1 / 103

Thank you to our co-sponsors.

Thank you to our co-sponsors. Thank you to our Planning Committee. Ashley Gagnon Steininger Benny Agosto Blenda Ruiz Bob Snyder Briana Stone Bridgette Smith-Lawson C.J. Broussard-White Charles Foster Dan-Phi Nguyen Elaine Stolte Fernando Colon-Navarro Francie Aguirre

keiji
Download Presentation

Thank you to our co-sponsors.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  2. Thank you to our co-sponsors. Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  3. Thank you to our Planning Committee • Ashley Gagnon Steininger • Benny Agosto • Blenda Ruiz • Bob Snyder • Briana Stone • Bridgette Smith-Lawson • C.J. Broussard-White • Charles Foster • Dan-Phi Nguyen • Elaine Stolte • Fernando Colon-Navarro • Francie Aguirre • Jacob Monty • John Lasseigne • John Odam • Judge Frank Rynd • Judge Michael Schneider • Kippy Caraway • Kristen Lee • Maurice Hew • Neil Kelly • Pam Parker • R.J. Hazeltine-Shedd • Steven Dieu • Sue Davis • Terence O'Rourke • Tiffany Reedy • Tina Amberboy • Trish McAllister • Vidal Martinez • WafaAbdin • William Frazier Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  4. Welcome Sheriff Adrian Garcia Senator Sylvia Garcia Rep. Ana Hernandez Rep. Mary Ann Perez Rep. Alma Allen Hon. Eva Guzman Hon. Michael Massengale Hon. Esmeralda Pena Garcia Hon. David Fraga Hon. Armando Rodriguez Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  5. Vince RyanHarris County Attorney Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  6. Honorable Eva GuzmanAssociate JusticeSupreme Court of Texas Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  7. Honorable Nathan HechtChief JusticeSupreme Court of Texas Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  8. Trey ApffelTexas State Bar President Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  9. Benny AgostoVice PresidentHouston Bar Association;Hispanic Issues Section Chair, State Bar of Texas Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  10. Dr. Adriana TamezTrustee Houston Community College Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  11. Raul PeimbertUnivision TV Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  12. Charles C. FosterFosterQuan, LLP Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  13. Moderator: Francie AguirreCommissioner John Specia, Jr.C.J. Broussard-WhiteSheriff Adrian Garcia Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  14. Naomi BangSouth Texas College of Law Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  15. William Wilberforce TVPRA Trafficking Victim’s Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Section 235 - Effective March 23, 2009 Naomi Jiyoung Bang, STCL Asylum/HT Clinic

  16. TVPRA and UACs • Federal law preventing human trafficking • Section 235 (2008) – designed to protect children and return them • Substantive changes to immigration legal relief for UACs. • More child-sensitive procedures and protections for UACs in custody and detention. • (*Flores Agreement of 1997, DHS Security Act of 2002)

  17. Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) • NO lawful immigration status in US • UNDER 18 years of age • NO parent or legal guardian in the US or • NO parent or legal guardian in the US available to provide care

  18. Contiguous/Non-Contiguous? • Non-Contiguous countries (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala) (20% to 75+%) • Section 235 (b) • Contiguous countries: (Mexico and Canada) Section 235 (a) Within 48 hours, determine 1. victim of a severe form of trafficking 2. possible claim to asylum 3. independent decision to voluntarily return

  19. The Players • CBP - Customs and Border Protection apprehends, processes, and detains UACs at border. • ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement transports to HHS-ORR custody. • HHS - Department of Health and Human Services/Office of Refugee Resettlement - care/custody UACs screening, best interests • USCIS – US Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicates UAC asylum applications. • EOIR-DOJ - Executive Office of Immigration Review does removal proceedings. Immigration courts.

