HAMILTON ENDS THE YEAR WITH TWO IMMIGRATION COURT ASYLUM APPROVALS AND ONE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE ASYLUM OFFICE

Mr. Hamilton completed trial today of his last Immigration Court matter for the year 2010, with an approval of Asylum for his Kenyan client, by Immigration Judge (IJ) Sholomson of the Los Angeles Immigration Court. Mr. Hamilton has been with this case at the Asylum Office and Trial Court levels for the past four and a half years.

On December 16, 2010, the Los Angeles District Asylum Office granted another of Mr. Hamilton's Kenyan clients a "Recommended" Asylum Approval. Such approval is an indication of the Asylum Office's intent to grant asylum once background and identity checks are completed by the Government. Mr. Hamilton rarely reports on his numerous approvals at the Asylum Office level for any given year.

On December 7, 2010, Judge Riley of the Los Angeles Immigration Court approved another of Mr. Hamilton's Kenyan clients' asylum, claims, finding that the client had overcome the complex one-year filing bar issue in spite of having resided in the United States for many years prior to the filing of the application. In this case, Mr. Hamilton, bypassed the Asylum Office phase of the case and chanelled the case to the Immigration Court, where Hamilton believed it would be more effectively adjudicated. Hamilton has litigated this matter for two years.

So ends the year 2010 with Hamilton winning approvals of all Asylum Claims tried before Immigration Courts within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Hamilton suffered one asylum denial this year at the trial court level, of a case which he re-tried before an Immigration Judge in Bloomington Minnesota (within the jurisdiction of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals). Hamilton had taken that case over from another attorney at the very advanced 8th Circuit Court of Appeals phase of the case, winning a remand of the case back to the trial court pursuant to a motion to reopen before the BIA. Mr. Hamilton re-tried the case by tele-video conference, and since its denial has appealed the case back up to the BIA where it remains pending.

By: Maria Rangel

9TH CIRCUIT GRANTS KENYAN REMAND IN UNPUBLISHED MURIUKI V. HOLDER

On December 17, 2010, the 9th Circuit granted Mr. Hamilton's Petition for Review on behalf of two Kenyan asylum seekers in Muriuki v. Holder: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/12/17/06-71754.pdf, and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as requested by Mr. Hamilton, citing numerous errors made by the Immigration Judge and BIA. This decision, though "unpublished" as formal legal authority tackles important issues related Immigration Judges' adverse credibility findings and the question of a "change in law" in the United States as a justification for filing an asylum application outside of the one year statute allowed for such filings from the date of an alien's entry. Unpublished decisions of the 9th Circuit may be cited to the Court in some limited circumstances. Such Memorandum Decisions are made public by the 9th Circuit on its web site as indicated above.

Mr. Hamilton argued this case before 9th Circuit judges, Wardlaw and Fletcher, and Judge Lynn, a Northern District of Texas District Judge, sitting by designation, on October 7, 2010. His arguments before the Court can be heard at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000006276

Hamilton has been with this case ever since its origin 6 years ago. He handled Asylum Office, trial Court, BIA and 9th Circuit phases of the case in their entirety.

By: Maria Rangel

NEW USCIS FORM FILING FEES IN EFFECT AS OF NOVEMBER 23, 2010

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) which is responsible for the adjudication of most immigration applications filed by aliens who are not in Removal Proceedings before an Immigration Judge, will be raising its form filing fees as of November 23, 2010. This fee increase will raise the average application and petition fees by approximately 10% - a significant bump in filing fees which have already seen considerable increases in the past several years. It should be noted that the final fee increase rule has actually reduced fees for six applications.

