Archive | Women RSS feed for this section

Benach Ragland News

1 May

Raising the barIt has been a busy and exciting few weeks at Benach Ragland.  From immigration reform rallies to dramatic courtroom victories, BR has had a month to remember.

Starting off, courtroom victories are the reason we do what we do.  Three major courtroom victories this month have lifted everyone’s spirits.  First, Andres Benach presented seven hours of testimony and 747 pages of documentary evidence to the immigration court in Pennsylvania over two days in winning a 212(h) waiver for a permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony.  Legally, this victory was only made possible as Circuit Courts around the country, including the one in Pennsylvania, have decided that the plain language of  INA 212(h) allows certain permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies to seek the waiver.  This was an unheard of notion about five years ago when the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas decided the case of Martinez v. Mukasey that opened this door.  At the time, we told our client that his only hope was that the logic of Martinez would also be accepted in the Third Circuit, where he was facing removal proceedings.  In September, a decision called Hanif v. Attorney General did just that and we were able to put on the case.  Overcoming the aggravated felony, showing the Judge that the family would suffer extreme hardship without the husband/ father and demonstrating that our client deserved this second chance took every bit of energy and evidence we could muster.  When the Judge finally ruled, the entire family broke down in tears relieved that the threat of deportation had been eliminated. Second, Dree Collopy wrapped up a long and emotional saga when her client was granted adjustment of status without a whisper of opposition from DHS.  After years of fighting DHS on the case, Dree overwhelmed the government with evidence and reason, such that DHS agreed to her client’s adjustment.  Dree’s client, Sophie, is BR’s May 2013 Client of the Month and you can read more about her here.  Finally, Thomas Ragland was hired on Thursday, worked all weekend, and destroyed the government’s case on Tuesday.  A case that had lasted for several years where the government insisted that the client had committed fraud, when she had not, was wrapped up with a burst of activity from Thomas and Senior Paralegal Cyndy Ramirez, who with bulldog tenacity unraveled the truth of the case and set up the victory in court.  These cases represent the best of why we do what we do.  People’s lives are changed for the better and the emotional release of knowing that the immigration Sword of Damocles has been removed is a feeling every lawyer should get to know.  But, be careful, that feeling is highly addictive.

It is no wonder, with cases like these, that Andres Benach, Thomas Ragland and Dree Collopy were all recognized as Super Lawyers for 2013.  Every year, Thompson Reuters produces its Super Lawyers list and BR lawyers have been a regular fixture on the Super Lawyers list.  Joining Andres and Thomas this year, Dree Collopy was named a “Rising Star.”  We think that Dree is already a star and that it just takes some longer to recognize it.

At the same time, BR served the community.  BR’s goodwill ambassadors Sandra Arboleda, Mariela Sanchez and Liana Montecinos supported the April 10 immigration rally and BR was the only law firm to attend the Maryland Council for American-Islamic Relations awards dinner on Sunday, April 28.  BR even received a shout-out from Imam Johari from the Dar-el-Hijra mosque for our work on a naturalization case for one of their congregants.  Also, last night (April 30), Benach Ragland was honored as a Platinum Member of the DC Bar’s Raising the Bar effort to support access to justice programs.  Jen Cook, who has spearheaded this effort at BR, was on hand to receive the award, which was bestowed by Georgetown Law School Dean Peter Edelman who noted that Jen was once a student of his.

Lastly, BR attorneys have criss-crossed the country educating lawyers on the challenges of immigration law.  Thomas Ragland addressed the Upper Midwest Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  Andres Benach went to Chicago to discuss the obligations of defense counsel in advising their foreign born clients on the immigration consequences of conviction with lawyers from the American Bar Association Section of Litigation and will speak tomorrow on Provisional Waivers and also Prosecutorial Discretion at the National Immigration Project’s annual conference in Boston.

Spring certainly has been busy and gratifying at Benach Ragland.  May looks no different with challenging cases looming.  Benach Ragland law clerk Prerna Lal will graduate from law school, marking another step towards joining BR as a lawyer after the Bar exam.  It is all exciting and we are loving every minute of it.

Tags:

Could Bar Rafaeli seek asylum for refusal to join the Israeli Defense Forces?

