Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the unpublished decision, Chavez v. Holder, No. 09-71480, granted Mr. Hamilton's Petition for Review on behalf of his client, an alien from Mexico, who had been ordered deported many years ago. Though unpublished for legal authoritative purposes, this decision is a public record at the 9th Circuit.
Mr. Hamilton had first motioned the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen the case due to the ineffective assistance of the Petitioner's former counsel. The Board however, ruled against the Petitioner, declining to treat the matter as a motion to reopen (MTR) and arguing essentially, that the Petitioner's time frame in which to make this sort of motion had long expired, with the Petitioner failing to exercise sufficient diligence to discover the ineffectiveness of said previous counsel. Mr. Hamilton had argued however, that the subject time frame for the motion should be "equitably tolled" in light of the previous attorney's ineffective assistance, and that Petitioner had in fact acted with reasonable diligence, given the conduct and representations of her previous counsel.
On Petition for Review at the 9th Circuit, Hamilton argued several theories, including error in the BIA's failure to address the matter as an MTR and the incompleteness of the BIA's initial review of the Petitioner's MTR. The 9th Circuit in its March 14, 2012 decision, cited its own authority that indeed, motions based on ineffective assistance of counsel are most properly treated as motions to reopen, and agreed that the BIA was not complete in its adjudication.
The 9th Circuit in granting the petition for review, has remanded the case to the BIA for further consideration. Undoubtedly there will be further litigation in the BIA towards ultimately getting the matter back to the Immigration Judge, where actual relief applications might be considered.
By: Maria Rangel
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
HAMILTON SECURES ASYLUM FOR KIKUYU FAMILY OF FOUR IN IMMIGRATION TRIAL
Yesterday, Mr. Hamilton tried his third asylum matter for the year, before Immigration Judge (IJ) Tabaddor of Los Angeles, California. The applicants were a Kenyan Kikuyu family of four, one of whom had faced severe past persecution in Kenya, but had failed to apply for asylum within one year of arrival into the US, as is required by Section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Testimony was presented in the matter and Mr. Hamilton argued a complex two-pronged waiver approach to the one-year filing requirement.
The IJ accepted both of Mr. Hamilton's waiver arguments and the government's prosecutor after cross examination, accepted one. Agreement was thus reached between IJ, prosecutor and Mr. Hamilton that asylum had been established, and each member of the family was granted "Asylee" status on the spot.
Mr. Hamilton is the only attorney to have represented the family and commenced representation in January 2011. This case was litigated and tried in an unusually speedy manner for the Los Angeles Immigration Court, where cases normally pend for well in excess of two years before trial.
We are delighted at this outcome for the family and grateful to the IJ and prosecutor for their participation.
By Maria Rangel.
The IJ accepted both of Mr. Hamilton's waiver arguments and the government's prosecutor after cross examination, accepted one. Agreement was thus reached between IJ, prosecutor and Mr. Hamilton that asylum had been established, and each member of the family was granted "Asylee" status on the spot.
Mr. Hamilton is the only attorney to have represented the family and commenced representation in January 2011. This case was litigated and tried in an unusually speedy manner for the Los Angeles Immigration Court, where cases normally pend for well in excess of two years before trial.
We are delighted at this outcome for the family and grateful to the IJ and prosecutor for their participation.
By Maria Rangel.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
PRESS RELEASE IN THE MATTER OF ABEL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
February 2, 2012
PRESS RELEASE
By: Chow & Hamilton, Lawyers
In the matter of: Abel, et al v. State of California, et al, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 10010507 (CALDOJ/ARCNET Police Shooting - Hemet California)
At approximately 8:30 p.m., on August 26, 2009, on a large and otherwise unremarkable dusty piece of family-owned land in rural Hemet, California, three men - relatives, Shawn Abel, Daniel Hadfield, and Joshua Thacker, left their loved ones, including children, in a trailer home on the property, boarded their own vehicle and drove out to a certain area on the property to investigate the incursion onto the property by an unmarked Chevy Tahoe, which had been seen entering their land without permission earlier that day. The men shared the singular desire to understand the reason for the vehicle's presence on their property and to inform the intruders that such presence was unwelcome and particularly given the Tahoe's high rate of speed as it traveled back and forth on the property's dirt road, endangering the family's children who played regularly on that road. The property in question was clearly and unmistakably identifiable as private property.