There is always a concern that increases in filing fees by the Government will price aliens out of their ability to apply for immigration benefits. However, we have found that USCIS with its fee increases have implemented meaningful improvements in the actual services they provide and even in the time it may take to adjudicate the petitions and applications themselves. Innovations such as Info-Pass have greatly assisted aliens and attorneys alike in navigating the labyrinth that is the Immigration Service. Further, many of the benefits the aliens themselves seek are invaluable and their actual worth far in excess of the fees aliens pay the Government and their attorneys. We are hoping however, that this latest fee increase will represent the last UCSIS forms-related fee increase in a very long while.

To read more about these fee increases please go to: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/template.PRINT/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f61

By: Duane Hamilton

KENYAN GRANTED CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AFTER 10 YEAR LEGAL BATTLE

Today, a Kenyan client who I have represented over the past 10 years was granted Cancellation of Removal by Judge Sholomson of the Los Angeles Immigration Court. This result was the product of exhaustive litigation from USCIS, to the Immigration Court, through the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeas, back down to the BIA on remand from the 9th Circuit, and then ultimately back to the Immigration Judge on remand from the BIA, where the case was ultimately granted. It should be noted that Judge Sholomson was not the original trial judge from which the case was first appealed.

Cancellation of Removal accords lawful permanent residence (LPR) status in a somewhat similar manner to an adjustment of status. However, the litigation of cancellation claims is far more involved and technical than most adjustment cases.

Chow & Hamilton, congratulates this client and expresses the Client's thanks to both the Court and Government's counsel for their sensitivity and thoughtfulness in this matter.

By: Duane Hamilton

HAMILTON COMPLETES 9TH CIRCUIT ORAL ARGUMENTS

Attorney Hamilton appeared before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California yesterday and presented his oral arguments in a Kenyan asylum case which had been denied by Immigration Judge Ipema six years ago. The case presented many novel issues of law including one one which may be an issue of first impression for the court. The case is now submitted and awaiting the decision of the Court. Such decisions may take several months for issuance by the Court.

By: Maria Rangel

JUDGE DIMARZIO GRANTS KENYAN MALE'S FGM RELATED ASYLUM CLAIM IN JUDGE'S LAST CASE IN LOS ANGELES

On September 30, 2010, Attorney Hamilton completed the trial of a Kenyan anti-FGM male's asylum claim, in what was to be Immigration Judge DiMarzio's final merits hearing in Los Angeles, California before transferring to his home town of Chicago.

In granting the asylum claim, the judge found that Hamilton had established that the alien, who had resided in the U.S. for over a decade before applying for asylum, had overcome the one year filing bar in asylum claims and did qualify for asylum.

This ends several years of litigation for the alien and Mr. Hamilton, who has been on the case throughout the Asylum Office and Immigration Court phases of the matter.

Chow & Hamilton congratulates our client and wishes Judge DiMarzio well in his new assignment in Chicago.

By: Maria Rangel

GOOGLE ERRONEOUSLY DELETES C&H BLOG

To all of those who read this blog from time to time, you may have noticed that we have been missing from the Internet for the past week and a half or so. Apparently, Google which hosts our blog, has automated robots or crawlers of some sort which roam about its blogger universe attempting to delete "spam blogs." In this process however, legitimate blogs are apparently being deleted and then reinstated after a somewhat convoluted process with Google. We have fallen prey to such error.

Thankfully, however, Google was fairly diligent in addressing our request for the blog to be reinstated, yet, the process of reinstatement is not intuitive and you can forget about reaching a customer service rep via phone. The most unnerving aspect of all of this is that we cannot get reassurance from anyone at Google that this will not happen again, and hence, we are looking into other options for the hosting of our blog.

We apologize for our absence.

By: Duane M. Hamilton

KENYAN MERU GRANTED ASYLUM BY L.A. IMMIGRATION COURT

Yesterday (September 14, 2010), Attorney Hamilton secured asylum via order of Immigration Judge DiMarzio of the Los Angeles Immigration Court, following a half-day trial, in the matter of a Kenyan belonging to the Meru tribe. The Client expresses the sincerest gratitude to the Court and to the gracious prosecuting attorney representing ICE in this matter.