19 Mar

Bar Refaeli Host a 'Lexus' Party in Madrid

Yesterday, we had some fun noting that Israeli supermodel Bar Rafaeli had drawn the rhetorical fire of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) due to her failure to serve the two years of service in the IDF required of all Israeli citizens.  We offered Ms. Rafaeli a free consultation so she could consider a claim to asylum on account of forced conscription into the Israeli Army.  As far as we know, she has not yet availed herself of our very generous offer.  So, we will share our thoughts here for her to review in the privacy of her home.

However, it did occur to us that many people are unaware of how conscription laws worldwide may impact eligibility for asylum.  Many individuals have obtained asylum in the U.S. due to their philosophical refusal to serve in their home country’s armed forces.  As a general rule, asylum law starts from the proposition that a nation has the right to conscript its citizens into the armed forces.  Conscription is the common practice in which a country forces its citizens to serve the armed forces.   Refusal to accept conscription into the armed forces is not ordinarily sufficient to establish that one is a refugee deserving of asylum.  However, asylum law recognizes two exceptions to this general rule.  First, conscription into the armed forces may constitute persecution if punishment for refusal to accept conscription is meted out exclusively to individuals based upon their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.  So, if only members of one religion in a religiously pluralistic society were punished for refusal to serve in the armed forces, that may constitute persecution.  The second exception is where service in the armed forces would require the individual to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.  If the armed forces were routinely engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity, the punishment of an individual’s refusal to serve may also constitute persecution worthy of protection under U.S. asylum law.

How do these factors effect the Bar Rafaeli case?  As an aside, we have no reason to believe that Ms. Rafaeli did not serve in the IDF for philosophical or political reasons.  We have no reason to believe that the Israeli government seeks to punish Ms. Rafaeli.  We just think that this is a fun intellectual exercise.  If Ms. Rafaeli were actually facing punishment for her refusal to join the IDF, could she obtain asylum in the U.S.?

As we said earlier, conscription, in and of itself, will not serve as a basis for a claim to asylum.  The first exception to this rule, if punishment for refusal to serve is forced only upon certain groups of individuals in a society, does not seem to apply as Israeli conscription is universal and there is no evidence that punishment for refusal to serve is forced only upon particular races, religions, nationalities, political groups, or members of particular social groups.  The second exception to the rule is if conscription into the IDF would force Ms. Rafaeli to engage in human rights abuses.  Certainly, there are many armed forces worldwide that commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Right now, the Syrian Army is engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity on a daily basis.  Years ago, we won asylum for a Russian man who reserved to serve in the Russian Army due to the activities of the Russian Army in Chechnya.

Does the IDF fit this mold?  Can it be shown that the IDF engages in war crimes or crimes against humanity?  How does this work?  This exception implicates one of the epic immigration cases of all time: M.A. v. I.N.S., 899 F.2d 304 (4th Cir 1990).  This case was argued before the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1989.  Arguing for the immigrant, a Salvadoran who refused to join the Salvadoran army during the peak of that country’s vicious civil war, was William van Wyke, a passionate defender of immigrant rights who went on to become an immigration judge.  Also involved was John Bolton, who went on to become a prominent figure in the George W. Bush administration.  Arthur Helton, one of the great human rights lawyers of all time and a victim of the attack on the UN compound in Iraq in 2003, also supported the immigrant.  M.A. was a Salvadoran man who refused to join his country’s military because of the Salvadoran military’s shameful record of gross human rights abuses.  He argued that if he did not resist conscription he would be forced to commit such atrocities or be killed for refusing to do so.  He submitted voluminous reports showing from Human Rights watch, Amnesty International and other highly credible human rights organizations to document the military’s role in these atrocities.  Yet, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the 4th Circuit rejected this evidence and demanded that there be international condemnation by other governments to establish the violations of the law of war or the commission of crimes against humanity.  Non-governmental organizations, even those with decades of expertise in human rights issues and researchers ion the ground, could not provide evidence that would satisfy this standard.  As the U.S., at the time, failed to condemn the Salvadoran military for these atrocities, M.A. lost.

