Guest Blog: NOTHING IS PERFECT: TWO CLIENTS, TWO STUDENT ATTORNEYS AND THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THAT BINDS THEM

This article was prepared by the George Washington Law School Immigration Clinic and was written by  GW Law Professor Alberto Benitez (second from left) and Immigration Clinic Alumni Cleveland Fairchild (fifth from left), Binta Mamadou (seventh from left), and Rebekah Niblock (fourth from left).

One of the most common sound bites to emerge from the ongoing immigration debate is that the immigration system is somehow “broken.” I have directed the George Washington Law School Immigration Clinic since 1996, and I do not share this view. The reality is that most critics have never set foot in an immigration court or a detention center.

The immigration system is not broken. The system has flaws and there is room for improvement, but it works well for most people in most cases. The student-attorneys who I supervise are all in their third year of law school and come from different walks of life. Despite their differences, the students share a common objective of wanting to help people and be a part of an immigration system that saves lives and reunites families.

A Great Big Hug

A great big hug exchanged between a student-attorney and her client’s two children exemplifies the immigration system working as it should. Earlier in the day, the student-attorney accompanied her client to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Field Office to figure out what was going on with the client’s case. The client had recently come to the United States with her two children to flee gang-related violence.  The client found herself in a new country with a different language and swept into an immigration system that she did not understand.

As the student-attorney stood in line waiting to speak to an ICE official, the client stood trembling with her two children at her side. The client began to pray and perform the holy trinity in Spanish. After waiting for some time, the student-attorney asked to speak directly with the ICE officer managing the client’s case. The ICE official agreed to meet with the student-attorney and informed her that the client was in removal proceedings and would be receiving a court date shortly. The client was utterly confused and she did not understand the conversation until the student-attorney translated the information into Spanish. Even though the client learned that she was in removal proceedings, she felt a sense of relief because she now had answers and knew exactly what was going on in her case. When the student-attorney and the client parted, the client’s children reached up and gave the student-attorney a great big hug. While trips to the ICE Field Office are understandably terrifying for immigrants, news to the clients that they will have their day in court is proof that the system works.

She Fell to Her Knees

As the woman fell to her knees outside the courtroom following her hearing, I could tell that the student-attorney was caught off-guard. The woman was in tears, but these were tears of joy. After more than two years of uncertainties, countless meetings, and medical and psychological evaluations, she could now sigh in relief. At that point, she knew that she would never have to return to the country responsible for the disappearances and deaths of several family members and where she had suffered for expressing unpopular political views.

I observed the student-attorney’s reaction. I could tell that she maintained her composure because lawyers are taught to be stoic, particularly in front of their clients. In those few minutes, I recalled the student once telling me that she had dreamed about the ICE attorney who she had to face during the trial. I remembered how hard the student-attorney worked on behalf of the client and the emotional roller coaster that she endured. Her personal commitment to the case was extraordinary-she even gave the client a suit to wear to court! Naturally, she questioned the strength of the case and whether the client would be granted asylum even though the client’s claim was compelling.

On the day of the trial, the student-attorney went to court prepared to advocate for her client. After both sides made their arguments, there was a long period of silence while the immigration judge made notes and flipped through the evidence. Eventually, he looked up and announced his ruling.

That afternoon was a victory, but not just for the client or the student-attorney. It was a victory for the immigration system. It was evidence that the system works.

Keep in Mind What the Immigration Laws Are Supposed To Do

In considering what it is that we want to fix, we should remember what our immigration laws were written to accomplish. Lost in the talk of immigration reform is the fact that the current U.S. system is the world’s best at reuniting separated families, allowing foreigners to invest in the economy, and bringing talented students from around the world to our universities. The system is good at providing persecuted refugees with a chance to resettle in the U.S. and establish a better future. Many countries have smaller populations, smaller borders, and less demand for visas; yet, they have settled on having immigration systems that are hopelessly complicated and inefficient. It is my desire that any upcoming reform focus primarily on the day-to-day activities that an immigration system must necessarily accomplish. If the overwhelming focus is on having a system that effectively keeps people out, we might end up with a system that does not do much of anything at all. To me, that sounds broken.

More on Asylum Litigation and the Meaning of Particular Social Group

Last week, we told you about two cases that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard oral arguments on.  As we discussed, these cases will go a long way towards setting the law on what constitutes a particular social group for purposes of asylum.

