Source: http://liftedlamp.com/category/victories/
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 04:47:47
Document Index: 338497934

Matched Legal Cases: ['§18', '§1003', '§1003', '§236', '§18', '§1421']

Victories | Lifted Lamp
Archive | Victories RSS feed for this section
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.
Tags: benach ragland	Comments
Benach Ragland, CLE, Immigration Court, Litigation, Victories, Women
One-Man DREAM Act Passes Congress
A person is probably less likely to win private immigration relief than she is to win a lottery. But for Benach Ragland client, Sopuruchi Victor Chukwueke, the dream of permanent residency through a private immigration relief is just days away from becoming a reality.
Victor Chukwueke is used to battling against odds. Originally from Nigeria, he developed a benign tumor in his early childhood, caused by Neurofibromatosis, which grew on his frontal and right facial area, subsequently resulting in a very significant facial deformity. Growing up in Nigeria where he could not get medical treatment for his condition, Victor was the subject of much ridicule from his peers and faced a life-time of hardship as a result of his medical condition. Unable to care for him, his parents left him at an orphanage and would later give him up for adoption. Fortunately, Rev. Mother Paul Offiah who ran a handicap (orphanage) center for orphans, abandoned and neglected disabled children in Nigeria, took Victor under her wing and found a physician in the United States who was willing to conduct Victor’s surgery. Victor arrived in the United States in August 21, 2001, when he was 15 years old on a B-2 visa. He was left in the care of Sister Immaculata Osueke and other nuns in Lansing, Michigan.
Since then, he has had seven major surgeries. Unfortunately, Victor’s application to extend his stay was rejected twice because he could not afford the application fee and he fell out of status. This happened while Victor was preparing for a painful surgery and he was merely 16 years old at the time, with little to no resources to help him navigate the complicated immigration system.
Despite huge obstacles and a life-threatening medical condition which rendered him blind in one eye, Victor Chukwueke obtained his GED in 2004 and graduated from Wayne State University. He was the commencement speaker at his graduation and since then, he has gained acceptance into the University of Toledo, College of Medicine, conditioned on receiving lawful permanent residence in the United States. Refusing to give up, Victor sought the help of the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, who referred his case to Benach Ragland. While we were preparing a deferred action application for Victor, the President announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which would have given Victor the right to temporarily live and work in the country but not necessarily admission the University of Toledo, College of Medicine. However, Victor was set on pursuing a private immigration relief bill, introduced on his behalf by Senator Carl Levin, as that would get Victor permanent residency, admission to medical school, and spell the end of his immigration troubles.
But passing private immigration relief bills is no easy feat. Many private immigration bills are introduced year after year, simply to stay the deportation of someone, but never make it through either the House or the Senate, let alone both chambers. We were lucky to have the support of Senator Levin’s staffers, who left no stone unturned in helping Victor’s bill navigate the complicated Senate and House procedures. We created a petition on Change.org that garnered the signatures of almost 3000 well-wishers who signed on in support of the private immigration relief bill. Along with the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, we also wrote an organizational letter for Victor’s bill, and circulated it on our network, getting the support of organizations such as the Children’s Tumor Foundation, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) and the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NIYA). As Victor’s immigration counsel, Thomas Ragland successfully helped Victor answer probing questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Levin’s office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
His private immigration bill got through the Senate Judiciary Committee and sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support on July 25, 2012.
Alas, the House is run by Republicans, and no private bills had passed the House this session at that point in time. When Victor asked whether he should just apply for DACA right before the elections, we put our heads together to consider our options. A Romney Administration would certainly mean no DACA, but his Administration would not necessarily eliminate deferred action, which has existed as a policy since at least 1972. There seemed no harm in waiting until the lame-duck session, saving Victor $465, and trying to first get him a better form of relief. Besides, his medical school required him to have a green card, and despite letters from Senator Levin and several other Congressional members, the medical school refused to budge on allowing him admission without a green card.
We also found guidance on private immigration legislation suggesting that the House Subcommittee would be reluctant to consider private action for anyone in deferred action status. Given the circumstances, we advised Victor to stay the course and not give the House any reason to pass up consideration of his private immigration bill. He heeded our advice and decided to wait until the lame-duck session for the fate of his one-person DREAM Act.
At 12:29 pm today, the House passed a bill for the relief of Victor Chukwueke with a voice vote. It now heads to the President for signature.
