Siblings With Dueling Deeds

Could your family situation be any worse?  Imagine the Thanksgiving dinners.  Take the situation of these six siblings.  In July 2001, Harold secures a deed signed by his mother Ethel giving him the family home.  He records the deed.  In November 2001, Ethel signs another deed transferring the family home to a trust, with daughter Deborah and herself as the co-trustees.  Ethel reserves a life estate for herself.  That deed and trust are recorded a few months later.  In the many estate plans created by Ethel, sons Harold and Lawrence were always excluded because they were provided for through a prior gift of the family oil business.  The other four children were to inherit the remaining estate.  Ethel's last will is in 2008, and she continues to exclude Harold and Lawrence specifically because of the lifetime gift of the business.  Ethel dies in December 2009, and shortly thereafter, Deborah learns of Harold's claim to the family home.  Her lawsuit is filed in January 2010.

Today, in Allen v. Allen, 13-P-605, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts affirmed the Land Court Judge's determination that the first deed was defective, and title to the property is held in the name of the trust. The case was one of first impression and dissects the recording statute, G.L.c. 183, Section 4.  Key to the findings was the fact that the attorney and notary of the first deed could not remember Ethel being before him to sign the deed, and after evidence indicated that Ethel may not have been in the state at the time it was signed, he agreed that the date and place on the notary acknowledgment might not be accurate.  In a 23 page decision, the court determined that even though a notary acknowledgement is not required for a deed to be valid, it is required to record the deed.  Because of the defect in the certificate of acknowledgement, the recording was in error and the deed did not provide constructive notice to the world of its existence.  Harold was unable to prove that Deborah had actual knowledge of the transfer, and the court refused to impute knowledge.  The subsequent deed was held to be valid.

There are many take-aways for lawyers from this case.  A simple online title search at the time of recording the November deed would have alerted her children to the July deed while Ethel was still alive.  The take away for clients: parents beware - you run the risk of estate disputes when children are treated differently.  Any hoped for harmony is nearly impossible without thoughtful discussion about succession and transparency while you are alive.

Glickman Turley Wins Asylum for Salvadoran Woman

El Sunza, El Salvador. Photo credit @flamencoh on pixabay.
Used under Creative Commons license

Last week, Glickman Turley attorneys Miryam Cissero and Stephanie Marzouk successfully advocated for a client's asylum petition. The client fled severe domestic violence in her home country of El Salvador. After she left the country, her sibling was killed in a violent attack by gang members. The client had great difficulty discussing the trauma she experienced, but over time she was able to tell her story.

If you are afraid to return to your home country because you will be in danger based on your political beliefs, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, please contact us today to see if we are able to help you apply for asylum in the United States.

*Name changed to protect client's identity. Representative case results are provided as an example only, and do not guarantee or imply the same or similar results for other cases, which are evaluated on their individual merits. The content of this website should not be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with legal advisors about your particular legal issue.

Glickman Turley Wins Asylum for Ugandan Man

A bird flies in Kampala, Uganda.
Photo credit @michell zappa on Flickr.
Used under Creative Commons License

Glickman Turley recently won asylum for a man from Uganda who had faced persecution based on his identity as a bisexual man. Throughout his middle and high school years, "Joe"* was teased regularly by classmates who accused him of being gay, and on one occasion he was violently attacked by a group of older students.

As an adult, Joe had to hide his romantic relationships with men, and faced constant social stigma. His relationship with his parents and other family members became strained when he did not get married to a woman, as they expected him to. Because he supported an LGBT activist organization in his hometown, and was friends with many LGBT activists, he was arrested and beaten by the police. 

Uganda's new law from April 2014 is notoriously harsh on LGBT people. In Uganda, Joe could be sent to prison for 14 years to life -- just for having a relationship with a man.

With his new immigration status, Joe plans to continue working in the U.S. and go back to school to get a graduate degree.

If you are afraid to return to your home country because you will be in danger based on your political beliefs, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, please contact us today to see if we are able to help you apply for asylum in the United States.

*Name changed to protect client's identity. Representative case results are provided as an example only, and do not guarantee or imply the same or similar results for other cases, which are evaluated on their individual merits. The content of this website should not be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with legal advisors about your particular legal issue.

Religious conversion, along with changed country conditions, supports motion to reopen

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that motions to reopen an immigration petition can be granted when there is both a change in the applicant's personal circumstances and a change in the country conditions.

