Opinion ID: 1182697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: (1a) The Abellana Immigration Matter

Text: Petitioner was retained in June 1971 by Engelberto and Glenda Abellana to assist them and their children in obtaining permanent resident status in the United States. They had previously applied for such status, but their applications had been denied. On February 9, 1972, Engelberto and Glenda were classified deportable and placed under departure order by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Engelberto testified that after such classification, petitioner told them Glenda should obtain a Reno divorce based on false testimony as to their relationship. When the divorce became final both she and Engelberto would be free to marry American citizens, thereby avoiding deportation. Engelberto further testified petitioner assured them as soon as their prospective new spouses could petition for and obtain in behalf of the Abellanas changes of immigration status based on the sham marriages, they could return to their former married life together. A divorce was granted Glenda March 27, 1972. On April 27, 1972, both Engelberto and Glenda were married to American citizens. Petitioner prepared and filed documents and applications with the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the purpose of obtaining permanent resident status for Engelberto and Glenda, alleging his clients and their new spouses were lawfully married. On June 19, 1972, petitioner's motions to reopen his clients' immigration cases were denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service because of false testimony and false statements made in applications prepared by petitioner. The service later found the Abellanas had entered into fraudulent remarriages. Petitioner denies knowledge of or reason to believe the marriages were fraudulent. He testified that after his clients were found deportable, he advised them to return to the Philippines. The disciplinary board found on the foregoing record that the State Bar failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence petitioner advised or assisted the Abellanas with the sham procedures solely for the purpose of obtaining permanent resident status for his clients. However, the board found petitioner knew or should have known allegations in documents filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service were false. Further, the board found petitioner was nonresponsive to questions and displayed a lack of candor in his testimony before the hearing panel. (2) In State Bar disciplinary proceedings we make independent findings of fact on review of the record, and exercise our independent judgment as to the discipline to be imposed. (See Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287, 300 [19 Cal. Rptr. 153, 368 P.2d 697, 94 A.L.R.2d 1310].) However, we accord great weight to findings of a hearing panel (see Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [119 Cal. Rptr. 485, 532 P.2d 133]) and the burden is on a petitioner to show that the charges are not sustained by convincing proof and to a reasonable certainty. ( In re Lyons (1975) 15 Cal.3d 322, 325 [124 Cal. Rptr. 171, 540 P.2d 11]; Vaughn v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 847, 852 [100 Cal. Rptr. 713, 494 P.2d 1257].) (1b) We have considered petitioner's contention as to sufficiency of the evidence and are persuaded, based on the record before us, the charge arising out of the Abellana matter is supported by sufficient record evidence.