Tag: Tomo Takaki ESQ

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

A criminal conviction vacated due to a substantive or procedural defect does not qualify as a “conviction” establishing a noncitizen’s removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). By the statute’s plain language, vacatur under section 1473.7(a)(1) conclusively establishes that the underlying conviction rested on a substantive or procedural defect: It allows people no longer in criminal custody to seek vacatur of convictions that were “legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.”

Even though a California court vacated the conviction of petitioner Jose Adalberto Arias Jovel under section 1473.7(a)(1), the BIA declined to sua sponte

2 Further statutory references are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

-2-

RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 12 of 34

reopen Mr. Arias’ removal proceedings because it held that, as a noncitizen,

Mr. Arias had the burden to show that his conviction under section 1473.7(a)(1) was vacated on the merits, and Mr. Arias failed to meet that burden. If affirmed, the BIA’s holding creates several problems.

First, the holding requires IJs to second-guess a state court’s determination under section 1473.7(a)(1), despite the statute allowing vacatur only for prejudicial defects. The plain language of section 1473.7(a)(1) requires “prejudicial error” that renders the conviction “legally invalid,” and IJs should accept that the state court must have vacated the conviction due to a substantive or procedural error of law. Precedent requires IJs to apply the INA to a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur without second-guessing the state court’s ruling.

Second, even if a section 1473.7(a)(1) vacatur doesn’t conclusively establish a substantive or procedural defect, the burden is not on noncitizens like Mr. Arias to demonstrate their convictions were vacated on the merits. IJs are bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, which holds that the government bears the burden of proving whether a vacated conviction can still form the basis for removal. To shift the burden of proof to noncitizens (who do not have a constitutional right to counsel, may be detained, and often have limited English proficiency) is contrary to the law and will inevitably increase the likelihood of due process violations.

-3-

RESTRICTED Case: 21-631, 07/05/2022, DktEntry: 35.1, Page 13 of 34

Third, the government’s interpretation of section 1473.7(a)(1) will exacerbate the growing backlog of immigration cases and the enormous pressure that IJs face to eliminate the backlog. Given the severe time and resource constraints applied to the immigration court, deviating from the established law governing vacated convictions will greatly hinder the fair and efficient administration of immigration proceedings.

Here’s the full amicus brief:

2022-07-05 (Dkt. 35.1) IJ’s Amici Curiae Brief

Many thanks to NDPA Superstar 🌟 Judge Ilyce Shugall for taking the lead on this!

*************************

Here’s a nice “thank you” from respondent’s counsel Tomo Takaki at Covington & Burling, LA Office:

Dear former IJs and BIA members and GMSR Counsel,

Apologies for the delayed email, but thank you all again for your excellent and powerful brief.  It was truly invaluable to get the perspective of former IJs and BIA members on this important issue, especially regarding the unworkability of the BIA’s decision here.  It was particularly helpful to get GMSR’s appellate expertise on board here with such well-written advocacy.  Our client, and many like him, I’m sure deeply appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

 

Best,

Tomo Takaki

Covington & Burling LLP

And, of course many, many thanks to our all-star 🌟 pro bono counsel Stefan C. Love and Tina Kuang of  GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP in Los Angeles. Couldn’t do it without you guys and your excellence in appellate advocacy!

Garland’s DOJ inexplicably defends a bad BIA decision, unworkable and slanted against immigrants! Why don’t we deserve better from the Biden Administration? 

Why are scarce pro bono resources being tied up on wasteful litigation when Garland could appoint a “better BIA” dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices? Why not get these cases right at the Immigration Court level? Why not free up pro bono resources to represent more respondents at Immigration Court hearings? What’s the excuse for Garland’s poor leadership and lack of vision on immigration, human rights, and racial justice?

Sure, there have been a few modest improvements at EOIR. But, it’s going to take much, much more than “tinkering around the edges” to reform a broken system that routinely treats individuals seeking justice unfairly, turns out bad law that creates larger problems for our legal system, and builds wasteful and uncontrolled backlogs. 

Accountability and bold progressive reforms don’t seem to be politically “in” these days.  But, they should be! Responsibility for the ongoing mess at EOIR and the corrosive effects on our justice system rests squarely on Garland and the Biden Administration.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-09-22