legal issues and he's also published a handbook that was released by the american bar association. he's represented the clients on behalf of the maryland volunteer lawyers society catholic charities. he also served as a guest lecture at the maryland city law school, university of baltimore law school and he frequently serves as a witness and consulting attorney on immigration matters. last we have but certainly not least anne schaufele a staff attorney with the product. the project a new initiative dedicated to provide direct representation to immigrant victims of fraud in dc matters. she's a 2013 graduate of american university college of law where she was the student attorney with the justice clinic and while in law school she was

a summer fellow where she researched the scope in the dc metro area. she has also been a dean fellow for the international human rights law clinic and a law clerk attending to unaccompanied children in south texas and prior to the law school she was a fulbright fellow researching the effects of deportation on immigrants in el salvador and she served for two years as the suit staff assistant on immigration. thank you all for being here and essentially to walk you through the panel we will start with an overview on the implications of responsibilities for attorneys and then expand a bit to the civil areas that i mentioned that are also touched by this decision and implicate other responsibilities of an immigrant

clients. we will start with you, ofelia. can you give an overview of what exactly are the duties and can you give a brief context what led to this ruling cliques. >> at the time he had been a permanent resident for more than 40 years and i should point out he lived in the united states and at all sorts of ties into served in the armed forces. in 2,001 for whatever reason he was charged with was arrested driving a tractor with marijuana and in the end he had multiple charges on to say it was

possession of paraphernalia. he ended up pleading guilty to three counts of crimes are a come in any event he ended up being guilty to the distribution of the marijuana, which under the immigration law considered a felony. the deal is that he had had a criminal attorney obviously defending him in the criminal court and he was advised by his chronology of any. the immigration status he didn't really want the times that he didn't have to worry about anything. as i should call it the removal as it is called now.

that is the position that he found himself in. he actually started his case in for the motion that i think is interesting. in the context both of talking about what the responsibilities are for the lawyers and then also talking about why people vote versus why they don't wear that sort of thing. in any event, so he started this journey in 2010 supreme court that granted his case and essentially for the first time the supreme court said immigration consequences of a criminal conviction are not merely collateral. the context was essentially very difficult for the attorney. i got the wrong advice. i now have deportation because

there were for whatever reason the argument i think was essentially they talked about it in that decision was that any immigration consequence of collateral to the point of the actual criminal case and the supreme court held that immigration consequences were not collateral but they were so significant in nature that in fact they are connected to the penalty that the fifth amendment does apply, you have the rights to the effect o effects of cound that effective counsel includes competent professional advice on your immigration consequences in the context of a plea so that was the gist of that. now we are going to apply in washington which is the traditional instance of the council analysis that is conducted in the criminal cases. this was a big deal.

there was no question about it. it opened up the conversation about what is the role of the criminal counsel. what is it that we need to be doing when you have an immigration client? i should say as we are going to go on and talk more about this and you can see the ripple effect at the state and federal level that there have been i will say this right after that we aren't great to spend much time on it but i want to say in a substance debate for subsequent case they said it's not attractive so that is somethinsomething to think aboue go forward. in any event, that is the just and lets us know even a crumb of defense attorneys have a duty to advise their clients properly about immigration consequences. that is the backdrop.

>> that gives us a great setting to then talk about how in practice we are seeing that attorneys managing wage per hour cases were housing discrimination cases were litigation are suddenly having to similarly address immigration consequences for their clients within part of the scope of effective representation and so matthew could you talk more about that and how it is intended to focus on criminal consequences and convictions that is setting a precedent for others as well. >> many of the issues that i case that highlights the fact that when counseling a client

one has to consider the consequences or how the immigration status affects the claim. my practice is focused on the civil litigation particularly civil rights litigation primarily in the areas of wage theft and housing discrimination and public accommodation discrimination although we don't hold ourselves out this way about half of their intake comes from the immigrant community and that is largely because of the particular vulnerability that our residents face in an employment and housing and when they are just going about their daily lives. i think in the first instance that there are many immigrants both documented and undocumented but are often reluctant to step forward and see if they've had

