Home About RSS

Report Finds Immigrants Represented by Attorneys Three Times More Likely to Win Deportation Cases

In 2013, Francisco Martinez was the primary breadwinner for his longtime resident wife and four U.S. citizen children in Oakland when he was locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While he was gone, his wife worked a night shift, then came home and immediately began caring for their children. Often she went without sleep for days. Yet she didn’t make much money, and she was terrified that she and her children would be evicted. After three months in custody, Francisco was ready to give up, but an attorney from Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland helped him get out of detention last January and allowed him to support his family while his immigration case is resolved.

A report released today (Nov. 6) by Stanford Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and the Northern California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice (NCCIJ) shows the dramatic impact that legal representation has on detained immigrants like Francisco: Those with lawyers are three times more likely to win their deportation cases than those without attorneys, yet two-thirds of detained immigrants have no legal representation at any point in their removal proceedings. The report also details the dire consequences that detention can have upon immigrants and their families.

Stanford Law School students (from left) Al Montelongo (JD'15), Kara McBride (JD'15) and Natalia Renta (JD'15) develop a plan regarding the Immigrants' Rights Clinic's report on Access to Justice for Detained Immigrants in Northern California.

Stanford Law School students (from left) Al Montelongo (JD’15), Kara McBride (JD’15) and Natalia Renta (JD’15) develop a plan regarding the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic’s report on Access to Justice for Detained Immigrants in Northern California.

The report, “Access to Justice for Immigrant Families and Communities,” summarizes the findings of two new studies of Northern California immigrants whom the federal government locked up for approximately one year during 2013 and 2014 while their deportation cases were pending in San Francisco Immigration Court. The federal government generally takes the position that immigrants facing deportation – even those who are detained – are not entitled to attorneys unless they can pay for them or find someone to represent them for free.

Strong family ties

The report found that many of those detained had families in Northern California. More than 50 percent of immigrants represented by the nonprofits that were surveyed—who represented Northern California’s detained immigrants over a one-year period—had lived in the United States for 10 years or more, and 77 percent had family members living at home in the United States.

“The report reveals that immigrants who are locked up are much more likely to be able to stay with their families and communities if they have an attorney to help them fight deportation,” said Professor Jayashri Srikantiah, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School. “But, unfortunately, detained immigrants are the least likely to actually have attorneys.”

“Our organization, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, provides free legal services to detained immigrants, but we cannot serve the overwhelming majority of individuals who contact us for help because we simply lack the resources to do so,” explained Ilyce Shugall, directing attorney of the Immigration program at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, California.

Students enrolled in the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School have represented dozens of immigrants in immigration court on a pro bono basis in response to the shortage of attorneys. Three of those students, Natalia Renta (JD ’15), Alfredo Montelongo (JD ’15), and Kara McBride (JD ’15), developed and conducted the survey of all of the nonprofits (10) that represented Northern California’s detained immigrants for low cost or no cost, which forms the basis for one of the studies in the report. The other study evaluated all removal cases (8,992) in which a San Francisco immigration judge made a final decision between March 1, 2013, and February 28, 2014.

Jail-like conditions

The report explains that immigration detention is similar to being in jail. Immigrants who are locked up are often kept in facilities with barbed wire and cells, alongside others serving time for criminal convictions. They wear prison uniforms and face restrictions on their visitation, movement, meals, education, phone access and recreation. They may be subject to solitary confinement.

Attorneys can help immigrants obtain bond, so that they can be released more quickly from detention. Eleni Wolfe-Roubatis, immigration program director at Centro Legal de la Raza, explained, “Immigration cases are often legally and factually complex. Having an attorney can make the difference between staying in Northern California with family and permanent banishment from this country.”

The report suggests that a first step toward addressing the attorney gap for detained immigrants in removal proceedings is a pilot program funded by public and private sources.

“Northern California should join New York City, which has recently established a universal representation model for detained immigrants facing deportation,” said Robin Goldfaden, senior attorney for the Immigrant Justice Program at Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “Given that deportation can mean life or death, attorney representation should be a requirement.”

The report was written by Srikantiah and Lisa Weissman-Ward, clinical supervising attorney with the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, along with students McBride, Renta and Montelongo. It is available online here.

ELC Students Continue Work With Pit River Tribe to Protect Medicine Lake

ELC team (clockwise, from left): Debbie Sivas, Matt Sanders, Amanda Prasuhn, Elizabeth Hook, Philip Womble, Liz Jones (above), Raza Rasheed, Abbie Barnes, Heather Kryczka, Rose Stanley, Alicia Thesing, Caroline Parke

ELC team (clockwise, from left): Debbie Sivas, Matt Sanders, Amanda Prasuhn, Elizabeth Hook, Philip Womble (above), Liz Jones, Raza Rasheed, Abigail Barnes, Heather Kryczka, Rose Stanley, Alicia Thesing, Caroline Parke.