One of these cases, Martinez, dealt with the issue of whether a former gang member can be granted protection in the U.S. because of a clear likelihood of persecution because of his status as a former gang member.  In Martinez, there is no doubt among the government or the courts that he will be harmed if he returns to El Salvador.  The question is whether he falls within a group meriting protection under U.S. asylum law.  The Board of Immigration Appeals said that Congress did not intend for someone to gain protection in the U.S. because they were once part of a criminal enterprise, which the Mara Salvatrucha certainly is.  The BIA reasoned that a person should not be able to get a benefit like protection for removal because of involvement in a gang and that gang membership is not what Congress had in mind when it allowed for protection for members of particular social groups.  Mr. Martinez’s lawyers, a very talented group led by FOBR Maureen Sweeney of the University of Maryland Law School Immigration Clinic, argued that Congress established a number of bars to asylum and withholding of removal and that previous gang membership was not among them.  Had Congress wished to exclude such individuals, it could have easily specified in the statute.  Martinez argued that the BIA created a bar to asylum and that was, in fact, Congress’ job, and not the Board’s.

Those arguments, made in briefs to the 4th Circuit, framed the argument held last Thursday.  Maureen Sweeney argued for Mr. Martinez and FOBR Ben Casper argued for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which filed a brief supporting Mr. Martinez’s claim to protection.  After the hearing, Maureen emailed the following report:

We had oral argument this morning, and I’m not one to draw overly optimistic conclusions from such things, but I will say that two of our 3 judges seemed to really get what the case was about. Our panel was Judges Wynn, Neimeyer and Flanagan (sitting by designation). Judge Neimeyer pretty much spent 40 minutes arguing our case for us – completely got the analytical distinction between current and past gang members, and spoke admiringly of how our client was trying to do the right thing and be a person of conscience, and how they’d just kill him for it if he had to go back. Judge Wynn seemed concerned about being asked to actually find all the elements of particular social group, but he didn’t seem to object to the idea of finding immutability and remanding the case for the BIA to do the rest of its job. Judge Flanagan was the hardest to read. Ben Casper from AILA did a great job pointing out how the Bd decision just adds to the chaos that is PSG jurisprudence right now. Judges seemed uninterested in whether initial membership in the gang was voluntary or not – they seemed to get that once the person left, that became the defining characteristic. And they didn’t seem particularly worried about letting in a bunch of bad guys. As Judge Neimeyer said, “That’s what you have all those bars in the statute for.” We will, of course, see what their decision says when they get around to writing it.

Thanks to all of you for all your help and support with this case and this new adventure in appellate work for me and our clinic. It made a big difference to me to feel like we had the support of such a great community behind us.

And the interesting trivia fact of the day is that we believe we were arguing in the courtroom where Jefferson Davis was tried after the Civil War. So if anybody ever asks you what Julio Martinez and Jeff Davis have in common, now you know!

A very encouraging report, to say the least.

A bit of bad news is that, on the day the case was argued in Richmond, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sitting in Boston issued a terrible decision on the same issue. In Cantarero v. Holder, the First Circuit held, “The BIA reasonably concluded that, in light of the manifest humanitarian purpose of the INA, Congress did not mean to grant asylum to those whose association with a criminal syndicate has caused them to run into danger.  Such recognition would reward membership in an organization that undoubtedly wreaks social harm in the streets of our country.”  It then added, preposterously, that recognition of such a social group “would, moreover, offer an incentive for aliens to join gangs here as a path to legal status.”  In rejecting protection, the 1st Circuit set up a circuit split between itself and the 7th Circuit and the 6th Circuit which had already concluded that former gang membership was a legitimate particular social group for asylum purposes.

Whatever the 4th Circuit does in Mr. Martinez’s case, it appears that this issue is teeing up for a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Two Big Asylum Cases at 4th Circuit This Week

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal appellate court which sets federal law in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas, will hear two cases regarding U.S. asylum law.  In Temu v. Holder and Martinez v. Holder, the court will consider the contours of the protected ground of “particular social group.”  The decisions in these cases will determine whether asylum law will be more inclusive or whether the law will shut many deserving applicants out of the protection of asylum.

Asylum may be granted to an individual who can demonstrate that she has suffered persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution in her home country on account of her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.  These five bases for asylum are known as “protected grounds.”  Whereas political opinion, race, religion, and nationality are all fairly intuitive, U.S. law has had to define “particular social group” on a case-by-case basis.  The results have been fairly uneven.  The watershed decision establishing what constitutes a particular social group is a 1985 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of Acosta.  In Acosta, the Board defined a particular social group as a group of individuals who share a certain immutable characteristic that can not be changed or is so fundamental to their identity that they should not be required to change.  The Acosta definition served asylum law pretty well for two decades.  Since Acosta, homosexuals, members of clans, family relationships, women opposed to female genital mutilation, women who refuse to conform to strict religious codes, and women seeking escape from domestic violence have all been recognized as social groups for the purposes of asylum.