their civil rights violated because they are afraid potentially of the immigration consequences, but those that do, one of the first things we have to be sure we are counseling them about is for the most part almost all of our civil rights law it doesn't matter whether you are a documented immigrant or if you are a u.s. citizen or if you are undocumented normally your rights are the same but the problem is that your remedies are often different and that's where the counseling then becomes most important. for instance in a typical wrongful termination claim we have had two ongoing cases in similar facts in my office lately pregnancy discrimination and claims where in one case this there was a woman who was

fired shortly after announcing she was pregnant but it turns out she wasn't authorized to work in other case another was terminated shortly after she announced she was pregnant. both of them have rights under title vii under the federal employment discrimination laws but the remedies are going to vary a lot. if you are authorized to work then you are entitled not only to compensatory damages meaning your emotional mental anguish damages but you are also entitled entitled to back pay and it can often be the larger of those two components. if you are not authorized to work then you are not entitled to the back pay for the damages that result from the wrongful termination so then making sure as a client is comfortable going forward with a matter really means you have to be sure that they understand how the

immigration status is going to affect the strength and the size of the potential recovery that they are going to receive. wage theft is an area that this comes up very often and again i think a lot of particularly undocumented workers are not -- do not they are reluctant to come forward when they haven't been paid overtime over minimum wage or otherwise just haven't been paid correctly under the law for the fear of losing their job. but they mostly don't have any rights to that work because they are not authorized to work and that's not true. if you have worked and have not been paid under the law. under the immigration status whether you are authorized to work you are entitled for that work. the only difference being a fan employer retaliates against you for complaining about your lack

of overtime pay or minimum wage decides to fire you because of it you wouldn't be n. titled to the reinstated back at your job. i would like to try to recover those wages. yes, you are entitled to that and we can definitely do something about it but keep in mind if your employer decides that when we raise this issue decides to fire you you are going to be out of a job. i can't -- the wall isn't going to force them to reinstate you and in fact it can't so in the context we have to take with every client we have to assess

one's immigration status and how that affects what advice we are able to give them and i will hold off into circle back. >> what you just touched upon is a nice segue to then ask john a question to be followed by ofelia. we have also seen its lead to some reactions at the stage level both in certain legislation as well as court decisions. so can you tell us about at the state level how the practice might have changed where these kind of rules or regulations that might have come up in virginia? >> thank you. i don't know if we are on. if not i will just be allowed. there we go. i can be loud with or without. i want to commend everyone who

is here today because the subject that we are discussing is important and the things we are all talking about on the panel today our access to justice. it's the focus that we all have here in my practice primarily in the state of maryland. ofelia is in virginia so we bring different perspectives but i want to share with you what is going on in the state of maryland in terms of opportunities are in the aftermath of the decision. one thing she mentioned as one of the big questions that can out of the case is whether it would apply in a rich reactive basis. those of you in law school you know that when there is a new ball that comes out one of the decisions is whether that means from that time forward we take a look at things in a different way or whether we look backwards and after the decision, we had a case in maryland that said they should apply on a rich reactive basis in other words if a

criminal defense attorney has given counsel many years ago prior to the decision that person could indeed bring an action in maryland to get the criminal defense case, the conviction looked at again and it didn't matter how far back he wanted to go. you could go back as far as you want it. when the supreme court in february of 2013 took another look and said we think it is a rich reactive application it's not really a new law we are just simply applying constitutional principles now in the context what happened then is the supreme court said it is an independent basis and the state law then you can apply it attractively but don't look to our federal decision in the constitutional jurisprudence to be able to apply it retroactively. the state of maryland said we will apply it attractively so in

february of 2013 maryland was probably the onl only state that could apply it retroactively until a gentleman by the name of lincoln bound up in the court of appeals and was decided in october of 2013 just nine months later and the court of appeals said sorry we don't really see an independent ground here in the state of maryland city are not going to apply it retroactively. we had that gap between february and october we could apply these but nobody else could. but frankly the court of appeals closed the door. i will say that it's not 100% closed. if there were an argument there could be a basis for the state law to apply retroactively than one might be able to do that and the decision didn't need that as a remote possibility to bring that forward. but for the law students out there, don't forget to think creatively and outside of the box and maybe you will get that

