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.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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
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
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
Sunday, August 8, 2010
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)