However, in the last few years, the Acosta standard has come under attack by the Board of Immigration Appeals.  In Matter of C-A-, the BIA added a new element to the standard Acosta definition: social visibility.  While purporting to uphold the Acosta definition, the BIA stated that members of a particular social group must “be easily recognizable and understood by others to constitute social groups.”  By emphasizing social visibility, the BIA added a new element and resulted in denying asylum to a confidential informant against the Cali cartel whose life was in danger as his informing activities had been discovered.  The BIA found that confidential informant, by their very nature were not recognizable to the public.  The carnage continued with Matter of SEG and Matter of EAG.  In Matter of SEG, the BIA held that Salvadoran youth whose life was in danger because they had resisted recruitment by gangs did not constitute a social group that was recognizable to members of society.  In Matter of EAG, the BIA also found that persons resistant to gang membership and those who might be mistakenly identified by police as gang members did not qualify as social groups.  CA, SEG and EAG have severely limited the class of individuals who could qualify for asylum by claiming persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.

Some courts have rejected the BIA’s analysis.  In Benitez-Ramos v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago rejected the social visibility test, insofar as the BIA test required that a group member be visible on sight.  The 7th Circuit held that the social group of “former gang member” was immutable and that gang membership is easily identifiable, as is former gang membership.

The 4th Circuit will now consider in Martinez whether a young man who was conscripted into a gang and subsequently left can obtain protection under U.S. asylum law.  Mr. Martinez was attacked on multiple occasions and was aware that gang leaders had given the “green light” to other gang members that they were free to murder their former compatriot.  In its decision in Martinez, the BIA decided that Congress could not have intended gang membership and therefore former gang membership to create an opportunity for protection under U.S. law.  Congress could not have intended for criminal gangs to be social groups worthy of protections of U.S. law.  The 4th must decide whether former gang membership is immutable and how closely it will adhere to the BIA’s social visibility test.

In Temu, the 4th Circuit must consider whether a man who was imprisoned and tortured in his home country of Tanzania because he was acting erratically as a result of his mental illness qualifies for asylum.  When Mr. Temu was beaten in the prison in Tanzania, he heard the guards call him names reserved for the mentally ill, except in Tanzania the belief is that such behavior comes from demonic possession rather than biochemical origins.  The BIA held that Temu was imprisoned because of his behavior and not because of his mental illness, even though the record is clear that, once in prison, he was treated differently than other prisoners because of his mental illness.

Both cases are being argued by experienced and talented lawyers who are working pro bono.  Argument is this week and we expect decisions in the spring.  We will keep you updated and have our fingers crossed that the law will become more welcoming from those seeking violence and persecution in their home countries.

Equality Under Immigration Laws Being Implemented and Realized

The Supreme Court rocked the world last week by declaring Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.  Section III forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.  Thus, a legal same-sex marriage entered into in New York was valid under NY law, but did not provide the married couple with any federal benefits.  Activists have identified over 1100 ways that federal law provides a benefit to a married couple, all of which were unavailable until Wednesday, June 26, when Section III of DOMA was officially bid adieu.  Among the benefits now available to couples in same-sex marriages are a multiplicity of immigration benefits.  Of paramount importance in these benefits is the right of a United States citizen to sponsor her foreign spouse for residence.

Things have moved awfully fast since last Wednesday.   Shortly after the decision was announced, the White House stated, “I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.”  The same day, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security who oversees immigration matters for the U.S., stated, “Working with our federal partners, including the Department of Justice, we will implement today’s decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly in the administration of our immigration laws.”  On Thursday, US CIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas was ready at the American Immigration Lawyers Association conference when he was asked about DOMA.  Director Mayorkas informed the audience that the CIS has maintained a list of all denied same sex marriage cases since the Administration stopped defending DOMA in the courts in February 2011 and that CIS was “prepared to act,” in implementing the law.  By Friday, the first same sex marriage petition was approved by the U.S. CIS.  That is the happy couple above in matching shirts and beards.  Also, on Friday, outstanding immigration lawyer Matt Kolken was notified by CIS Director Mayorkas that the agency would no longer fight a denied same-sex petition on appeal by one of Matt’s clients.

Then, over the weekend, it was Pride, and lots of joy occurred.  Edie Windsor, whose fight with the IRS over taxes on her deceased wife’s estate was the knockout punch for DOMA, served as the Grand Marshal of the NYC Pride parade and BR lawyers in San Francisco got into the spirit as well.