By Maria Rangel

SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION JUDGE GRANTS CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ASYLUM TO MIXED AFRICAN COUPLE

Yesterday afternoon, I appeared before Immigration Judge Bagley of the San Diego Immigration Court, to receive a decision in the asylum and cancellation of removal matters of a mixed African couple (Husband from Kenya and wife from another African country which I will not name to preserve their anonymity). This case was tried in a one-day trial on May 18, 2010, but could not be decided that day because of the complexity of certain issues and the competing forms of relief sought. The judge ordered myself and the government's attorney to present our closing arguments in writing and then to return on September 7, 2010 for the decision.

Based upon the compelling testimony of the couple and considerable written briefs and closing arguments, the judge granted both asylum and cancellation of removal to the couple. This means that the couple, in addition to being asylees of the United States, have also been accorded Lawful Permanent Resident (green-card) status (an extremely rare circumstance indeed). It should be noted that out of an allotment of 4000 possible cancellation of removal grants for each fiscal year, only 1,300 on average of these very difficult applications are actually granted nationwide.

We are gratified at the outcome for this wonderful couple, and as always, must thank the Court for its life-changing decision and the government's lawyer, for electing not to appeal.

By: Duane M. Hamilton

HAMILTON SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Attorney Hamilton is scheduled to argue the case of a Kenyan married couple seeking asylum in the United States, before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Pasadena, California, on October 7, 2010. He has been pursuing asylum and alternative forms of humanitarian relief on behalf of the aliens in this matter since April of 2002. The 9th Circuit Petition for Review alone (after a subsequent 4 year process in the exhaustion of the Asylum Office, Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals stages) has been litigated over the last four and a half years. Even after arguments before the 9th Cirucit, a decision may remain pending for several months.

This case requires review by the Court, of many novel and nuanced legal concepts, and Mr. Hamilton will be preparing himself for these arguments throughout the month of September.

By: Maria Rangel

HAMILTON WINS ASYLUM FOR KENYAN TORTURE VICTIM

If you have read the two posts below, this post should provide a sense of the kind of month it is shaping up to be at my modest firm. You will note that we successfully comleted the long-term and extremely challenging Ugandan torture victim's case on August 18, and then ended a seven year quest for lawful permanent residency for one of our few Guatemalan clients the very next day, August 19, 2010. We also appeared in court, ready for trial in another extremely protracted Guatemalan immigration litigation matter on August 17, 2010 which was continued to next year due to illness of the judge.

However, we should not neglect to mention that the only Kenyan case which we were scheduled to take to trial this month (the asylum claim of a Kenyan torture victim) has been tried and asylum granted by Immigration Judge DeJongh of the Los Angeles Immigration Court on August 12, 2010.

We have no further immigration trials (final hearings in a court of law) scheduled this month and the outcomes discussed in the two previous posts and in this one, represent all of the final hearings which have been conducted so far this month by me, regardless of the aliens' countries of origin.

By: Duane M. Hamilton, Esq.

HAMILTON PREVAILS IN COMPLEX ADJUSTMENT OF GUATEMALAN ALIEN FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

On August 19, 2010, Attorney Hamilton, completed the family-based adjustment of status of a Guatemalan alien who had been apprehended by ICE in 2003 during an attempted entry into the United States. During entry, it was alleged by the Government that the alien attempted to pass herself off as a U.S. Citizen (an extremely serious offense, for which there is no waiver).

