Tears of joy, winning two cases in one day.

Written by Jonathan Willmoth Wednesday, 14 December 2011 03:26

Last week, I had two trials on the same day, a fairly rare occurrence for me. In the first case, we were successful in arguing that a lady who had been here without authorization for xx years deserved to stay in the country. She was the primary caretaker for her 83-year-old mother who suffered from depression, high blood pressure, and dementia. The key difficulty was that she had 9 other children, both in the United States and in her home country, with whom she could have stayed, should our client have been deported. As the trial was moving along, it seemed the government was very concerned about this particular aspect, and the Judge was open to their argument. Enter the mother. She testified as best she could, but really, she had a hard time understanding the questions, and it was our client who had to put her arm around her mother and explain what was going on. Whenever she didn’t know an answer, she would look to our client and tell the Judge that her daughter knew everything and took care of everything for her. She didn’t have any idea what medicine she took, how to get to the doctor, or even what time it was. Her daughter took care of all of that for her. I thought about stopping there, as she was becoming agitated, but I decided to ask her one more question - what would she do if her daughter had to leave the country. The mother started to cry, her daughter started to cry, the people in the courtroom started to cry. Even after we won, the mother didn’t stop crying until after she was in the car and had left the garage at the court (though those tears did turn to tears of joy as soon as she understood what had happened). I felt terrible for making her cry, but I am certain that her testimony was the difference between her daughter getting to remain here with her, and having to leave the country.

In the second case, we successfully argued that a young woman from a small Central American country deserved to remain in the United States to protect her from the persecution she fears if she returns to her home country. She was targeted by gangs because the Church she belonged to did outreach in gang areas, trying to minister to them, to get those involved in gang life to turn to God. All three times she was threatened by gang members involved times when she was worshipping or attending Church-related functions. Asylum law works like this - you have to show at least a 10% chance that the government or a group the government can not or will not control will harm you on account of one of the enumerated grounds (race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Most gang-related cases from Central America have been denied where the applicant was a victim or potential victim merely of recruitment by gangs. However, our key argument (which was decisive in this case) was that in fact, she was targeted and will be targeted, not simply for recruitment, but on account of her religious beliefs and practices, which include proselytizing to gangs. Luckily, we didn’t need to show that her religious beliefs were the only reason that she was targeted, simply that it was one central reason. This case involved far less crying, but I am sure the now-asylee was just as happy as the woman in the earlier case.

Steve Jobs Helps Win Client's Case (Sort of)

Written by Jonathan Willmoth Thursday, 06 October 2011 02:59

As an avid Apple product user, and sometimes tech geek, I was saddened today to learn of Steve Jobs' passing. However, I had earlier thought of writing a post tonight called: "How my iPad won my client's case".

I had a trial today for a woman who was married to a U.S. citizen who petitioned for her to come join him, and on that basis, she was granted permanent residence. Because they had not been married for two years yet, she was granted conditional residence, and had to file a petition to remove the conditions two years later to get "permanent", permanent residence. She did it originally by herself and was denied. Then she hired an attorney who did not follow through with her case (he was disciplined by his state bar for his poor performance on other cases). Finally, we had a trial scheduled for her in which we were meant to prove that she had entered into her marriage in good faith, even though it was later terminated by divorce.

We didn't have a lot of evidence because the marriage was back in 2000-2001, it was an arranged marriage - so she didn't know him much beforehand, and the evidence she did have, she had given to the attorney who disappeared after being suspended. However, she did have a handful of amazing photographs of the wedding ceremony with hundreds of guests, a 14-person wedding party, and phenomenal native and western style dresses, etc. We did not have these photos before, and so did not submit them to the court, but when the judge asked her if she had anything else, she said she had the photos in her email and could show them on her phone.

That didn't work, so I offered to have her forward the email to me so I could show the court, the government's attorney, the client, and myself the photos on my iPad. The courtroom doesn't have good wireless internet connectivity, and I bring my mobile hotstpot with me, so I was able to easily open the emails, open the attachments, and show them to the parties on my iPad in amazing clarity and full-color... Which is way better than the black and white rephotocopied-ten-times pictures that were submitted before.