And, just today, Monday July 1, 2013, Secretary Napolitano issued the following statement: “After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly.  To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.” The DHS also published two questions and answers.  First, the Department announced that individuals in legal same-sex marriages may file I-130 immigrant petitions on behalf of their foreign spouses and that those petitions would be handled identically to the opposite-sex petitions that CIS has long adjudicated.  In other words, gay married couples will have to demonstrate that they are legally married (no other marriages, marriage performed in a state that recognizes gay marriage) and that they are engaged in a bona fide marriage.  A bona fide marriage may be demonstrated by a shared residence, joined bank accounts, credit cards and insurance, knowledge of the other spouse, photos and other objective evidence.  Second, the CIS clarified that what is important for CIS’ recognition of a same-sex marriage is the law of the place where the marriage was performed and not where the petitioner and beneficiary live.  This means that a couple married in California (that’s right California now has gay marriage thanks to the other Supreme Court case that day on Prop 8), but living in, oh, let’s say our favorite whipping boy among the states of the union, Arizona, can have their marriage recognized by the federal government in immigration matters even though Arizona does not recognize it.  With extremely limited exceptions, the law of the state where the marriage took place is the law that matters for CIS recognition.  While questions remain about the implementation, we congratulate the Department on moving quickly to receive and approve same-sex marriage-based petitions.

The law has, once again caught up to the culture.  In law school, we read Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the right of a state to selectively prosecute homosexuals under state sodomy laws.  Now, less than thirty years after the shameful Bowers decision, (which was itself obliterated by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas by the pen of the same Anthony Kennedy who played hangman to DOMA), the Supreme Court has taken an enormous leap into helping this country realize its rhetoric of individual freedom and equal justice.

CIS is now accepting and approving marriage petitions by same-sex couples and it took less than a week.

 

Arizona loses again, but its citizens win

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that the state of Arizona cannot separately require an individual to prove he is a citizen in order to register to vote beyond the regulations set forth by the federal government.  This decision stated that Arizona’s additional “proof of citizenship” form was contrary to the National Voter Registration Act, the federal law establishing a specific form for Voter Registration.  The Court held that this form was sufficient evidence of citizenship without additional proof and on that basis struck down the Arizona law requiring a registering voter to prove he is a citizen.

Although this case was decided under the Elections Clause, where federal law always trumps state law, this is an important decision for those who have had to jump over additional unconstitutional hurdles, simply due to the biases of those who enact and implement Arizona’s laws.  No longer will citizens of Arizona be forced to jump through legal hoops that the Federal Government does not require.  We are hopeful that this reasoning will extend to other states and legislation that has placed additional burdens and barriers on individuals beyond what is required and permitted by the Federal Government.  Although Jeffrey Toobin did not think there were any major Supreme Court decisions today, Benach Ragland believes the enfranchisement of the voters of Arizona is major indeed.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the theories offered by Arizona officials is another black mark against the litigation strategy the State of Arizona has embarked upon.  In the last year, this is Arizona’s second major defeat at the Supreme Court.  Less than a year ago, the Supreme Court knocked down Arizona’s SB 1070, the “show me your papers” law in Arizona v. United States.   Earlier this month, a federal judge in Phoenix ruled that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had systematically violated the civil rights of the Hispanic citizens of the United States.  While the Sheriff has expressed his intent to appeal, Arizona citizens are questioning the use of state funds to pay for ineffective and hubristic litigation.  How much money has been spent by Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio to defend indefensible policies?  In  the era of the sequester and failing schools, can Arizona afford Jan Brewer’s and Joe Arpaio’s ego trips to court?

PS- I took this picture myself!  – ACB

Prerna Lal on CSPA and de Osorio Update

Despite being on leave from Benach Ragland to study for the California bar, Prerna Lal continues to provide valuable insight on the status of the de Osorio case.  De Osorio is the 9th Circuit case in which the court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service had interpreted the Child Status Protection Act wrongly in a way that excluded thousands of young people from the opportunity to obtain status with their families.  The government has sought review of the de Osorio decision before the United States Supreme Court, which will decide by the end of June, whether it will hear the case.  From Prerna’s blog:

Attorneys for de Osorio filed an excellent reply brief to the DOJ’s petition seeking certiorari on May 24. Usually, the petitioners can file a reply brief within 10 days but it appears that the Department of Justice did not file a reply brief in de Osorio yesterday. They are not obligated to do so. As of now, the government’s petition for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision has been distributed for conference on June 20. I believe SCOTUS will probably vote to hear this, but I’d love to be wrong.

Empirical analysis suggests that it is rare for the Supreme Court to deny hearing a case when the Solicitor General requests review. While I think that the appeal is without merit, and almost frivolous, it only takes a law clerk to place the certiorari petition in the pool for review and four Supreme Court justices to agree to grant review.

If the Supreme Court grants certioriari, as in, agrees to hear the case, which we will know by June 24, 2013, then the stay of mandate continues, and no one can seek adjustment of status (or a green card) under de Osorio until the Supreme Court hears the case. Persons under the jurisdiction of Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi), who are in removal proceedings, continue to be eligible for relief under Khalid v. Holder. New briefs would be filed, oral arguments held, and the Supreme Court would have until the end of June 2014 to issue a decision.

