RECENT BACKLOGGED ASYLUM OFFICE CASE: On April 18, 2014, the Los Angeles District Asylum Office (AO) approved asylum for a young Kenyan whose matter has been pending and backlogged in that office since October of 2012. Adding to the difficulty of this matter, was the fact that due to the AO's grant of a request for an extension of the original interview date, the AO stopped the applicant's Employment Authorization Document (EAD) clock before the requisite 150 days had expired, cutting off the applicant's ability to successfully apply for an EAD while waiting for a new hearing date. It takes some discipline and understanding for applicants who are new to the United States and seeking protection here, to maintain their hopeful attitudes when their cases are delayed at the AO in this manner, and they find themselves without the legal means to acquire employment authorization to support themselves while they await their hearings. Nevertheless, this Applicant remained incredibly positive and disciplined while pursuing a bid for protection in the United States, and has received the ultimate reward. In addition to the approval of the asylum claim, the Applicant should now automatically receive an EAD within 14 business days of approval.
This case was not fraught with a one-year filing bar issue, since it was filed within one year of the alien's arrival in the United States.
IMMIGRATION COURT ASYLUM MATTER: This morning, I successfully completed trial before Los Angeles Immigration Judge, Sitgraves, in the asylum matters of two other Kenyans who have been with me since December of 2011 (after applying for asylum and conducting their AO interview without the assistance of an attorney resulting in an initial denial of the asylum claim). I was able to streamline the direct and cross examinations in this matter with the the Government's prosecutor prior to trial, thereby simplifying the process greatly for the applicants.
There was tremendous relief and joy on the part of these deserving applicants, and satisfaction for the legal professionals involved.
I am grateful to USCIS, ICE and the Court for their roles in these matters, and gratified that all of these applicants are now on their pathways to United States Citizenship with complete protection from harm in their native country.
By: Duane M. Hamilton, Esq.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
KENYAN COUPLE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES SEATTLE'S SMART ACCELERATED RESOLUTIONS TEAM (SMART) PROCESS
In a case which I have been litigating before the Seattle Immigration Court, since 2011, ICE Chief Counsel (the prosecutor in Immigration Court cases), on April 4, 2014, issued its "Informative Memorandum To The Court," stating its agreement, pursuant to its "Smart Accelerated Resolutions Team" (SMART) process, that the couple should be granted Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal without cross examination by ICE, once visa numbers become available to the couple (hopefully in the next fiscal year starting in October 2014). The Court has thus, responsively removed the case from its trial calendar and "reserved" its decision granting the case to such a time as visa numbers are available.
This innovative program allows Respondent's counsel to fully litigate the case in terms of briefs, applications, motions and supporting documents/evidence, and then once fully documented, to submit a stylized request to SMART for its assessment. ICE Chief Counsel is extremely helpful in assisting litigants in understanding the simple, but precise requirements of preparing the request, which must be followed exactingly to ensure SMART consideration. However, Respondents should understand that success in this process does not imply that their counsel have somehow done or accomplished less for them than would have been accomplished at trial. SMART simply provides a different avenue for Respondent's counsel's advocacy, resulting (if successful) in relief for an over-burdened Immigration Court, reduced stress for the alien Respondents, and a furtherance of ICE's commitment to President Obama's prioritization policies for Removal Proceedings.
Upon approval, these Respondent's will become Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States on a pathway to Naturalization (Citizenship) applications 5 years after approval.
We are grateful for the thoughtfulness of ICE Chief Counsel's Office in Seattle and to the Honorable Immigration Judge, Kenneth Josephson of the Seattle Immigration Court, thus far in this process.
By: Duane M. Hamilton, Esq.
This innovative program allows Respondent's counsel to fully litigate the case in terms of briefs, applications, motions and supporting documents/evidence, and then once fully documented, to submit a stylized request to SMART for its assessment. ICE Chief Counsel is extremely helpful in assisting litigants in understanding the simple, but precise requirements of preparing the request, which must be followed exactingly to ensure SMART consideration. However, Respondents should understand that success in this process does not imply that their counsel have somehow done or accomplished less for them than would have been accomplished at trial. SMART simply provides a different avenue for Respondent's counsel's advocacy, resulting (if successful) in relief for an over-burdened Immigration Court, reduced stress for the alien Respondents, and a furtherance of ICE's commitment to President Obama's prioritization policies for Removal Proceedings.
Upon approval, these Respondent's will become Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States on a pathway to Naturalization (Citizenship) applications 5 years after approval.
We are grateful for the thoughtfulness of ICE Chief Counsel's Office in Seattle and to the Honorable Immigration Judge, Kenneth Josephson of the Seattle Immigration Court, thus far in this process.
By: Duane M. Hamilton, Esq.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
A BUSY BUT PRODUCTIVE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR
My extremely busy beginning of the year schedule has taken me away from blogging for some time, but here is a bit of an update.