case and open the door further for people in terms of access to justice. in terms of how this is being applied iowa to say that a lot of open cases i handle and i'm sure ofelia would do the same in both a criminal conviction issue and for many of the people out there in the community, there is a perception that a criminal conviction issue is a pretty clear-cut if you are convicted of a crime and you are not a u.s. citizen maybe you shouldn't be here in the united states but the problem with that is that the u.s. immigration system has a very broad definition of what it means to be convicted of a crime for example under most state law if you get probation before judgment say you have a little speeding issue perhaps if the judge says i will give you probation or any other kind of criminal matter most state law you would find that isn't a conviction for state purposes. you don't have a criminal conviction record and to apply

for a job and say i don't have a criminal conviction record that the immigration service says that is still a conviction for immigration purposes and we will hold that against you if you got a probation before a judgment. it isn't just that, there are civil infractions people who engage in jaywalking or other minor offenses or part of the civil code not criminal in nature. those however in some cases are looked at just the same as a criminal conviction for immigration purposes. so the way that the immigration law looks at things isn't a matter if you are convicted of a major crime then you shouldn't be in the united states. the system catches a lot of people who have very minor scrapes with the law and just because they are not u.s. citizens, than the full weight of the immigration law is thrown against somebody and they don't have an opportunity to pursue the same rights we would normally think would be available to individuals.

the problem in the context is that it looks safe to plead guilty to a lot of criminal offenses and criminal defense attorneys most of them are not immigration lawyers. you are in a lucky place all of you are in law school and have the opportunity to go into practice if you want to be criminal defense knowing that immigration is an important component and if you are going to do the immigration law then you know the criminal defense issues are important for your practice so you're not going into this blind that many people that come into my office or come into ofelia's office already have a criminal record and research online and find the criminal convictions and ask them what happened here and they say i don't have a criminal record i had a probation before judgment. my defense attorney said no problem and then we shake our head and we say this is a really big problem because in the immigration context or probation before judgment is the same thing as a conviction or perhaps

they would say i got a deal with the attorney's office or the district attorney and so i was diverted into a little education program or i agree i would do a little community service in lieu of getting a conviction. those diversion programs are often considered to be the same thing as a conviction so we have to counsel people that they have problems with their immigration situation what are those problems? they could face deportation or remove from the country based on the simple matters. it might be inadmissible to be able to get a benefit such as a green card permanent residence or visa or to leave the united states and come back into the united states people will find they have problems getting naturalization to become a u.s. citizen or something much more simply getting a temporary protected status as many people in the community seek to have and they have to renew on a regular basis. people who want to get action for childhood arrival which isn't really a status that allows someone to stay in the united states who came at a

young age for two years perhaps renewable but it may be barred from doing these things for minor scrapes with the law. things we wouldn't really hold against u.s. citizens. we sit down and talk to people and say what would happen and we find out the criminal defense attorney said i don't know anything about immigration law but this shouldn't be a problem because it is probation or a diversion or something that couldn't possibly be a problem because you're not going to jail" and behold it is a huge immigration problem. when we find these circumstances we talk about we want to reopen a case. obviously afterwards they said you can't go back before the case became effective that we are 4-years-old and so things that are new on people's criminal records do give rise to the circumstance and i will tell you and ofelia can tell you as well there are very good criminal defense attorneys that he do a great job of criminal defense who don't know anything about immigration law and will tell their clients i don't do

anything about immigration law. the word about these other cases has not gone out to the extent that it has to answer people in our communities need to know that they are entitled as the u.s. constitution to have effective assistance of counsel in the criminal defense content. when you meet with an immigration lawyer they have a right to have these issues brought up and so in many cases we will talk to people about whether we want to reopen the criminal defense allegations. just because the case is reopened doesn't mean that the charge goes away. there is always a risk involved because you could be tried again and you have to make an assessment whethe of whether thn would really be convicted or not but there might be multiple charges and perhaps somebody has a lesser charge they could plead to that arrangement maybe somebody has already done the time in jail and they don't have a further punishment

because somebody has already done their service. so we look at those cases closely. in the context of going beyond the criminal defense situation i think the point is right in that there is an awareness now that people who are immigrants have greater rights in society. if you go back ten or 20 years before the law you will see people who are not u.s. citizens have lesser rights under the constitution. that is still the case when the government is involved in making decisions, but this was revolutionary in a sense because it says the citizens council test applies to everybody regardless of the status and immigrants as well. it's one of those cases where the supreme court says immigrants don't get lesser rights. they have the same as everybody else. the constitution should apply to everybody when it comes to