  20. TVPRA and remedies • UAC ASYLUM – refugee/fear/persecution • T visa – visa for victims of severe trafficking • SIJS – special immigrant juveniles – abused, neglected or abandoned, reunification not viable with family

  21. Tvpra and legal benefits • Exempt from various filing deadlines and barriers (e.g. one-year filing deadline, safe third country limitation) • Allowed to proceed with Asylum Office (USCIS), and not the judge, EVEN if already in removal • Expanded various definitions under Special Immigrant Juvenile Status to allow more relief • Pardoned from disqualifying factors at green card level (waivers for ewi, fraud)

  22. Tvpra and procedural changes • Transfer to the care/custody of DHHS/ORR, 235(b) from DOJ/DHS • Voluntary departure at govt. expense, 235(a)(5)(D) • “… the Secretary of Health and Human Services is obliged to provide these children access to counsel, including pro bono counsel, to provide free legal services to these children. TVPRA § 235(a)(5)(E)(iii

  23. Ethics alert: Sympathetic Cases with Child Victims! • Asylum • Victims of persecution • Gang/family violence • SIJ (abused, abandoned, neglected) • T visa (trafficking victims)

  24. Client Benefits/Motives… • Legal immigration status • Employment authorization • Legal Reprieve – from pending deportation. • Benefits for derivatives • Parents, siblings

  25. Ethical Red Flags Client Backgrounds/Framework: Client’s misinformation Cultural differences re honesty Language barriers – no English Lawyer’s emotions will be tested: Young or NEW practitioners Consequences are high -- life or death

  26. ABA Rule 3.3 Candor towards Tribunal* • (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: • (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement.. • … • (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. • *USCIS government agency

  27. Honesty • ABA Rule 8.04(a)(3) – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. • Good intentions are not a defense.

  28. Safeguards • Use good translators/assistants • Objective view of case/client • Corroborated documents • Police reports, hospital records • Review and review sworn affidavits • Work closely with Mentor/Clinic • WE WILL HELP YOU!

  29. Come one, come all! • August 29, 2014 8:30 to 12:30 (TBD) • Nuts and Bolts CLE • @ South Texas College of Law • 4 hours CLE credit • Email: nbang@stcl.edu

  30. Professor Geoff Hoffman, UH Law CenterProfessor Fernando Colon, Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of LawAnne B. Chandler, Houston Director, Tahirih Justice Center Join the Conversation on Twitter #KidsWhoCrossed

  31. ASYLUMCLAIMS FORUACs(unaccompaniedAlien Children) ByGeoffrey Hoffman,DirectorUniversity of Houston Law Center ImmigrationClinic ,ClinicalAssociate July31, 2014 Professor UniversityofHoustonLawCenterImmigration Clinic

