despite her efforts, however, the police used its mighty resources to track her down. Again, they used the notorious criminal gang to do their dirty work for them. The gang found Tanya and attacked her on two different occasions, threatening her life and destroying any sense of security she had gained by her relocation and change of identity. Tanya moved around, staying in the homes of friends and acquaintances, trying to stay out of reach of the police and the gang, until December of 2013, when she received news that the Board of Immigration Appeals had granted her appeal. The Board remanded her case back to the Baltimore Immigration Court and requested that she return to the United States to litigate her application for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

After hearing our client’s story, we quickly realized the enormous responsibility that we agreed to put on our shoulders. We were to become protectors, fighters-for-justice, and zealous advocates for a woman who feared she would be brutally and viciously attacked and killed by a notorious criminal gang working under the orders of the South African Police. Our most important and challenging task was to establish the relationship and collusion between these two criminal, corrupt entities and relay it persuasively in front of the immigration judge during Tanya’s individual merits hearing.

Corrupt SA police 2

We spent the next three months dedicating our lives to fighting for our client’s life. As law students, the real world of immigration practice had arrived very quickly and was knocking on our door. We made the choice to open that door and step through it to try to save our client. The process was overwhelming and stressful because the stakes were so very high, but at the same time, this case was an opportunity to transition from inexperienced first-time litigators to zealous advocates fighting for justice for our deserving client. We seized the opportunity and have felt a true transformation from students to advocates, a trait that has now become a part of our identities.

The individual merits hearing represented the most difficult and costly law school exam that we agreed to partake in. We agreed, amongst ourselves, to view the outcome as an indicator of our skill level.  We were students, up against an experienced attorney for the Department of Homeland Security.  We had a decision to make: we could either act like students and fall back to our insecurities and uncertainties, or we could step into the real world of advocacy and put everything on the table for our client. We viewed the hearing as our opportunity to fight for Tanya, for justice, and for humanity – everything Tanya was unable to procure in her native South Africa. After months of preparation, there was nowhere else in the world we would have wanted to be other than at our client’s side, defending her and seeking justice.

The hearing consisted of three-and-a-half hours of direct and cross examinations, client and witness testimony, evidentiary challenges, responses to objections by opposing counsel, and answers to tough questions from the immigration judge.  It ended with an oral decision given by the immigration judge. When the immigration judge stated that he was ready to make his decision, we took a big breath and silently prayed. The wait was unbearable and our hearts were beating at an exceptionally high rate, but we knew we had done everything in our ability to fight for our client. When the immigration judge announced his decision to grant our client deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, we experienced a type of joy and accomplishment never before experienced by either of us in our lifetime. It hit us: we had saved our client’s life.

Our client’s reaction made the three months of insanity, stress, frustration with complicated legal theories, and uncertainty as students in the challenging world of immigration law all worthwhile.  Tears poured down her face while she repeatedly whispered the words “thank you”. Tanya was released from immigration detention that afternoon, and we were able to walk out of the immigration court building with our client, who was literally jumping and skipping for joy, a free woman who can now live safely in the United States. Walking out of the court with Tanya was an amazing feeling. Fighting for justice to save a woman from torture at the hands of the corrupt South African Police is an accomplishment we will never forget. It was one of the best days of our lives.

The success of our case is attributable to a number of exceptional individuals that worked tirelessly and vigorously with us over the three-month timeframe. We had the support of two amazing supervising attorneys, our professors, Michelle Mendez and Dree Collopy, who taught us immigration law and the skills we needed to practice before the U.S. immigration courts, and prepared us for the countless scenarios that could be thrown at us during the individual hearing. They were our mentors and educators, and were always present as a source of optimism and encouragement. We were also fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with an exceptionally wonderful human being, who donated many hours of her time to work with us as our expert on police collusion in South Africa, Dr. Fran Buntman of George Washington University.  Lastly, we had the tremendous support of our fellow classmates and participants in the Immigration Litigation Clinic at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law.

As a direct result of our particDavid-Vs-Goliathipation in Catholic University’s Immigration Litigation Clinic, we were blessed with the opportunity to meet an amazing client who came to us with a David and Goliath scenario, but left us with the confidence to face seemingly impossible odds and the passion to fight for what’s right. For us, the clinic was not just a class…it was a transformation.


