Client Victories

Students enrolled in the clinic participate in all aspects of case development, including interviewing clients and witnesses, investigating facts, writing pleadings, developing case strategy, conducting legal research, and/or presenting cases. Highlighted below are selected IRC victories on behalf of individual clients.

Matter of Nguyen

Tina Cheng (’10) and Brian Goldman (’10) successfully prevented the deportation of Phong Nguyen, a lawful permanent resident who was placed in removal proceedings due to a one-time drug conviction that involved no jail time. They pursued a two-pronged legal strategy to secure relief for Mr. Nguyen: first, they convinced an Alameda County Superior Court judge to expunge their client’s offense; next, they persuaded an Immigration Judge to terminate their client’s removal proceedings. In both stages of the process, Brian and Tina marshaled evidence, wrote briefs, and argued in two different courts on behalf of their client.

Matter of C

C is a clinic client who suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her U.S. citizen spouse. Ling Lew (’09) and Mindy Jeng (’09) recently obtained relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for C. To prepare C’s VAWA application, Ling and Mindy conducted extensive interviews with their client, interviewed witnesses, marshaled documentary evidence, and wrote a persuasive letter-brief. Thanks to Ling and Mindy, C can now stay in the United States and is on a path to receiving a green card.

Matter of Diouf

For the past several years, the Immigrants' Rights Clinic has represented Amadou Diouf and Raymond Soeoth, two men who have been subjected to prolonged immigration detention while they fight their deportation cases. Along with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and the ACLU of Southern California, the Immigrants' Rights Clinic prevailed in district court, and Mr. Diouf and Mr. Soeoth were released from detention. The government appealed their cases to the Ninth Circuit, where the cases were consolidated with two other prolonged detention cases. IRC and the ACLU wrote detailed amicus briefs in the other two cases. Recently, the Ninth Circuit issued landmark decisions in two of the cases, holding that non-citizens who challenge their deportation and obtain stays of removal from the Ninth Circuit, must be given bond hearings before they can be detained. The IRC is still awaiting a decision in one of the cases (Mr. Soeoth's case was settled out of court). IRC students Mark Baller (’08), Michael Kaufman (’07), and Kimere Kimball (’08) worked on the prolonged detention cases.

Matter of H

IRC client H. is a lawful permanent resident with two old convictions for shoplifting. The Department of Homeland Security put H. into removal (deportation) proceedings upon her return from China where she was visiting her ailing mother. In the fall of 2007, IRC students Alice Yuan ('08) and Kavita Narayan ('08) represented H. in her first immigration proceedings, forcing the government to meet its burden of demonstrating that H. is deportable. In the spring of 2008, Kavita and IRC student Hewan Teshome ('08) filed for a waiver from removal in immigration court. Hewan and Kavita prepared expert affidavits, prepared witnesses for direct and cross-examination, conducted fact and legal research, and wrote a lengthy brief about how H.'s U.S. citizen daughter would suffer hardship if H. was removed to China. H. and her daughter are associated with a Chinese house church, and could face harassment from the Chinese government if they returned to China. Kavita argued the case in immigration court, defending her client against tough cross-examination in a 3 hour contested hearing. Most recently, the clinic represented H. at her last immigration court hearing, where H. finally prevailed. The immigration judge praised the students for their excellent advocacy on behalf of H.

Jane Doe 3

The IRC represented Jane Doe 3, who had previously obtained temporary relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in an adjustment interview. Because of IRC's advocacy, Jane Doe 3 finally received her green card. Former IRC students Hewan Teshome ('08) and Pete Schermerhorn ('08) prepared the client's original VAWA self-petition, which allowed her to pursue the path to receiving a green card.

Matter of Chau

Yulia Garteiser ('05) and Jackie Chou ('06) represented Hoa Kien Chau, a longtime legal permanent resident of the United States. Chau was placed in removal (deportation) proceedings because of an old minor conviction for which he had previously served time. Chau is now an integral part of the San Francisco Vietnamese immigrant community and works in a Tenderloin cafe located in the heart of the community. Garteiser and Chou conducted extensive factual investigation and wrote detailed briefs on Chau's behalf. In April 2005, they successfully argued in immigration court that Chau should be allowed to remain in the country because of his strong connection to his community and the United States.