When we called Victor with the good news, he was overjoyed, and stated that “this was the best Christmas present ever.” His goal is now to get his medical degree and “alleviate the pain and suffering of others, especially those in underserved communities and nations.” The champagne is on ice.
prernaplal
Benach Ragland, Contributions of Immigrants, Deferred Action, DREAM, Immigration History, Politics, Victories, Women
Aggfel & CIMT Victory in Arlington Immigration Court
We prevailed in a long-fought case this week in the Arlington Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge granted our motion to terminate proceedings, agreeing that our client’s conviction in Virginia for attempted sexual battery was neither an aggravated felony nor a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and that he is not deportable as result of the offense. (IJ Decision – redacted.) But that’s hardly the entire story …
In September 2008, our client Y— pled guilty and was convicted of attempted sexual battery in violation of Va. Code §18.2-67.5(c), sentenced to 11 months imprisonment (all suspended), plus 1 year of supervised probation. In March 2010, he was arrested by ICE and sent to Hampton Roads Regional Jail. DHS charged him with (1) aggravated felony “sexual abuse of a minor” and (2) CIMT within 5 years of admission. He appeared for four consecutive master calendar hearings, during which the government sought to introduce new evidence and just delayed the proceedings, before the family hired us the day before the fifth MCH. We stayed up late preparing a lengthy motion for bond redetermination, arguing that his offense did not qualify as an aggravated felony, thus he wasn’t subject to mandatory detention and should be released on bond, and we filed and argued it the next day. The IJ agreed, rejected the aggfel charge, conducted a bond hearing, and ordered Y— released on $10K bond. The very next day, DHS not only appealed the IJ’s bond order, it also invoked the “automatic stay” under 8 C.F.R. §1003.19(i)(2) in order to prevent our client from bonding out of ICE custody.
Certain that Y— was not subject to mandatory detention, we promptly filed a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging our client’s continued custody under the automatic stay provision. We argued that 8 C.F.R. §1003.19(i)(2) is ultra vires to the statute, because it grants DHS unchecked ability to override an IJ’s bond decision under INA §236(a), without having to demonstrate why continued detention is warranted. At the next MCH one week later, DHS relented and withdrew the automatic stay. The family posted bond and Y— was released from ICE custody after a 2-month ordeal. But DHS persisted with the bond appeal, insisting that our client’s conviction was an aggravated felony.
The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed (BIA Decision – redacted.) The Board agreed with us that under the categorical approach, Y—’s conviction is not an aggravated felony because the Virginia statute under which he was convicted lacks an element requiring that the victim be a minor, or specifying the age of the victim. The BIA then remanded the case to the Immigration Court. Having lost on the aggfel charge, DHS turned its focus to the CIMT ground of deportability. The government argued that although neither the categorical nor the modified categorical approach reveals that Y—’s offense is a CIMT, under Step Three of Matter of Silva-Trevino, the IJ should consider evidence from outside the record of conviction that purportedly demonstrated our client’s conduct was morally turpitudinous.
In October 2011, we filed our first motion to terminate, arguing that Silva-Trevino was wrongly decided because it conflicts with Fourth Circuit law, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and decades of adherence to the traditional categorical and modified categorical approach. DHS did not respond. After the Fourth Circuit rejected Silva-Trevino in Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012), we filed a supplemental motion to terminate based on intervening precedent. Again DHS did not respond, so we filed a notice of non-opposition, urging the IJ to rule on our long-pending motion to terminate. On the day of Y—’s next MCH in May 2012, DHS filed its brief in opposition, arguing now that attempted sexual battery in Virginia is categorically a CIMT. Despite having previously conceded that moral turpitude could not be discerned until Silva-Trevino Step Three, the government now urged the court to find that Y—’s conviction is a CIMT at Step One, because “moral turpitude is intrinsic to all offenses that have a realistic probability of being prosecuted” under the Virginia statute.
We filed one more lengthy brief in opposition, challenging the government’s categorical argument, maintaining that application of the “realistic probability” test articulated in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) – which was adopted by Silva-Trevino – was improper, and noting that DHS cited no authority for its contention that every conviction under Va. Code §18.2-67.5(c) is inherently a moral turpitude crime. Again DHS did not reply, and we anxiously anticipated a ruling at the next MCH in November.
But the IJ was finally persuaded and apparently didn’t need to hear any more. He granted our motion to terminate, found that DHS had failed to sustain its charges of removability, and terminated proceedings. After a 2½ year struggle, including seven hearings in Immigration Court, a failed DHS appeal to the BIA, habeas corpus proceedings in ED Va., and numerous rounds of briefing and re-briefing, we finally prevailed. Our client can now move on with his life, refocus on work and family, and put this agonizing chapter behind him. A very satisfying victory for the Benach Ragland team.