  32. U.S.Definition of “refugee” ToqualifyforasylumhereintheU.S.mustmeetdefinition of“refugee”:undertheINA (ImmigrationandNationality Act)asfollows: • “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationalityor,inthecaseofapersonhavingnonationality,is outside anycountryinwhichsuchpersonlasthabitually resided,andwhoisunableorunwillingtoreturnto,andis unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protectionof,thatcountrybecauseofpersecution orawell- foundedfearof persecutiononaccountof race,religion, nationality,membership inaparticularsocialgroup,or politicalopinion.. ..” 8 U.S.C.1101(42)(a). Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  33. EthicalIssues when dealing with UACs • Abilitytoparticipatein interview/hearing: dependsonage,health, development,cognitiveprocesses,education,languageability, background Traumadramaticallyaffectsdevelopmentofchild’s brain Trauma=chaotic social conditions,violence, lackofprotection and caring byadults,nutritional deficits,physicalandmentaldisabilities Capacity to consent Parentscan sign forms if child under14,8 CFR103.2(a)(2) Parentscan begivennotice, 8CFR 236.3(f) Conflicts: are child’sand parents’ interestsaligned? Children cannotpresenttestimonywith samelevelofprecision as adults • • • • • • • Source:AILAColoradoRepresentingUAC’sJuly2014powerpoint- AILAdoc.No.14072245. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  34. ChildSensitive Interviewing Techniques Shorter Meetings to hold attentionspan Show empathy,speakw/ facts Start withneutral topic, nonjudgmental Ask open-ended questions Avoid complex questions Use active reflectivelistening Continuallycheck-in • • • • • • • Source:AILAColoradoRepresentingUAC’s July2014powerpoint-AILA doc.No.14072245. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  35. WHAT IS“PERSECUTION”? First step is todetermine whetherpersecution exists.What is it?When doesitoccur? “Theinflictionof harm or suffering by a governmentor personsa governmentisunwilling or unable to control.”MatterofKasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996) A subjectivepunitiveor malignantintent is not required butthedefinition does not encompass: –Treatmentthatoursocietymay considerunfair,unjust orevenunlawfulorunconstitutional –Harms solelyrelatingto orarisingout of civilstrife • • • Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  36. The“nexus” requirement Remembertheapplicantmust show“nexus”(a sufficientconnection)betweenpastpersecution or futurepersecutionandatleastone of thefivegrounds: • • • • • 1. 2. 3. 4. Race Religion Nationality(this includesethnicity,like “Quiche”) Membershipin a particularsocial group (“PSG”) (for children’scasethisground will be most important). 5. Political Opinion • Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  37. UACPSG Claims • Withrespectto UAC cases, note there may be multiple PSGs intowhich aparticularchild may fit, 2 frequent formulations: GANG-BASED particularsocialgroup • • DOMESTICVIOLENCE particular social group These are bynomeanseasyto prove. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  38. Important GangCases MatterofS-E-G-,24I&NDec.579(BIA2008)(rejectedPSGbased • onSalvadoranyouths who resisted gangrecruitmentor their family) MatterofE-A-G-,24I&NDec.591(BIA2009)(rejectedPSGyoung • personswhoresistgangmembershiporperceivedtobeaffiliated with gangs; ruledthatthe groupwould lacksocial visibility) ,26I.&N.Dec.208(2014)(replaced“social • MatterofW–G–R– visibility”req’t with“sociallydistinct”; BIA rejectedsocialgroupof “formermembersoftheMara18 ganginElSalvadorwhohave renouncedtheirgangmembership”asnot“sociallydistinct”dueto alackofevidenceintroducedattheproceedings;remandordered) MatterofM–E–V–G– • ,26I. &N.Dec.227(2014)(theBIAdeclined tomakearulingonwhetherHonduranyouthswhowereactively recruitedbygangsbutwhorefusedtojoinconstitutedaparticular socialgroupbecausefurtherfact-findingwasrequired;remand). Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  39. So What Might ConstituteViable PSG ClaimsforUAC–Gangcases? The startingpointfor any PSG claim isMatter of Acosta19 I&NDec. 211 (BIA 1995)(The • Board required thatPSG to becognizable must relate to “immutable” characteristics). or “fundamental” Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  40. Acosta The touchstonecaseforPSG isMatterofAcosta 19 I&N Dec.211 (BIA 1995) • • The BoardrequiredthatPSG to becognizablemustrelate to “immutable” or “fundamental” characteristics:“acommon, immutable characteristic… thatthe members… eithercannot change,orshouldnot berequiredtochangebecauseit is fundamental to their individualidentitiesor consciences.” • In Acosta, thePSG offeredby respondentwas rejected--“El Salvadoran taxi driverswho refused tocollaborate with guerillas”was found not tobe“immutable” nor sufficiently fundamentalto warrant relief. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  41. Gang-basedasylum claims Tomeet the“socialdistinction”and“particularity” requirementsnowrequiredunderthelatestcaselaw, considerotherPSGswhichmeettheimmutable characteristicrequiredbyAcostabutarealsodistinct, • e.g.: – Thosewhohavebeenwitnesstocrimeor reportedit tolocal authorities--prosecutorialwitnessrelatingtogangviolence Thosewhobecauseoftheiryoungagewouldbetargetedby gangs(ageas“immutablecharacteristic”)(“Streetchildren”) Thosewhohavesomeother specialcharacteristicwhichmakes themespeciallyvulnerable,suchas“sexualidentity” Thosewhosereligion,ethnicity,culturalorlinguisticidentity makethempartofa particularsocialgroup(e.g.Quiche) – – – UniversityofHoustonLawCenterImmigration Clinic