So back to the question: Could Ms. Rafaeli prove that the IDF is engaged in violations of the law of war or the commission of crimes against humanity?  Certainly, there are many NGOs that would say that the IDF does.  But has there been governmental sanction of the IDF?  While the U.S. has condemned the building of settlements in the occupied territories, the U.S. has not condemned the IDF’s actions against civilians during military excursions in Gaza and Lebanon.  Moreover, the U.S. has used its power to stop the U.N. from condemning Israel.  We are not expressing an opinion on whether the IDF has committed crimes against humanity.  However, we do note that there is plenty of information that indicates that this is the case, while at the same time noting that the U.S. government has not accepted such criticism.  These facts seem strikingly similar to the situation in M.A. where the NGOs were vociferous in their condemnation fo El Salvador, but the governments were more restrained in their criticism.  The BIA and the 4th circuit deemed this insufficient to establish that an individual conscripted into the armed forces would face persecution and Ms. Rafaeli would likely fail to gain asylum as M.A. did.

Tags: ,

Congress Reauthorizes VAWA But Falls Short On Immigration Provisions

6 Mar

After a long wait, Congress has reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), with several new protections that are of relevance to immigrant clients and practitioners. President Obama is expected to sign the bill this afternoon.

VAWA evil

VAWA evil (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But first, what is VAWA? In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA I), the first comprehensive federal legislation to address specifically the issue of violence against women. VAWA I improved greatly the availability of overall support and resources for domestic violence survivors through the creation of new criminal enforcement authority and enhanced penalties to combat domestic violence in federal courts, and provided grants to fund programs to fight violence against women.

Prior to VAWA I, immigrant spouses and children could only apply for legal residency if their United States citizen or legal permanent resident spouses filed legal residency applications on their behalf. VAWA I changed that by providing a way for battered immigrant spouses and children to gain legal immigration status by self-petitioning, so that they could escape abusive marriages with U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses. Additionally, VAWA I also provided a special form of suspension of deportation for battered spouses or children to apply to become lawful permanent residents if they could demonstrate extreme hardship to themselves or to immediate relatives. However, VAWA I proved to be ineffective and inaccessible for many due to subsequent changes and additions to immigration law, which unintentionally eliminated or rendered inaccessible many of the VAWA I protections for battered immigrant spouses and their children.

Despite its noble intentions, VAWA I fell short on several fronts. The battered immigrant had the burden to proof that the batterer was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, which was often difficult to establish. Additionally, under VAWA I, if a batterer lost U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status prior to approval of the self-petition, the former INS could automatically deny the battered immigrant’s petition. Moreover, VAWA I prevented victims from divorcing their batterers prior to filing the petition. As such, battered immigrants with pending divorces could not request fee waivers for their VAWA petitions without the risk that such waiver requests would potentially delay the filing of the self-petitions until after their divorces had been finalized. Battered immigrants in removal proceedings had to prove “extreme hardship” to prevail, which often served as a bar to relief. VAWA I also had a “good moral character” requirement that served as a bar to abused immigrants who had been convicted of crimes against their perpetuators due to self-defense. In order to address these shortcomings, in 2000, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA II) to re-authorize grants and programs established under the original VAWA.

Title V of VAWA II, or the “Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000” (BIWPA), was enacted to improve access to immigration protections of VAWA for battered immigrant women, improve access to cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation, and create new VAWA II provisions, such as the “U” nonimmigrant visa, which allowed people without immigrant status to gain a visa for reporting serious crimes perpetrated against them. Under VAWA II, a battered immigrant retained the right to self-petition if the batterer was a United States citizen who died within the past two years or the batterer lost or renounced immigrant status within the past two years due to an incident “related” to the domestic violence. VAWA II also allowed the battered immigrant to self-petition even if the marriage had already been terminated if the battered immigrant could prove that the divorce was “connected” to battering or extreme cruelty by the United States citizen spouse or legal permanent resident. In addition, VAWA II permitted battered immigrant self-petitioners to remarry during the self-petition process, and allowed divorced victims to file for naturalization. It also created a good-faith exception for battered immigrants who married U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident bigamists.