[i] Our client’s name has been changed to protect her identity.

New Common Sense Rules on Material Support for Terrorism Bars

17 Feb

Syria

We have written on this page before about the absurd over-inclusiveness of the ground of inadmissibility for “material support” for terrorism.  This net barred Nelson Mandela from entering the U.S. without a waiver until 2008 and still bars 3000 refugees from the Iranian regime whose lives are at risk in Camp Liberty in Iraq from being resettled in the U.S. as promised by the U.S. government.  Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of others have had their applications for asylum, adjustment of status, or refugee admission placed on hold for allegations that they provided material support for terrorism by engaging in minor activities, such as distributing political leaflets, cooking food or distributing water, which the government has deemed to constitute material support of terrorism.  We are happy to report some good news on this front.  On February 5, 2014, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, issued new rules allowing the government to exempt those whose support is deemed to be “insignificant” or unintentional This decision should free the applications of hundreds of individuals in the U.S. who are awaiting the adjudication of green cards after having already won asylum in the U.S.  In addition, it should open the door to refugees from the war in Syria languishing in unsafe and unsanitary refugee camps.

U.S. law makes an individual inadmissible to the U.S. if they have provided “material support” to a terrorist organization.  The terms material support has been interpreted very broadly.  An illustration of the absurd lengths the bar extended to comes from a U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service public forum.  A representative of CIS explained the “doing laundry” nature of the bar.  Let’s imagine that one person in a home has ties to a terrorist organization and another person in the household does the laundry for the household.  That person has provided material support for terrorism because she (let’s be real, here) has removed the terrorist’s burden of doing his laundry freeing him to do more terrorist things.  People have been found inadmissible for providing food, water, shelter to terrorists.  Although there is a duress exemption to the bar, the standard is high and the facts are rarely uncovered in an adjudication.

The new rules allow DHS to waive inadmissibility if DHS concludes that the individual applicant “has not provided more than an insignificant amount of material support to a terrorist organization.”  To exempt an individual, DHS must find the following that the applicant:

(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;

(b) has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;

(c) has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association, as well as all contact, with a terrorist organization and its members;

(d) has not provided more than an insignificant amount of material support to a terrorist organization

(e) (1) has not provided the material support with any intent of furthering the terrorist or violent activities of the individual or organization; (2) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity; and (3) has not provided material support to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity;

(f) has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;

(g) has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;

(h) has not provided material support in the form of military-type training;

(i) has not engaged in any other terrorist activity;

(j) poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and

(k) warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.

As the standards in the regulation make it clear, DHS must still conduct an extensive background check, determine that the individual does not pose a threat to the safety and security of the U.S. and also determine that the assistance provided to a terrorist organization be de minimis.  The new DHS rule recognizes that many immigrants come from war zones where failure to provide a drink of water or where failure to show solidarity with certain armed groups can be risking one’s life.

DHS also published a rule that is identical to the one above, but instead of insignificant support, the rule exempts those who provided support but did so unknowingly.  DHS exempts those who meet the criteria above and an applicant who:

(d) Has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;

(e) Has not provided material support (1) that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity or (2) to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);

This should assist the many people who have provided support to organizations that they believed to be charitable or humanitarian organizations only to find out later that their funds were used for terrorist acts.  Individuals will not be exempted if they should have reasonably known that their funds and  efforts would be supporting terrorism.

Predictably, many have used these common sense rules to accuse the administration of aiding terrorists.  This is pure demagoguery.  The administration has pushed the “war on terror” to new limits with the aggressive use of drones and targeted killings.  Like DACA, the new rules allow the government to separate the priorities from those who present no threat to the security of the U.S.  Yet, the anti-immigrant crowd asserts that the administration is being easy on terrorists and letting them into the U.S.  The fact is that many of these people are here.  They are working and living among us with no instances of terrorist acts.  For several years the DHS has had these cases on hold and people have lived here in administrative limbo.  A U.S. District Court in Virginia just last week rejected the government’s argument that it could keep a case in limbo for over fourteen years based upon an individual’s support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalk, an Iranian resistance group. 

The new rules should put an end to administrative limbo for thousands of individuals who, for fear of their lives, did little more than provide food or water or distribute political leaflets for groups that are today deemed to be “terrorists.”  This is a very welcome development.