Students in the University of Georgia School of Law Community Health Law Partnership Clinic recently succeeded in assisting 2 clients from Egypt who were seeking to become naturalized U.S. citizens.
Working this year to prepare the clients for interviews and their 2019 naturalization ceremony were 3L Amy E. Buice, above center, and 2L William D. Ortiz, above left. Also working on the case were 3L Sarah A. Mirza and Onur Yildirim (JD’18), who last year helped prepare the clients’ naturalization applications.
The students were supervised by Professor Jason A. Cade, Director of Georgia Law’s Community HeLP Clinic, which assists low-income persons with immigration, benefits, and other health-harming legal needs.
Four students in the University of Georgia School of Law Appellate Litigation Clinic have just secured asylum relief for a Russian client, and in so doing earned hands-on experience in practicing law in today’s interconnected world.
The client, Rim Iakovlev, is a Jehovah’s Witness who had fled to the United States after a ruling by the Russian Supreme Court outlawed his religion. A U.S. immigration judge granted his petition for asylum. But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security appealed. It was at this point that the Board of Immigration Appeals, through its pro bono project, appointed Georgia Law’s Appellate Litigation Clinic to represent asylum-seeker Iakovlev. The Board is an administrative appellate agency within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice.
Drafting the brief in the case, under supervision by Professor Thomas V. Burch, Director of the Appellate Litigation Clinic, were four Georgia Law students: 3Ls Wade H. Barron, C. Daniel Lockaby, and Sarah A. Quattrocchi, and 2L Addison Smith. Their brief stressed consistencies in the accounts given by Iakovlev and his wife, and also refuted the DHS contention that the asylum-seeker was obliged to present a letter from his congregation attesting to his status as a Jehovah’s Witness.
Upon reading the parties’ briefs, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s decision to grant Iakovlev’s petition for asylum. DHS chose not to appeal the Board’s decision, so that Iakovlev was released from detention last week.
Jason A. Cade, Associate Professor of Law here at the University of Georgia School of Law, presented last week at the annual symposium of the Emory International Law Review at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta. This year’s topic symposium topic was “Continued Relevance and Challenges of the 1951 Refugee Convention on Global, Regional, and Local Levels.”
Cade, an immigration law expert who also directs Georgia Law’s Community Health Law Partnership Clinic, spoke on the consequences of enforcement policies at the southern border for asylum-seekers and other migrants. He was part of a Regional Panel that also included experts from Emory and Georgia State University.
The U visa – a visa set aside for nonimmigrant victims of certain crimes who have endured mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement – is the subject of a new essay co-authored by scholars here at the University of Georgia School of Law.
The essay, “Restoring the Statutory Safety-Valve for Immigrant Crime Victims: Premium Processing for Interim U Visa Benefits,” appears at 113 Northwestern University Law Review Online 120 (2019). It was written by Georgia Law Professor Jason A. Cade, whose teaching and scholarship focus on immigration law, and one of his former students, Mary Honeychurch (JD’18), who is now an immigration attorney at Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Atlanta.
Here’s the abstract:
“This Essay focuses on the U visa, a critical government program that has thus far failed to live up to its significant potential. Congress enacted the U visa to aid undocumented victims of serious crime and incentivize them to assist law enforcement without fear of deportation. The reality, however, is that noncitizens eligible for U status still languish in limbo for many years while remaining vulnerable to deportation and workplace exploitation. This is in large part due to the fact that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has never devoted sufficient resources to processing these cases. As a result, the potential benefits of the U visa remain underrealized and communities are left less safe. In an era of sustained focus on enforcement and increased instability within immigrant communities, the situation becomes ever more urgent. This Essay introduces and defends a simple administrative innovation that would dramatically improve the process: a premium processing route for interim approvals and employment authorization. Although our proposal cannot resolve all the underlying problems, it is pragmatic, easily implemented, and superior to the status quo.”
The full essay is available here.
This month, University of Georgia School of Law Professor Jason A. Cade published his latest article on immigration law in the Northwestern University Law Review, and also presented the article at a Fordham University School of Law conference.
The article, entitled “Sanctuaries as Equitable Delegation in an Era of Mass Immigration Enforcement,” appears at 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. 433 (2018).
Cade presented the work at Fordham Law’s 2018 Cooper Walsh Colloquium, a scholarly gathering that explored “Remodeling Sanctuary: Urban Immigration in a New Era.”
Cade teaches Immigration Law and directs the law school’s Community Health Law Partnership Clinic. His scholarship explores intersections between immigration enforcement and criminal law, the role of prosecutorial discretion in the modern immigration system, and judicial review of deportation procedures.
Here’s the abstract of his newly published article:
Opponents of—and sometimes advocates for—sanctuary policies describe them as obstructions to the operation of federal immigration law. This premise is flawed. On the better view, the sanctuary movement comports with, rather than fights against, dominant new themes in federal immigration law. A key theme—emerging both in judicial doctrine and on-the-ground practice—focuses on maintaining legitimacy by fostering adherence to equitable norms in enforcement decision-making processes. Against this backdrop, the sanctuary efforts of cities, churches, and campuses are best seen as measures necessary to inject normative (and sometimes legal) accuracy into real-world immigration enforcement decision-making. Sanctuaries can erect front-line equitable screens, promote procedural fairness, and act as last-resort circuit breakers in the administration of federal deportation law. The dynamics are messy and contested, but these efforts in the long run help ensure the vindication of equity-based legitimacy norms in immigration enforcement.
The full article is available here.
The latest edition of our Dean Rusk International Law Center Research Paper Series is now available at the Legal Scholarship Network of SSRN, the Social Science Research Network.
The series is a joint project of two University of Georgia School of Law units: our Center, plus our law school’s Alexander Campbell King Law Library. Series Editor-in-Chief is Thomas Striepe, the library’s Associate Director for Research Services.
To be found in this edition, Vol. 4 No. 2 of the series:
► Abstracts of two articles by Georgia Law Professor Jason A. Cade, an expert on immigration law:
► The other two abstracts arise out of the March 2017 conference held here at Georgia Law to commemorate the 1st decade of IntLawGrrls, a still-thriving blog that Georgia Law Professor Diane Marie Amann, our Center’s Faculty Co-Director, founded in March 2007:
These and all papers in our Dean Rusk International Law Center Research Series may be found here.
Our Center’s Associate Director for International Professional Education, Dr. Laura Tate Kagel, presented her paper, “Integration Measures and Conceptual Limits: The Example of Germany,” at the recent 25th annual International Conference of Europeanists in Chicago.
Kagel’s timely paper examines the integration of migrants in Germany following the massive influx of refugees to the country. She analyzes the legal and policy measures adopted in Germany to address the issue, provides an overview of the historical evolution of attitudes toward immigration in the German context, and discusses the tensions embodied in the current concept of migrant integration in light of the rise of populist politics.
The conference was sponsored by the Council for European Studies, which supports multidisciplinary research on Europe through a wide range of programs and initiatives.