For battered immigrants in removal proceedings, VAWA II also removed the “extreme hardship” requirement for cancellation of removal. It also allowed a battered immigrant who had committed a crime to maintain “good moral character” if s/he could prove that the crime was connected to the abuse s/he had suffered and s/he not been the prime perpetrator of violence in the relationship.

Perhaps, most importantly, VAWA II created the U nonimmigrant visa to prosecute serious crimes, not limited to domestic violence, against abused non-citizens who are not in lawful immigration status as long as they cooperated with law enforcement. Such crimes include rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, prostitution, kidnapping, or murder, among many others. This allowed non-citizen victims of violence not covered VAWA to gain lawful status and thus, filled an essential gap in VAWA. However, a central criticism of the U-Visa is that it is capped at 10,000 per year and easily reached within the first few months of the fiscal year.

As a response to the criticism of the U-Visa cap, in May 2012, the Senate passed a re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, where it raised the cap on U visas to 15,000. But the House of Representatives passed a separate bill, that omitted the cap increase, eliminated the ability of U-visa holders to apply for lawful permanent residency and presented a slew of new problems for victims. Congress never got around to reconciling the two different versions of VAWA, and hence it failed to issue a final bill to the President for reauthorization of VAWA.

In response to mounting public pressure, Congress reauthorized the VAWA last week. The relevant immigration provisions that made it into the final bill include:

  • Adding “stalking” to the list of crimes covered by the U visa.
  • “Widow penalty” extension – Allowing the surviving minor children of a VAWA self-petitioner to retain the ability to qualify for lawful permanent residence in the event that the qualifying relative passes away after the filing of the application.
  • Child Status Protection - When victims of a qualifying crime, who cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of that crime, file for a U visa that includes their children under 21 years old, the children will not age out during the process. The child will be able to receive a visa alongside the parent even if the child turns 21 before final adjudication.
  • Strengthening the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) to provide vital disclosures regarding any violent criminal histories of the U.S. citizen spouse so that the foreign fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens information they need to protect themselves from entering abusive marriages.
  • Public Charge Bar - Clarifying that a VAWA self-petitioner, a U visa petitioner or holder, or an immigrant who was battered and is deemed a “qualified alien” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is not subject to the public charge bar.
  • Clarifying the eligibility of crime and trafficking victims who are T or U Visa holders in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to adjust status after three years continuous presence

Unfortunately, the 2013 version of VAWA reauthorization passed by Congress did not permit a modest increase of U-visa numbers. Additionally, implementation difficulties remain with VAWA. The battered self-petitioner still needs to provide proof that the abuser is or had been either a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and that the abuser’s loss of citizenship status was somehow due to an incident “related” to the domestic violence. The battered immigrant who has been divorced also finds it difficult to prove that the divorce was connected to the violence or cruelty through the marriage. In many instances, a battered spouse may not possess documentation necessary to prove that the marriage was entered into with good faith. VAWA self-petitioners are also hampered by the stringent good moral character requirements. Additional changes to VAWA provisions are also necessary to assist battered immigrants and non-immigrants with obtaining the legal and economic help necessary to combat.

Despite its drawbacks, VAWA remains a vital tool for victims of violence to escape abusive relationships. Since it was enacted, more than 98,000 people have filed petitions under VAWA, and 75% of these petitions have been approved. It is our hope that Congress will act to address any and all shortcomings remaining with the VAWA and the U-Visa as it takes up comprehensive immigration reform.

Tags: , , , ,

Meet a DREAMer- Roxana and Silvana Bedia

6 Nov

We are starting a new series here at Benach Ragland to introduce our readers to some of our clients who have sought and obtained Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) benefits.  We profile these extraordinary young people who make up our community, contribute to its richness and have exemplary talents to offer to demonstrate the many good reasons to support the DREAM Act and common sense immigration reform.

Over the summer, all of us here at Benach Ragland were lucky to meet a couple of outstanding DREAMers, when Roxana and Silvana Bedia visited our offices from West Palm Beach, Florida with their parents.  They were doing the obligatory trip for all American families- trudging through the muggy heat of a Washington summer to visit the monuments and memorials to American history.  They made time to visit us.  For the first time in their twenty years in the United States, Roxana and Silvana had hope that this country would accept them, if not as quite completely as they have accepted their adopted homeland.

