Pro Bono Asylum Cases - Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

Last week, I received an email from the new asylum coordinator at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco. Contained in the text of the message were the brief synopsis of the cases that need a pro bono attorney to take over the client's representation. Currently, I am swamped with work in my practice as well as the appointed criminal appellate cases I take from the Court of Appeal.

But just to give you a sampling of the horrific cases floating around in the immigration courts, refugees crying out for justice and relief, here are a few of the cases.

*********************************************************

Honduran woman, 29, as teenager became partner to violently possessive man in his 40s who threatened to kill her if she left. She fled to Mexico, but her partner found her and took her back to Honduras, where he continued to abuse her and threatened to kill her family. In Mexico, she was also raped by a police officer. Must qualify for exception to one-year application deadline. Master Calendar hearing January 23, 2014.

Client is a Mayan Guatemalan woman, 20. Her alcoholic partner beat her even when she was pregnant, and would call her an “ugly hag.” When he got a new woman, he forced her from home. She returned to parents with her newborn son. Her partner, having joined a gang, tried to claim the son, cursing her and firing a gun at her. His gang member friends then molested her and told her that her partner had said they could kill her at any time. On their most recent encounter, her partner told her that he would not leave her alone until he killed her. Stockton resident. Must ask Immigration Judge to advance master calendar (preliminary) hearing to on or before June 8, 2014, for timely filing of asylum application.

Client is a Guatemalan survivor of domestic violence who met and married a man when she was 15-years old. He began abusing her, continuing when she became pregnant and she miscarried as a result. His family, whom they lived with, was also emotionally abusive towards her. After becoming pregnant again, she left to stay with family members but he found her and beat her for it. Her partner later left for the United States after which her father-in-law began sexually abusing her. Her partner then came back from the United States and raped her, from which she got pregnant, and continued to beat her even threatening her with a machete. He threatened her life and that of her mother. She decided to come to the United States and fears for her life, especially because her partner has also sometimes come to the United States. The asylum application is largely prepared and the case just needs to be advanced so that the client may file in court.

Client is a gay Jordanian man who comes from a fairly well-off religious family; his father would sometimes beat him when he made mistakes. In August 2013, his family found out he was gay through a Facebook message a friend posted on his wall. His father hit him on two separate occasions, threatened future punishment, and threw him out of the house. He stayed with a friend for three weeks, then raised money from friends and flew to the United States, where he had a visa from a previous work trip. He fears that his father and possibly other extended family members will further harm him if he returns, and that the police will not help him, because they do not protect gay people or involve themselves in internal family matters of honor. His deadline for an affirmative asylum application is November 4, 2014.

Client is a 30-year old Peruvian woman who endured almost a decade of abuse at the hands of her domestic partner, who would beat her and allowed his cousin to molest their 4-year old daughter. Afraid, she left moved to another town, where she was tracked down by the partner. When she went to the police to report him, they discouraged her and said they did not have paper to take a report. The client continued to be harassed by her partner, and decided to come to the United States. Her partner has told her recently that if she does not return to him, he will find her and he will kill her. Her Master Calendar hearing is scheduled for May 19, 2015, but this must be advanced to meet a filing deadline of August 4, 2014 to meet the one-year filing deadline.

High rate of deportations continue under Obama

In an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart on Tuesday, President Obama said that it would be difficult to halt the deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally without the approval of Congress.

Immigration rights advocates have pushed the president to halt deportations through an executive order, especially of immigrants who haven’t committed any serious crimes.

Last summer the administration did just this for young unauthorized immigrants brought to the country illegally as children with the creation of the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program. Known as DREAMers, more than 500,000 young unauthorized immigrants have taken advantage of the administration’s program. Our 2012 survey of Hispanic adults found wide approval (89% approved of this new policy). A Pew Research Center survey of the general U.S. public found that 63% of U.S. adults approved of this program as well.

But deportations of unauthorized immigrants continue at record levels. In 2011 some 392,000 immigrants were removed from the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security. Among them, 48% were deported for breaking U.S. laws, such as drug trafficking, driving under the influence and entering the country illegally.

The Obama Administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush Administration.

Most Hispanics disapprove. When asked about the Obama administration’s handling of deportations in a late 2011 Pew Research Center survey, 59% said they disapproved while 27% said they approved. According to the same survey, 41% of all Hispanics, and 55% of Hispanic immigrants, were aware that more immigrants had been deported under the Obama Administration than the Bush Administration.