Benach Ragland, Due Process, Federal Court, ICE, Immigration Court, Legal Strategy, Litigation, Victories
thomasragland
Ninth Circuit Provides Hope to Young Immigrants
Great news out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled today that a Board of Immigration Appeals interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), improperly excluded a large class of immigrants from being eligible for immediate residence. Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio challeged the BIA’s interpretation of the CSPA in Matter of Wang before the 9th Circuit. She initially lost before a three judge panel, but the court sitting en banc agreed to rehear the case. A number of organizations submitted briefs in support of Cuellar de Osorio’s case, including DreamActivist, a nationwide action committee for undocumented youth. DreamActvist was represented by Benach Ragland.
Today, September 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit overturned Matter of Wang in Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas:
“We conclude that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. The BIA’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the plain language of the CSPA, and it is not entitled to deference.”
With a 6-5 en banc split, the Ninth Circuit now joins the Fifth Circuit in rejecting the position of the BIA. It will allow many young people who were the derivative beneficiaries of previous petitions to apply for a green card, if they were aged-out of the process when they turned 21. This is great news for many young people, including many Dreamers, who would no longer have to face lengthy separation from their families and deportation from their homes.
Congress passed the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002) to address the complex problem of aging out of family and employment based petitions. In short, due to massive visa backlogs and administrative delays, adult children were aging out of approved visa petitions upon turning 21. In many cases, these petitions were filed on behalf of their parents by employers or other family members when they were much younger. CSPA was supposed to fix this problem in a myriad of ways, first by a complex mathematical formula, which deducted the time it took to adjudicate the petition away from the age of the adult child and second, by allowing those who aged-out even after the application of the formula, to retain the original priority date from the original petition that was filed on behalf of them, and apply it to a new category. This is spelled out quite unambiguously in Section 203 (h)(3):
“If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.”
USCIS did not issue regulations on this matter at first, and issued a number of contrary decisions. In some cases, aged out adult children were approved. In other cases, they were denied a green card. The Board of Immigration Appeals also did not know what to make of the statute and issued a number of contrary rulings. Compare Matter of Maria T. Garcia in 2006 with Matter of Wang in 2009, where the BIA restricted the application of Section 203 (h)(3) to applicants in the F-2A category, finding no evidence that “Congress intended to create a mechanism to avoid the natural consequence of a child aging out of a visa category because of the length of the visa line.” This decision automatically doubles the number of years a derivative beneficiary has to wait in line for a green card, and in some cases, a derivative may never be able to get a green card.
On May 11, 2012, Benach Ragland filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief on behalf of DreamActivist with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas asking the Court to reject the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Wang, which unnecessarily limited the class of individuals who could gain the benefits of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). This represented the first time that a Court heard directly from Dreamers on a question of statutory interpretation and public policy.
The impact of this case is felt personally in the Benach Ragland family. Our law clerk, Prerna Lal, is one individual who suffered under the BIA’s intepretation under Matter of Wang. In 2001, Prerna’s grandmother filed an immigrant petition on behalf of her daughter, Prerna’s mother. As a child, Prerna was covered under this petition. However, due to lengthy backlogs in this category, by the time Prerna’s mother was able to seek residence in 2009, Prerna had already turned 21 and had “aged-out” of eligibility as she was no longer a “child” under the immigration laws. Prerna’s mother filed a petition for Prerna, but the CIS, pursuant to Matter of Wang, refused to acknowledge the 2001 filing date. Thus, under her mother’s petition, Prerna would not be able to seek her residence until approximately 2017, despite the CSPA and the fact that Prerna was originally covered in 2001. As Prerna’s case is in San Francisco, CA, the heart of the 9th Circuit, this decision makes her eligible to apply for residence using her 2001 date assuming that the decision stands.
It is unclear whether the Government will ask for cert. from the Supreme Court. It has 90 days to request cert. If asked for cert, the Supreme Court may or may not deny it. If it denies cert, the decision will still be law in the 9th and 5th circuit. Young people who have been aged out and thrust into removal proceedings may be able to adjust their status before an Immigration Judge under the jurisdiction of the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. In due time, the USCIS may also issue new regulations allowing every derivative beneficiary of a family-based or employment based to retain their original priority date and adjust their status to lawful permanent residents without much wait.
Tags: CSPA, Matter of Wang, Ninth Circuit	Comments
Benach Ragland, CIS, DREAM, Litigation, Victories
Last night, the President spoke to the Democratic National Convention about those characteristics that define what it means to be a citizen. It is a word that gets used quite a bit. But, like freedom, love, and beauty, it is a quality that can not be physically embraced, but exists entirely independently in our hearts and minds. U.S. citizenship is not based upon ethnic origin, religion, political opinion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic. It is based upon the acceptance of a certain set of ideas, ideas that have resonated for nearly three centuries and have attracted millions of people to our shores.
