Citizenship is in many ways the end of the long road of immigration. Besides its obvious civic value, we celebrate grants of citizenship with our clients because it is truly an accomplishment. Even "simple" or "straightforward" cases involve a great deal of patience, time, and uncertainty. But if you've ever had to fight USCIS to win your citizenship, the victory means a lot more.

Earlier this month, we celebrated a most unusual naturalization victory.

Our client was initially one of the "lucky" ones - he won the Diversity Visa lottery. The DV lottery is essentially just that: dropping your name into a large hat in the hopes of being randomly selected for a green card. The regulations state that if you are selected, you must list all members of your entire family - spouse, parents, children, stepchildren. If you don't, the regulation states that the immigrant visa "shall" be denied. There are very good reasons for doing this: if a person announces in their home country that they won the DV lottery, there will be people willing to "marry" them to accompany them as spouses, or others who will give their children to the DV lottery winner.

Thus, the language of the regulation leaves virtually no room for error - if you make a mistake and forget to list someone, it doesn't matter whether you intended to mislead them or not. You lose the visa. But what do you do if you made an honest mistake? Or had a child but didn't know about it?

Our client neglected to mention a stepchild, and further had a son he did not know about.

He got his green card and filed for naturalization. By that time, he truthfully disclosed about his son and stepchild, telling USCIS he only recently became aware of his son, and that he had not listed the stepchild because his wife had no dealings with him. 

USCIS found that because he did not list those two people on his DV lottery application years before, his immigrant visa should have been denied, he never should have gotten his green card, so he was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" and therefore could not naturalize.

We filed the case again, but with a new argument:

In other words, because there is an option for the consular post to ask for an advisory opinion, there is a possibility, however remote, that an immigrant visa can be issued even if there were mistakes on the application. If there was a possibility, then the Service cannot say the immigrant visa "should have been denied" which meant he wasn't necessarily "not lawfully admitted for permanent residence." 

USCIS didn't buy it. The case was denied again. This time, we didn't take it lying down. We filed an N-336 petition for a rehearing.

In the rehearing, we repeated the same argument, but took pains to remind USCIS that their decision denying the N-400 was flat out wrong:

USCIS had tried to argue that failure to comply with all substantive legal requirements (ie, completing the DV lottery application accurately) precluded "lawful admission as a permanent resident." But USCIS themselves didn't follow the substantive legal requirements in making that finding! When confronted with this argument, USCIS relented, and our client was scheduled for an oath ceremony.

It is always the tough cases that we remember as lawyers. For the world that has now opened up for our long-suffering client, the continued prosperity, and the end of a long period of uncertainty, we offer our sincere congratulations. To everyone else: make sure you are accurate on all your filings with USCIS!

You've told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You hired a lawyer. You spent countless hours working with your lawyer on collecting evidence, rehearsing your story, making sure everything was correct, and that there were no gaps. You tell yourself that going through this is still better than what you would face it you had to return to your country. But you still lost sleep, couldn't eat, couldn't focus, cried and prayed.

Your lawyer finishes his legal argument, talking about social distinction and imputed political opinion, particular social groups and nexuses. You stand for what seems like an eternity while you wait for the robed figure behind the bench to start speaking.

And in a rushed voice, the robed figure dashes all your hopes into the concrete. Your asylum claim is denied. You are ordered removed. "Best of luck to you," says the robed figure.

Your world has come apart. What about your family? How will you work? What will you do?

Fear not, your lawyer tells you. We can go to the Board of Immigration Appeals; this isn't over. And so you do. The weeks begin to roll by, turning into months. After having waited so long to prove your case, you start wondering, "What if I had not said this?" or "Why didn't I talk about that?" The second-guessing is consuming you as you replay the individual hearing over and over in your head.

One day your lawyer calls you and the ground shakes once again, "The Board has dismissed your appeal. We can go one level up, to the federal Circuit Court, but I'm not too hopeful."

You've been waiting a long time now, and you've set roots in the United States.  What to do now?

This was a dilemma facing one of our clients who came to us with a freshly denied asylum claim that had been dismissed on appeal by the Board. And sometimes, it's the fact that the judges are so pressed for time, and have to render decisions so quickly, that they may overlook something. Maybe they didn't do something in the right way.

So we started combing through the trial testimony. We looked at every exhibit to see if it was given proper consideration. Did the judge mischaracterize anything? Did he say we didn't do something when we did? Did he say we did something when we didn't? Was there something he could have done that would have helped? Did he follow the proper procedures and honor due process? 

Work like this can be maddening. It's not unlike finding a needle in a haystack. Sometimes we might not find a needle, but we find something else that we might be able to use.  And we put everything together, filing not only a motion to reconsider with the Board, but (so that we didn't lose out on the chance) a petition for review with the federal Circuit Court. We first saw how the judge had constructed the denial of our client's asylum case, and noticed that the lynchpin of the denial was a "lack of corroboration" - something he used to find that our client could not demonstrate his eligibility for asylum. As an example, if a high school student can't show that he completed a college entrance exam, it doesn't matter whether he did everything else right: he can't get in. But the evidence the judge was insistent on was itself not viewed as favorable evidence by the Circuit Court. A judge shouldn't be permitted to deny a claim based on not having evidence that the higher courts consider weak to begin with.

Today, we received the decision. The Board of Immigration Appeals conceded that the immigration judge's decision - and the Board's own decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect, and our client should have been given an opportunity to provide the evidence, even if it was weak. In the alternative, our client should have been given an opportunity to explain why that evidence wasn't available, and if good cause shown, for the case to have been continued so he could obtain it.

Judges need to make sure that people are given a fair chance to submit all evidence that could help them in their cases. Sometimes it can be hard to know whether a piece of evidence is required or should be submitted. Judges may be under immense pressure to adjudicate cases quickly, but this cannot come at the price of prejudice to a person's claim.

Our client has won a second chance to convince a judge that he deserves to stay in the United States. This is due process, and it's what makes our country great.

Hassan M. Ahmad, Esq.

This morning, the Supreme Court deadlocked on the decision in Texas v. U.S., 4-4. That means the lower court ruling stands. That means that, for now, 4 million people must continue to live in the shadows.

I want to make one thing clear: This case was forum-shopped political theater. The same Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas who spearheaded this hateful lawsuit (and filed it in a district where he knew the judge was anti-immigrant) also filed to block the resettlementof Syrian refugees. The xenophobia that fueled this lawsuit also fuels the Islamophobia we fight on a daily basis.

Where laws break up families, send people into for-profit detention centers, are applied inconsistently and unpredictably, and facially discriminate on the basis of religion and national origin, they absolutely become a civil rights issue.
Don't make the mistake of assuming today's loss was about undocumented Latinos. Or even immigration. This was a major victory for that political base that thrives on fearmongering, resists collaboration, and conceives of policies designed to malign and divide.

They blocked confirmation of a 9th Supreme Court justice, knowing that a 4-4 tie (which happened today in more than one case) would kill the policy. If they win the White House, the replacement justice will help deny each and every pro-immigrant measure Congress may seek to put forward, if it ever could. 

​Do we not think such a Supreme Court would uphold crazy ideas like Muslim immigration bans? So this becomes a voting issue as well. If the White House goes to Trump & Company, the immigration decisions for all immigrants - not just "Latinos" - are going to be "really, really bad." We're all in the same fight.

This is the time - today - to stand together with *all* immigrant groups. And not just because we have skin in this game. It's the right thing to do if we want an inclusive and open America.  It doesn't matter if you're an immigrant or not. Sooner or later, these divisive policies will come for you.

​This isn't over.