Tandap v. Barr
825 Fed.Appx. 391 (7th Cir., 2020)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

On September 8, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision on a Petition for Review for a Cameroonian citizen, represented by Christine P. Varghese of Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, whose claim to seek asylum, withholding of removal, and and protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture was denied by the lower court.

Ms. Varghese was hired after Mr. Tandap was ordered removed by the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals. Ms. Varghese filed a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals in order to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on the Cameroonian government’s growing mistreatment of the Anglophone minority group to which he belonged. Attorney Varghese successfully persuaded the Court that the Board of Immigration Appeals made serious reversible errors in its decision – namely that the Board improperly used the incorrect standard of proof and improperly ignored the expert report as well the client’s arguments for CAT protection.

Among other reasons for reversing the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Court said in conclusion:

"the Board erred by ignoring Tandap's claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. In his motion to reopen, Tandap highlighted this claim as the “first and foremost” form of relief upon which he sought reopening. A motion to reopen under the Convention “is distinct from an asylum claim and deserves independent substantive consideration.” * * * The failure to provide any rational explanation for denying this claim is an abuse of discretion."

Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices continues to demonstrate, through the efforts of Ms. Varghese, that no matter how complex your case might appear to be, if any lawyers are going to win your case, it will be Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices.

Jimenez-Aguilar v. Barr

977 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2020)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
*Precedential Case

On July 31, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a new hearing be held for a Honduran citizen, represented by Carla I. Espinoza of Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, whose motion to for a new hearing was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, through Attorney Carla I. Espinoza, represented Mr. Jimenez after the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his motion for a new hearing. Ms. Espinoza filed a Petition for Review with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that his prior counsel rendered “ineffective assistance of counsel” when he discouraged Mr. Jimenez to seek asylum, despite the fact that his mother previously had been granted asylum. Ms. Espinoza argued that not only was Mr. Jimenez’ prior attorney ineffective, but also that the Immigration Court failed to notify Mr. Jimenez that asylum or withholding were potential benefits under the regulations when he expressed that he would be harmed if returned to Honduras. He asserted that he feared gang violence because his mother received death threats from gangs as a result of her position on a community council.

Ms. Espinoza persuaded the Seventh Circuit that where someone like Mr. Jimenez articulates a recognizable basis for asylum, (1) Immigration Judges have a mandatory duty to advise non-citizens of the availability of asylum and withholding of removal; and (2) where the Immigration Judge fails to do so, the non-citizen is entitled to a new hearing.

The Court said as follows:

"If Jimenez-Aguilar had expressed only a fear of generalized violence in Honduras, as the Board believed, the IJ would not have needed to notify him about the possibility of asylum. But Jimenez-Aguilar told the IJ that he feared persecution at the hands of gangs in Honduras because of his relationship to his mother, who had received asylum based on these threats. The IJ accordingly should have given the regulatory advice, which could have led to further evidence on topics such as whether the government is complicit in private violence."

Ms. Espinoza’s work creates an important legal precedent which has impacted how immigration courts as well as circuit courts throughout the country will adjudicate cases of non-citizens seeking asylum and withholding protection by clarifying the correct legal standards to be applied.

* The case is, first, a published decision (many decisions of the court are not important enough to be published), and, second, its statement of the law is so important that future parties rely upon it in their arguments in their cases before the courts.

Andreica v. McAleenan,Acting Secretary, Dept. of Homeland Security17 CV 9254Order Compelling Discovery of Notes, PhotographsAugust 12, 2019

The Plaintiff and his wife retained Carla I. Espinoza of Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, to file suit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for its delays and eventual denial of an Adjustment of Status application, based upon marriage, filed in 2011.

The Plaintiffs were subjected to two interviews, two investigatory visits to their home, two appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then two denials of their petition. USCIS denied the claim in both instances because it believed that Plaintiff’s wife was still residing with her ex-husband. While the case was pending before the Board, Carla I. Espinoza provided overwhelming evidence that the marriage was in good faith including not only joint utility bills, bank statements, and property ownership records, but also several affidavits from friends and family attesting to the good faith marriage. Despite this, the Board remained steadfast in supporting the improvident decision of USCIS.