Mr. Hamilton has been the only attorney in this matter. The following complex steps were taken leading to the August 19, 2010 adjustment hearing: Mr. Hamilton represented the alien while in detention successfully in a "credible fear hearing," which is a screening process to determine whether the alien might qualify for asylum. Next Mr. Hamilton secured parole from detention for the alien to pursue an asylum claim. Mr. Hamilton secured a change of venue for the alien from the jurisdiction of detention to Los Angeles, California. Mr. Hamilton then informed the court of the possibility that the alien might immigrate through a parent's family-based petition (for which a visa was not yet available, and would not be available for a number of years). Mr. Hamilton continued to pursue and document the asylum claim on the alien's behalf as the years passed. Over a year ago, a visa did in fact become available to the alien based on the parent's petition, but several obstacles stood in the way of adjustment. Firstly, the Immigration Judge (IJ) ruled that IJs do not have jurisdiction to perform adjustments of status for paroled aliens. Mr. Hamilton thus pursued a motion to terminate proceedings to allow USCIS to perform the adjustment (which requires the agreement of the Government's counsel). However, the government's lawyer would not agree to the termination since it appeared to the Government that the alleged false claim rendered the alien ineligible for adjustment. Mr. Hamilton then briefed for the Government's counsel and the court, the technical legal reasons why the alien's conduct should not amount to a false claim of citizenship which would deny the alien an adjustment of status. Finally, with the agreement of the government's lawyers earlier this year, Mr. Hamilton secured the Immigration Judge's termination of Removal Proceedings , for USCIS to perform the adjustment.

The officer's file at the adjustment interview was well over 1000 pages of Mr. Hamilton's considerable efforts in the various facets of the case. However, between Mr. Hamilton and the adjudications officer, all of the legal questions related to potential bars to adjustment were overcome and the alien's adjustment of status was granted. This alien has thus, after all of these years, finally immigrated to the United States, becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident. The firm congratulates the alien and thanks both the Court and the adjudicating officer for their parts in this lengthy and difficult process.

By: Maria Rangel

HAMILTON WINS ASYLUM ON REMAND FOR UGANDAN TORTURE VICTIM

Another of Attorney Hamilton's long term immigration litigation cases came to a successful close with a grant of asylum, on August 18, 2010, before Judge Stancil of the Los Angeles Immigration Court. The case had been ongoing since the mid 90s.

The alien, who had been subjected to torture by Ugandan government authorities, was represented at an initial trial, and then before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) by another firm, who in spite of very vigorous efforts, were unable to convince either tribunal that any humanitarian application on behalf of the alien should be granted. The issue of the alien's identity was heavily contested by the Government during that hearing, and having been unable to satisfy the Court or BIA of his identity, those tribunals felt it unnecessary to fully adjudicate the asylum claim. The alien was also applying for asylum after he had been in the United States for more than one year in conflict with the Immigration & Nationality Act's general requirement that asylum claims be filed within one year of an alien's arrival.

Attorney Hamilton received the case in 2003 to prosecute the alien's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Petition for Review. The case was argued by Mr. Hamilton before 9th Circuit judges Noonan, Kleinfeld and Berzon, on February 17, 2006. Mr. Hamilton pressed in his briefs and at oral arguments, that the alien's due process had been violated, since said alien was not afforded by the trial judge, a complete opportunity to present his claims, or develop the record with respect to identity. The 9th Circuit agreed, issuing a memorandum granting the petition for review on August 15, 2006. The memorandum remanded the case to the BIA, which in turn remanded the matter to the trial court for retrial. The decision of the 9th Circuit in this case is not considered a "published" decision and thus, does not have the force of binding legal authority in other cases.

The trial in this matter, conducted by Mr. Hamilton in Los Angeles on August 18 was both memorable and rewarding, with the Immigration Judge and Government's counsel exercising compassion and substantial discretion towards the alien. The firm is proud of its part in this outcome and grateful to both the Government and the Court for this most favorable of outcomes.

By: Maria Rangel

ASYLUM FOR GUATEMALAN FEMALES FEARING "FEMICIDE"

On July 12, 2010, the 9th Circuit published its decision in Perdomo v. Holder. In this intriguing case the court appears to have carved out a potential pathway to asylum for Guatemalan women within a certain range of ages, who fear "femicide," the killing of females in that country.

