Evidence and opening statements in Immigration Court

A colleague asked me about the rules of court, regarding evidence in immigration proceedings. I thought I would share the answer here:

I have a CAT only IH coming up. I want to introduce a news article that I feel is relevant. Can I refer to the article in my opening statement?

Sure you can! You need to submit the article, and any other evidence you want to use, 15 days in advance -- unless for good cause you can’t do that. At the beginning of the hearing, the judge will review the evidence, and admit/deny as appropriate (almost always admit in CAT – it becomes a question of weight, not admissibility). In a state or federal court, the opening statement is limited to facts. However, if you had a pre-trial exchange of exhibits, you could certainly cite to a “fact” in your exhibits, too. You would do that (and in immigration court, too!) by saying something like this: “Not only will my client testify that giant green elephants are the cause of his fear, the evidence will show that as of 31 February 2016 (date of the article), the citizens of Ubuland are afraid of the government, and believe that they will all be killed by the green elephants with the governments agreement or even assistance.”. In state or federal court, you need to lay a foundation and provide authentication for evidence, before it can be admitted. Usually, you can file a motion in limine regarding certain documents, such as newspaper articles, in order to have the Court recognize the authenticity and foundation of new print prior to trial. That is not required in immigration court.

In an immigration context, you can even bring in hearsay in the opening, closing, and throughout the trial.

Do you have an immigration question? Give us a call! 1-800-579-9864 or admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150 Fairfax, VA 22031	Sean R. Hanover, Esq. Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864 admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Types of Asylum and how to claim them

A fellow practitioner asked me a question today, and I think it merits explaining in the blog:

Do you know what the process is for seeking relief at a USCIS asylum hearing for relief under the Convention Against Torture? We have a hearing on December 29 at Arlington.

This is a great opportunity to discuss the different "tiers" of asylum relief. The following is taken from the IJ Bench Guide referencing asylum (Benchbook)

1. The first is straight-up asylum. That requires only a showing of a “well founded fear” of future persecution – not a very stringent showing. The fear is based on being part of a protected group, having suffered some kind of persecution or loss (or a well founded fear of future prosecution), and now the fear. An asylum applicant may demonstrate that he is a “refugee” in either of two ways. First, he may demonstrate that he has suffered past persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA § 101(a)(42)(A). Second, he may demonstrate a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground through credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and that his fear is objectively reasonable. In mixed motive asylum cases, the REAL ID Act of 2005, requires an applicant to prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for the claimed persecution. Section 103(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 , Div. B of Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302,303; In J-B-N & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).

2. “Withholding” is the next rung. That requires a showing of a “clear probability” that the applicant will suffer severe harm if returned home. Where asylum (rung 1) can be somewhat objective, withholding and CAT are both objective and are based on the actions of the home country. As with asylum, a threshold determination must be made as to the credibility of the applicant for withholding of removal. INA § 241(b)(3)(C); see also INA §§ 1208(b)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii). A claim for withholding of removal is factually related to an asylum claim, but the applicant bears a heavier burden of proof to merit relief. For withholding, the applicant must demonstrate that, if returned to his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of the protected grounds. INA § 241(b)(3). To make this showing, the applicant must establish a “clear probability” of persecution, meaning that it is “more likely than not” that he will be subject to persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to the country from which he seeks withholding of removal. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421. The applicant’s credible testimony alone may be sufficient to sustain this burden of proof. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). If an alien demonstrates that s/he suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal, the burden shifts to the Department to demonstrate that a fundamental change in circumstances has occurred in that country or that the applicant could safely relocate to another area in the proposed country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). There is no discretionary element. Therefore, if the applicant establishes eligibility, withholding of removal must be granted. INA § 241(b)(3). Additionally, there is no statutory time limit for bringing a withholding of removal claim.

3. The final rung is “CAT”. Here, the applicant must show that the government will kill them, or members of society that the government cannot control, will kill them, if they return. There must be a showing of protected group, usually some form of proof as to past prosecution, and the clear likelihood that death or severe harm will follow. The applicant for CAT relief bears the burden of proof. 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(c)(2). As with asylum adjudications, the applicant’s testimony, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration. Id., see also Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1139. However, if the applicant’s testimony is the primary basis for the CAT claim and it is found not to be credible, that adverse credibility finding may provide a sufficient basis for denial of CAT relief. In assessing whether the applicant has satisfied the burden of proof, the Court must consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, including evidence that the applicant has suffered torture in the past; evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he is not likely to be tortured; evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal; and other relevant information on country conditions. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)

In answer to your direct question – because your fella qualifies for asylum, and that claim is the easiest of the three to prove, and further, because the protected classes in CAT (rung 3) are the same as in asylum (rung 1), an application for asylum necessarily covers the CAT claim. The major difference is this – asylum is discretionary. However, if your fella can prove he will be killed or severely harmed (tortured) if he returns, USCIS cannot return him. Note, though, that a grant of CAT is only a deferral of deportation. It grants no rights, and you cannot adjust out of it. Asylum is a much better option.