If the Supreme Court denies review, then the stay on mandate is lifted, and de Osorio becomes law nationwide because it was certified as nationwide class action lawsuit (and hence, there are no circuit split issues).

I hope everyone separated from their parents or adult children, get to see their family members soon.

Much love.

Thanks for keeping this on the front burner, Prerna.  We will continue to keep you informed as the Supreme Court considers the case.

After Lengthy Court Battle, Client Sworn in as U.S. Citizen

Last Friday in Baltimore, Maryland, our client, Temitope (“Tope”) Akinsade, was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Naturalization ceremonies are always gratifying, but this event was particularly moving in light of the government’s relentless and ultimately unsuccessful effort to deport Tope – who has been a lawful permanent resident for over 12 years. To know Tope’s story is to understand both the unfairness of our immigration laws and the charade that is ICE’s supposed policy on prosecutorial discretion.

A native of Nigeria, Tope came to the United States with his family as a 7-year-old in 1988. In 2000, at the age of 19, he pled guilty to a felony embezzlement charge after cashing three checks for some neighborhood toughs at the bank where he was working as a teller. Shortly after the incident, Tope reported the transactions to his supervisor and agreed to cooperate with the police and the FBI in their investigation. On the advice of his attorney, who assured him he would not be deported but would “become a citizen in five years,” Tope pled guilty to one count of embezzlement by bank employee. He was sentenced to one month in community confinement and three years of probation, which he successfully completed.

Believing the incident was behind him, Tope enrolled at the University of Maryland, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science with honors. He stayed at Maryland to earn a master’s degree, receiving a full fellowship from the National Science Foundation. Tope was then offered a slot in a leadership program at General Electric, working in the company’s Global Research Center in upstate New York. For several years he worked for GE and traveled to and from the U.S. without incident.

Then, one morning in January 2009, Tope was arrested by ICE agents, charged with being deportable from the United States, and sent to a detention center in Batavia, New York. Authorities claimed that his embezzlement conviction qualified as an “aggravated felony,” which under U.S. immigration law means near-mandatory deportation. He was held for seventeen months before being released on bond. Although he had not been sentenced to prison for the underlying crime, Tope spent nearly a year and a half imprisoned by ICE, and he faced removal proceedings in immigration court without the right to an appointed attorney.

Over the course of many months, Tope’s case ground its way through the notoriously slow workings of immigration court. An immigration judge sustained the government’s claim that Tope’s embezzlement conviction in 2000 met the definition of an “offense involving fraud or deceit,” and thus an aggravated felony. As a result, he not only was found deportable but also declared ineligible for virtually all forms of relief – including cancellation of removal – despite having been a green card holder for nearly nine years. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.

Tope then brought his case to the federal courts. He appealed the BIA’s removal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. At around the same time, he hired a criminal attorney to file a writ of error coram nobis in U.S. district court in Maryland, asking the court to vacate his embezzlement conviction based on the gross misadvice about immigration consequences he was given during his criminal proceedings in 2000. The district court judge found that Tope had received ineffective assistance of counsel, but ruled that he had not been prejudiced because the trial court gave a general warning during his plea hearing that if he was not a U.S. citizen, a conviction could lead him to be deported. Tope appealed the judge’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. His fate now rested in the hands of the two federal appeals courts.

Tope’s fortunes finally began to change when Thomas Ragland took the case. Thomas filed briefs and presented oral argument in the Second Circuit, urging the court to vacate Tope’s removal order because the embezzlement statute under which he was convicted required proof of either an intent to defraud or an intent to injure – and the record of conviction was inconclusive as to Tope’s intent at the time of the offense. The government strenuously opposed these arguments, insisting that the conviction was clearly an aggravated felony and that Tope should be deported without delay. In May 2012, the Second Circuit issued a precedent decision agreeing with Thomas’ arguments that Tope had not been convicted of an aggravated felony, because both the immigration judge and the BIA had improperly inferred an intent to deceive in the commission of the embezzlement offense – which was not established by the record of conviction. In addition, given the relatively minor nature of the crime, the passage of time, and Tope’s exemplary achievements, the court also wondered aloud why ICE refused to favorably exercise prosecutorial discretion in the case. Finding that the government had failed to prove its aggravated felony charge, the appeals court vacated Tope’s order of removal.

At the same time, Thomas also briefed and argued the coram nobis appeal in the Fourth Circuit. In July 2012, the court sustained the appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling, agreeing with Thomas’ argument that a trial court’s general warning about deportation consequences at the plea stage was inadequate to overcome an attorney’s specific (incorrect) assurances to his client that entering a guilty plea would not render him deportable. Thus, in another precedent decision, the Fourth Circuit vacated Tope’s embezzlement conviction altogether. Federal prosecutors urged the en banc Fourth Circuit to rehear the case, but their request was denied.