Their father was an economist in Peru, when things went off the rails there.  Eager to give his family a chance at a future without the Shining Path, the Tupac Amaru and Alberto Fujimori, the Bedia family made the great leap to el norte.  Silvana was just six years old, and Roxana, three.  They barely have memories of Peru.  Their parents struggled to build a life for them in the United States.  Their mother left a professional career at a bank in Peru.  The only one in the family with English skills, Mrs. Bedia became the breadwinner, working all day as a secretary and late into the night at a grocery store.

The sacrifices made by their parents paid off as Roxana and Silvana thrived in the U.S.  They gained admittance to a magnet school in law enforcement.  Both women intend to pursue careers in law enforcement.  Roxana attended the University of Florida and got a degree in Political Science/ Criminology with a minor in American history.  She wants to go to law school to become a prosecutor.  Silvana went to the University of Central Florida, where she majored in Criminal Justice- Crime Scene Investigation.   Silvana also wants to go back to school—not to become a lawyer, but to deepen her understanding of forensic science.

As Roxana and Silvana have waited for relief from their immigration status, they have put their talents to good use.  They both work at a rural health clinic where they help deliver medical care to a highly vulnerable population.

Roxana and Silvana have a lot to offer this country.  Both women have outstanding potential to contribute to their community and both have sought a life of public service.  With the recent approval of their DACA applications, Roxana and Silvana will be given the tools they need to make their contribution.  We have been honored to have the opportunity to get to know the fabulous Bedia sisters.

Meet Jennifer Cook

26 Oct

 

Jennifer Cook is one of the founding partners of Benach Ragland.  In fact, the firm was nearly Benach, Ragland & Cook, but we decided that law firms these days were going for shorter names, like Duane Morris or Dewey LeBoeuf (Wait, not that one!)  Plus, Jen, unlike the other founding partners, does not have a monstrous ego that requires constant feeding.  But make no mistake, Jen is essential to this firms’ operation and activities.  Jen’s organization, thoroughness and commitment to creative and zealous representation and client service keep us all on track and our clients’ needs at the forefront.  And, as a former environmental lawyer, Jen not only organizes our practice, she also multitasks by being in charge of our extensive recycling program at BR.

Other than a spell (6 year spell!) of California fever, Jen has made Washington her home since she came to Georgetown as an undergraduate.  A devoted Hoya, she attended Georgetown law.  Before dedicating herself full-time to immigration law a few years ago, Jen spent a decade at Duane Morris in the environment and energy practice.  Doing this work, Jen learned the ins and outs of federal agencies.  She dealt with them on administrative matters and sued them to protect her clients’ rights.  Sounds a lot like what we do.  Her experience makes her a savvy and skilled advocate who can find her way around a labyrinthine statute and agency.  Getting warmer to immigration!  However, Jen, a warm and outgoing person, missed the human element in her work.  Representing utilities and trusts is not the same as representing nannies, laborers, and families.  In immigration law, success is measured in dreams achieved: the ability of a family to stay together, an education for a farmworker’s daughter, freedom of expression and to be who you are.  It is manifested in hugs, tears of relief, jerk chicken, Diwali sweets, and spicy enchiladas.  After finding that Thomas Ragland and Andres Benach needed help with some of their work while at Duane Morris, Jen threw herself into immigration law, with characteristic gusto and doggedness.  Pretty soon, Jen was driving to see clients in immigration detention, attending immigration interviews and haggling with judges over bond.

Jen took to immigration like a fish to water.  She presented a demeanor that clients knew that they could trust.  In one of her first cases, she was able to gain the trust of a Ugandan client to tell her that he was gay.  He was in his thirties and had told no one of his sexual orientation.  Jen helped him to gain the strength to make this admission to his conservative family.  His admission saved his life as he was able to seek protection from deportation on account of the horrendous treatment of homosexuals in Uganda.  If it were not for Jen’s perceptive questioning and her warm and approachable demeanor, he may have carried that secret to an early grave.  Jen also did the heavy lifting in our federal court naturalization case, Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor in which a federal judge in a 90 page decision found that the government was wrong to find that our client lacked good moral character.  While Thomas Ragland and Denyse Sabagh were in the spotlight, Jen did the hard work of reviewing the materials, digging through the record, and finding the facts that led the client to victory.