criminal defense. >> now this includes also can you talk about how this includes let's say in the cases where someone doesn't have counsel or chooses to represent themselves. >> that's an excellent point and i want to touch briefly on that and then i will pass the microphone over to ofelia. in the state of maryland we have a rule that requires the judges to make sure that the criminal defendant are advised that there may be immigration consequences about pleading guilty to a criminal charge. so it isn't simply that there's a constitutional right to have your defense attorney tell you what's going on, your judge also by the maryland rule has to inform you of the consequences. so you are seeing that ability in the state. what are we looking at in virginia for that? >> i think in virginia for a lot

of the jurisdictions that they have that in their plea. the individual that is not represented he or she is not receiving advice. there is another burden on them to get the advice that they need. the advice to the judges to say listen, you can complete this if you want to but there might be an immigration consequences of the burden shifts again back to the defendant we don't know how that would take place in that moment of the plea. i definitely think that it's part of the process in virginia and many jurisdictions i would

say that. >> but there ibrothers also in f you look 20 years ago, you didn't have this as an opportunity. and in the courtroom throughout the entire country, judges didn't have to advise people there might be consequences. and there is no recognition of the rights to the citizens of counsel. the system is moving into the realm of making sure that immigrants have better rights. >> i do think things are moving maybe a little bit faster on the other side of the potomac. we just had this little discussion prior to the panel and i would even say potentially that there is not only a difference between what happens on one side of the potomac but what happens maybe in a little line in virginia but i think

that things can be a little bit tougher and i don't know what that means because we never determine where the end was. i envy you in that brief period of time is okay to be retroactively. i don't know what to say to be honest with you in the commonwealth. they have their own case that was pretty much the same issue. in the way that virginia is limited and that is the way that i look at it but the way that they have limited access to the right of effect of counsel is by limiting your way that you get back into court. he was a refugee that had also

an lpr, green card holder he went back into the court and filed a series of motions because in virginia we like these old things, the writ in virginia not to be confused with novus. essentially what the supreme court said is guess what, you're not going to be able to use this and the basis was essentially that of those ideas were essentially the way they read was they were designed to correct the errors into the breach of the rights to affect the council wouldn't be the effect it would just be too bad i guess and so the only way to go back is on the.

that is a done deal. who cares. a final order was 2005 and it doesn't matter if it was retroactive because we are past the two years. in addition there is a sort of case law requirement. it's not in the statute, but that you must be in the custody so that is a big deal. for the commonwealth of virginia how we deal with the postconviction relief you file the petition and it's always by the way if the attorney general's office that handles the petition, not of the commonwealth attorney. they always have the same argument if it's outside or not it is the person in custody that is the biggest issue that we deal with in the commonwealth. ..

that is a conviction. no, no, no. that's -- were consul in conflict with the criminal collect, they'll like i don't understand. i got 12 months. grade, that's an aggravated felony. i don't want that. this is a big issue. this constant conflict between criminal attorneys and immigration attorneys. one of the things, one of the most important things, not only

to criminal attorneys have an obligation to give competent advice, correct advice, that's not what happened obviously but there is silence also. is not the answer. even if you don't know, you still have to say something. he must advise your client that them in the immigration consequences even if you don't know what those immigration consequences are. that goes to the over arching theme here, which is, that the oddities, i'm not sure if it will rise but we should recognize these rights were in existence. i don't think it's a new rule. i think it's an obligation of an existing, should've been in application of an existing law. we should to deportation is not a collateral consequence. you know what i mean? >> it has taken us a long time to get there because of where our constitutional system sort

of started out in terms of having lesser rights for immigrants but if i made on this issue of how it is spread out for the come in terms of the awareness of immigrant issues in our state legislatures and things that are going on, i want to take a little bit of pride, just came out of the maryland general assembly that involves special immigrant juvenile cases. for people who come to the united states who are under 21, from other countries, they cannot be reading -- reunified with the parents because they suffered abuse or neglect or were abandoned by one or both parents, there's an opportunity to was a green card in the united states, a permanent residents. this is an immigration law up until 21, that's will be cut off adulthood and childhood. most states, however, to find adulthood and chilled at the age of 18. in maryland it's been 18 defined by law for a very long time. however, our general assembly just passed a bill which is

