Immigration Law Clinic Wins at Board of Immigration Appeals

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – The University of Arkansas School of Law’s Immigration Law Clinic and its director, law professor Elizabeth Young, prevailed in a recent case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of Pedroza. The client, an undocumented alien facing deportation who sought cancellation of a removal order, is the father of a U.S. citizen child with a mental disability, and the father’s removal would have placed the child under a severe hardship.

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the administrative appeals court appealable directly to the Federal Circuit Courts. In 2009, there were more than 33,000 cases decided by the court, resulting in only 1 percent of cases being published, and 0.03 percent overturning the immigration judge’s decision in favor of the alien. In Matter of Pedroza, the immigration judge had ruled that the client was not eligible for cancellation because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The issue on appeal was whether the client was barred on the basis of moral turpitude where his crime was a misdemeanor theft conviction. Young and her students were able to prove that the client’s conviction of misdemeanor theft did not disqualify him from relief.

“A lot of discretion is given to immigration judges, especially in cases such as this one,” Young said. “This case clarifies the law where it wasn’t clear before, and it’s great to be a part of it and for the students to be a part of it.”

The client fit within an exception to the moral turpitude rule. His crime, misdemeanor theft, fit within the “petty offense” exception to the act. That exception applies to an alien who has committed only one crime, punishable by not more than a year, who receives a sentence not exceeding six months. That was the situation with the client, and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the client was not precluded from establishing his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Furthermore, the board held that he otherwise met the requirements for cancellation and that he should be afforded the favorable discretion of the court and that his cancellation of removal should be granted.

“It’s very rewarding to get tangible recognition for the work we’re doing on behalf of our clients,” said Young. “It’s even more rewarding that our students are learning from these cases, and that we were able to help keep a father and child together.”