[Blog]

As the trial was moving along, it seemed the government was very concerned about this particular aspect, and the Judge was open to their argument. Enter the mother. She testified as best she could, but really, she had a hard time understanding the questions, and it was our client who had to put her arm around her mother and explain what was going on. Whenever she didn't know an answer, she would look to our client and tell the Judge that her daughter knew everything and took care of everything for her. She didn't have any idea what medicine she took, how to get to the doctor, or even what time it was. Her daughter took care of all of that for her. I thought about stopping there, as she was becoming agitated, but I decided to ask her one more question - what would she do if her daughter had to leave the country. The mother started to cry, her daughter started to cry, the people in the courtroom started to cry. Even after we won, the mother didn't stop crying until after she was in the car and had left the garage at the court (though those tears did turn to tears of joy as soon as she understood what had happened). I felt terrible for making her cry, but I am certain that her testimony was the difference between her daughter getting to remain here with her, and having to leave the country.

In the second case, we successfully argued that a young woman from a small Central American country deserved to remain in the United States to protect her from the persecution she fears if she returns to her home country. She was targeted by gangs because the Church she belonged to did outreach in gang areas, trying to minister to them, to get those involved in gang life to turn to God. All three times she was threatened by gang members involved times when she was worshipping or attending Church-related functions. Asylum law works like this - you have to show at least a 10% chance that the government or a group the government can not or will not control will harm you on account of one of the enumerated grounds (race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Most gang-related cases from Central America have been denied where the applicant was a victim or potential victim merely of recruitment by gangs. However, our key argument (which was decisive in this case) was that in fact, she was targeted and will be targeted, not simply for recruitment, but on account of her religious beliefs and practices, which include proselytizing to gangs. Luckily, we didn't need to show that her religious beliefs were the only reason that she was targeted, simply that it was one central reason. This case involved far less crying, but I am sure the now-asylee was just as happy as the woman in the earlier case.