A marathoner, Jen knows about endurance, pacing herself and keeping at a goal that may seem far out of sight.  Jen takes inspiration from the travails of our clients.  Immigrants take risks by leaving their country and embarking on a dangerous journey for the hope of a better life.  Jen left a comfortable practice and took a risk by starting a new venture in the hope of a life with more meaning and deeper human connection.  All of us at Benach Ragland are enriched because she did, as is our clientele.

 

Meet Liana Montecinos

14 Sep

This is the second in our series where we introduce you to the human beings who staff our office and work on cases.  Today, we profile paralegal Liana Montecinos.

Liana Montecinos never stops.  When she packs up at the end of the day at work, Liana is either going to soccer practice, LSAT classes or to a community meeting.  Liana has many goals and little time, so she is always on the go.  Her life revolves around helping people and social justice.  This is what makes her such an important member of the Benach Ragland team.  Liana has a passion for working with her community, the Latino community in Northern Virginia, that comes from her own experience as a young girl recently immigrated from Honduras.

Liana came to the U.S. as an eleven year old girl from Honduras.  After her beloved grandmother died in a car accident, Liana joined her mother in Virginia.  They settled in a rough part of town where many kids gravitated to gangs and teenage pregnancy.  Liana learned quickly that those routes were dead ends and threw herself into school and activities.  She would go to school when it opened at 7 AM and stay well past dark.  She played soccer and volleyball.  She joined clubs and founded her own, establishing a non-profit organization, United For Social Justice, which seeks to steer immigrant youth to positive activities such as academics, arts and sports.  She created a soccer team for at-risk youth.  Liana won a private scholarship to George Mason, where, characteristically, she sped through a four year degree in no time.

Liana once was Andres Benach’s client.  One of the original DREAMers, Liana’s outspoken efforts to combat gangs and hopelessness made her a potential target for retribution in her native Honduras. As Benach Ragland opened its doors, we were treated to the happy news that Liana got her permanent residence.  As usual, Liana is trying to figure out how to make the five years before she can apply for citizenship go faster.

After graduating, Liana took a position with the Capital Area Immigrant Rights Coalition (CAIR) where she worked on programs for unaccompanied minors who fled violence and abuse in their home countries in search of refuge and opportunity in America.  When these kids met Liana, they saw all that was possible here.  Liana’s own story provides them with hope as a role model.

Liana has taken a lead role in Benach Ragland’s work for DREAMers and has become a surrogate mother to our DACA clients as she helps them gather their documents, answers their questions and encourages them through the process.  To Liana, this work is just like everything else in her life: a chance to help her community and to spread hope where too often it is fleeting.

Liana is studying for the LSAT and preparing to go to law school.  We know that she will be a great attorney soon and Benach Ragland is committed to making sure it is with us!

A Month without U Visas

4 Sep

Lost in the DACA week busy-ness and euphoria was the depressing news that the supply of U visas was dwarfed by the demand for this essential visa.  For third straight year, US Citizenship & Immigration Service has announced that it has reached the 10,000 cap on U visas, with more than a month left in the fiscal year.  The U visa is available to a victim of a serious crime who has provided substantial support to the investigation or prosecution of that crime.  Law enforcement agencies have credited the U visa with providing confidence to undocumented victims of crimes to come forward and report crimes.  This has been especially true of women who are the victims of domestic violence.  The U visa and the stability and support it provides have allowed thousands of women to leave abusive relationships.  In May 2012, the Senate passed a re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.   In the re-authorization, the cap on U visas would have been raised to 15,000.  However, the House of Representatives passed a separate bill, omitting the increase in visas, eliminating the opportunity of U visa holders to apply for residence, and weakening the confidentiality provisions of the visa.  These two bills need to be reconciled now and Congress should come down squarely on the side of the victims of domestic violence and not their abusers.

Attached is a report by the Immigration Committee of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence describing the current legislative posture and the issues at stake.