Do you have an asylum question? Call us! We can help! 703-402-2723 or 1-800-579-9864.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150 Fairfax, VA 22031	Sean R. Hanover, Esq. Stephen Salwierak, Esq.	Lili O'connell, Esq. Charles Hatley, Esq.
1-800-579-9864	admin@hanoverlawpc.com

What happens at a credible fear hearing before an immigration judge?

Credible fear hearings refer to the process of an immigration officer or judge reviewing the statements of an individual who is seeking asylum in the United States. Generally, these hearings are first conducted at the port of entry by a custom and border protection (CBP) agent, or an immigration and custom enforcement officer (ICE). Based on the determination of the CBP/ICE officer, an initial credible fear determination is made. If a credible fear of return to the asylum seekers who country is established with the officers, generally the individual is permitted to enter the United States and remain at large until their hearing is conducted before a judge on the merits of the asylum application.

However, if the CBP/ICE officer determines that there is no credible fear of returning to the asylum seekers who country, the asylum seeker is detained. At this point he/she may request a judge to review the CBP/ICS determination. This review process is called a "credible fear hearing" and is conducting before an immigration judge. A couple of pointers to remember:

• A credible fear hearing must be requested, it is not automatic.
• Your client will be detained for the entire pendency of the credible fear hearing process, and likely thereafter.
• Only ICE has jurisdiction to release your client during or after a credible fear hearing, not the immigration court or judge.

The law on the matter is contained in 8 CFR:

Credible fear standard: A Credible fear of persecution means that there is a significant possibility that the alien can establish eligibility for asylum under INA § 208 or withholding of removal (restriction on removal) under INA § 241(b)(3). The credibility of the alien statements in support of the claim, and other facts known to the reviewing official, are taken into account. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(e)(2), 1003.42(d).

Credible fear of torture: means there is a significant possibility that the alien is eligible for withholding of removal (restriction on removal) or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16 or 208.17. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(e)(3), 1003.42(d).

[taken from the "EOIR Immigration Judges Handbook"]

How does a credible fear hearing work?

First, you don’t submit evidence at a credible fear hearing – in fact, the judge may not even speak to you as the attorney on the case. You are an observer of the process only – this is a conversation between the judge and your client. On a practical note, usually the judge will speak to you and ask you what is going on. It’s faster and easier that way. But don’t be alarmed if the judge completely ignores you. Take good notes!

Representation: Prior to the credible fear review, the alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing. In the discretion of the Immigration Judge, persons consulted may be present during the credible fear review. However, the alien is not represented at the credible fear review. Accordingly, persons acting on the alien's behalf are not entitled to make opening statements, call and question witnesses, conduct cross examinations, object to evidence, or make closing arguments.

[taken from the "EOIR Immigration Judges Handbook"; See generally INA 235(b)(1)(B), 8 CFR 1003.42]

You need to prepare your client thoroughly. The client will be able to speak to the judge and will be able to testify. The discussion will be about the credible fear interview itself. The judge will ask things like: why are there inconsistent answers, etc. He/She will be using all the CBP/ICE forms, so be sure that you have a copy of the credible fear interview and each step of what your client did and said. Your client should have been given a copy of that. If there are translation issues (as there often are; most translation for the initial credible fear at the port of entry is done over the phone), be sure to brief your client on bringing that up to the judge.

Conduct of hearing: A credible fear review is not as exhaustive or in-depth as an asylum hearing in removal proceedings. Rather, a credible fear review is simply a review of the DHS asylum officer's decision. Either the alien or DHS may introduce oral or written statements, and the court provides an interpreter if necessary. Evidence may be introduced at the discretion of the Immigration Judge. The hearing is recorded. Parties should be mindful that all requests for continuances are subject to the statutory time limits.

[taken from the "EOIR Immigration Judges Handbook"]

If the judge finds credible fear, that he/she will set a next status date (called a master calendar hearing) at which point you will turn in the I-589 and supporting initial docs. Thereafter, it proceeds according to a regular defensive asylum process.