We spend a lot of time at Benach Ragland on citizenship. There are few things that give me as much pride as helping someone obtain citizenship. There are lots of very good practical reasons why someone can want citizenship. You can bring over certain family members more easily, you can travel outside the country for longer periods of time without fearing loss of your status, you can vote, run for certain offices, obtain certain federal jobs, and you can pay lower taxes in some circumstances. These are just a few of the benefits one gets by obtaining citizenship. Yet, invariably, when I ask people why they want to be citizens, they never mention any of those things. They state that this is their home, their country, and they want to feel closer. They want to dive deeper into our community. Often, they can’t express it so easily. They are trying to explain an idea or a feeling and words are always more difficult for those abstract concepts.
I have seen people fight extraordinarily hard for their citizenship. It is easy to understand why someone would fight for residence or against removal. When the choice is between staying here or being returned to their home country, they will fight to remain. But, in most citizenship cases, the fight is whether a person will remain a resident or become a citizen. If the person loses, she is still a resident and the status quo is unchanged. Yet, people will fight hard for the right to be citizens. I believe that people fight so hard because they believe in it so deeply. This is not about tax benefits or travel documents, but a sense of identity. They feel American and want citizenship to validate that feeling to show that they are a part of a community.
Take our client Jamal Abusamhadameh, who had to go to federal court to get citizenship. He had a four year fight for citizenship, during which the government accused him of all manner of terribleness. It took a federal judge 90 pages to dismantle all of the government’s disinformation and reach that most obvious of findings- that Mr. Abusamhadameh possessed the good moral character to obtain citizenship. The case caused Mr. Abusamhadameh enormous stress and plenty of money, but he persevered because he wanted to be a part of this community and was willing to fight for it.
I have a stash of greeting cards that were produced by the American Immigration Council. They have a black and white picture of an immigrant family looking at the Statue of Liberty. When a client obtains citizenship, I write a handwritten note on those cards congratulating them and reminding them what they told me months ago about why they wanted to be a citizen. I don’t send these cards routinely for any other cases. It just seems that citizenship is different.
This same commitment to an idea drives the DREAMers. The DREAMers, while not seeking citizenship today, feel American. They want to be a part of our community. Despite the odds, they have flourished and want nothing more than a chance to go to college, have a meaningful career, join the military and be a part of our economic, cultural and social fabric.
Last night, the President said, “As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights – rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative. We’re not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system – the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known.”
To me, he was talking about immigrants- those who took the risk to leave behind their old country and risked everything for a chance to fulfill their potential and to join a community of others who believe in the virtues of American life and government. In a word, he was talking about those who dare to dream that they, too, can be citizens.
Beacons of Hope, Citizenship, Contributions of Immigrants, DREAM, Federal Court, Immigration History, Litigation, Obama Administration, Politics, Victories
The Problem with Non-citizen Voting
There is a lot in the news about unlawful voting these days. Many states have enacted laws that require specific forms of voter identification before one can step into a voting booth. Voting experts state that voter fraud is infinitesimally small, but the concern over ineligible people voting has grown despite the lack of evidence of its ubiquity. The consequences for the non citizen who votes are drastic. Unlawful voting is a ground of deportability and a ground of inadmissibility. It is a basis for denial of citizenship. However, removability can not be established by simply showing that an individual voted. Such voting must be in violation of law. Many criminal statutes require knowledge that the act is illegal for conviction. Others, known as strict liability offenses, are crimes regardless of the level of knowledge. In addition, since the ground of removability requires that a violation of law occurred when the individual voted, defenses and procedural protections that attach to criminal prosecution must be in the mix when evaluating removability. Courts have struggled with the overly harsh potential immigration consequences of a finding of a violation of law. They have demanded that immigration courts dive deeply into the facts to determine if a violation of law occurred.
On August 22, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued two decisions regarding the immigration consequences of voting by non-citizens. The outcomes are widely divergent and emphasize the importance of a careful and through recitation of the facts in cases where voting by non-citizens arises. In Kimani v. Holder, the Court upheld the finding of inadmissibility for voting in violation of federal law against petitioner Kimani. The Court found that Kimani had falsely represented himself as a U.S. citizen and voted in violation of federal law. However, in Keathley v. Holder, the Court sent the case back to the immigration judge to determine if Keathley made any representations of U.S. citizenship in registering to vote and to determine what the motor vehicle officials, who registered her to vote, understood her status to be. The Court noted that the immigration judge found Keathley to be credible, but felt that he could not consider any legal defenses to whether Keathley voted illegally. The Court of Appeals held that any legal defenses to the crime of unlawful voting had to be considered in immigration proceedings and the immigration judge had to make findings on relevant factual issues. The court determined that the case had to return to the immigration judge so that the judge could hear the testimony and reach factual conclusions. The difference between these two decisions comes down to the particular facts of the acts of registering to vote and of voting. In Kimani, the court found that the voting was a function of dishonesty and an effort to represent oneself as a citizen, whereas in Keathley, the court concluded that “a person who behaves with scrupulous honesty only to be misled by a state official should be welcome in the country.”