  42. Theevolutionof PSG law ApplicationsofMatterofAcosta MatterofToboso-Alfonso,20 I&NDec.819(BIA1990) • – (homosexual Cubans) • Matterof Kasinga,21I&NDec. 357(BIA 1996) – (“youngwomenwhoaremembers of theTchamba-KunsuntuTribeof northernTogo whohavenotbeensubjectedtofemale genitalmutilation,as practicedbythat tribe,andwhooppose thepractice”) • Tchoukhrovav.Gonzales,404F.3d1181(9th Cir. 2005)(vacatedon other grounds,549U.S.801(2006). – The Board andNinthCircuitbothacknowledgedthat“disabledchildrenin Russia”constitutea PSG astheyhavebothcommonimmutablecharacteristics andsharedexperiences. • TheAsylumOfficerBasic TrainingCourse, AsylumEligibilityPartIII:Nexus andthe Five ProtectedCharacteristics53(Mar.21,2009)statesthatthisunderstandingof PSGfor disabledchildren is inline with agencyinterpretation. UniversityofHoustonLawCenterImmigration Clinic

  43. The evolution ofPSGlaw U.N.definitionofparticularsocialgroup: “aparticularsocialgroupisagroupofpersonswhosharea commoncharacteristicotherthan theirriskofbeing persecuted,orwhoareperceivedasagroupbysociety.The characteristicwilloftenbeonewhichisinnate,unchangeable, orwhichisotherwisefundamentaltoidentity,conscienceor the exerciseofone’shumanrights.” UNHCR,GuidelinesonInternationalProtection:“MembershipofaparticularsocialgroupwithinthecontextofArticle 1A(2)ofthe1951Conventionand/orits1967ProtocolrelatingtotheStatusofRefugees,U.N.Doc.HCR/GIP/02/02 ¶¶11-12(May7,2002) Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  44. The evolution ofPSGlaw “Socialvisibility” and“particularity”become requirementsforallPSGs MatterofS-E-G-,24I&NDec. 579 (2008) (“Salvadoranyouthwhohavebeensubjectedtorecruitment effortsbytheMS-13gangandwhohaverejectedorresisted membershipinthegangbasedontheirownpersonal,moral,and religiousoppositiontothegang’svalues andactivities” and“the familymembersofsuchSalvadoranyouth”) MatterofE-A-G-,24 I&NDec.591 (2008) (Formergang members) Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  45. Challenges toS-E-G-/E-A-G- Adevelopingcircuitsplit: SixcircuitcourtshaveupheldS-E-G-againstdirectchallenges: – – – – – Ramos-Lopezv. Holder,563F.3d855,858-62(9thCir. 2009) Mendez-Barrerav.Holder,602F.3d21,26 (1stCir. 2010) Lizamav.Holder,629F.3d440,447(4thCir. 2011) Fuentes-Hernandezv. Holder,411F.App'x438,438-39(2d Cir. 2011) Gaitanv. Holder,671F.3d678(8thCir. 2012)(findingthat youngmales from ElSalvador whofleetoavoid gangviolence failto qualify asa PSG) Orellana-Monsonv.Holder,685F.3d511(5th Cir.2012)(upholding socialvisibilityand particularityrequirementsand findingthat males aged8 to 15in Salvadorwhohave beenrecruited byMara 18but refused to join duetooppositionfailto qualify asaPSG) – Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  46. Challengesto S-E-G-/E-A-G-Cont. • ThreecircuitcourtshaverejectedS-E-G-and/orE-A-G- – Gatimi v. Holder, 578F.3d611(7th Cir.2009); Ramosv. Holder,589F.3d 426(7thCir.2009) • Urbina-Mejiav. Holder,597F.3d360(6thCir. 