With a clean record – as both his removal order and his felony conviction had now been vacated – Tope submitted his naturalization papers last November. Several weeks after appearing with Thomas for an interview at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, he was notified that his application had been approved. On Friday May 24, Tope took the oath of allegiance and became U.S. citizen.

Tope spent over a year in ICE detention based on a single conviction that did not result in any jail time, and which ultimately was vacated by the federal court of appeals. And the government relentlessly sought to deport him based on an aggravated felony charge that evaporated under the glare of judicial scrutiny. In the past two years, ICE has stated that its personnel will use “prosecutorial discretion” to judiciously manage its expenditure of resources in immigration proceedings. In a memo published in June 2011, ICE Director John Morton outlined a series of factors to be taken into consideration when deciding to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Among these factors was the length of time spent in the United States, particularly in lawful status, the pursuit of higher education in the United States, whether the individual entered the United States as a child, whether the individual poses a national security or public safety concern, ties and contributions to the community, and whether the individual has cooperated with law enforcement. All of these factors weigh in favor of an exercise of prosecutorial discretion for Tope Akinsade, yet ICE refused and instead aggressively and persistently sought to deport him. It was not until the Second Circuit ruled in his favor that Tope was assured that his conviction, later held to be constitutionally unsound, would not prevent him from remaining in the United States. Fortunately, the federal appeals courts were persuaded by legal arguments challenging both the BIA’s removal order and the U.S. district court’s denial of coram nobis relief. The law prevailed where ICE’s discretion and common sense failed. Tope Akinsade is a proud and deserving United States citizen.

Benach Ragland News

It has been a busy and exciting few weeks at Benach Ragland.  From immigration reform rallies to dramatic courtroom victories, BR has had a month to remember.

Starting off, courtroom victories are the reason we do what we do.  Three major courtroom victories this month have lifted everyone’s spirits.  First, Andres Benach presented seven hours of testimony and 747 pages of documentary evidence to the immigration court in Pennsylvania over two days in winning a 212(h) waiver for a permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony.  Legally, this victory was only made possible as Circuit Courts around the country, including the one in Pennsylvania, have decided that the plain language of  INA 212(h) allows certain permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies to seek the waiver.  This was an unheard of notion about five years ago when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas decided the case of Martinez v. Mukasey that opened this door.  At the time, we told our client that his only hope was that the logic of Martinez would also be accepted in the Third Circuit, where he was facing removal proceedings.  In September, a decision called Hanif v. Attorney General did just that and we were able to put on the case.  Overcoming the aggravated felony, showing the Judge that the family would suffer extreme hardship without the husband/ father and demonstrating that our client deserved this second chance took every bit of energy and evidence we could muster.  When the Judge finally ruled, the entire family broke down in tears relieved that the threat of deportation had been eliminated. Second, Dree Collopy wrapped up a long and emotional saga when her client was granted adjustment of status without a whisper of opposition from DHS.  After years of fighting DHS on the case, Dree overwhelmed the government with evidence and reason, such that DHS agreed to her client’s adjustment.  Dree’s client, Sophie, is BR’s May 2013 Client of the Month and you can read more about her here.  Finally, Thomas Ragland was hired on Thursday, worked all weekend, and destroyed the government’s case on Tuesday.  A case that had lasted for several years where the government insisted that the client had committed fraud, when she had not, was wrapped up with a burst of activity from Thomas and Senior Paralegal Cyndy Ramirez, who with bulldog tenacity unraveled the truth of the case and set up the victory in court.  These cases represent the best of why we do what we do.  People’s lives are changed for the better and the emotional release of knowing that the immigration Sword of Damocles has been removed is a feeling every lawyer should get to know.  But, be careful, that feeling is highly addictive.

It is no wonder, with cases like these, that Andres Benach, Thomas Ragland and Dree Collopy were all recognized as Super Lawyers for 2013.  Every year, Thompson Reuters produces its Super Lawyers list and BR lawyers have been a regular fixture on the Super Lawyers list.  Joining Andres and Thomas this year, Dree Collopy was named a “Rising Star.”  We think that Dree is already a star and that it just takes some longer to recognize it.

At the same time, BR served the community.  BR’s goodwill ambassadors Sandra Arboleda, Mariela Sanchez and Liana Montecinos supported the April 10 immigration rally and BR was the only law firm to attend the Maryland Council for American-Islamic Relations awards dinner on Sunday, April 28.  BR even received a shout-out from Imam Johari from the Dar-el-Hijra mosque for our work on a naturalization case for one of their congregants.  Also, last night (April 30), Benach Ragland was honored as a Platinum Member of the DC Bar’s Raising the Bar effort to support access to justice programs.  Jen Cook, who has spearheaded this effort at BR, was on hand to receive the award, which was bestowed by Georgetown Law School Dean Peter Edelman who noted that Jen was once a student of his.

