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.

Work Authorization Process to Become More Transparent for Asylum Seekers

EAD - crucial for asylum seekers waiting for interviews
Photo credit NPR, used under Creative Commons license

On Monday, a federal judge ordered the final approval of a nationwide class action settlement agreement which will help ensure that asylum seekers are not unlawfully prevented from working and supporting their families while the government adjudicates their cases.  The changes will go into effect on December 3, 2013.

The agreement comes out of a case filed in December 2011 on behalf of asylum seekers around the country that challenged the government’s use of the “asylum clock” to determine when immigrants who have applied for asylum may obtain permission to lawfully work in the U.S.  The suit alleged that many asylum applicants had been unlawfully denied the opportunity to obtain employment authorization if their asylum applications have been pending for six months or more.

The settlement agreement will make the process for getting work permits more transparent and fair and will leave less room for government error.  The settlement agreement also provides the following benefits: asylum seekers with Immigration Court cases may now present their asylum applications to the Court immediately, without having to wait months for an initial hearing before an Immigration Judge; certain asylum seekers whose cases have been pending on appeal will now be able to obtain work authorization when the Board of Immigration Appeals remands their cases to an Immigration Judge; asylum seekers and their attorneys will be provided with more effective notice so that they do not inadvertently accept hearing dates which preclude work authorization.