The federal lawsuit asserted, first, that USCIS was withholding information from the record when the case was before the Board. Second, and most troubling, USCIS created a memo after the lawsuit upon which it sought to rely to summarize evidence and continue to deny the petition. Federal District Court Judge Joan B. Gottschall found both problems troubling, requiring USCIS to turn over its records by court order, dated August 12, 2019.

In her decision she said:

"To sum up, plaintiffs have made the required strong showing that the record is incomplete and that additional information is needed to facilitate meaningful judicial review. The additional information needed includes an explanation of the date appearing on the FDNS memo, A.R. 54–55. To complete the record, defendants must also add any investigative materials, such as notes, photos, an insurance claim, and the purchase agreement, considered by the Director or the BIA. If no such additional materials exist, defendants must supplement the administrative record with an appropriate affidavit so stating and indicating whether any such documents previously existed and, if so, why they cannot be added to the record."

Regarding the memo created during the litigation, Judge Gottschall said

"The court’s review of the record raises serious concerns about the good faith of the underlying investigation and proceedings. The timing of the FDNS memo’s introduction into the record (so plaintiffs never could present an argument to the Director about it) makes it appear to have been manufactured for litigation purposes (supplementation will clarify this issue)."

If your case was improperly denied, or the Government is taking an inordinate amount of time to decide your case, you may have a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Give Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices a call to discuss your case.

Rivas-Pena v. Sessions
900 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2018)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals/h4>

Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, through Attorney Carla I. Espinoza, represented Mr. Rivas before the Immigration Court as well as at the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Review. Mr. Rivas sought protection under CAT to avoid being killed by one of the Mexican drug cartels if he were removed to Mexico. The Immigration Court said that Mr. Rivas’ claim was merely “speculative” and summarily dismissed his case. The Petition for Review prepared by Ms. Espinoza argued that an Immigration Judge’s mere assertion of “speculation” does not meet the standard under CAT and that the regulation requires any decision must to be supported by “substantial evidence.” The Court found that the evidence, supported by expert testimony from a university professor who studies Mexican drug gangs, was that Mr. Rivas’ loss of nearly $900,000 in contraband would have resulted in his death by the gang if he were returned to Mexico and, thus, reversed the decision of the Immigration Court.

Ms. Espinoza’s work creates important legal precedent which impacts how immigration courts as well as circuit courts throughout the country will adjudicate cases for non-citizens seeking CAT protection by clarifying the correct legal standards to be applied.

Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch

808 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 2015)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Precedential Case*

On December 17, 2015 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (“7th Circuit”) rendered a precedential decision aimed to protect the rights of non-citizens seeking protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and, in this case, a Mexican national.

Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices, through Attorney Carla I. Espinoza, represented Mr. Rodriguez-Molinero before the Immigration Courts as well as at the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Review. Mr. Rodriguez-Molinero was seeking protection under CAT to avoid certain death if he were removed to Mexico. While in removal proceedings the Immigration Court found that Mr. Rodriguez-Molinero suffered past torture by the Zetas, the most powerful Mexican cartel, that Mr. Rodriguez-Molinero owed this cartel a substantial drug debt, and that he had given information about this cartel to American law enforcement authorities, yet the Immigration Court still denied him CAT protection. The Petition for Review prepared by Ms. Espinoza argued that the denial of CAT protection was predicated on a misapplication of the law surrounding the principle of official acquiescence to the torture and misapplication of the legal standard to evaluating the evidence.

More specifically, Ms. Espinoza persuaded the 7th Circuit that: (1) the “more likely than not” burden of proof should not be interpreted literally to require a numerical probability of torture, but rather should be interpreted as a “substantial risk” that the torture will occur if the non-citizen is removed; (2) the law surrounding official acquiescence or consent requires only that a single public official, and not the entire Mexican government, consent in torture; and (3) any unsuccessful efforts by the Mexican government to combat the cartels should not be construed to impact the unlikelihood of torture.

“it is success rather that effort that bears on the likelihood of the petitioner’s being killed or torture if removed to Mexico.”

*The case is, first, a published decision (many decisions of the court are not important enough to be published), and, second, its statement of the law is so important that future parties rely upon it in their arguments in their cases before the courts.