Lastly, BR attorneys have criss-crossed the country educating lawyers on the challenges of immigration law.  Thomas Ragland addressed the Upper Midwest Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  Andres Benach went to Chicago to discuss the obligations of defense counsel in advising their foreign born clients on the immigration consequences of conviction with lawyers from the American Bar Association Section of Litigation and will speak tomorrow on Provisional Waivers and also Prosecutorial Discretion at the National Immigration Project’s annual conference in Boston.

Spring certainly has been busy and gratifying at Benach Ragland.  May looks no different with challenging cases looming.  Benach Ragland law clerk Prerna Lal will graduate from law school, marking another step towards joining BR as a lawyer after the Bar exam.  It is all exciting and we are loving every minute of it.

How would a Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA affect immigration?

One of the biggest immigration cases of the current Supreme Court terms is not about immigration at all.  Today, March 27, 2013, the Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Windsor, a case that is about the validity of a same-sex marriage and its recognition under U.S. law.  In 2007, Edie Windsor married her longtime partner, Theya Speyer in Canada, which allows same-sex marriage.  When Speyer died in 2009, Windsor was hit with a $363,000 tax bill that she would not have been required to pay if Speyer had been a man.  Federal law passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prohibited the federal government from recognizing Windsor and Speyer’s marriage and disallowed Windsor from claiming an exemption to the federal estate tax.  Windsor sued and prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The government, now being represented by conservative members of the House of Representatives because the Justice Department refuses to defend the Act, sought Supreme Court review and the Justices heard the case today.  A decision is due by June.  According to Supreme  Court guru and editor of the SCOTUSblog.com, Tom Goldstein, there appears to be the votes to invalidate DOMA.  Given our confidence in Tom Goldstein’s analysis, we provide our own analysis how the demise of DOMA would affect immigration law.

First, DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in U.S. states.  Currently, there are nine states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Iowa, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia, that allow same-sex couples to get married.  Presumably some of those marriages would be between an American citizen and a foreign national.  However, while an American citizen can file an immigrant petition on behalf of their foreign national opposite-sex spouse, DOMA prevents the approval of an immigrant petition by an American citizen in a same-sex marriage.  Although the marriage between the two men or two women is perfectly legal in the state in which it was performed, DOMA relieves the federal government from recognizing that marriage.  Therefore, a U.S. citizen can not sponsor their foreign same-sex spouse for residence.

The inability of a U.S. citizen to sponsor their foreign spouse has led many binational couples to pursue very unconventional solutions to live together in the U.S. We have seen individuals take the long, difficult and expensive route to seek their residence because the simple path is foreclosed.  In addition, we have seen adoptions between partners, the establishment of businesses to bring their spouse-employee to the U.S., and desperate resort to fake marriages.  When a law causes good people to break the law, there is often something wrong with the law.  If DOMA is struck down, a U.S. citizen could file an immigrant petition on behalf of their same-sex spouse and have the same expectation of approval as a heterosexual couple has.

Second, same-sex spouses could serve as “qualifying relatives” for relief from removal.  Foreign nationals facing removal often can seek to avoid removal by applying for relief from removal.  Many of these forms of relief require a demonstration of hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse.  In the past, one member of a same sex couple could face removal and not be eligible to apply for relief due to the absence of a spouse, regardless of how long that individual were in a relationship with an American of the same sex.

Third, it may help multinational corporations transfer employees more easily.  U.S. law provides for temporary visa for foreign employees needed in the U.S.  Spouses and children of the foreign employee are entitled to derivative visas.  However, same-sex spouses do not get the same benefit and key employees do refuse transfer to the U.S. due to the inability of their same-sex spouse to join them.  DOMA’s prohibitions deprive U.S. business of workers they have determined they need.

DOMA’s demise would be a very good thing for the development of immigration law.  The pernicious effect of DOMA on the lives of thousands of Americans and their partners/ spouses has led Immigration Equality, the nation’s leading LGBT immigrant rights organization, to file suit on behalf of five gay binational couples challenging DOMA in the immigration context.  Those cases are on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor.  We are hopeful that the Supreme Court makes the Immigration Equality suits moot.

Could Bar Rafaeli seek asylum for refusal to join the Israeli Defense Forces?

Yesterday, we had some fun noting that Israeli supermodel Bar Rafaeli had drawn the rhetorical fire of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) due to her failure to serve the two years of service in the IDF required of all Israeli citizens.  We offered Ms. Rafaeli a free consultation so she could consider a claim to asylum on account of forced conscription into the Israeli Army.  As far as we know, she has not yet availed herself of our very generous offer.  So, we will share our thoughts here for her to review in the privacy of her home.