I believe that these photos, and my being able to show them on this here iPad (which I am using to type this as well) could have been the difference between her being approved or denied. She was approved! Thanks, Steve.

[UPDATED!] Busy Presentation Calendar Upcoming

Written by Jonathan Willmoth Wednesday, 28 September 2011 02:50

Here are some upcoming events where Jonathan will be presenting on various immigration law topics, providing valuable information and training to other immigration attorneys across the country. If you are a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), come check by and say hi at one of the following:

October 19, 2011 at 12:00pm (EST) in Miami, Florida. Jonathan will be reprising his presentation from the AILA National Conference this past summer on the topic of Abandonment of Residence, how those with green cards can avoid losing them. The format is a monthly meeting of the South Florida chapter of AILA. Jonathan is very excited to be presenting again with Gary Endelman, one of the real experts in abandonment of residence issues. Mod erating the panel is the esteemed author of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook, Ira Kurzban. If you are thinking of practicing in the area of immigration law, it borders on malpractice not to own this book!

November 17, 2011 at 1:00pm (CST) AILA national web seminar titled: "204(l) and the Posthumous Petitioner: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over." Jonathan will serve as Discussion Leader for the panel, featuring Brent Renison and Barbara Bower as panelists. Brent is a real hero for his tireless efforts in combating and ultimately defeating the Widow Penalty where spouses of US citizens were rendered without options to finish their immigration cases if their spouses happened to die during the process. 

December 9, 2011 at 11:30am, Missouri-Kansas AILA Chapter presentation on INA 204(l) and the Posthumous Petitioner. Jonathan will present the information from the web seminar in a lunch presentation following the monthly liaison meeting between the local AILA chapter and the US CIS Kansas City Field Office. Location is still to be determined. Meeting is open to all AILA members.

So, it cuts both ways...

Written by Jonathan Willmoth Wednesday, 17 August 2011 14:41

There has been a lot of talk recently about the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memorandum on prosecutorial discretion. The idea is that individual agents and attorneys for ICE can decide not to "prosecute" removability against an alien who they feel deserves that kind of compassion or use of discretion. The memo itself is not necessarily revolutionary, as the agents and attorneys always had that power. The importance is that, in light of the seriously increased immigration enforcement under the Obama administration, this memo reminds agents and attorneys of that authority, and I think, in so doing, recommends that they use it in appropriate situations.

I complained about the actions of an attorney for the government in the case of the South African asylum applicants. Ultimately, the ICE attorneys decided not to appeal our win, a kind of prosecutorial discretion that they utilized in favor of my clients, when no legal authority required them to. On the one hand, I feel some of the government actions in that case were not appropriate, however, the same office went out of their way to help my clients by not appealing and forcing them to expend additional resources and face the possibility of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturning the decision and denying them asylum... so it cuts both ways.

Today, I had a case of a seriously mentally ill man who was granted cancellation of removal, and allowed to remain in the United States with his family who have been struggling to care for him for many years now. The government's attorney did not oppose the case, and in fact, agreed that he should be granted that relief without requiring any testimony or argument on the strength of the medical and psychological records submitted before trial. He didn't have to do that. He could have fought the case, put my client to his burden of proof, and challenged any incorrect or conflicting testimony (which for a guy with auditory hallucinations there certainly would have been some). But he used his prosecutorial discretion, not to agree not to prosecute the case, but to agree to his being granted relief. Even the memo doesn’t require or suggest that he take this action. In fact, had they simply terminated the case against him, his family would have been in a worse situation, because he would have gone back to the status he had before (none) which results in his not being eligible for many forms of financial and medical assistance that he needs. By doing exactly what he did, the government's attorney's prosecutorial discretion resulted in my client's entire family having a better life, and probably lessening the hardship his family has endured for the last 15 years.