2010)(relying primarilyonAcosta’sdefinitionofPSGand findingthat a former gangmemberispart of aPSG) Valdiviezo-Galdamezv. Holder, 663F.3d582,603-09 (3d – Cir. 2011) – Note: TheNinthCircuitina recenten banc publisheddecisionin Henriquez-Rivasv. Holderheldthatwithoutreachingthevalidityof “socialvisibility”and“particularity”thatbothweremetforanEl Salvadoriangirlwhotestifiedagainst gangmembersforkillingherfather. »Redefiningsocialvisibilityto onlybe“understoodbyothers”to bea socialgroupandnoton-sightvisibility. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  47. Even within S-E-G-,Age isan “Immutable Characteristic” TheBoardinMatterofS-E-G-hasreasonedthatageis outsideanasylumapplicant’scontrolmakingit an “immutablecharacteristic”forpurposesoftheAcosta test. Adequatemechanismswithinasylumlawcandealwith “agingout”suchasafindingofa“fundamentalchangeof circumstances”asfoundbytheEighthCircuitin Ixtlilco- Moralesv.Keisler,507 F3d651, 654-55(8thCir.2007). Lastly,ayoungpersonshouldnotbeprecludedfromaPSG forsimplypassingtheageof18 sincebeingyoungand vulnerableoftenidentifiesapersonforbeing persecuted. SeegenerallyMichelleFoster,Intl. RefugeeLaw&Socio- EconomicRights:RefugefromDeprivation(2007). • • • Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  48. Beyond S-E-G- “StreetChildren” • – TheBoardhasfound,inan2001unpublished decision,that“abandonedstreetchildrenin Nicaragua”amountedtoaPSG. Inthat case, MatterofB-F-O-, killedbyguerillas wascontinuously theboyhadseenhisparents andleftonthestreetswhere he vulnerableto violence&abuse. •TheBoardalsofound itwas onaccountof an imputed politicalopinion and in cases ofsevereharm humanitarianasylumshouldbe considered as well. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  49. FormulatingPSG’sforGang-Based AsylumClaimsofChildren Ageisan immutablecharacteristic,butcanalso • becombined with otherfactorstomake the PSG more socially visible/distinctsuch as: – – – – – – – Disabilities Being“abandonedstreetchildren” Theirgeographicallocation Values/politicalbeliefs Beingprosecutorialwitnesses Forcedrecruitment Andothers Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

  50. Beyond S-E-G- Alternative socialgroup formulations: • Family – CrespinValladaresv.Holder,632F.3d 117 (4thCir.2011)(statingthatprosecutorial witnessesas well as theirfamily members whosufferpersecutiononaccountoffamilytiesconstitutesa PSG) – Gebremichaelv.INS, 10F.3d28, 36(1stCir.1993)(“Therecan, in fact,be no plainerexampleofa social croupbasedoncommonidentifiableand immutable characteristicsthanthatofthenuclear family.”) – Sanchez-Trujillo v.INS,801F.2d1571, 1576(9thCir. 1986) (“Perhapsa prototypicalexampleofa particularsocial group would consistoftheimmediate members ofa certain family,thefamilybeing afocusoffundamentalaffiliationconcerns andcommoninterestsformostpeople.”) – SinceS-E-G-,someIJshave granted asylum to applicantsfleeing gang recruitment/retributionbased on membership in the particularsocial group oftheirownnuclearfamily.Linksto these decisionsare availableattheImmigrantLaw CenterofMinnesota’sgang-asylum webpage. Universityof HoustonLaw Center ImmigrationClinic

More Related