Technically, the judge cannot release your client, as she is deemed an arriving alien, not subject to parole from the court. There are two general rules here… in some jurisdictions, such as York, and sometimes Arlington, the judge will give bond anyway, and DHS rarely objects. That is technically a violation of the code. If the judge does not (and do not be alarmed if that happens…he/she should NOT do so), you can file to have ICE give a bond. In many jurisdictions, ICE will release your client once a credible fear determination I positive. Bond usually runs about $5K. Be sure to submit a bond package, showing where your client will live and with whom, when asking ICE for a bond. It is entirely up to the DO (deportation officer) in charge of your client.

No jurisdiction by regulation: By regulation, an Immigration Judge does not have jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings involving:

• aliens in exclusion proceedings
• arriving aliens in removal proceedings
• aliens ineligible for release on security or related grounds
• aliens ineligible for release on certain criminal grounds

An asylum seeker who requests asylum at a port of entry is an arriving alien.

See: 8 CFR 1003.19(h)(2)(i)

Is there an appeal if the credible fear is denied by the judge?

No right to appeal, however, generally, you can bring a request for DHS to give one final review before deporting your client. See 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A).

Do you have a question regarding immigration law or detention hearings? Give us a call! We can help --- 1-800-579-9864 or admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com		Lili O'connell, Esq.
888 16th St., NW Ste 800 Washington, DC 20006	2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150 Fairfax, VA 22031	Sean R. Hanover, Esq. Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864	admin@hanoverlawpc.com	Charles Hatley, Esq.

A Curious Trial: U Visas, Rape, M-A-M hearing, and CAT relief

I was recently faced with a very difficult trial. A client of mine was suffering from torture and rape in prison, and the trial to have him released had been 10 months in the making. Additionally, I was barred from seeking Federal relief because the agency that held him was neither the state, nor even a prison -- rather it was a Federal Agency: ICE. Getting reports from that agency on anything is like pulling teeth.

After a grueling 5 hour trial, I managed to secure CAT relief for my client. In a different discussion forum, I mentioned different avenues for presenting the prison rape problem. Investigations were still underway when we went to trial on the 10th of December, 2012.

I decided to write up a motion with attendant supporting documentation showing the abuse, the investigation, and various responses from state and federal agencies. Instead of serving it in open court, I discussed it with the DHS attorney before court. To say the DHS attorney was surprised would be an understatement! She scurried off upstairs, as DHS did not know what was going on with the client and ICE had put nothing into the file. Nice.

When the judge came in, I explained the situation to him. He then took the motion packet and a stack of law books and reviewed it all in his office.

The tactic I decided on was not presentation on the record, per se – rather a soft demonstration prior to commencing operations. Gave everyone time to review and help come up with a solution. Very collaborative. I got one hell of a payback for that at the beginning of the trial, but at least at this point, my “sandbagging” the court and DHS was received with only a modest amount of grumbling. I will tell you, though, that I came prepared. The motion was properly formatted, and even hole-punched at the top! (I forget that all the time on emergency motions). I digress.

The awesome aspect of this was the ability to discuss with the judge and DHS counsel the prison conditions and rape (including medical problems, and document theft/protection money payments being required from my client) prior to any hearing on my CAT claim.

The judge proceeded with the trial, but it was obvious that he wanted to find some relief for my client just to get the guy out of prison (he had been detained by ICE for 10 months).

DHS had it’s own unexpected whammy. After the trial started, we immediately went into a M-A-M hearing – which I was entirely unprepared for. I was not even clear if I should be arguing my client was competent to stand trial (he had a couple of “not-guilty” findings due to insanity defense) or if I should try to ditch the case on grounds he could never comprehend the criminal nature of his conduct. That was a tad awkward. As a foot note – for those of you who have not done M-A-M hearings, these are generally fairly straight forward question/answer sessions based on medical reports and other corroborating evidence that speaks to your clients mental capacity. As a rule of thumb, a client represented by an attorney, and who can answer questions about the nature of the NTA, allegations, and why he/she is present at the trial, will be found competent to move forward. If the client is not found competent, the court has leave to suspend the hearing until competency can be established, appoint a guardian, or even remove the case and terminate proceedings. In the instant case, it was strange because I did not know how to argue it – especially given the prison rape, the psych background, and the need to get my client out ASAP. I hate not being prepared. For those who take the class on 18 Dec – you will have that hammered into you quite well.

Regardless, the judge found the client competent to stand trial and we had very interesting trial for many hours on homosexuals and transgenders in Venezuela.

It was a great hearing – but the take away is the tactic for handling prison situations prior to an IC wholly unrelated to the matter.

Call us today to discuss your case. WE CAN HELP. However, the longer you wait, the riskier it becomes when you are finally brought before an immigration judge.

S

Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact Us