UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic Wins Again!!!

The UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic had two big wins this week in the Immigration Court in San Francisco. Jim Smith and Amagda Perez, the two sage staff attorneys in the Clinic, supervised an excellent group of UC Davis law students on these cases.

Brazilian asylum case

The Immigration Clinic represented a Brazilian man with his application for asylum before the Immigration Court in San Francisco. The client was persecuted by community and family members because of his sexual orientation. Students Andrea Anapolsky, Melyssa Minamoto, and Katie Ruhl did an outstanding job preparing the pre-hearing brief, getting experts ready to testify at the hearing, and preparing their client for his hearing. A few minutes before the removal hearing began, the Department of Homeland Security attorney asked the students if our client was homosexual. The students responded that he was, and then the DHS attorney told the students and professor Smith that he was interested in justice and would not oppose a favorable grant of asylum by the Immigration Judge. When the Immigration Judge walked in to the courtroom, the DHS attorney reiterated his position to the Immigration Judge. Immigration Judge Lawrence DiCostanzo indicated that he was ready to make a decision on the case based on the pleadings, but if the students wanted the opportunity to present their case, he would allow them to do so. Taking into account the best interest of their client and not wanting to subject him to painful testimony, the students forewent their opportunity to do a full removal hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, both the Immigration Judge and the DHS security congratulated the students on their excellent work preparing the case. Immigration Judge DiCostanzo noted that the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic has the reputation of doing exceptional work and these students once again demonstrated the high caliber of work that comes from UC Davis.

Mexican Cancellation/Withholding Case

The Immigration Clinic representedg a young Mexican man placed in removal proceeding following bad advice he received from his public defender. Our client suffers from schizophrenia. During one of his delusional moments, our client, hungry and confused, attempted to enter a home. He shook the door handle, but did not enter the home. The homeowners called the police and our client was arrested. The public defender, not having taken a careful look at the criminal history record before him, advised our client to plead to attempted first degree burglary, despite the fact that our client did not have the mental capacity to form the intent to burglarize. The public defender incorrectly believed that the Clinic’s client had prior convictions and did not investigate further. Because of the plea and accompanying sentence, our client was subjected to mandatory immigration detention. For one year, our client was locked up. He was transferred to another detention facility far from his family members and denied his medication. Consequently, the client became incapable of testifying at his state court of immigration hearings. DHS refused to transport our client to state court proceedings to withdraw the plea that was based on a mistake of fact by his public defender. After great advocacy efforts, the Immigration Judge accepted the argument that given the circumstances that had lead our client accept a no contest plea and that the plea was scheduled to be set aside based on constitutional violations, the conviction was not final and our client could be released on bond. After one year of being detained, our client was released from immigration custody and will be able to spend the holidays with his family.

KJ