2014 started with two Asylum Office (AO) approvals and the scheduling of interviews at the Los Angeles District AO for several cases which have been back-logged at that office for periods well in excess of a year. We are awaiting decisions in two more cases which were terribly delayed due to the backlog and only recently were actually interviewed. Some of our scheduled cases will not be interviewing at the AO and are awaiting Notices To Appear (NTAs) to pursue relief in Immigration Court. Along with our colleagues who represent applicants before the AO, we continue to experience a slow-down in the AO's processing of cases, from the filing of the case to the scheduling of interviews. Though this can be frustrating for applicants who are anxious to present their cases at the AO, or in the cases of individuals with difficult asylum one-year bar issues, who wish to waive the interview for a referral to Immigration Court to pursue asylum and other immigration relief exclusively available in court, the slow-down has increased the asylum applicant's chances of actually obtaining their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) while their cases remain pending at the AO.
In the past the AO would rush applicants to a hearing roughly 30 days after filing, and if the alien was out of status by the time the decision was being made on the case two weeks later, refer them to Removal Proceedings in Immigration Court, where the Immigration Judge would either require them to expedite their trial, or stop the expiration of their 180 day clocks which must expire before the alien can be issued an EAD. If the alien requested a continuance at the AO, the applicant's EAD clock would be stopped upon the making of the continuance request and would only restart on the day of the interview. With the present back-log, we are experiencing a pathway to the asylum related EAD which is more relaxed. It appears to be a trade off - long waits for asylum interviews, but greater assurance that the applicant will ultimately qualify for the EAD.
The problem with the backlog is that for those applicants recently escaping persecution in their home countries, with spouses and children remaining in the countries and in need of an approval of the principal applicant's asylum application and an asylee relative petition so as to reach the US, the delays are troubling and in my opinion potentially deadly in some cases. Nevertheless, it does appear that the AO is doing the best it can given its existing man-power and its need to thoroughly adjudicating each application.
Asylum applicants in the Los Angeles District would do well to use the time caused by the AO's backlog to more thoroughly document their asylum claims and ready themselves both emotionally and in ensuring the sharpness or clarity of their presentations and ability to answer reasonable questions regarding the experiences which cause them to be afraid and/or unwilling to return to their countries.
Our Kenyan clients continue to excel in their cases. We are encountering extremely serious applicants from that country with significant need of humanitarian relief. We have also experienced an increase in cases from Mexico, Guatemala and Sri Lanka accross a pleathora of immigration applications and circumstances.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
2014 started with two Asylum Office (AO) approvals and the scheduling of interviews at the Los Angeles District AO for several cases which have been back-logged at that office for periods well in excess of a year. We are awaiting decisions in two more cases which were terribly delayed due to the backlog and only recently were actually interviewed. Some of our scheduled cases will not be interviewing at the AO and are awaiting Notices To Appear (NTAs) to pursue relief in Immigration Court. Along with our colleagues who represent applicants before the AO, we continue to experience a slow-down in the AO's processing of cases, from the filing of the case to the scheduling of interviews. Though this can be frustrating for applicants who are anxious to present their cases at the AO, or in the cases of individuals with difficult asylum one-year bar issues, who wish to waive the interview for a referral to Immigration Court to pursue asylum and other immigration relief exclusively available in court, the slow-down has increased the asylum applicant's chances of actually obtaining their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) while their cases remain pending at the AO.
In the past the AO would rush applicants to a hearing roughly 30 days after filing, and if the alien was out of status by the time the decision was being made on the case two weeks later, refer them to Removal Proceedings in Immigration Court, where the Immigration Judge would either require them to expedite their trial, or stop the expiration of their 180 day clocks which must expire before the alien can be issued an EAD. If the alien requested a continuance at the AO, the applicant's EAD clock would be stopped upon the making of the continuance request and would only restart on the day of the interview. With the present back-log, we are experiencing a pathway to the asylum related EAD which is more relaxed. It appears to be a trade off - long waits for asylum interviews, but greater assurance that the applicant will ultimately qualify for the EAD.
The problem with the backlog is that for those applicants recently escaping persecution in their home countries, with spouses and children remaining in the countries and in need of an approval of the principal applicant's asylum application and an asylee relative petition so as to reach the US, the delays are troubling and in my opinion potentially deadly in some cases. Nevertheless, it does appear that the AO is doing the best it can given its existing man-power and its need to thoroughly adjudicating each application.
Asylum applicants in the Los Angeles District would do well to use the time caused by the AO's backlog to more thoroughly document their asylum claims and ready themselves both emotionally and in ensuring the sharpness or clarity of their presentations and ability to answer reasonable questions regarding the experiences which cause them to be afraid and/or unwilling to return to their countries.
Our Kenyan clients continue to excel in their cases. We are encountering extremely serious applicants from that country with significant need of humanitarian relief. We have also experienced an increase in cases from Mexico, Guatemala and Sri Lanka accross a pleathora of immigration applications and circumstances.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)