Environmental Law Clinic students recently took a three-day trip to the Medicine Lake Highlands, an unspoiled area located in the Modoc National Forest in northeastern California that the clinic is trying to protect from geothermal fracturing or “fracking.”

Besides being sacred to the Pit River and other Native American Tribes for over 10,000 years, the Highlands are filled with ancient lava flows, intact forests and watersheds, and threatened and sensitive plants and animals.

Full-time clinic students Rose Stanley  (JD ’16), Philip Womble (JD ‘16), Heather Kryczka (JD ‘16), Caroline Parke (JD ‘16), Liz Jones (JD ‘16), Raza Rasheed (JD ‘15), and Abigail Barnes (JD ‘15), along with advanced clinic students Amanda Prasuhn (JD ‘15) and Elizabeth Hook (JD ‘15), toured the area, together with clinic director Debbie Sivas and clinical supervising attorneys Matthew Sanders and Alicia Thesing. The clinic members attended a Pit River Tribal Council meeting, conferred with members of the clinic’s non-profit clients to learn about the twenty-year history of the case, and discussed opportunities for protecting this unique area from industrial development.

Medicine Lake Highlands in Modoc National Forest is home to lava beds, rim volcanoes, pine forests and protected wildlife species. It is a sacred place to the Pit River and other local tribes

Medicine Lake Highlands in Modoc National Forest, home to lava beds, rim volcanoes, pine forests and protected wildlife species, is a sacred place to the Pit River and other local tribes.

The clinic continues to pursue its case against the extension of geothermal leases in the Medicine Lake Highlands on behalf of the Pit River Tribe and non-profit clients. The case has been briefed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the clinic looks forward to oral argument.   ◊


Striking Accomplishment for SLS Alumna

Annie Bersagel

Bersagel on her morning run to the office. (David B. Torch/The New York Times)

Former Stanford Law School and Environmental Law Clinic student, Annie Bersagel (JD ’12) was featured in an article published in the October 30, 2014 edition of The New York Times. The article highlights her outstanding accomplishment as a runner as well as–and in addition to–her success as an International Law and Policy attorney with KLP in Oslo, Norway.

Annie does not train as a full-time athlete; however she consistently performs as one. This past Sunday, November 2, Annie competed in the New York City Marathon finishing in the Top 10, with a time of 2:33.02. See The New York Times and Forbes Magazine for more.


Students Attend Sessions of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights

Between Monday and Thursday of last week, students enrolled in the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic traveled to Washington D.C., to observe the 153rd Period of Sessions of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights.

IHR clinic students share a rare opportunity to observe IAC Session hearings in October

IHR clinic students share a rare opportunity to observe IAC Session hearings in October

Five clinic students Karsten Busby (JD ’16), Farbod Faraji (JD ’15), Sarracina Littlebird (JD ’16), Ruhan Nagra (JD ’16) and Naomi Tom (JD ’16) attended, along with Professor James Cavallaro, the clinic’s director and clinical supervising attorney Stephan Sonnenberg. Professor Cavallaro also serves as a Commissioner and country rapporteur for Barbados, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as thematic Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty.  While in Washington D.C., students also met in private settings for frank discussions with numerous civil society actors familiar with the workings of the Inter American system, including petitioners’ counsel who brought cases before the Commission during this session; government representatives; Commission staff and other Commissioners, past and present.   ◊

Professor Bill Koski Speaking at Luncheon Promoting the Work of Educate Our State

William Koski, director of the Youth and Education Law Project (YELP) will be speaking at the annual Educate Our State! Luncheon in San Francisco on Tuesday, October 28, 2014. The event and more information about the program is available here.

Since 2001, Professor Koski and YELP students have represented hundreds of California youth and their families in anti-discEducate Our Staterimination, student discipline, and disability rights matters. Over the years, YELP has trained new generations of attorneys and advocates committed to juvenile defense in the highly specialized area of special education advocacy, and recently collaborated with Educate Our State! on comprehensive school discipline reform before the California legislature.

Clinic students have had the opportunity to litigate several complex school reform cases under the supervision of Professor Koski and YELP’s supervising attorney, Carly Munson. Currently, YELP is co-counsel for some 60 children in the landmark Robles-Wong v. California, a lawsuit pending before the California Court of Appeal, that aims to reform the public school finance system in the state; Emma C. v. Eastin – a civil rights case now entering its 18th year before U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson – that has restructured the special education service delivery system in an East Palo Alto school district; and Smith v. Berkeley Unified School District, an anti-discrimination case that successfully reformed school discipline policies in Berkeley.

Professor Koski also presented expert testimony during the Williams v. California proceedings – a class-action lawsuit against the State of California, alleging that the state had denied its children many of the “basic educational necessities,” including access to textbooks, safe and clean facilities, and qualified teachers.  ◊

Religious Liberty Clinic Goes to Washington

Kate Falkenstien (JD ‘15) and Religious Liberty Clinic Director James Sonne at the Supreme Court following argument on October 7, 2014

Kate Falkenstien (JD ‘15) and Religious Liberty Clinic Director James Sonne at the Supreme Court following argument on October 7, 2014

On October 7th, Kate Falkenstien ‘15 and Religious Liberty Clinic Director James Sonne attended the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated oral argument in Holt v. Hobbs, (13-6827). The case concerns a Muslim prisoner’s right under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to grow a beard in accordance with his religious convictions.