Matter of Le

Adam Anderson ('06) and Seema Shah ('05) represented Gia Hung Le, a Vietnamese immigrant who has lived in the Bay Area since he was in high school. Le was placed in removal (deportation) proceedings because of an old minor criminal conviction for which he already served time. Anderson and Shah argued that Le should be allowed to remain in the country because his immediate family resides in the United States and he considers this country his home. In April 2005, Immigration Judge Ramirez ruled in Le's favor and allowed him to remain the United States.

Jane Doe 1

Nick Jabbour ('05) and Susan Park ('06) represented an Asian immigrant woman (Jane Doe 1) who is a survivor of domestic violence. In May, 2005, Jabbour and Park filed a detailed application—including numerous affidavits and a lengthy brief—with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Jabbour and Park argued that their client should be allowed to remain in the United States because she suffered physical and mental abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, U.S. citizen. The DHS granted Jane Doe 1's application for relief. Clinic students Gloria Borges ('07) and Alex Han ('06) represented Jane Doe 1 at her administrative "adjustment" interview in the fall of 2005. As a result of the hearing, Jane Doe 1 received her green card and continues to remain in the United States.

Matter of Tellez

In February 2006, Olga Kuskova ('07) and Chris Walker ('06) successfully argued that Rene Tellez, a longtime lawful permanent resident of the United States, should be allowed to remain in the country. Tellez, who has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1958 when he left Mexico, was placed in removal proceedings because of an old criminal conviction for which he served a few months time. Kuskova and Walker argued that he should be granted discretionary relief, and demonstrated that his positive equities—including his relationship to his U.S. citizen wife and children—far outweighed any negative equities. In granting relief, Immigration Judge Marks stated that the briefing was "excellent."

Jane Doe 2

Sonya Sanchez ('06) and Nicole Janisiewicz ('06) represented an undocumented Mexican immigrant woman (Jane Doe 2) who is a survivor of domestic violence. Janisiewicz and Sanchez applied for a "U visa" which is designed to protect victims of crime even if they are undocumented. Congress created the U visa to encourage victims of crime, including survivors of domestic violence, to report crimes regardless of their immigration status. Janisiewicz and Sanchez persuaded the district attorney, who prosecuted Jane Doe 2's husband for domestic violence related crimes, to certify that Jane Doe 2 helped the prosecution. As a result of their efforts, DHS granted Jane Doe 2 relief under the U visa provisions. She has been allowed to remain in the United States with her family.

Matter of Nguyen

Nicole Janisiewicz ('06) and June Shih ('06) represented Hung Nguyen, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has lived in San Jose for the past 17 years. Nguyen was placed in removal (deportation) proceedings for an old criminal conviction for which he had served a few months in jail several years ago. Shih and Janisiewicz successfully argued, in a three-hour contested hearing, that Nguyen should be able to stay in the U.S. in order to care for his ailing mother as well as provide for his young U.S. citizen daughter. In March 2006, Immigration Judge Griswold granted Nguyen relief from removal which allowed him to remain with his family in the United States. Aravinda Seshadri also worked on Nguyen's case during the fall 2005 semester.

Matter of M.

The Immigrants' Rights Clinic obtained in March 2007 immigration status for M., an undocumented woman from Mexico who survived extensive abuse at the hands of her boyfriend. Ray Ybarra ('07) and Katherine Edsall ('07) convinced the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that M. deserved to stay in the United States based on her assistance with the criminal investigation of her attacker. M. can now remain in the United States with her children.

Matter of A.

In another victory, the IRC obtained in January 2008 relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on behalf of A., an undocumented woman from Mexico who survived physical and psychological abuse by her U.S. citizen husband. Hewan Teshome ('08) and Peter Schermerhorn ('08) argued that A. she should be allowed to remain in the United States with her children and family based on the domestic violence that she had endured. Thanks to Pete and Hewan, A. can now remain in the United States with her family and children.

Matter of Eclarino

In January 2008, IRC client Romeo Eclarino was granted the opportunity to remain in the United States, where he has lived since he was a child. The IRC convinced the Santa Clara Superior Court to expunge the client's first-time minor drug offense, and then persuaded an immigration judge to terminate the removal proceedings. Michael Kaufman ('07), Mark Baller ('08), Eunice Cho ('09) and Laura Hurtado ('09) worked extensively with Mr. Eclarino to develop his case, interviewing witnesses, conducting research, and writing legal arguments.