Last year, we represented a Palestinian man who volunteered in his citizenship interview that he had voted in a referendum election where a measure for a tax increase in support of the Mt. Healthy School District was on the ballot. This was not a federal election, so only Ohio state law was implicated. Our client registered to vote within a few days of arriving into the US as a permanent resident. He went to obtain a driver’s license and was asked by the Ohio DMV official if he wanted to register to vote. He asked her if he was allowed to vote and she told him “yes, in America, everyone can vote.” He received his voter registration card in the mail and received notice of an election and went to vote on the tax measure. When he went to vote, he produced his permanent resident card (green card) to the voting official, who asked if he had anything else. When he produced a driver’s license, she sent him to the booth. He left happy and proud, thinking that he had joined an important American tradition. He did not think about it again until he applied for citizenship and he provided the full details to the immigration official, who asked him to obtain his registration documents from the Ohio Board of Elections. He did so, and handed the government the documents it used to support its charges in removal proceedings that he voted in violation of law. How’s that as a reward for scrupulous honesty? In removal proceedings, we convinced an immigration judge that our client had no intention to violate the law and believed, based upon multiple official representations, that he was allowed to vote. We argued that the Ohio statute requires a willful violation of law and he did not intentionally violate the law. The judge found our client completely credible and terminated removal proceedings. It is worth mentioning that the government behaved atrociously in this case, fighting his removal tooth and nail, despite the overwhelming evidence that he did not intentionally violate the law. This even occurred in the beginning months of prosecutorial discretion, whose spirit did not trickle down to the office of chief counsel in Cleveland, Ohio. Although our client ultimately prevailed, it took him two years to work through the maze of immigration court, when the government could have and should have ended the matter far sooner.
The Republican Party has endorsed state voter id laws in its 2012 platform. Although voter fraud is exceedingly rare, it is likely that if provisions of the voter id plank in the GOP platform were to be enacted, we will see further idiocies like the one Cleveland Immigration & Customs Enforcement put our client through.
Benach Ragland, Due Process, Federal Court, ICE, Immigration Court, Legislation, Politics, State laws, Victories
Ending years of bureaucratic limbo
Last week Benach Ragland brought two long-term cases to happy conclusions. On Thursday, the Immigration Judge removed the conditional nature of our client’s residence. Our client began the process of seeking the removal of conditions in 1996. On Friday, another Immigration Judge terminated proceedings that the government commenced in 2005 when our client, a twenty year permanent resident returned home to the U.S. after a two week trip to Nigeria. Both women spent the weekend relaxing knowing that their status as residents was secure.
Thursday was the final hearing for KMC. KMC came to the U.S. in the late 1980s from Guinea in West Africa. She was studying to be a nurse when she met MMC, to whom she had an instant attraction. Although the couple met in a dance club, MMC’s mother always thought that they met at a business function because, as MMC put it, his mother was a “churchlady” who would not like a “”clubgirl.” MMC knew right away that he wanted to marry KMC and made sure that she and his mother got off on the right foot. After marriage,they lived together briefly until KMC elected to continue her studies in Maryland so she could become a registered nurse. MMC petitioned for KMC’s residence, which was granted in 1994. They traveled between New York and Maryland to be together; however, when KMC finished her studies and went to work, MMC grew distant. In 1996, it was time to remove the conditional nature of KMC’s residence. The law provides that people who have been married for less than two years at the time residence is granted will be provided conditional residence. Such conditional residence expires two years after residence is granted, at which time, the couple must file another petition to reaffirm the bona fides of the marriage. If the couple has separated or divorced, they must show that the marriage was bona fide at the time of inception. Although MMC and KMC had filed their petition to remove the conditions in 1996, they were not interviewed until 1999. At that time, KMC and MMC had not seen each other for about two years and MMC gave confusing answers regarding their marriage. Those answers sowed the seeds of doubt for the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service, which argued with KMC for the next 11 years about whether her marriage to MMC was bona fide. In 2010, the CIS concluded that it was not and placed her into removal proceedings. KMC finally had her hearing last week. MMC flew from his new home in Seattle to attend the hearing. When asked why he thought the marriage fell apart, MMC said that he could not handle that she made more than him and he felt as a failure as a man. In our opinion, it takes a pretty big man tio state such a thing on the witness stand. After hearing the testimony, the government’s attorney and the Judge agreed that it had been a bona fide marriage and the petition filed 16 years ago was granted. Andres Benach represented KMC in court, but the case was won by the investigation and factual analysis performed by Dree Collopy.