However, it did occur to us that many people are unaware of how conscription laws worldwide may impact eligibility for asylum.  Many individuals have obtained asylum in the U.S. due to their philosophical refusal to serve in their home country’s armed forces.  As a general rule, asylum law starts from the proposition that a nation has the right to conscript its citizens into the armed forces.  Conscription is the common practice in which a country forces its citizens to serve the armed forces.   Refusal to accept conscription into the armed forces is not ordinarily sufficient to establish that one is a refugee deserving of asylum.  However, asylum law recognizes two exceptions to this general rule.  First, conscription into the armed forces may constitute persecution if punishment for refusal to accept conscription is meted out exclusively to individuals based upon their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.  So, if only members of one religion in a religiously pluralistic society were punished for refusal to serve in the armed forces, that may constitute persecution.  The second exception is where service in the armed forces would require the individual to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.  If the armed forces were routinely engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity, the punishment of an individual’s refusal to serve may also constitute persecution worthy of protection under U.S. asylum law.

How do these factors effect the Bar Rafaeli case?  As an aside, we have no reason to believe that Ms. Rafaeli did not serve in the IDF for philosophical or political reasons.  We have no reason to believe that the Israeli government seeks to punish Ms. Rafaeli.  We just think that this is a fun intellectual exercise.  If Ms. Rafaeli were actually facing punishment for her refusal to join the IDF, could she obtain asylum in the U.S.?

As we said earlier, conscription, in and of itself, will not serve as a basis for a claim to asylum.  The first exception to this rule, if punishment for refusal to serve is forced only upon certain groups of individuals in a society, does not seem to apply as Israeli conscription is universal and there is no evidence that punishment for refusal to serve is forced only upon particular races, religions, nationalities, political groups, or members of particular social groups.  The second exception to the rule is if conscription into the IDF would force Ms. Rafaeli to engage in human rights abuses.  Certainly, there are many armed forces worldwide that commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Right now, the Syrian Army is engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity on a daily basis.  Years ago, we won asylum for a Russian man who reserved to serve in the Russian Army due to the activities of the Russian Army in Chechnya.

Does the IDF fit this mold?  Can it be shown that the IDF engages in war crimes or crimes against humanity?  How does this work?  This exception implicates one of the epic immigration cases of all time: M.A. v. I.N.S., 899 F.2d 304 (4th Cir 1990).  This case was argued before the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1989.  Arguing for the immigrant, a Salvadoran who refused to join the Salvadoran army during the peak of that country’s vicious civil war, was William van Wyke, a passionate defender of immigrant rights who went on to become an immigration judge.  Also involved was John Bolton, who went on to become a prominent figure in the George W. Bush administration.  Arthur Helton, one of the great human rights lawyers of all time and a victim of the attack on the UN compound in Iraq in 2003, also supported the immigrant.  M.A. was a Salvadoran man who refused to join his country’s military because of the Salvadoran military’s shameful record of gross human rights abuses.  He argued that if he did not resist conscription he would be forced to commit such atrocities or be killed for refusing to do so.  He submitted voluminous reports showing from Human Rights watch, Amnesty International and other highly credible human rights organizations to document the military’s role in these atrocities.  Yet, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the 4th Circuit rejected this evidence and demanded that there be international condemnation by other governments to establish the violations of the law of war or the commission of crimes against humanity.  Non-governmental organizations, even those with decades of expertise in human rights issues and researchers ion the ground, could not provide evidence that would satisfy this standard.  As the U.S., at the time, failed to condemn the Salvadoran military for these atrocities, M.A. lost.

So back to the question: Could Ms. Rafaeli prove that the IDF is engaged in violations of the law of war or the commission of crimes against humanity?  Certainly, there are many NGOs that would say that the IDF does.  But has there been governmental sanction of the IDF?  While the U.S. has condemned the building of settlements in the occupied territories, the U.S. has not condemned the IDF’s actions against civilians during military excursions in Gaza and Lebanon.  Moreover, the U.S. has used its power to stop the U.N. from condemning Israel.  We are not expressing an opinion on whether the IDF has committed crimes against humanity.  However, we do note that there is plenty of information that indicates that this is the case, while at the same time noting that the U.S. government has not accepted such criticism.  These facts seem strikingly similar to the situation in M.A. where the NGOs were vociferous in their condemnation fo El Salvador, but the governments were more restrained in their criticism.  The BIA and the 4th circuit deemed this insufficient to establish that an individual conscripted into the armed forces would face persecution and Ms. Rafaeli would likely fail to gain asylum as M.A. did.