Although it’s becoming more and more difficult, our clients are still winning their cases in Immigration Court.
Taken at face value, Daniela’s* asylum case is as close to a “sure thing” as we encounter in immigration court.
For years, she suffered severe abuse at the hands of her ex-partner, and when she tried to escape him by moving hours away (6 times!), he tracked her down and tried to kill her. She filed countless reports and pleaded to the police dozens of times to protect her from his violence, but the police would not intervene to protect a woman from her partner. It quickly became clear to her that if she stayed in the country any longer, he would eventually succeed in trying to kill her.
She fled the country the day after yet another violent attack, and when we met her in 2022 through our partners at the Massachusetts Immigrant Collaborative, she had already been hospitalized in the United States for mental health from the trauma caused by the incessant abuse she endured.
Her asylum merits hearing was last month, and while we knew recent decisions from this administration’s hand-picked Board of Immigration Appeals were going to make her case more difficult, she still had strong claim under the law.
However, the hearing was unlike any other merits hearing I’ve been to.
First, the judge gave us a strict 30-minute time limit for our direct examination, the part of the hearing where clients get to tell their stories. Then, the opposing Department of Homeland Security attorney didn’t take much of an interest in cross-examining the client due to the strength of her case, and we went to the first recess feeling just about as good as we could have, given the circumstances. Typically, at this point, the client can relax that they’ve done their part, and the judge returns with a decision.
But when we returned from the break, the Immigration Judge began aggressively cross-examining Daniela.
The judge forced our client to recount the most horrific details of the torture she suffered, going through each specific violent sexual attack, and often jumping in and out of chronological order. It was clear to us that they were trying to trip Daniela up and cause her to contradict herself, searching for any reason to find her testimony not credible and therefore making her ineligible for asylum.
Through the hour of grueling direct examination by the Immigration Judge, Daniela answered each question with a resolute conviction, asserting her story as her own despite the odds stacked against her. After a long 2.5-hour hearing, she was finally granted asylum.
While we firmly believe that Daniela should not have had to re-live her most traumatic moments in court to ensure her safety, we are so relieved and proud that she and her daughter can now build their life of safety and security here in the United States.
Click on the title to see this post on LinkedIn.