Attorney Hamilton completed an asylum trial this morning (on behalf of a Kalenjin Tribe member from Kenya), which has been pending for the past 7 years. In addition to the applicant's compelling testimony, in this case, Hamilton successfully presented law and argument as to why a previous non-lawyer's untimely filing of the initial asylum claim should be forgiven such that the case might survive the strict one-year filing requirment.
Due to the backlog of immigration cases in the Los Angeles Immigration Court, the alien and Mr. Hamilton appeared and were ready for trial five or more times, only to be told that the Court could not hear the case on those particular days.
We are happy however, to announce that thanks to the patience of our client, the merits of the case itself and the good graces of Immigration Judge Bass and the government's lawyer, the asylum matter was approved and deemed final due to the government's election not reserve appeal.
We congratulate this applicant and the applicant's family in this very difficult and lengthy matter.
By: Maria Rangel
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
ATTORNEY HAMILTON SECURES LPR CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL FOR ALIEN IN MANDATORY DETENTION
On May 22, 2012, Attorney Hamilton tried his first Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Cancellation of Removal case for the year 2012, via Tele-Video, before Immigration Judge (IJ) Walsh of the Los Angeles Immigration Court. In this case, the alien had been detained since March of 2012, following a conviction for a relatively minor offense. However, the alien's past criminal history, including convictions related to controlled substances, precluded bond for the alien.
LPR Cancellation is a special type of waiver, which allows certain LPRs who are deemed removable from the United States (usually based upon criminal convictions which trigger removability) to remain in the U.S., retaining their LPR status. Aliens convicted of controlled substance related crimes and aliens classified as Aggravated Felons under immigration law, generally find themselves unable to receive bond from immigration detention and must take their cases to trial while in detention. These cases are placed on an expedited schedule by the Immigration Court and are sometimes brought to trial in a matter of weeks as opposed to the years of litigation taken in non-detained cases. Both attorney and clients are challenged in these cases since the documentation and trial preparation process is so significantly accelerated.
Aliens granted LPR Cancellation may be released from immigration detention as early as the same day their applications are approved.
We are happy to announce that after extensive testimony by the alien and proffers of testimony of witnesses in the case by Attorney Hamilton, the alien was granted LPR Cancellation of Removal.
On May 22, 2012, Attorney Hamilton tried his first Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Cancellation of Removal case for the year 2012, via Tele-Video, before Immigration Judge (IJ) Walsh of the Los Angeles Immigration Court. In this case, the alien had been detained since March of 2012, following a conviction for a relatively minor offense. However, the alien's past criminal history, including convictions related to controlled substances, precluded bond for the alien.
LPR Cancellation is a special type of waiver, which allows certain LPRs who are deemed removable from the United States (usually based upon criminal convictions which trigger removability) to remain in the U.S., retaining their LPR status. Aliens convicted of controlled substance related crimes and aliens classified as Aggravated Felons under immigration law, generally find themselves unable to receive bond from immigration detention and must take their cases to trial while in detention. These cases are placed on an expedited schedule by the Immigration Court and are sometimes brought to trial in a matter of weeks as opposed to the years of litigation taken in non-detained cases. Both attorney and clients are challenged in these cases since the documentation and trial preparation process is so significantly accelerated.
Aliens granted LPR Cancellation may be released from immigration detention as early as the same day their applications are approved.
We are happy to announce that after extensive testimony by the alien and proffers of testimony of witnesses in the case by Attorney Hamilton, the alien was granted LPR Cancellation of Removal.
Monday, April 16, 2012
HAMILTON COMPLETES ADJUSTMENT IN DETAINED PETITIONING SPOUSE CASE
In one of his more complex adjustment of status matters in many years, Attorney Hamilton, secured Lawful Permanent Residence for an African alien whose spouse had been in criminal detention during the I-130 Petition phase of the case.
Hamilton began his representation of the alien in mid 2009, after the alien had been placed in Removal Proceedings in Los Angeles, California. Though at first-blush, the alien appeared qualified to adjust through marriage to a US Citizen, this adjustment was made complex by the fact that the US Citizen spouse, at the time, was detained for a protracted period at a certain criminal detention facility. Hamilton sought to reassure the Immigration Judge that an I-130 interview could be conducted by USCIS while the petitioner was detained and then set about the difficult task of actually coordinating such an interview between authorities at the correctional facility and USCIS in LA. Ultimately, after many false starts with USCIS, the I-130 interview was conducted in early 2011 and the I-130 approved days later, while the Petitioner remained incarcerated. Hamilton appeared in person with the alien at the Los Angeles Field Office, while the petitioner testified via phone from the correctional facility.
Following approval of the I-130, Removal Proceedings were terminated to allow USCIS to complete the adjustment of status phase of the case. We are happy to announce that this matter, after certain unexpected developments and added complexities in the adjustment process, was successfully completed this morning by supervising USCIS Officers. The alien received Lawful Permanent Residence in the United States, ending this stressful chapter of the immigration journey.