The Latino vote played an important role in the 2012 presidential election. A record 11.2 million Hispanics voted, supporting the president over challenger Mitt Romney 71% to 27%, according to exit polls. For Latino voters, the issue of immigration ranks as an important issue (though in 2012 it trailed others such as the economy, education and health care).

California Assembly Bill Will Burden Immigration Attorneys With New Requirements 1159 (AB 1159)

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez recently introduced Assembly Bill 1159 (AB 1159) in February 2013, which has raised the ire of many immigration attorneys because of several drastic new provisions. The bill, initially introduced earlier this year, contained language on Education but was (entirely) amended instead in July 2013 to regulate immigration services in the State of California.

While controversial bills affecting immigration attorneys aren’t entirely new, it is the way in which AB 1159 (in its current incarnation) has evolved that raises many questions. The effect of this bill would be to encumber legitimate immigration practioners with regulatory burdens which would only raise the costs for those attorneys complying with the law, but would do little to deter people acting outside the law.

The national organization for immigration attorneys, American Immigration Lawyers Association, "AILA" has released a public statement in opposition, which is quoted below.

By contrast, gratuitous measures contained in the proposed legislation will only deplete the number of well-intentioned, competent professionals from one of the most humanitarian areas of the practice of law.

The misplaced focus on unprincipled lawyers already operating in violation of the existing regulatory scheme misses addressing the real threat: the victimization of vulnerable immigrants by notarios and unscrupulous immigration form-preparers (a fact which is of great concern to law enforcement and borne out by the Bar’s own reports). The bill places onerous business and procedural requirements on immigration lawyers far in excess of what is imposed on other attorneys in California. The attempt to micro-manage the attorney-client relationship impedes the immigration attorneys’ effective representation while the non-attorney perpetrators go undetected and continue to scam immigrants with impunity.

As noted above these requirements are at best redundant and at worst unnecessary, increasing the costs compliant attorneys will face. Rushing into short-sighted proposals to address very real concerns about the potential for large-scale immigration fraud will severely hinder the ability of the private bar and community-based legal assistance providers to serve the legal needs of immigrant communities. An inevitable result of the proposed requirements would make hiring qualified legal help so cumbersome and costly that it will actually drive people away from qualified lawyers and legitimate service providers and into the arms of fraudulent practitioners. Nonprofits who rely on outside attorneys to provide assistance will find fewer lawyers able or willing to provide pro bono and low bono services.

What concerns me the most personally, is the fact that the immigration courts are a federal court, meaning that any attorney licensed in any state has the right to practice before the court. The regulation proposed in this bill would only apply to California licensed attorneys and anyone from outside the state would not be subject to these news rules.

New Report from Florida International University Finds DHS Secure Communities Not Targeting "Dangerous Criminals" As Directed By Obama Administration

Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in South Florida are failing to abide by an Obama administration directive to focus deportation efforts on dangerous criminals, according to a report Monday by a Miami-based immigration advocacy group and researchers from a Florida university.

A majority of undocumented immigrants detained for deportation in Miami-Dade County under a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiative known as the Secure Communities program were not serious criminals, the report by Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ) and researchers at Florida International University said.

This is a pattern that is repeated across the country and the San Francisco Bay Area is no exception. Many of the deportations involve people who likely would be covered under proposals for an immigration reform bill currently being thrashed out by members of Congress.

The actions of ICE agents are at odds with guidance issued in June 2011 by the head of ICE, John Morton, who sought to prioritize the removal of convicted undocumented immigrants who posed a danger to national security or public safety, as well as those who game the system by dodging immigration hearings.

In a statement, ICE said it had received guidance restricting the detention of immigrants for minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic infractions and other petty crimes. The guideline gives ICE discretion on how it is implemented.

See the entire report below.

False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities

UNFDDS8HZGUA

Immigration Judge Granted Withholding to Our Mexican National Client

Great win for our client in the San Francisco Immigration Court. The IJ granted withholding for a Mexican National based upon membership in a particular social group, namely kinship.

The sticking point for the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel was safe relocation within Mexico. We argued that the client could not safely relocate anywhere in Mexico that her persecutor would not be able to locate her. Our office retained two wonderful expert witnesses that gave testimony and provided written declarations to the Court explaining why the persecutor could find her anywhere inside of Mexico.

DHS has reserved appeal and we will need to wait the 30-days to see what the Service is going to do. I am optimistic that we can prevail on any appeal because the record before the Court is so strong.