Many questions remain open however, in the wake of this particular case. For instance, to what extent will Asylum Offices (AOs) honor and apply the Perdomo case. In theory AO's must apply the case law of the circuit in which the AO is located. However, in practice, there have been instances in which AO officers, supervisors and even directors have stretched to find reasons why they should not apply circuit court authority to certain cases and classes of applicants. Immigration Judges, all of whom are lawyers, tend to exercise more caution so as not to ignore or misapply circuit court authority.

Guatemalans like Mexicans, comprise a large block of the undocumented in the United States. Will the AOs ernestly apply Perdomo on a case by case basis, or will they find reasons to deny such claims, fearing the opening of the flood-gates of asylum claims of Guatemalan non-NACARA females?

Further, how quickly must a Guatemalan move in filing a Perdomo asylum claim? For Guatemalans who are within one-year of their last entry, the general rule requires that they apply for asylum within that one year. For Guatemalans who have been in the United States for more than one year without departure, the regulations which govern the timeliness of filing asylum claims become quite complex. Such cases must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by a lawyer who is well versed in asylum jurisprudence and the regulations surrounding the one-year filing issue and its exceptions. However, our firm would encourage any Guatemalan female who fears "femicide" not to delay in consulting with such an attorney. Delay in such matters may weaken the applicant's asylum claim, and should the delay be viewed as having been unreasonable, may actually cause the denial of an otherwise meritorious asylum case.

What about Guatemalan females who have gone through the asylum process and have been denied asylum by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (and perhaps even a Federal Court of Appeals)? Will Perdomo amount to sufficient grounds to reopen those asylum claims? Again, these questions will be definitively answered as Guatemalan applicants apply to reopen their proceedings on the basis of Perdomo. However, a Guatemalan female who fears femicide in Guatemala should, again, consult with an experienced immigration litigation attorney without delay.

This notification is not intended as legal advice or as a legal opinion for any alien. Perdomo asylum claims will succeed and/or fail on a case by case basis and on the facts and or merits of each individual case. Aliens must recognize that one alien's success does not guarantee success for all who file similar claims. Aliens must consult their lawyers related to their particular claim and be ready to accept the attorney's advisory related to the peculiarities and particulars of their circumstances.

Guatemalan females who fear "femicide" in Guatemala are welcome to consult with Chow & Hamilton with regard to the asylum and/or reopening process.

By: Duane M. Hamilton

JULY 2010 IN REVIEW

July 2010 produced a number of successes for Chow & Hamilton. Several of our Kenyan asylum claims which had been pending for decisions at the asylum office after interview, and at the trial court level, after trial, were approved. Most of those cases were complex, in that our clients were applying for asylum under exceptions to the one-year asylum filing bar. In mid July, we also won adjustment of status, and therefore, Lawful Permanent Residence, for a Kenyan who had been a victim of battery and extreme cruelty at the hand of a US Citizen spouse, under the Violence Against Womens Act (VAWA), and our only marriage-based adjustment of status interview for the month yielded an approval, permitting our Kenyan client, who had resided in the United States for quite a number of years without status, to finally immigrate.

We welcome all of these successful applicants to the United States and are extremely happy to have played a part in their immigration processes.

By: Duane M. Hamilton

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY AND THE OBLIGATION OF CRIMINAL LAWYERS TO PROPERLY ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION

Criminal lawyers and their clients often find themselves in a difficult predicament when it comes to representing criminal defendants who are not citizens of the United States. A criminal lawyer may, from a pure criminal law perspective, act brilliantly in crafting a plea arrangement for his client, but at the same time, fail miserably, where that plea arrangement does not fully take into account the immigration consequences of conviction. Depending on the alien's circumstances, a plea to a crime which is classified from an immigration point of view as an "aggravated felony," may subject the alien to nearly certain deportation, though the plea arrangement allowed the alien to suffer minimal criminal consequences. Other crimes classified as Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs) may also trigger "Removal" proceedings, though a broader array of immigration defenses or relief applications may be considered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) when the alien is charged with one or more CIMTs.

