🗽CORNELL IMMIGRATION CLINIC PROVES “THE ASYLUMIST’S” POINT:  Lots Of Potential “Winners” Out There Lost In Garland’s Backlogged, Dysfunctional, Unfair EOIR! 

Professor Steve Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law writes:

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo.This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

• ADMISSIONS
• ACADEMICS
• FACULTY & RESEARCH
• CAREERS
• LIFE AT CORNELL LAW
  • Information for:
    Current Students
    Alumni
  • GIVE TODAY

News

1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

 

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo. This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

ADMISSIONS
ACADEMICS
FACULTY & RESEARCH
CAREERS
LIFE AT CORNELL LAW
Information for:
Current Students 
Alumni
GIVE TODAY

News
1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

On March 31, The Cornell Law School’s 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic won a long-fought, difficult case in the Buffalo Immigration Court for a mother and her young children living on a farm in upstate New York, ensuring that the family will be able to live safely in the United States.
The client had arrived in 2019 from Mexico with three children under ten, including a baby. She was fleeing an abusive husband, to whom she had been forcibly married as a teenager, as well as direct threats of gang violence in her home country, whose government offered her no protection.
Immigration authorities detained her for several weeks in the winter of 2019 before releasing her with a notice to appear in court. She went to her first two court dates unrepresented, because few attorneys in upstate New York take this kind of case. Another nonprofit had already declined to represent her when she contacted Cornell Law’s Immigration Clinic.
“Asylum cases are incredibly difficult to win,” says clinic director Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer. “The process is onerous and takes tremendous resources. My students estimate that, across all the law students involved in the case, interpreters we used, law professors who contributed, volunteers who helped care for the client’s children, and administrative staff who assisted with filing and other logistics, this case took us about 1,000 collective hours over 14 months.”
She adds that the clinic was also partially basing its case on a novel argument related to the client’s marriage, which occurred while she was still a child. “The law students came up with this creative solution and found a path forward to make the claim, including by seeking multiple expert witnesses and researching country conditions to contextualize the client’s story.”
The core team of Jared Flanery ’23 and Tori Staley ’23 (who started as 1Ls) and Gaby Pico ’22 and Rachel Skene ’22 (who started as 2Ls) stayed with it for three semesters. They worked closely with the client, completely in Spanish and almost entirely remotely due to the pandemic and the client’s rural location.
The students conducted extensive research, drafted witness declarations, and wrote the briefing, involving three separate legal arguments. They also took on the trial, including direct examination of multiple witnesses, presentation of evidence, and closing arguments.
“Most importantly, the client herself has been her own best advocate,” says Kelley-Widmer. “We’ve laughed with her, we’ve cried with her, and together we celebrated this win for her long-term safety.”

**************************
Folks, these are “first year law students” in the NDPA who, with inspiration and guidance from some of the “best and brightest in American law,” (like Professor Jakki Kelly-Widmer) are running circles around Garland’s “stuck in reverse” DOJ and Mayorkas’s DHS.

I recently featured commentary from Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow about the egregiously horrible effects of EOIR’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that continues unabated under Garland.
https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/05/04/%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%aeaimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-garlands-eoir-screws-%f0%9f%94%a9asylum-seekers-with-long-pending-slam-dunk/

One of Jason’s many salient points was that there are lots of potentially “winnable” cases mired in Garland’s backlog that should be granted if they could only get a merits hearing before a fair judge.

As I have said repeatedly, the things necessary to transform EOIR into a “hotbed of due process” rather than it’s current state of “dysfunctional disaster” are NOT rocket 🚀 science:

• More and better representation;
• Fair, expert judges with practical experience;
• Uniform, nationwide guidance on how to properly grant asylum and other relief in many worthy cases from a BIA of true experts and “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights;
• Dockets that prioritize, expedite, and reward well-prepared, well-documented, grantable cases for asylum and other relief.

Those are the items that should have been “day one” priorities at DOJ and EOIR for Garland and his team. (Just what, if anything, has he accomplished in his time in office in ANY significant area of the law or policy?)

Instead, Garland has responded with:

• Arbitrary and capricious, deterrence-driven “expedited dockets” that lead to more “ADR” and bigger backlogs;
• “User unfriendly,” unilateral actions that have cost him support from the pro bono bar and experts would could have helped straighten out EOIR;
• Maintaining a judiciary and “management” structure largely “designed and staffed” to “deny and deport” by his overtly nativist predecessors;
• Wasting time, resources, and squandering goodwill by defending Title 42 and other indefensible policies left behind by the Trump-Miller regime.

These mistakes are NOT “small potatoes” 🥔 as Garland and some other misguided Dems seem to think. They have cost the Dems “big time” in the one overarching area where they had complete control and could have made necessary progressive changes for the common good without “60 votes” in the Senate. How many immigration bills did the Trump regime pass on their way to obliterating the law and human rights?

They have also cost the Dems a nearly unprecedented chance to show how sound legal and constitutional policies, equal justice, racial equity, and enlightened progressive humanitarianism can work to reaffirm and re-energize the essential contribution of immigration to America’s greatness and to disprove the racist, nativist, false myths about immigrants and people of color that have become a staple of modern day Republicanism.

Enlightened immigration policies could have materially helped solve or prevent some of the economic woes facing American today. They could have “beefed up” everything from the supply chain to essential workers to needed investments in rural America to the housing shortage.

Some of the “reddest” states in American are among those that could benefit most from immigrants — many of whom have faced and overcome in their lives some of the same problems frustrating rural America. But, migrants who are being illegally rejected at the border, unlawfully imprisoned, and/or then orbited to death or oblivion in failed countries can’t help themselves or anyone else. What a waste of human potential and opportunities to show what immigrants can achieve in and for America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-22