Eighth Circuit Victory for Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) congratulates pro bono co-counsel Anna Petosky and Randall Tietjen of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi for their outstanding work with ILCM on behalf of our client before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 

Yesterday, in Sandoval v. Holder, No. 09-3600, the Eighth Circuit granted our petition for review and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), instructing the BIA to address whether unaccompanied alien children can be subject to permanent inadmissibility for  making a false claim of U.S. citizenship.   As the Eighth Circuit noted, the draconian penalty for false citizenship claims has been described as the “immigration version of the death  penalty.”   The Eighth Circuit also asked the BIA to consider an important alternative issue:  if unaccompanied children can be subject to inadmissibility for false claims of U.S. citizenship, must the BIA apply a more liberal rule for timely recantation of such statements that takes into account their relative immaturity?

At age 16, while traveling alone, Ms. Sandoval  presented her U.S. citizen sister’s birth certificate to airport inspectors.  Ms. Sandoval was an unaccompanied alien child at the time, she quickly admitted her true identity when questioned by inspectors, and she was then allowed to withdraw her application for admission.   Even so, the BIA declared her permanently inadmissible for making  a false claim of U.S. citizenship and twice refused to answer our arguments that (1) Congress could not have intended the harshest immigration penalty designed for adults to apply to vulnerable children given the special treatment it requires of children throughout the rest of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and, (2) at a minimum, a more lenient rule for timely recantation must be applied to unaccompanied children.  Our appeal brief is available here. 

The Eighth Circuit’s remand presents an important opportunity to advocate for the just treatment of unaccompanied children before the BIA.  ILCM now looks forward to working with allies from around the country to win a positive decision.

Eighth Circuit remands important asylum case; Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. joins ILCM in litigation on behalf of Guatemalan victims of gender violence

On March 28, 2011, the Eighth Circuit remanded the important asylum appeal, C-R-P- v. Holder, for further consideration by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).  The BIA will now reconsider whether "Guatemalan women" is a valid "particular social group" whose members are eligible for asylum protection.  Adam Welle of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi has agreed to join ILCM as pro bono co-counsel in the remanded proceedings.  A positive BIA decision could extend the reach of our asylum laws to the benefit of many victims of severe sexual violence.  Prominent immigrant rights organizations including the National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program plan to file amicus briefs in support of our client.

ILCM, Gray Plant Mooty, and Latham & Watkins LLP petition U.S. Supreme Court for review in Ochoa v. Holder

Today, ILCM and Gray Plant Mooty, along with Latham & Watkins, LLP, filed this petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's decision in Ochoa v. Holder, 604 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2010).  ILCM and Gray Plant Mooty previously filed this petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Eighth Circuit. 

The questions presented are (1) whether federal courts are categorically incompetent to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte, even where that decision applies a legal standard, on the ground that such decisions are “committed to agency discretion by law" under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2); and (2) whether the Eighth Circuit erred by disregarding the BIA’s stated grounds for its decision, in conflict with SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), and the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals.

At stake is the authority of the federal courts to review a broad range of discretionary  decisions made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals.  If accepted by the Supreme Court, the case could also impact judicial review of executive agency actions far beyond the immmigration context. 

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., and ILCM file suit on behalf of Guatemalan asylum seeker

On November 9, 2010, ILCM and Kate Bruce of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. filed this complaint in federal district court on behalf of Guatemalan asylum seeker Jose Molina-Jerez.   Our suit seeks to enforce Mr. Molina-Jerez's rights under the settlement agreement to the famous class-action lawsuit, American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991).  The "ABC" settlement extended important protections to thousands of Central American refugees whose asylum applications the government had unlawfully rejected during the 1980s and 1990s.  In 1997 Congress passed legislation giving ABC class members special opportunities to apply for permanent residence.  Mr. Molina's long battle to vindicate his rights under the ABC agreement is detailed in the Eighth Circuit's recent decision, Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. 2010).

Leonard, Street and Deinard authors ILCM amicus brief in support of immigrant victims of attorney fraud

Yesterday pro bono attorneys David Crosby and Arthur Boylan filed this amicus brief in support of a pending petition for rehearing in Pafe v. Holder, 615 F.3d 967(8th Cir. 2010).  ILCM requests that the Eighth Circuit reconsider its opinion, which held that Ms. Pafe, an asylum applicant who was a victim of fraud by two successive immigration attorneys, was not entitled to reopen her asylum case despite the egregious ineffective assistance of both prior lawyers.  The court ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) properly denied Pafe's motion to reopen because she did not act with sufficient dilligence in bringing the fraud of her prior attorneys to the attention of an immigration judge.   Our brief argues in favor of Judge Bright's dissent, which recognizes that attorney fraud should be considered an exceptional circumstance in the analysis of dilligence, since such fraud will prevent most immigrants, like Ms. Pafe, from understanding that their rights have been compromised.