A Note on the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic

UC Davis Law Student Maryam Sayyed prepared this summary of some of the recent work of the UC Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, which is headed by Professor Amagda Pérez:

The students at the University of California at Davis Law School’s immigration clinic are completing inspiring work that provides them with a great work experience, learning opportunities involving direct service, exposure to real-world legal issues and a chance to apply abstract theories to the practical situations of clients in need.

One current law student, Su Yon Yi, a member of the UC Davis Law Class of 2010, worked in the immigration clinic over the summer of 2009. Under the supervision of Professor Holly Cooper, Yi succeeded in helping a child in foster care obtain lawful status through a permanent resident card. Through the UC Davis Immigration clinic, the child’s petition for a Special Immigrant Juvenile Visa (SIJ visa) was approved.

Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas are reserved for abused, neglected, and abandoned children who are in foster care or state custody. In 1990, Congress enacted the special immigrant juvenile provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(27)(j), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(j) (2003). As a number of undocumented youth dependents of the juvenile court system lack the means to obtain legal status and are therefore in a uniquely vulnerable position, Congress passed this special provision of the law to address their needs. Because turning these children to their country of origin would be detrimental to their welfare, the dependency court or the state family court can make a determination of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).  The criteria for determining whether a child that is a dependent of the state is eligible for Special Immigration Juvenile Status includes the following criteria: (a) the youth is a dependent of the court; (b) the youth is deemed eligible for long-term foster care; and (c) it is not in the youth’s best interests to be returned to the youth’s home country. 

After the child obtained SIJS in dependency court with the assistance of the child’s state-appointed social worker, Ms. Yi met with her to get all the pertinent information in order to file an application for her permanent resident status. This process involved asking and explaining the meaning of questions from the application, recording all the pertinent information onto the application and preparing the child for her interview with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS). Ms. Yi explained that the application process required much attention to detail and diligence. The interview preparation sessions also required thoroughness on the part of the law students in order to assist the client to meet with CIS officials. The law students then sent the SIJ order from the juvenile court along with the petition and an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence.

The child was recently called for her CIS interview. Rachel Prandini, another member of the law class of 2010, assisted in preparing the client and attended the interview along with Professor Holly Cooper. The request was subsequently approved by CIS on October 19, 2009.

Although this dependent youth’s undocumented status would have severely limited the her options for a successful future in the United States, thanks to the hard work of those at the immigration clinic and the client’s cooperation, the child now has the security of lawful status, access to more opportunities in terms of schooling and career options, and a greater chance of a successful future.

This summer, the students of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic have also successfully petitioned to have a client’s criminal convictions vacated. The client was convicted in Yolo and Placer counties of certain deportable offenses, and he was detained in Arizona as a result. The client, a long-term permanent resident of the United States, was not made aware, despite the state law provision mandating a warning as such, of the ways in which a plea could affect his immigration status. For example, if the offender is a non-citizen, he must be warned before entering his plea that a conviction of certain violations could result in deportation. He must also be advised if a conviction of the offense for which he has been charged may have the consequences of exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization. California Penal Code § 1016.5.

The client approached the clinic through his sister, a student of UC Davis. Parisa Ijadi-Magshoodi, a member of the UC Davis law class of 2010, began investigating for possible forms of criminal post-conviction relief. Ijadi-Magshoodi after reviewing criminal files and transcripts, realized the client had not been given the required warning. She worked to draft motions to vacate the pleas and assisted in preparing a declaration, while Yi located an expert witness and helped to finalize the briefing.

The students sought to petition the court to vacate the convictions through a motion based on the lack of the mandatory warning. If granted, the charges against the offender would still be reprocessed through the criminal court, but the existing convictions would be vacated. When recharged, the offender would have the chance to reenter new pleas after being fully informed of the immigration consequences of the acceptance of his pleas and criminal convictions.

At the time this motion was brought, the client also had an appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding his removal from the United States. Immigrants must exhaust all of their legal options beginning first with an appearance before an immigration judge in immigration court, moving an unsuccessful case next to to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and finally ending in the final stage in the Ninth Circuit. As the Ninth Circuit case is generally the court of last resort, the court’s affirmation of a removal order ordinarily marks the end of the case. The Ninth Circuit then issues a mandate on the ruling, and the ruling becomes final.

The client’s removal proceedings that were pending in the Ninth Circuit were based on the convictions in the two counties. As immigration court ruled for his deportation at the first stage, and then his appeal of that determination was denied by the BIA, the clinic students had to file motions to vacate the ruling before the Ninth Circuit issued the final mandate on the removal ruling.

The students knew that if the state court convictions were vacated, the courts would lack a basis for deportation. On July 30, 2009, Su Yon Yi, a member of the UC Davis law class of 2010, argued motions in the Superior Court of Yolo and Placer counties. She won both motions, and the convictions were cleared. However, the Ninth Circuit had just days earlier entered a decision denying his appeal and upholding his deportation. Before the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate on its decision, the students then filed a motion to reopen with Board of Immigration Appeals and the Ninth Circuit, as the two courts had concurrent jurisdiction on the matter. In the motion, the students argued that because the client’s state court convictions were vacated, there was no longer a legal basis for his deportation. They requested that the BIA and the Ninth Circuit reopen his case, reexamine whether the client should be deported and reverse the Ninth Circuit decision from days earlier. The motion to reopen was granted at the BIA, and this decision vacated the deportation ruling at the 9th Circuit.

So the students’ motions were granted, and they were successful in their efforts. Although the law students knew that this legal journey had not ended for this client as he would likely be recharged for the offenses, they knew that they had done their part to ensure due process of the law and to ensure that the client was fully informed of the consequences of his pleas before entering them.

***

The theory behind the Immigration Law Clinic is set forth in Clinical Legal Education and the U.C. Davis Immigration Law Clinic: Putting Theory Into Practice and Practice Into Theory, 51 SMU Law Review 1423 (1998).  Yesterday, more than 50 Clinic students and alums, in collaboration with Professor Raquel Aldana and McGeorge Law School, held a natruralization workshop for nearly 300 immigrants in Sacramento.

KJ