How much immigration law does a criminal lawyer really have to know in order to competently represent a non-citizen in the criminal courts of the United States? A considerable amount, it would now appear, in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, decided on March 31, 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in essence held in Padilla, that where the deportation consequences of a criminal plea are clear, the criminal lawyer has "the duty to give correct advice..." The challenge that this presents for the criminal lawyer is obvious; criminal law and immigration law are separate and distinct specialties, both highly complex in their own right. Criminal lawyers are not typically well versed in immigration law (though many have some rudimentary understanding of the potential for certain criminal convictions to trigger removal proceedings). On the other hand, a great many immigration litigation lawyers (lawyers who represent clients in the immigration court and during immigration appeals) do not regularly represent defendants in criminal courts. Often with significant preparation, such lawyers may cross the boundaries of their specialties, achieving a satisfactory result for the client. A great many immigration lawyers are well versed in moving to vacate guilty pleas on behalf of criminal aliens in criminal court, but may not otherwise be up to date in the procedural or substantive aspects of day-to-day criminal court practice.

A criminal alien (that is a person with a green-card or who is undocumented and is facing criminal charges in a court of law or has already been convicted of a crime) must consider very carefully the experience of his lawyer, with respect to both criminal and immigration law. Where a criminal attorney is not well versed in Immigration "Consequences of Crimes" practice, the alien should require that his counsel collaborate with a seasoned immigration litigation lawyer, and receive a "consequences of crimes" opinion from such lawyer, before he or she pleads guilty or no contest. This, of course, will drive up the cost of the alien's legal representation, since the immigration lawyer must charge for his time and expertise in drafting the opinion. The criminal lawyer should then use the immigration lawyer's opinion in advising the alien, crafting a plea arrangement, or making a decision to take the case to trial. On the other hand, in this attorney's opinion, an immigration lawyer who is taking on the criminal defense of an alien and who has not practiced in immigration court for an extended period of time, should commit him or herself to observing the procedures and practices of the particular criminal judge, and should bring him or herself up to date with the most current criminal law related to the particular case. I believe that the lawyer should also be up front with the client that he or she is primarily and immigration litigation lawyer and that the client should be hiring him or her because the immigration consequences of conviction may be as or more severe than the criminal consequences.

Having said all of this, it is important for alien criminal defendants to understand that even with the best collaboration between criminal and immigration lawyer, or with the best and most experienced of lawyers possessing tremendous expertise in both immigration and criminal law, the facts the lawyer is handed and the prevailing law pertaining to the case, will often constrain the outcome. In other words, an alien who shoots a police officer in the presence of witnesses and whose murder weapon is recovered by the police, and who is confronted in court by the eye witnesses, will most likely be convicted, and will also most likely be deported without any immigration remedy. The lawyers' role is simply to advise the client as fully as possible and to seek the most favorable outcome possible for the client.

Aliens accused of crimes should not wait to be told to consult with an immigration litigation lawyer. And from this lawyers perspective most criminal lawyers now will either have to educate themselves completely on the complexities of immigration consequences of crimes or consult with experienced immigration lawyers in these matters.

Duane M. Hamilton

ATTORNEY HAMILTON WINS ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR GUATEMALAN ALIEN ACCUSED OF A "FALSE CLAIM OF CITIZENSHIP"

Chow & Hamilton today received notice that its motion to reconsider the denial of an adjustment of status for a Guatemalan national accused of having made a "false claim of citizenship" at the time of her attempted entry into the US in 2001, has been granted, and the alien adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. The alien had originally sought entry and was "paroled" into the United States in 2001 as a minor.