signed into law by our governor which indicates we are allowed to seek custody and guardianship for children up until the age of 21 now, to be able to pursue the special immigrant juvenile status under federal law. i can think of only one of the state that the ability to recognize children up to the major tournament and i hope other states may be able to adopt this but this is an example again about the idea of being able to give rights to people who are immigrants a starting to take root in some state legislatures. i can't speak for arizona, different set of issues, but here in maryland, for example, it is inattentiveness and the ability to provide an opportunity where it should be offered to people. >> thank you, gentlemen. anne, you also work in d.c., maryland, virginia, and certainly i think we can all be sensitive to the different cultural context, societal context in each different state. can you give us maybe some

anecdotes on your experiencing with the committee, working with clients in different states and in this sense of yes, lack of lessons you don't have rights our ignorance about the rights that you do have, and whether that has shifted. and also how that has led to this rise in notario fraud in the last few years and how you dress that. also if you touch what notario fraud is, why these populations are so portable? it includes a lot of cultural context of the country they come from but if you could address that for a bit. >> i'll use the powerpoint and also the visual for all of you. i may need technical assistance. okay.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, so here you go. now you can just go up to -- how do we get it up to -- there we go. >> there'll be no. -- there we go. >> how many of you in the room are taking immigration law right now or have taken it?

this panel just shows you why more of you need to take it then, regardless of your area of focus. it's an appropriate beginning to have technical issues because i do remember that from wcl and having just graduated, i feel like this is a second home so it's nice to be back. we started the project in may of last year with funding from the d.c. bar foundation and other maryland bar foundation is also on board because maryland and d.c. and virginia as well have seen this problem of notario fraud flourish whether it's been a lack of access to immigration legal services. so what i would say, the landscape looks like, you don't have come get the right to representation but not at the government expense. regardless if your child might be qualified for special immigrant and juvenile status you have no right to counsel in the family law side or on the immigration side.

and then taking that further, if you're in immigration detention you also don't have the right to counsel. so what that's meant is the services that are provided are being provided by a private attorney, and by nonprofit attorneys have to have a very high caseload in order to meet the demand and to keep the cost low. that can be a very challenging practice area as you will soon probably learn if you go into immigration law. what has also happened with immigration law is that the federal government recognizes that because there's so much need, there should be a carveout for individuals who are not just license attorneys to be able to provide services. so here we have a list of who can provide services under federal law. you have licensed attorneys, and whenever we have a new client coming in who has a concern about the previous representation they received, we have to go to the state bar and see where they actually license. unfortunately, there has been

people who come through the door where the advertisements say in seattle and all kind of states or other languages when we have clients from rocco in indonesia and togo who had the same situation but a different language, and it might be in the local african newspaper where it says i am an attorney and here's my court license number, and then when i go and look them up we find they are not licensed anywhere. we all in this room have paid a $200,000, gone to law school for a few years, or maybe did and allow the program, paid a significant amount of money, passed the bar and that's how we got to the attorneys. and meanwhile, with other people in the community who just take out a newspaper ad and they, too, are attorneys. so that's one area and we also have lord of immigration appeals. that can be also, there can be part of immigration appeals accredited organizations to have representatives and may not have an attorney on staff but they

been able to show to the board of immigration appeals that if someone to consult in questions of the law. so they are able to provide representation for a nominal fee. we also have law students and law graduates under the supervision of an attorney with no direct compensation for attorneys who practice outside of the u.s. before the department on the ticket he. this is important because you also if you look in some of the newspapers in this area you will see, i am accredited by the supreme court of el salvador and guatemala and lots of other places, so that means i can practice federal law. and just had an argument the other day with someone who was like, where did you go to law school? don't you know federal law is? yes, sir. they said you know i can practice them right? i said no, but you have determined what stage are licensing. okay, i'm license in tennessee. i don't know what's going on in tennessee but he's not licensed in tennessee. you have individuals have decided they're going to meet this need to select attorneys are meeting the need but they

will be doing it without the $200,000 of debt or three years of law school and sitting for the bar. you have this carveout for re- pupil individuals and sometimes they said i'm a repeatable individual with good moral character and of providing this service but that has to be i am this individual is a parishioner, i'm a clergy member, this is my neighbor. and when you start to see the individual that we see in the committee for representing 100 people, there's no way they can say 100 people are their neighbor. unless they live in a big comment which i guess is possible. let me move to what is the practice of immigration law. those are individuals who can practice and what is the practice. for this i think the best description is, this is the law but the best description is from a 1992 opinion from the event immigration and nationality services which basically says that if you go into business and you are not sure what