Meet Sandra Arboleda

4 Sep

Benach Ragland is starting a new series to introduce our friends to our staff.  While lawyers claim all the glory and publicity, the reality is everything attorneys do is made possible by an amazing staff of people who care about our clients and work hard to ensure that deadlines are met, documents are filed properly, and communication always remains open.  We start this series with a portrait of Sandra Arboleda, who does so much more than answer the phones.

Sandra Arboleda is a legal assistant.  Most people know her as the friendly voice that answers the phone when you call Benach Ragland or the warm welcome when you walk in our door, but Sandra has many other important duties that aren’t as visible.

Sandra is an immigrant herself.  A native of Cali, Colombia, Sandra studied to be a psychologist at Valle del Cauca University before she came to the U.S. to work as an au pair.  Sandra has always had a deep love for children and has worked in Colombia and Columbia Heights, Washington DC to develop outreach and support programs for disadvantaged youth and children.  In the au pair program, Sandra found an opportunity to work with children and to improve her English.  What Sandra did not expect was that she would fall in love with an American man.  Her new relationship tested her resolve to return to Colombia and continue her work.  Ultimately, love won out, Sandra married Ted, and obtained her residence.  Sandra started working with immigrant children with CARECEN and Centronia, two outstanding public service organizations in Washington DC.

Sandra joined Benach Ragland to have the chance to work with immigrant communities.  Sandra has used her experience as a psychologist to help victims of domestic violence and trauma that have relied upon Benach Ragland to help them achieve stability and justice. Sandra works with attorneys and staff to put together applications and to gather documentation to support cases.   In addition, Sandra sets the nervous at ease with her warm greeting and her outstanding coffee.

As a Colombian, Sandra takes immense pride in her ability to make an excellent cup of coffee.  This is another way that Sandra takes care not only of the clients, but all of us at Benach Ragland who depend on her cheer and her coffee every day.

 

Ending years of bureaucratic limbo

5 Jul

Last week Benach Ragland brought two long-term cases to happy conclusions.  On Thursday, the Immigration Judge removed the conditional nature of our client’s residence.  Our client began the process of seeking the removal of conditions in 1996.  On Friday, another Immigration Judge terminated proceedings that the government commenced in 2005 when our client, a twenty year permanent resident returned home to the U.S. after a two week trip to Nigeria.  Both women spent the weekend relaxing knowing that their status as residents was secure.

Thursday was the final hearing for KMC.  KMC came to the U.S. in the late 1980s from Guinea in West Africa.  She was studying to be a nurse when she met MMC, to whom she had an instant attraction.  Although the couple met in a dance club, MMC’s mother always thought that they met at a business function because, as MMC put it, his mother was a “churchlady” who would not like a “”clubgirl.”  MMC knew right away that he wanted to marry KMC and made sure that she and his mother got off on the right foot.  After marriage,they lived together briefly until KMC elected to continue her studies in Maryland so she could become a registered nurse.  MMC petitioned for KMC’s residence, which was granted in 1994.  They traveled between New  York and Maryland to be together; however, when KMC finished her studies and went to work, MMC grew distant.  In 1996, it was time to remove the conditional nature of KMC’s residence.  The law provides that people who have been married for less than two years at the time residence is granted will be provided conditional residence.  Such conditional residence expires two years after residence is granted, at which time, the couple must file another petition to reaffirm the bona fides of the marriage.  If the couple has separated or divorced, they must show that the marriage was bona fide at the time of inception.  Although MMC and KMC had filed their petition to remove the conditions in 1996, they were not interviewed until 1999.  At that time, KMC and MMC had not seen each other for about two years and MMC gave confusing answers regarding their marriage.  Those answers sowed the seeds of doubt for the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service, which argued with KMC for the next 11 years about whether her marriage to MMC was bona fide.  In 2010, the CIS concluded that it was not and placed her into removal proceedings.  KMC finally had her hearing last week.  MMC flew from his new home in Seattle to attend the hearing.  When asked why he thought the marriage fell apart, MMC said that he could not handle that she made more than him and he felt as a failure as a man.  In our opinion, it takes a pretty big man tio state such a thing on the witness stand.  After hearing the testimony, the government’s attorney and the Judge agreed that it had been a bona fide marriage and the petition filed 16 years ago was granted.  Andres Benach represented KMC in court, but the case was won by the investigation and factual analysis performed by Dree Collopy.