The excitement continued on Friday in the case of MD. MD came to the U.S. to go to school. She went to undergraduate and attended law school in the U.S. Fresh out of law school, MD got a job with an immigration lawyer. Unfortunately, that lawyer was committing fraud and MD did what was asked for her and helped complete forms in support of such fraudulent applications. MD was charged criminally and convicted of fraud. She served two years in jail. After she finished her sentence i n 1993, the then-INS told her that she was not deportable and returned her green card to her. For the next 12 years, MD built her life back up, using her story as a cautionary tale and becoming a public speaker and prominent member of her community. She remained with her husband and raised three children. I have never seen more complete rehabilitation than I have with MD. In 2005, as she returned to the U.S., MD was stopped and told that she was inadmissible gto the U.S. for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. After 12 years in which she managed to put that shameful episode in her past, it came roaring back. Under the law as it stood at that time, MD was not eligible for any relief from removal. As she was in removal proceedings in Baltimore Maryland in the Fourth Circuit, she could not seek a waiver of inadmissibility under former 212(c) because she elected to go to trial. Had she been in proceedings 50 fifty miles north in York, PA, she could have sought 212(c) relief, which is not limited in the Third Circuit to those who pleaded guilty. The Immigration Judge concluded that she was not eligible for any relief and order her removed. We took the appeal after Steny Hoyer’s office asked us to take the case. Eventually, we were at the 4th circuit asking it to reverse itself on the question of pleading versus going to trial. At that point, the government sought to send the case back to the Immigration Court. We agreed and when the Supreme Court ruled in Vartelas v. Holder that permanent residents who were convicted of crimes prior to the 1996 passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) could not be charged with inadmissibility after a brief casual and innocent trip abroad, the case against MD was effectively over. After seven years in which the case went from Immigration Court to the Board of Immigration Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals back down to the BIA and immigration court, the government came into court on Friday and moved to terminate the case, once again returning MD’s green card and passport.
MD’s case will always remind me of Michael Maggio. When we sat in Michael’s office and met with MD for the first time, she broke down in tears describing what she had done. In the way that only Michael could, Michael told her that he was Italian and that in his family going to jail is like going to college- a rite of passage expected of everyone. MD formed a strong attachment to Michael and I remember having to call her when Michael died and listening to the wailing on the other end. Now, four years plus after Michael died, MD got what she was looking for when she asked Michael Maggio for help. And, as a proper tribute, the Judge to grant the case was Judge Phil Williams, a great friend of Michael’s.
CIS, ICE, Legal Strategy, Victories, Women
The adminisitration electrified the immigration world today by announcing a new policy offering discretionary relief to young undocumented immigrants as a group. This announcement changes administration policy by moving from a de facto cases by case basis of providing relief for undocumeented young immigrants to a blanket grant of protection for those who fall within the broad DREAM Act categories.
Since the failure of the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate, the Administration has been under intense pressure to do something for the intended beneficiaires of the DREAM Act- undocumented individuals who came to the U.S. as children, through no fault of their own, and were educated and acculturated into the U.S. and run out of options when they became adults. The administration has largely granted deferred action- a form of discretionary official indfference to removing a partiucular individual– to DREAMers with removal orders. However, the DREAMer had to self-identify and mount a major campaign to persuade Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) not to remove them and to grant deferred action. Large scale public campaigns and protests have been common to help stop the removal of particular individuals.
What does the administration’s plan do?
The administration has announced a plan to provide deferred action with employment authorization for a period of two years to those who fall within the broad outline of intended DREAM Act beneficiaries. Deferred action may be granted for a two year period, with work authorization, and subject to renewal to individuals who meet the following criteria:
Came to the US before the age of 16
Have resided in the U.S. for five years prior to June 15, 2012
Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard
Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a signficiant misdemeanor, multiple misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
Are not over the age of 30
The plan directs ICE to provide deferred action for people who fit within these criteria. Those encountered by ICE are not supposed to be placed by ICE into removal proceedings. Those already in removal proceedings are to be identified and provided with deferred action.
What the plan does that is really amazing, however, is that provides a means of obtaining a benefit for those individuals who are not on ICE’s radar at all. Previously, the administration refused to consider deferred action for undocumented individuals who were not in removal proceedings or who had orders of removal. ICE took the position that there was “nothing to defer” for people who had not yet been swept into the removal apparatus.
The new plan provides an opportunity for undocumented individuals to come forward and to seek deferred action. This fact has the power to expand the universe of potential beneficiairies for deferred action well beyond the case-by-case post final order analysis performed now.
So, should I come forward and apply?