In March of 2007, Hamilton took the case over from a previous attorney, after the Board of Immigration Appeals had denied the alien's appeal of a deportation order by an immigration Judge (IJ) in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Hamilton petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the BIA decision sustaining deportation and subsequently sought reopening of the case with the lower BIA. The BIA upon the request of Hamilton's motion, reopened and remanded the case to the IJ for further proceedings in July of 2007.

Attorney Hamilton then sought to adjust the alien's status with the IJ, who in January 2008, granted a termination of Removal (court) proceedings to allow USCIS to adjudicate the adjustment of status (since IJs generally rule that they do not have jurisdiction over the adjustment of status of aliens "paroled" into the U.S.).

During the process of the alien's adjustment matter the USCIS adjudicating officer accused the alien of having made a false claim of US Citizenship upon attempting to enter the United States. This charge is a serious and devastating one, since, if true, it serves as a barrier to adjustment of status and is not waivable. Further, many officer's view the false claim statute as one of strict liability, meaning that once the false claim is made by word or deed, the negative consequences of that claim attach, regardless of the age of the alien. There are only very limited and narrow defenses to a false claim allegation. In spite of Mr. Hamilton's efforts to explain to the officer the legal reasons why this particular alien should be adjusted in spite of the officer's perception of the false claim, the adjustment was denied.

Hamilton filed a motion to reconsider USCIS's denial of the adjustment application in June 2009, and simultaneously fought off efforts by ICE to recalendar the case with the IJ for renewed removal proceedings. Mr. Hamilton articulated in his memorandum of law why in spite of the government's perception that minors are not exempted from the negative consequences of a false claim of citizenship, this particular minor could not be subjected to those consequences.

The fruit of those efforts are now manifest in the grant of the motion to reconsider and the alien's adjustment of status, allowing said alien for the first time in nine years, to truly embrace the concept of belonging to a specific country.

By: Maria Rangel

ATTORNEY HAMILTON SECURES ASYLUM FOR A KENYAN IN ANOTHER SAN DIEGO COURT CASE

On June 7, 2010, Attorney Hamilton tried yet another Kenyan asylum claim before the San Diego Immigration Court. The case was a complex one, involving a theory of "firm resettlement" in Europe as a ground for denial, posed by the Government, since the alien had resided in a certain European country for many years before coming to the United States. [Aliens, by law, are not entitled to asylum in the United States, if they have been "firmly resettled" in another country]. Mr. Hamilton was further required to overcome the government's initial arguments with regard to the alien's ineligibility due to the alien's failure to apply for asylum within one year of entry. The Immigration Judge, finding that the alien was not firmly resettled and had in fact satisfied a legalistic exception to the one year filing requirement, granted the asylum claim. Chow & Hamilton is grateful for the protection the Court has extended this client. The majority of Mr. Hamilton's immigration litigation matters continue to be conducted in the Los Angeles Immigration Court.

By: Chow & Hamilton

CHOW & HAMILTON FILE CIVIL SUIT IN HEMET DEPT. OF JUSTICE SHOOTING CASE

On June 9, 2010, Attorney, Peter C. Chow, filed suit in Riverside Superior Court in Abel, et al v. State of California. The law-suit seeks unspecified damages from the State of California and the Department of justice for injuries arising out of an incident in which agents of the California Department of Justice are alleged to have entered certain private property in Hemet California, and without provocation or cause, shot at and severely injured Mr. Abel. The shooting is further alleged to have caused further serious injury and damage to other Plaintiffs who were either in the company of Mr. Abel, or on the subject premises at the time of the incident. Mr. Chow has stated that, "we have now initiated a process by which all of the details of this troubling event may be fully discovered and understood, and the injured parties made whole."


By: Maria Rangel

ATTORNEY HAMILTON FILES FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION IN MURDER CASE

On May 28, 2010, Attorney, Duane M. Hamilton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. The petition is seeking the reversal of a defendant's February 2008 second degree murder conviction from which the defendant has exhausted all of his state court appeals. Mr. Hamilton's office did not represent the defendant in his state court proceedings.