As Abel, Hadfield and Thacker's vehicle approached the mysterious Tahoe, they exited their own vehicle, shouting and waiving wildly in an effort to signal the rogue Tahoe to stop. Instead of stopping however, the occupants of the Tahoe unleashed a barrage of gun-fire, driving the three back into their vehicle. The intruding Tahoe, after passing the three startled occupants of the property, maneuvered their vehicle in a sharp u-turn back towards the three, continuing to fire on the men, creating the distinct impression that the occupants of the Tahoe were intent on gunning Abel, Hadfield and Thacker down. A high speed chase then ensued, snaking its way off of the property and onto the streets of Hemet, until the intruders broke their pursuit.
In the melee, Abel sustained a nearly fatal gunshot wound. The three diverted desperately to a local hospital where he was immediately admitted with extensive injuries which would change his existence forever. These three unsuspecting and innocent men, and their family members who remained at home during the course of the incident, but heard and understood the grave nature of the shooting which was taking place outside, have been deeply injured and traumatized by this vicious and unexplained event.
Were the intruders assassins? gangsters on a rampage? or drug traffickers who had simply selected the wrong piece of property for their illicit activities? The disturbing answer is, none of the above, since they are revealed to have been peace officers sworn to serve and protect as members of the California Department of Justice Joint Task-force known as ARCNET, who were operating clandestinely on the property in question, in a surveillance operation related to a neighboring property. Abel, Hadfield and Thacker were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time on their own property, and apparently in "contempt of cop" for daring to inquire as to why an unmarked, unauthorized vehicle, without sirens should operate with reckless abandon on their property.
It is undisputed that none of the occupants of the property on which the shooting took place were involved in any wrongdoing, and were not the subject of any ARCNET or other law enforcement investigation or warrants. Indeed, none of the three have been charged or accused of any crime.
A lawsuit on behalf of Abel and other family members was filed on May 27, 2010 in Riverside Superior Court by Attorneys Peter Chow & Duane M. Hamilton of Chow & Hamilton, Lawyers, Fullerton, California, Case No. RIC 10010507, seeking an as yet indeterminate amount of damages for multiple plaintiffs, and naming the State of California and the California Department of Justice as defendants. The complaint was amended on March 9, 2011, and this litigation remains pending.
In the course of discovery, the plaintiffs have learned that since the shooting, one of the task force officers involved in the shooting (a seven and a half year veteran of the DOJ), is now inexplicably, no longer employed by that agency as of October 31, 2009, a mere two and a half months after the incident.
This case and its underlying story raise troubling questions which are yet to be resolved as to the extent to which law enforcement may operate unannounced and without a warrant, or the permission of the occupants, on the private lands of ordinary and innocent members of the community. It appears that a shoot first and ask questions later attitude (if not an outright attempt on the lives of the three primary victims) prevailed in the actions of the task force members involved in this tragic and life altering event.
The plaintiffs desire for the State's timely admission of responsibility and a meaningful explanation of the shooting, along with some gesture at remedying this wrong, has thus far, been met with cold and unapologetic legal process by the State.
Chow & Hamilton continue to vigorously pursue this important case on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Chow & Hamilton may be contacted at: 285 Imperial Highway, Ste. 207
Fullerton, California, 92835
Phone (714)441-3400
Fax (714)441-3407
e-mail: chwhmltn@aol.com
PRESS RELEASE
By: Chow & Hamilton, Lawyers
In the matter of: Abel, et al v. State of California, et al, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 10010507 (CALDOJ/ARCNET Police Shooting - Hemet California)
At approximately 8:30 p.m., on August 26, 2009, on a large and otherwise unremarkable dusty piece of family-owned land in rural Hemet, California, three men - relatives, Shawn Abel, Daniel Hadfield, and Joshua Thacker, left their loved ones, including children, in a trailer home on the property, boarded their own vehicle and drove out to a certain area on the property to investigate the incursion onto the property by an unmarked Chevy Tahoe, which had been seen entering their land without permission earlier that day. The men shared the singular desire to understand the reason for the vehicle's presence on their property and to inform the intruders that such presence was unwelcome and particularly given the Tahoe's high rate of speed as it traveled back and forth on the property's dirt road, endangering the family's children who played regularly on that road. The property in question was clearly and unmistakably identifiable as private property.
As Abel, Hadfield and Thacker's vehicle approached the mysterious Tahoe, they exited their own vehicle, shouting and waiving wildly in an effort to signal the rogue Tahoe to stop. Instead of stopping however, the occupants of the Tahoe unleashed a barrage of gun-fire, driving the three back into their vehicle. The intruding Tahoe, after passing the three startled occupants of the property, maneuvered their vehicle in a sharp u-turn back towards the three, continuing to fire on the men, creating the distinct impression that the occupants of the Tahoe were intent on gunning Abel, Hadfield and Thacker down. A high speed chase then ensued, snaking its way off of the property and onto the streets of Hemet, until the intruders broke their pursuit.