application you're filling out, then the individual selecting the form and saying you are here because you want to register for temporary protected status, here's the form. we will translate it. you are eligible, out would be the practice of law. if you entered with your application and you said i just need you to translate my answers to these questions, i've been applied year after year for the last 11 years, then that would not be the practice of law, at least according to this decision. it matters whether or not that person is charging anything a charging for more than just their interpretation or translation fees. so the next slide is really to explain why there's this confusion in the community. we see our clients as incredibly rational actors. they save up the money for legal services, but they also have a perspective from home country of these being sort of the businesses and the way people advertise that their services as lawyers. they may be advertising

themselves as notario because a notario, for instance, in mexico has already served as an attorney for five years. they are a person of good moral character. they passed a rigorous exam, and that is also a person who has sort of a status in the community as being a good confidant are all legal services, not just whatever the person is looking to them for. so when someone in this area uses that same word, notario, it can cause some confusion because they may just be anyone here who was over 18 who is gone in washington, d.c. and paid $75, i guess $25 in virginia, and then is taking an exam and basically said that they will authenticate the signature on documents. and that is the responsibility of a notary and nothing more. and so when you use the site and you treat that confusion, then we lead to the next slide, which is what it looks like locally.

so these are actually, this is a d.c. storefront on the top, a virginia advertisement on the web which i'll talk about the general quickly to touch on it. been a maryland print advertisement. so in all of these locations you have a very similar look to what we have seen in the previous slide whistles from nicaragua and new mexico. -- mexico. you have noted from home country. you may go to these individuals for service. they speak your language. they may be open. i've seen this a lot on 14th street. but they are open on saturdays and sundays. and so unfortunately what that means is that they are able to put up a shingle and provide a service. when they provide this service, it can lead to damage on immigration case that is sometimes irreparable. i'll talk about remedies on immigration site at the end but on the whole, it's very

difficult to correct mistakes, very difficult to correct mistakes that happen on the criminal side when you're initially facing charges. so what ofelia and johnson already talked about, it's difficult to reverse an act once it's done, especially when it's not retroactive. similarly when you've applied for something as for difficult to undo an application for immigration. and especially if you're never eligible for that in the first place. one quick i guess comment along with this, with the rick mears a case what we saw was that he did solicit -- ramirez -- other businesses where there was an attorney and he would want to essentially come to go to the business and the with that i will bring to the client and then you hire me as your paralegal for each of the representations. and where you come at an ethical issue with that is that if you're the supervising attorney of this non-attorney who is engaged in the practice of law because he's the only one with

the client contact, the only one giving the legal advice and assistance, then you have this rule 5.5 issue. so that prohibit an attorney from assisting summit engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. if you make a complaint locally to the virginia state or d.c. bar with their unauthorized practice of law committees and you can actually have that attorney suspended, disbarred or referred for criminal prosecution. i think that's important to note because it is a situation you could find yourself in any future where you think, well, it's great this person could help me find clients, but then there could also be speakers and also a question. there's also the issue that a lot of these folks because they are not attorneys, then it's a lot more intangible. how do you go after these people? so, can you talk a little bit about that? >> sure. so i will address that. again, to give some concrete examples but essentially we look at this as a consumer protection issue in part, and in maryland

where the maryland immigration consultant act which jonathan will touch on hopefully a little bit later but in virginia and d.c. we have essentially the consumer protection act which is the many act that each state has that sort of modeled the federal trade commission act which is what the federal agency can use to prosecute notario fraud. >> so i'll give you a couple case examples because i think that could also kind of answer that question. we already heard a bit from and while -- manuel from the ramirez case. we saw the four victims who actually saw one just a couple months ago had just heard now that this individual was not an attorney but because he really did convince a lot of people and he did it through the radio station and he also did not by having a picture of president obama in his office and he worked in sort of these offices with lots of cubicles any sort of moved around. around. whenever he moved to a new office, usually with a lot of