By: Chow & Hamilton

BACK TO BACK IMMIGRATION COURT ASYLUM APPROVALS FOR KENYANS

On April 29 and April 30, 2010, Attorney Hamilton conducted consecutive asylum trials in San Diego and Los Angeles, California respectively, for two Kenyan clients. In addition to the merits of the asylum claims, both cases involved the presentation of theories which would excuse the applicants from the legalistic one-year filing requirement which mandates that asylum applicants file their claims within one year of their arrival in the United States. Judge Williams of San Diego presided over and approved the April 29 claim, and Judge Riley of Los Angeles approved the claim tried on April 30, 2010. Mr. Hamilton had represented one of these applicants for over two years and the other for over 5 years in their quests for asylum in the United States. Though lengthy, both clients have expressed their gratitude to the court, the government and to a process through which their freedom has been secured.

Maria Rangel.

HAMILTON WINS REOPENING OF KENYAN ASYLUM WHERE FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION AGAINST ALIEN IN PLACE SINCE 2003

On January 29, 2010, the BIA, pursuant to a motion to reopen and remand filed by attorney Hamilton, ordered reopening and remand to immigration court in an old asylum matter in which the native of Kenya had been in removal proceedings since mid 2000 and a final unappealed order of deportation entered against the alien since early 2003. The alien has thus been given a new opportunity to demonstrate her eligibilty for asylum and for any other relief which may be available in immigration court.

MORE NEWS ON OUR MOVE TO FULLERTON

We are happy to announce that we have completed our move to Fullerton. Our new address is 285 Imperial Highway, Suite 207, Fullerton, CA 92835. Our office numbers are (714)441-3400 (phone) and (714)441-3407 (fax). There is still some construction taking place in our new conference room and we have not yet received some of our furniture for the waiting room. Please bear with us as we settle into the new office.

FULLERLTON OFFICE UPDATE

The phone company is telling us that in spite of our opening date of Feb 1, 2010 at our new Fullerton office (as posted on Jan. 6, 2010), the new phone and fax system will not be operational until Feb. 3. Please continue to call us at our existing phone and fax numbers which will remain operational (and which we will continue to answer) until the new numbers are in effect. We will be winding down our affairs in Buena Park through the early part of February as we ramp up in Fullerton. Please don't panic if you cannot get through to the new numbers for a few days. You will be able to reach us.

HAMILTON PREVAILS IN DISMISSAL OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALIEN CONVICTED OF BURGLARY

Attorney Hamilton was awarded a judgement of termination of "Removal Proceedings" today from a Los Angeles, California Immigration Judge (IJ), dismissing said proceedings which have been pending for the past almost two years, against a lawful permanent resident alien, who was alleged to have been convicted of burglary as a felony under California law and was facing deportation on the strength of this allegation. These Immigration Court proceedings involved numerous and sometimes lengthy and contentious court hearings against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the past two years, and a complex series of briefs and oral arguments, in which Hamilton continuously and persistently attacked the charging document against the alien as being facially invalid. Ultimately the IJ found in favor of Hamilton and his client, stating that the Government, in its Notice to Appear, had indeed, not met its burden of sustaining removability against the alien, warranting a complete dismissal of the case, and sparing the alien from deportation and preserving said alien's lawful permanent residence. The Government reserved appeal.

CHOW & HAMILTON ANNOUNCES MOVE TO FULLERTON CALIFORNIA

Chow & Hamilton will be moving its practice as of February 1, 2010, from their present Buena Park location, to a new suite of offices located at 285 Imperial Highway, Ste. 207, Fullerton, CA 92835. The new office's phone number will be (714)441-3400 and the fax number will be (714)441-3407. The firm will be notifying its clients, agencies, courts, vendours and colleagues of this move throughout the month of January. This blog will officially list the new address in its "contact information section" on February 1, 2010.