During the 2014 spring quarter, Kate and Gabe Schlabach ‘14 wrote an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, Gregory Houston Holt, and on behalf of Women’s Prison Association – the nation’s oldest advocacy group for women. The brief stresses that any test for religious accommodation adopted in Mr. Holt’s case should also account for female inmates’ religious practices; for example the right to preserve long hair for Sikh women and religious head coverings for orthodox Jewish and Muslim women.

Arguing before the Supreme Court for the petitioner was Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia; Professor Laycock was the keynote speaker at the Religious Liberty Clinic’s launch event in 2013.

A decision in Holt v. Hobbs is expected in early 2015.   ◊


Supreme Court Denies Review of Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Enabling Clients of the Clinic to Marry


As of this week, 35 states, plus the District of Columbia, will have legalized same-sex marriage.

On October 6, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a set of orders declining to review seven petitions filed in five states and across three federal circuits, refusing without comment to review lower court rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriages. With nearly immediate effect, bans on same-sex marriage were lifted across Virginia (Fourth Circuit); Indiana and Wisconsin (Seventh Circuit), Oklahoma and Utah (Tenth Circuit).

The Supreme Court Litigation Clinic represented Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, the plaintiffs/respondents in the Oklahoma case, entitled Smith v. Bishop.  Despite their longstanding, committed relationship, the couple had been denied the right to legally marry due to an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution passed in 2004 by Oklahoma voters and the legislature. On August 27th, the clinic filed respondents’ brief, urging the Court to grant review and to agree with the Tenth Circuit ruling invalidating this ban on same-sex marriage.

Even though the Court did not grant review, it did allow the Tenth Circuit’s decision to stand.  This order thus represents a major victory for proponents of civil rights.   Within hours of the Court’s announcement, our clients were married in a civil union in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

See coverage in SCOTUSBlog here and here, and The New York Times.   ◊

IRC Students Help to Develop Pro Se Manual for Immigrant Detainees

Graphic for IRC Blog (October 2014)

Immigrants Rights Clinic students Nikki Marquez (‘15), Keny Zurita (‘15) and Lauren Tsuji (‘14) collaborated with Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California to develop a pro se “Reinstatement of Removal” manual in English and in Spanish to help pro se immigrants in Northern California detention centers navigate the complex and nuanced reinstatement of removal process.

Reinstatement of removal is an expedited and administrative removal process that many immigrants are subject to, involving complicated statutory and regulatory procedures and limits to the availability of relief from removal. Students visited the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, CA on multiple occasions, interviewed detained immigrants, conducted research and subsequently developed and wrote the manual.

The manual is the first of its kind developed for detainees housed in Northern California. PDFs of both the English and Spanish versions can be found here.    ◊

SCOTUS Clinic Students Travel to High Court for Arguments in Fourth Amendment Case

Students from the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic traveled with Professor Jeffrey Fisher to Washington D.C. this week for oral arguments in the clinic’s case Heien v. North Carolina.  At issue in the case was whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires.Supreme_Court

The clinic represented the petitioner in the case, Nicholas Brady Heien, who was pulled over in North Carolina back in 2009 for having a rear brake light out. During the stop, the officers found cocaine in the car, so the State charged Heien with cocaine trafficking.  Heien responded that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment — and thus that the evidence the officers found had to be suppressed — because North Carolina law requires vehicles to have only one working brake light.  The North Carolina Supreme Court did not disagree with Heien’s reading of state law, but it held that the officer nonetheless had the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that the Fourth Amendment requires to conduct a traffic stop because the officer’s mistake of law was reasonable.

“Governmental officers should be presumed to know the law, at least as well as the citizens,” argued Professor Fisher before the Court. “When questions about individualized suspicion arise under the Fourth Amendment, they should be addressed against the backdrop of the correct interpretation of the law, not simply any plausible reading an officer might have.”

Prior to oral arguments, clinic students Stephen Richards ’15, Cynthia Barmore ’15, and Chelsea Priest ’15 researched the arguments and drafted the merits brief under the supervision of Professor Fisher.

“Being able to travel to DC to watch the Heien argument was a terrific opportunity,” Richards said. “The argument at turns surprised, enthused, and frustrated me. But ultimately, watching Jeff argue and the Justices engage the arguments we had spent so much time thinking on was just a supremely (pun intended) cool experience. Every lawyer ought to go to the Court and watch at least one argument; it’s an experience not to be missed.”

Barmore agreed, “I’m so glad I had the chance to work on Heien. Having the opportunity to contribute to the briefing and then see that work come to life at oral argument was an incredible learning experience.”

A decision in Heien v. North Carolina is expected later in the term.    ◊