Mr. Cipto Chandra initially applied for asylum because he feared persecution on account of his Chinese ancestry if he had to return to his home country of Indonesia. That petition was denied, and Mr. Chandra was ordered to leave the United States. Mr. Chandra did not leave, but instead remained in the U.S. and converted to Christianity. Four years later, he filed a motion to reopen his asylum claim. He provided evidence that conditions for Christians had worsened in Indonesia. Because Mr. Chandra had become a Christian, he would be subjected to the increased persecution if he returned to Indonesia.

I believe... I can stay.
Photo credit Kristina D.C. Hoeppner on Flickr.
Used under Creative Commons license.

Motions to reopen are generally very difficult to obtain, especially if the petitioner misses the deadline of 90 days after the decision. A petitioner must show that there are changed material circumstances in his or her home country, and that evidence of the circumstances was not available during the previous hearings. Arguing only that a petitioner's personal circumstances have changed is not sufficient.

In the Chandra decision, the Ninth Circuit joined other courts (the 6th, 7th, and 11th circuits) in saying that a change in personal circumstances, when combined with changed country conditions, can support a motion to reopen. The First Circuit has suggested this, but has never actually decided it.

Religious belief is only one type of personal circumstance that can lend support to a motion to reopen. In a case called Jiang v. U.S. Att'y Gen., the petitioner showed that she had a second child while living in the U.S., and that harsh enforcement of China's one-child policy was on the rise in her home province and home town. Because Ms. Jiang was able to show both changed personal circumstances (the second child) and changed country conditions (increased mistreatment of people who had more than one child), she was able to succeed on her motion to reopen. Other types of personal circumstances might also qualify.

The court dismissed the idea that Mr. Chandra's conversion could be self-serving. It cited religious freedom as "one of our oldest and most foundational policy interests... The timing of one's religious choice is not determinative of one's rights."

To read the full decision in Mr. Chandra's case, click here.

The Supreme Judicial Court Punts on Religion in Public LIfe

Continuing what appears to be a national judicial trend, today the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed a lower court's decision that the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance in a public school does not violate art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. See Doe vs. Acton Boxborough Regional School District.  In a moderating and concurring opinion Justice Lenk left the door open for future challenges by noting  that the "presence of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance creates a classification that is potentially cognizable under the equal rights amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution ... although not on the record in the present case. Our opinion rightly notes that recitation of the Pledge, in whole or in part, is entirely voluntary. But the logical implication of the phrase "under God" is not diminished simply because children need not say those words aloud. A reference to a supreme being, by its very nature, distinguishes between those who believe such a being exists and those whose beliefs are otherwise. This distinction creates a classification, one that is based on religion. Theists are acknowledged in the text of the pledge, whereas nontheists like the plaintiffs are excluded from that text, and are, therefore, implicitly differentiated. To be sure, as our holding makes clear, the plaintiffs here did not successfully allege that their children receive negative treatment because they opt not to recite the words "under God," or that the inclusion of that phrase in the pledge has occasioned "the creation of second-class citizens." .... Absent such a showing, the plaintiffs' claim must fail."

In a 5-4 decision this week, the US Supreme Court upheld the authority of the a city counsel to open its monthly meetings with a prayer delivered by clergy.  See Town of Greece vs. Galloway.   Justice Kenendy wrote the majority opinion that the practice does not violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the "practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government."  In other words, while US citizens have the freedom to practice any religion, we also have the right to be free from religion in our government activities.

Could you and your spouse pass an immigration interview?

What time is it?
Photo credit @Matt Metz on flickr.
Used under creative commons license

How well do you know your spouse? Buzzfeed has compiled a list of possible questions that an immigration officer might ask at an interview for marriage-based green card applicants.

Please note that this is not an exhaustive list, and it won't tell you whether or not you are actually eligible for a green card. Buzzfeed says: "The following are potential questions that could be asked, culled from newspaper articles, immigration lawyers, and testimonials. So, you know, don’t treat this an official preparation of any kind because there are a lot of different factors that go into that interview." 

Although it's not official, it's still fun. To take the quiz, click here.

And if you have any questions about family-based immigration, please contact us to see if we can help!

TPS Extended for Haitians

Port Salut Beach, Haiti.
Photo credit @MichelleWalz on flickr.
Used under Creative Commons license

Haitian nationals who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) now have until July 22, 2014, to "re-register" for status for an additional 18 months.

If you are a Haitian TPS beneficiary who wants to re-register, you should apply as soon as possible. The necessary forms are Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. The Form I-821 application fee is not required; however, anyone 14 years of age and older must pay a biometric services fee or submit a fee waiver request. For work authorization, the Form I-765 fee (or a fee-waiver request) is required. If you do not want work authorization, you must still submit a completed Form I-765 but do not need to submit the I-765 fee.

For more information, please see the USCIS website here.