The excitement continued on Friday in the case of MD.  MD came to the U.S. to go to school.  She went to undergraduate and attended law school in the U.S.  Fresh out of law school, MD got a job with an immigration lawyer.  Unfortunately, that lawyer was committing fraud and MD did what was asked for her and helped complete forms in support of such fraudulent applications.  MD was charged criminally and convicted of fraud.  She served two years in jail.  After she finished her sentence i n 1993, the then-INS told her that she was not deportable and returned her green card to her.  For the next 12 years, MD built her life back up, using her story as a cautionary tale and becoming a public speaker and prominent member of her community.  She remained with her husband and raised three children.  I have never seen more complete rehabilitation than I have with MD.  In 2005, as she returned to the U.S., MD was stopped and told that she was inadmissible gto the U.S. for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.  After 12 years in which she managed to put that shameful episode in her past, it came roaring back.  Under the law as it stood at that time, MD was not eligible for any relief from removal.  As she was in removal proceedings in Baltimore Maryland in the Fourth Circuit, she could not seek a waiver of inadmissibility under former 212(c) because she elected to go to trial.  Had she been in proceedings 50 fifty miles north in York, PA,  she could have sought 212(c) relief, which is not limited in the Third Circuit to those who pleaded guilty.  The Immigration Judge concluded that she was  not eligible for any relief and order her removed.  We took the appeal after Steny Hoyer’s office asked us to take the case.  Eventually, we were at the 4th circuit asking it to reverse itself on the question of pleading versus going to trial.  At that point, the government sought to send the case back to the Immigration Court.  We agreed and when the Supreme Court ruled in Vartelas v. Holder that permanent residents who were convicted of crimes prior to the 1996 passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) could not be charged with inadmissibility after a brief casual and innocent trip abroad, the case against MD was effectively over.    After seven years in which the case went from Immigration Court to the Board of Immigration Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals back down to the BIA and immigration court, the government came into court on Friday and moved to terminate the case, once again returning MD’s green card and passport.

MD’s case will always remind me of Michael Maggio.  When we sat in Michael’s office and met with MD for the first time, she broke down in tears describing what she had done.  In the way that only Michael could, Michael told her that he was Italian and that in his family going to jail is like going to college- a rite of passage expected of everyone.  MD formed a strong attachment to Michael and I remember having to call her when Michael died and listening to the wailing on the other end.  Now, four years plus after Michael died, MD got what she was looking for when she asked Michael Maggio for help.  And, as a proper tribute,  the Judge to grant the case was Judge Phil Williams, a great friend of Michael’s.

Her name is Mother of Exiles

14 May

“…Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand/A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles.” (from The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus)

For Mother’s Day this year, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee decided to forgo enhancing the traditionally-bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on reauthorization, and sent flowers and a heartfelt card to anti-immigrant allies instead.  Immigrant women, especially unauthorized women, are more vulnerable to domestic violence and threats of deportation by an abusive spouse; rape, sexual abuse, and harassment in the workplace, and human trafficking.  Since 1994, VAWA has provided crucial confidentiality and other protections to immigrant victims.  Among other revisions to VAWA, the House bill that passed the Judiciary Committee last week (HR 4970) diminished the strong provisions protecting vulnerable immigrant women from their abusers.

This Mother’s Day message can only be read as an attempt to court the tough-on-immigration crowd at any cost: why else would anyone reduce protections to victims of domestic violence, deter victims from cooperating with law enforcement, and hold victims to a higher standard than other applicants for immigration benefits?  Congress’ priorities are so askew in this election year, it is possible that the committee members did not even realize the incredibly poor timing of this decision that affects mothers, grandmothers, and children from all walks of life.  HR 4970 will be on the House floor this week (scheduled for Wednesday May 16, subject to rule), and Congress has the chance to get its priorities in order.  Those representatives who are yet undecided - and those willing to cross party lines to defeat the proposed revisions to VAWA, like Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) – must be reminded that it is not too late to send the right Mother’s Day message, and to the right recipients.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 303 other followers