In the melee, Abel sustained a nearly fatal gunshot wound. The three diverted desperately to a local hospital where he was immediately admitted with extensive injuries which would change his existence forever. These three unsuspecting and innocent men, and their family members who remained at home during the course of the incident, but heard and understood the grave nature of the shooting which was taking place outside, have been deeply injured and traumatized by this vicious and unexplained event.
Were the intruders assassins? gangsters on a rampage? or drug traffickers who had simply selected the wrong piece of property for their illicit activities? The disturbing answer is, none of the above, since they are revealed to have been peace officers sworn to serve and protect as members of the California Department of Justice Joint Task-force known as ARCNET, who were operating clandestinely on the property in question, in a surveillance operation related to a neighboring property. Abel, Hadfield and Thacker were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time on their own property, and apparently in "contempt of cop" for daring to inquire as to why an unmarked, unauthorized vehicle, without sirens should operate with reckless abandon on their property.
It is undisputed that none of the occupants of the property on which the shooting took place were involved in any wrongdoing, and were not the subject of any ARCNET or other law enforcement investigation or warrants. Indeed, none of the three have been charged or accused of any crime.
A lawsuit on behalf of Abel and other family members was filed on May 27, 2010 in Riverside Superior Court by Attorneys Peter Chow & Duane M. Hamilton of Chow & Hamilton, Lawyers, Fullerton, California, Case No. RIC 10010507, seeking an as yet indeterminate amount of damages for multiple plaintiffs, and naming the State of California and the California Department of Justice as defendants. The complaint was amended on March 9, 2011, and this litigation remains pending.
In the course of discovery, the plaintiffs have learned that since the shooting, one of the task force officers involved in the shooting (a seven and a half year veteran of the DOJ), is now inexplicably, no longer employed by that agency as of October 31, 2009, a mere two and a half months after the incident.
This case and its underlying story raise troubling questions which are yet to be resolved as to the extent to which law enforcement may operate unannounced and without a warrant, or the permission of the occupants, on the private lands of ordinary and innocent members of the community. It appears that a shoot first and ask questions later attitude (if not an outright attempt on the lives of the three primary victims) prevailed in the actions of the task force members involved in this tragic and life altering event.
The plaintiffs desire for the State's timely admission of responsibility and a meaningful explanation of the shooting, along with some gesture at remedying this wrong, has thus far, been met with cold and unapologetic legal process by the State.
Chow & Hamilton continue to vigorously pursue this important case on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Chow & Hamilton may be contacted at: 285 Imperial Highway, Ste. 207
Fullerton, California, 92835
Phone (714)441-3400
Fax (714)441-3407
e-mail: chwhmltn@aol.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
HAMILTON SECURES PERMANENT IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR KENYANS IN FIRST TWO REMOVAL TRIALS OF THE YEAR 2012
On January 24th and 25th 2012, Attorney Hamilton tried his first two removal cases for the year.
In the first, on the 24th, asylum was granted by Immigration Judge (IJ) Monica Little of the Los Angeles Immigration Court, to a Taita torture victim. The asylum claim was granted in spite of the complexities presented by the alien's failure to apply within one year as is generally required in asylum law. Mr. Hamilton is the only attorney to have represented the alien and has been with the case since its inception in early 2008.
In the second, on the 25th, Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas of Los Angeles, granted a Kikuyu the Relief of Non LPR Cancellation of Removal, awarding the alien outright lawful permanent resident (green-card) status. Mr. Hamilton took this case over from another attorney in its very early stages in mid 2010.
By: Maria Rangel
In the first, on the 24th, asylum was granted by Immigration Judge (IJ) Monica Little of the Los Angeles Immigration Court, to a Taita torture victim. The asylum claim was granted in spite of the complexities presented by the alien's failure to apply within one year as is generally required in asylum law. Mr. Hamilton is the only attorney to have represented the alien and has been with the case since its inception in early 2008.
In the second, on the 25th, Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas of Los Angeles, granted a Kikuyu the Relief of Non LPR Cancellation of Removal, awarding the alien outright lawful permanent resident (green-card) status. Mr. Hamilton took this case over from another attorney in its very early stages in mid 2010.
By: Maria Rangel
Thursday, December 15, 2011
CHOW & HAMILTON CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS
Our office will close for the holidays on December 16, 2011 and will reopen on January 2, 2012. Clients and prospective clients may contact us by leaving a message at our (714)441-3400 number, or by e-mailing us at chowhamilton@gmail.com. We will likely only respond to emergencies of existing clients during our vacation, but will promptly respond to all contacts upon our return in January.