Not yet!!! First, we are just figuring this out and a decision about whether to bring yourself to the attention of DHS requires a very careful analysis that should be done in consultation with counsel. Second, remember that deferred action is an act of administrative grace that could be taken away by future administrations. As Romney has not yet stated what he would do (we are not optimistic), this program can be stillborn by November. Third, there is no procedure yet in place, so the government would not know what to do with applications and requests. The memo instructs ICE and CIS to establish procedures and begin adjudicating within 60 days.
Why did the administration do this?
Politics? Election? Hispanic voters? Who cares??? This is a good thing.
This would not have happpened without the very courageous efforts of the Dream Act activists who have created a powerful political movement. By coming out as undocumented and sharing their stories, by holding rallies, organizing online and in person, demonstrating, holding hunger strikes and occupying political offices, the Dream activists have made this an unavoidable issue and a large share of the credit for today’s announcement goes to them. Like the civil rights movement of a previous generation, this struggle for rights was led by the children.
Beacons of Hope, CIS, DREAM, ICE, Obama Administration, Politics, Victories
“Good Moral Character” Triumphs In Federal Court
Last night, Mr. J.A. slept soundly for the first time in more than four years. On June 5, 2012, Judge James C. Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 90-page decision finding Mr. J.A. to be a person of “good moral character” who meets the requirements for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78195 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2012). This rare federal court challenge to a denial by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of a naturalization application was prepared and argued by Benach Ragland LLP partners Thomas K. Ragland and Jennifer D. Cook and Senior Paralegal Cyndy Ramirez Clark at their former firm, Duane Morris LLP. Lead counsel in the case was Denyse Sabagh, a partner and head of the immigration practice group at Duane Morris. The decision is a tremendous victory for Mr. J.A. and a stinging rebuke of the government’s relentless efforts to deny him U.S. citizenship.
In his decision, Judge Cacheris admonished USCIS for its inaccurate, incomplete, and biased decision-making and for its unfounded conclusion that Mr. J.A. provided false testimony during his naturalization interview. The Judge also denounced the government’s conduct during trial as deceptive, misleading, and wholly unpersuasive.
Mr. J.A. was born in Jordan, a devout Muslim with more than a dozen siblings; a conservative, shy, and quiet former science teacher and computer technology expert who came to the United States in the early 1990s to visit, and then to study, and finally to work and build a life. He married, fathered four children, and regularly attended the local mosque. He worked for an organization supporting American Muslims, obtained his green card, and acquired a taste for Five Guys hamburgers. Over the more than 20 years that he has lived here, Mr. J.A. has been a model member of society. However, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, tension levels were high for members of the Muslim community in Northern Virginia, as they were throughout the country. Many perceived themselves as targets of unfair government scrutiny and needless delay in their immigration proceedings, among other injustices. Mr. J.A.’s Muslim activist boss was indicted and sent to prison, and the Muslim organization he worked for was raided and shut down. But Mr. J.A. is intelligent and resourceful, and he was able to find other technology jobs, including in a local police department. In 2008, he and his wife decided to apply for naturalization.
Mr. J.A. and his wife consulted an attorney from their community to prepare the N-400 naturalization applications and file them with USCIS. The attorney advised Mr. J.A. that he was not required to list membership in any religious organizations on his application, and he followed that advice. His wife was interviewed and naturalized without problems. But Mr. J.A.’s application languished, despite repeated status inquiries. Finally, his attorney filed a mandamus action in federal court to compel the agency to act on the application; it worked, and Mr. J.A. was finally scheduled for his naturalization interview.
In October 2009, Mr. J.A. and his attorney attended the N-400 interview, which was conducted by a senior officer and was videotaped. During the interview, Mr. J.A. clarified several matters on his application and repeatedly stated that he was not a “member” of any organization, not even the mosque where he prayed. After another lengthy delay, his application was denied.
In its decision, USCIS declared that Mr. J.A. was ineligible for naturalization as a person lacking in “good moral character,” because he allegedly gave false testimony during his N-400 interview to obtain an immigration benefit. The government accused Mr. J.A. of misrepresenting his memberships and associations in the U.S. and in Jordan, his relationship with his former boss, and his past encounters with law enforcement. Notably, the adjudicating officer relied on an unverified FBI report in the file, which contained a number of serious allegations from an unnamed source, including that Mr. J.A. belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood and certain other Muslim organizations. The report was not shown to Mr. J.A. and he was not offered an opportunity to respond to these allegations. The officer assumed the report was trustworthy, concluded that Mr. J.A.’s statements and clarifications were false testimony, and denied the N-400 on the basis that Mr. J.A. is “lacking in good moral character.”
