A Busy Two Weeks
I am excited to sit down and write this blog post as it has been such a busy but rewarding two weeks. I took the MPRE this past Thursday, so I have been busy studying after work and on the weekends during the weeks leading up to the exam. Now that I have taken the MPRE, I have time to relax and reflect on the past couple weeks of work.
I have completed three more decisions for two different judges, making the number of decisions I have written eight. I wrote a second denial for a cancellation of removal application. It was difficult to write because the respondent was a great individual in their community; however, the bar for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative (US citizen or lawful permanent resident who is a spouse, child, or parent of the respondent) upon the removal of the respondent is difficult to reach. No matter the way I analyzed the case, I the standard could not be reached.
The second decision I wrote was a grant for asylum. The case was an interesting domestic abuse case regarding a woman from Guatemala. Much of the case was supported by the extensive country conditions the respondent’s attorney submitted. I could not believe how horrible women are treated in Guatemala and how they are continuously seen as property to men without many ways to fight back against the patriarchal system. Though there are a lot of issues in the US right now regarding the fight to ensure women’s bodies are protected, reading about the conditions Guatemalan women endure puts into perspective how lucky I still am to be living in the US.
The last decision I wrote was a grant through the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). This was my first CAT decision to write so I was excited to jump into an analysis I had yet to tackle. To qualify for relief from removal under CAT, the respondent must prove that it is more likely than not that they will be tortured upon arrival in their country of removal at the acquiescence of a public official. This is the most difficult relief bar to meet. I ended up writing a CAT grant because the respondent did not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal as they could not establish a nexus between the persecution they endured and the reason for their persecution. However, CAT does not require a nexus as long as the respondent can establish that they will more likely than not be tortured upon return. For the grant, it was not a stretch to reach CAT as there was clear persecution by a public official. I enjoyed learning how to write a persuasive CAT decision. I am very grateful for the opportunity to write a wide variety of decisions during my time at this internship.
I will be completing one more decision during my last week at my internship. To decide which decision I will write, I met with a judge on Friday for which I have written three decisions. He told me about four different cases he heard and asked me to decide which one interested me the most so I can learn the most from the last decision I write during my internship. The options are a wide variety of asylum cases that are either clear denials or could go either way depending on what the information says in the documents the respondent’s attorney submitted. I think I know which case I will choose but I will keep mulling it over until I meet with the judge on Monday.
While in the midst of writing these decisions, as a way to get to know the judge I have written three decisions for and to get to know my supervisor more, all three of us met in the judge’s office and had tea and shortbread together. We spoke for almost three hours about our lives and career plans. It was so wonderful to have such an in-depth conversation with the judge and my supervisor; I really began to feel like part of a team. We are even planning on meeting for lunch throughout the semester, to which I am very much looking forward.