We wish you all well for the season and especially thank our clients who have sent us warm holiday and thank-you cards, or have told friends and associates about us this year.
Happy holidays and a prosperous new year to all.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
We wish you all well for the season and especially thank our clients who have sent us warm holiday and thank-you cards, or have told friends and associates about us this year.
Happy holidays and a prosperous new year to all.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
CHOW & HAMILTON YEAR-END REPORT
Today was to be my last immigration trial of 2011, but the case was continued to next year, due to illness of the prosecutor. We are happy however to announce the following:
* We succeeded in winning immigration relief which would place our clients on a pathway to US Citizenship (such as asylum), in every completed immigration trial in 2011;
* We received Asylum Office grants in several Kenyan asylum cases (though we take our more complex asylum matters - those filed more than one year after the alien's arrival in the US, and where the alien is failing to maintain status - directly to Immigration Court these days, bypassing the Asylum Office);
* All of our adjustment of status interviews in 2011 based upon marriage were approved with an award of lawful permanent residence to our clients;
* We won terminations of Removal Proceedings in several cases in which our clients were wrongfully being prosecuted for deportation, and secured re-adjustment of status in one complex criminal related matter in which deportation was sought against our Lawful Permanent Resident client based upon the Government's allegation that our client had been convicted of certain Crimes Involvoing Moral Turpitude (CIMTs);
* We were able to reopen two incredibly difficult cases in which deportation orders and Federal Warrants of Deportation had long been issued and all appellate time frames for our clients to appeal had apparently expired under the representation of prior counsel;
* Mr. Chow has succeeded in receiving critical discovery in our Hemet CALDOJ shooting case, Abel v. State of California, and we are moving into 2012 well positioned for mediation, arbitration or trial of this important case.
* Mr. Chow and I have also made significant progress in other civil litigation matters, which are moving towards mediation, arbitration and/or trial, including, but not limited to several Family Law and Wrongful Termination matters.
To those we have served this year, we thank you for your business, and are heartened by the success we have had for you in those cases we were able to complete this year.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
* We succeeded in winning immigration relief which would place our clients on a pathway to US Citizenship (such as asylum), in every completed immigration trial in 2011;
* We received Asylum Office grants in several Kenyan asylum cases (though we take our more complex asylum matters - those filed more than one year after the alien's arrival in the US, and where the alien is failing to maintain status - directly to Immigration Court these days, bypassing the Asylum Office);
* All of our adjustment of status interviews in 2011 based upon marriage were approved with an award of lawful permanent residence to our clients;
* We won terminations of Removal Proceedings in several cases in which our clients were wrongfully being prosecuted for deportation, and secured re-adjustment of status in one complex criminal related matter in which deportation was sought against our Lawful Permanent Resident client based upon the Government's allegation that our client had been convicted of certain Crimes Involvoing Moral Turpitude (CIMTs);
* We were able to reopen two incredibly difficult cases in which deportation orders and Federal Warrants of Deportation had long been issued and all appellate time frames for our clients to appeal had apparently expired under the representation of prior counsel;
* Mr. Chow has succeeded in receiving critical discovery in our Hemet CALDOJ shooting case, Abel v. State of California, and we are moving into 2012 well positioned for mediation, arbitration or trial of this important case.
* Mr. Chow and I have also made significant progress in other civil litigation matters, which are moving towards mediation, arbitration and/or trial, including, but not limited to several Family Law and Wrongful Termination matters.
To those we have served this year, we thank you for your business, and are heartened by the success we have had for you in those cases we were able to complete this year.
By: Duane M. Hamilton
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION JUDGE GRANTS ANOTHER KENYAN C&H CLIENT ASYLUM
Mr. Hamilton successfully completed trial this morning, before Los Angeles Immigration Judge Rooyani, of another of our Kenyan clients' asylum claims (this one pending since early 2009). Upon approval of the asylum claim by the judge, the government's attorney waived appeal, hence the decision is now final. This judgment protects the applicant from any potential harm in Kenya and places such applicant on a pathway to U.S. Citizenship.
The Client and firm have expressed gratitude to the Government and Judge for this outcome. There is a great sense of relief and joy when individuals with so much at stake are afforded the protection of this great nation.
By: Maria Rangel
The Client and firm have expressed gratitude to the Government and Judge for this outcome. There is a great sense of relief and joy when individuals with so much at stake are afforded the protection of this great nation.
By: Maria Rangel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)