people working in different businesses, but he would just say that he was responsible for all of the president obama, that was his friend. i'm relieved someone that you can have confidence in, and i wish i could say that ramirez is the only one in the committee but, unfortunately, we've seen a lot of other folks that we are now trying to lodge complaints against. what it takes to get law enforcement interested is to show a pattern or practice. we need victims to be able to and give a couple making a complete because sometimes that means that we can work with them to make an anonymous complete if you're not interested in using their own name i do not interest in using that address, we can try to do what we can to protect any questions about the immigration status because we see this as not relevant to the proceedings against this individual who is practicing. and so we saw with the ramirez case was the collaboration between law enforcement, between hispanic bar association, between also civil attorneys. there was a group of attorneys

that bryan cave it took a civil case of a ramirez victim and are able to get an injunction through the case and also restitution for the victim and fines up to $25,000. so we saw these things happening sort at the same time, but what unfortunately didn't happen with the case, if this is something we're trying to address next time, is that there weren't immigration attorneys are advising some of the victims. because if there were we would have advised that they prosecute him in addition to the crimes he was prosecuted for, for extortion because you have this "washington post" article where it shows that he was threatening people with i'm going to report you and say you're a drug trafficker, i am going to threaten immigration status. and in virginia a threaten immigration status is extortion. we wanted him to prosecute for extortion and they weren't willing to do that once things had already gone through. the way the project ends and the way -- is holistically. there should be conversation on

the criminal, civil and immigration side when these individuals are brought to justice. the last case, and i'll just say briefly, was an ice and person in maryland who provided fraudulent immigration services, worked alongside fraudulent health clinic and he was able to defraud victims over 90 of them in maryland, virginia and d.c. of $1.2 million. so the effects our party disastrous on the community, and again this is something that in light of the discussion about comprehensive immigration reform we need to be concerned about, we need to tell the candidate that is some is presented themselves as having a hookup come like i can get in line for immigration reform, there will be a limited number of visas available and i've got the connection that they would need to have the red flag up when they hear conversations like that, especially when they see someone who is posing in the kennedy family have a nice batch. if you're not able to verify that that is what that individual, they need to raise the issue with authority.

so that's what we started project -- start as a consumer protection agency and is now a family immigration legal service and social services provided. it was to go back to the roots and say we need to address the issue before he came to ayuda. if the damage had already been done it's difficult to work with the client. ansley asked about what other remedies are kind of sell aside as mentioned we can use the consumer protection act in states. we can make customer complaints to the federal trade commission. if they have a pattern or practice they can go after the perpetrator, they can ask for an injunction, ask for restitution or monetary damages. on the criminal side there are simple things we think apply to these cases, like fast and fraud and extortion. again to our remedies that would exist. on immigration side this is

highly -- we wrote a manual which is on ayuda's website that essentially outlines the possible immigration remedies. so we talk about emotions to open based on effective counsel. it could apply to counsel provided by non-attorney, if you're creative with your argument as the attorney on the case. on the u-visa site, in the ramirez case you did have individuals who were severely affected by the money they lost and also by the damage this did to the immigration case across at least some of the clients sleeplessness, having to be on sleeping pills, having depression and other mental harm. we think the facts are sometimes around for victim, notario fraud. is a case at oregon just recently where they were several victims of notario fraud have applied for u-visa successfully

and have done that and some of the victims, there was one victim who attempted suicide. so the heart is there. what we would like to see happen is that u.s. citizenship and immigration services would understand that justifies immigrant victims to come forward, there needs to be a protection of their status and we think the uv -- emotions would be helpful for the. and i would just end by saying as mentioned with all this confusion around what might be competence of immigration reform or what might not be, we are definitely going to see this problem continue to exist so you see it in the community, please feel free to reach out to us. i can take complaints if it's just not a business using an advertisement about because it helps us to build a case late on but if you a specific victim is being interested in speaking with us, we work with clay whether an applicant take the case as far as they want on the civil, criminal and immigration

site. i think that hopefully answers your question. >> thank you, anne. we're going to go back to matthew now but i think just to highlight, as you just said, the cases you see in this kind of fraud isn't just a much larger happen in immigration realm also in tenant landlord disputes and how the discrimination in wage and theft at all these other areas of law where they pass themselves as attorneys of all areas. thank you. and drilling down on one area in particular that i know matthew wants to raise i think is important to highlight, medical -- so moving on from when a subject or a defendant is part of a trial, then subsequently there is the issue of deportation where similarly the deportation proceedings are entirely another area where the representation, there can also