We are grateful to USCIS for its thoughtfulness and patience in accommodating and fairly adjudicating what was indeed an unusal and challenging set of circumstances.
By: Maria Rangel
Hamilton began his representation of the alien in mid 2009, after the alien had been placed in Removal Proceedings in Los Angeles, California. Though at first-blush, the alien appeared qualified to adjust through marriage to a US Citizen, this adjustment was made complex by the fact that the US Citizen spouse, at the time, was detained for a protracted period at a certain criminal detention facility. Hamilton sought to reassure the Immigration Judge that an I-130 interview could be conducted by USCIS while the petitioner was detained and then set about the difficult task of actually coordinating such an interview between authorities at the correctional facility and USCIS in LA. Ultimately, after many false starts with USCIS, the I-130 interview was conducted in early 2011 and the I-130 approved days later, while the Petitioner remained incarcerated. Hamilton appeared in person with the alien at the Los Angeles Field Office, while the petitioner testified via phone from the correctional facility.
Following approval of the I-130, Removal Proceedings were terminated to allow USCIS to complete the adjustment of status phase of the case. We are happy to announce that this matter, after certain unexpected developments and added complexities in the adjustment process, was successfully completed this morning by supervising USCIS Officers. The alien received Lawful Permanent Residence in the United States, ending this stressful chapter of the immigration journey.
We are grateful to USCIS for its thoughtfulness and patience in accommodating and fairly adjudicating what was indeed an unusal and challenging set of circumstances.
By: Maria Rangel
Thursday, April 5, 2012
IMMIGRATION JUDGE GRANTS GUATEMALAN FAMILY OF THREE ASYLUM IN HAMILTON'S 4TH IMMIGRATION TRIAL OF 2012
In 2004, Attorney Hamilton, embarked upon the representation of a terrified Guatemalan female who had been detained during her arrival, in flight from persecution in her native country. Hamilton represented the alien in her "Credible Fear" interview at Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) in Otay Mesa, California, and quickly secured parole for her from detention.
After 8 years of litigation in this matter, an immigraon trial was conducted on April 2, 2012, in Los Angeles, California, before Immigration Judge (IJ) Parchert. The female applicant was joined by her spouse (presenting his own application for asylum) and minor child, also in the United States without documentation. The case involved the consideration by the IJ of the concept of "past persecution" and the existence and/or continuation of military patrols known as PACS in Guatemala and the transformation of those organizations into "Clandestine Armed Groups" maintaining the ability to persecute and terrorize old enemies. The Guatemalan Human Rights Commission (GHRC) submitted an authoritative country conditions report in support of the family (rebutting a statement offered by US Department of State which attempted to argue for denial of the claim). GHRC's Director, Ms. Kelsey Alford Jones further stated her willingness to testify if necessary.
Upon completion of testimony by both applicants, the IJ was persuaded that past persecution had occurred in the experience of the family, and that the government had not rebutted a presumption that persecution would continue. Asylum was therefore approved for all three family members, bringing their long and hard-fought saga to an end.
Hamilton stated yesterday that it should be known, "though over 90% of our immigration caseload continues to be for aliens from Kenya, we bring the same high degree of effort, scholarship and attention to detail to the work we do from time to time for clients from a number of countries around the world."
Mr. Hamilton is proud to have represented these applicants and to have secured for them the protection they have sought these many years. Hamilton and the applicants have also expressed their sincerest thanks to GHRC, the IJ and to the government's attorney, who graciously waived appeal.
By: Maria Rangel
After 8 years of litigation in this matter, an immigraon trial was conducted on April 2, 2012, in Los Angeles, California, before Immigration Judge (IJ) Parchert. The female applicant was joined by her spouse (presenting his own application for asylum) and minor child, also in the United States without documentation. The case involved the consideration by the IJ of the concept of "past persecution" and the existence and/or continuation of military patrols known as PACS in Guatemala and the transformation of those organizations into "Clandestine Armed Groups" maintaining the ability to persecute and terrorize old enemies. The Guatemalan Human Rights Commission (GHRC) submitted an authoritative country conditions report in support of the family (rebutting a statement offered by US Department of State which attempted to argue for denial of the claim). GHRC's Director, Ms. Kelsey Alford Jones further stated her willingness to testify if necessary.
Upon completion of testimony by both applicants, the IJ was persuaded that past persecution had occurred in the experience of the family, and that the government had not rebutted a presumption that persecution would continue. Asylum was therefore approved for all three family members, bringing their long and hard-fought saga to an end.
Hamilton stated yesterday that it should be known, "though over 90% of our immigration caseload continues to be for aliens from Kenya, we bring the same high degree of effort, scholarship and attention to detail to the work we do from time to time for clients from a number of countries around the world."
Mr. Hamilton is proud to have represented these applicants and to have secured for them the protection they have sought these many years. Hamilton and the applicants have also expressed their sincerest thanks to GHRC, the IJ and to the government's attorney, who graciously waived appeal.
By: Maria Rangel
Thursday, March 15, 2012
9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTS HAMILTON'S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN CHAVEZ V. HOLDER
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)