Mr. J.A. filed an administrative “N-336” appeal and attended a second interview at USCIS, which was conducted by a different senior officer. However, the appeal was denied in classic rubber-stamp fashion. The government simply refused to admit a mistake – or even a misperception – and instead resolutely stood by the previous decision. Frustrated by what they perceived to be a clear injustice, Mr. J.A. and his attorney sought the assistance of Denyse Sabagh and the law firm of Duane Morris.
Mr. J.A.’s new legal team launched an aggressive challenge to the government’s decision by filing a Petition for Rehearing on Naturalization Application, under 8 U.S.C. §1421(c), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and requested a de novo hearing on Mr. J.A.’s eligibility to naturalize. Attorneys from U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) were assigned to defend USCIS’s decision. The parties engaged in extensive pre-trial discovery, including interrogatories, document production, and several days of depositions, and each side presented its theory of case. However, the OIL attorneys were not content to simply defend the agency’s conclusion that Mr. J.A. gave false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit. Rather, under the guise of de novo proceedings, they launched a malicious campaign of character assassination, accusing Mr. J.A. of being not just a liar, but a terrorist and a criminal to boot – in the government’s words, a person who is “undeserving of United States citizenship.”
Judge Cacheris conducted a three-day bench trial. The government doggedly attacked Mr. J.A.’s character and his credibility, introducing witnesses and evidence designed to reveal his unsuitability for U.S. citizenship. Among other witnesses, the DOJ attorneys transported Mr. J.A.’s former boss, Mr. A.A., from federal prison in Kentucky and attempted to elicit damning testimony from him. Instead, Mr. A.A. turned out to be a superb witness for Mr. J.A.’s side. He disputed the confidential FBI report for which he was allegedly the confidential source, disavowing the statements about Mr. J.A. that had been attributed to him. Like the other character witnesses who were introduced, he described Mr. J.A. as a reserved, hard-working, devout man who was well-liked and respected in his workplace and the community. The Court found Mr. A.A. credible and persuasive, and it concluded that his testimony actually corroborated Mr. J.A.’s account of events and “effectively impeached” the government’s claims.
In furtherance of its character assassination strategy, the government also sought to introduce rebuttal testimony from a police detective along with two police investigative reports that purportedly exposed Mr. J.A.’s criminal behavior and terrorist sympathies. Mr. J.A.’s legal team objected to the testimony and reports as inadmissible hearsay and conducted a withering cross-examination of the government’s witness. The Court ultimately excluded the proffered evidence in its entirety, finding the investigative reports “untrustworthy” and the detective’s testimony “inadequate and incomplete.” The Court bluntly criticized the government’s actions, noting that the detective’s statements suffered from “serious credibility issues” and “quite simply failed to contradict or challenge any of the prior testimony” offered by Mr. J.A. or his witnesses.
Nearly three months after the trial, and more than four years after Mr. J.A. filed his naturalization application, Judge Cacheris issued an order finding Mr. J.A.’s testimony and evidence credible on every count. According to the Judge, the USCIS officers who adjudicated his application fell “far short” of the required standard. The officer who conducted his N-400 examination “repeatedly mischaracterized the record of Mr. J.A.’s testimony,” offered imprecise statements during the trial, and failed to comply with published agency guidance. The Court found “significant errors” in her decision-making and voiced “substantial concerns about the credibility of [her] conclusions.” Moreover, the senior officer who adjudicated his N-336 appeal “did not undertake a thorough and careful review,” “failed to accurately understand Mr. J.A.’s testimony,” was “confused” and “persistently mischaracterized” Mr. J.A.’s statements, failed to review the file or conduct her own independent investigation, and was likewise criticized by the Court as “lacking in credibility.”
In sum, Judge Cacheris found the government’s case to be “deceptive” and “misleading,” and he rejected their central arguments as “simply in error.” In contrast, the Judge found Mr. J.A.’s testimony to be credible, consistent, and “entirely truthful.” The Court discerned “no evidence that Mr. J.A.’s answers [during his N-400 interview] were made with intent to deceive to obtain an immigration benefit.” Judge Cacheris concluded that Mr. J.A. proved by “clear and convincing evidence” that he is a person of good moral character and deserving of naturalization under U.S. law.
Mr. J.A. can now sleep soundly, secure in the knowledge that his moral character and reputation for truthfulness are no longer in question. He has been freed of the sort of unjust scrutiny that can lead to paralyzing self-doubt and a crisis of faith, emerging stronger for having fought to achieve justice. Pursuant to the Court’s order, within 30 days Judge Cacheris will administer the oath of naturalization and swear in Mr. J.A. as a United States citizen … just in time for Independence Day.
Benach Ragland, Federal Court, Legal Strategy, Manifest Injustice, Victories
Recent Posts	CIS Bureaucrats Union Joins ICE Bureaucrats Union in Opposing Immigration Reform