be determinants. so their matthew talked a bit more about that and how that also ripples into a number of different areas of law. >> absolutely. i'm going to make use of powerpoint briefly. hopefully it will work here. this is an issue that, i don't know how much it's on the radar as the legal community in general, although everything i am -- there we go. has come across my desk a few times, and when i started researching it a bit, it seems that it is more prevalent than what might think. the term that gets used is, a few turns, medical deportation, medical rendition argue that i've heard used. basically what it is that to avoid cost for caring for uninsured or underinsured patients, are largely, i should

say uninsured or underinsured immigrant patient, many hospitals have begun repatriating immigrants that are in need of extended medical care. this is a picture of a man deported by chicago hospital to mexico and died shortly after. the issue is that what's happening is you will get hospitals are getting urgent care, immigrant patients who don't have insurance or who are underinsured. and rather than giving them long term care they're looking for ways to avoid that. they are taking it upon themselves to get them out of the country and going around any sort of official immigration services, not going through homeland security or anything official. this is a picture of a different mr. jimenez who was deported by

florida hospital. i think his story sort of highlights the problem. he was an undocumented immigrants living in florida, was hit by a car and was basically on life support in florida for a lengthy period of time, if it was a rehabilitative stage for what appeared was going to take at least a couple of years. and what the florida hospital decided to do was, they initially tried to see to doing this i guess the correct way. the actual went to a state court to seek permission to forcefully remove him. he likely had a guardian who had been appointed who fought back on that. the state court said sure, you can go ahead and have him removed. "the guardian" immediately appealed and the appellate court said to the hospital to respond to "the guardian"'s assertion

that the state court has now come and the hospital has no jurisdiction or no ability to actually support anybody. but before the appellate court could even will on that the hospital under dark of night raided a helicopter from $3000 to the guy out of the country. which then prompted a contempt citation against the hospital in a personal injury suit against the hospital which i'm told, although it was a confidential sum it did result in recovery but nonetheless a guide us now in guatemala instead of a hospital in the u.s. one last example that include wi-fi here is, this doesn't happen to undocumented intimates. antonio was a document in the produce uninsured, working in arizona, i guess not surprise lake, and was in a car crash and the arizona hospital, they put

him in an automated and drove them across the border and left them there in the hospital. likely his family was able to contact a california hospital that was willing to take it and they were willing, able to get theit back into the country for recovery in a california hospital. so how big of a problem is this? there's been some reports that there've been at least 800 documented cases of this. this is just once documented at the most hospitals are trying to do this without anybody knowing about it the costs of repatriation are high. obviously, the care is not nearly as good for many people outside the country as it is here. and the biggest problem i think is really one of informed consent. and this goes, this sort of goes back to rpd argument from earlier, and that -- our pet

dealer argument. whawhat it thinks of them told e the stations on the immigration consequences, even some the document immigrants were injured in the hospitals take it upon themselves to say we will fly you back to the home country to recuperate. nobody is telling them well, that even though you're a lawful resident here, if you're gone for more than six months, then your ability to become a permanent resident here may be jeopardized. so there are many people who are falling victim to that. oftentimes, and this goes to the story that came across my desk that of want to relate to end of this, is that they're often guardians who are appointed to these people who don't have the best interest of the patient in mind. i think we're all used to the concept of a guardian be appointed to then look out for the interests of the person who they are there to guard, and to act in their best interest. i had a case a couple of years

ago regarding a man who was a patient in the fairfax hospital he was here, he was a patient from nepal, who was here, he was documented come here on a university fees. nepal is one of the countries that qualifies for diversity visa. he was here on an immigrant visa, authorized to work, worked at a local gas station. while crossing route 51 day, he didn't judge up quickly the traffic was, and was hit by a car, was in a coma in the fairfax hospital. is 21 year-ol 21 year old daughs still in nepal was able to come over to be with him, but the hospital convinced the virginia state court, rather than appointed her as his guardian, to avoid a lawyer for the hospital had chosen to be the guardian under the pretext that

she wouldn't be sophisticated in the ways of u.s. law, nevermind that she would most likely have the interests of her father at heart. this guy, his lawyer decided that it was in this man's best interest, even though he was on life-support, on feeding tubes, to have a plane chartered for him, put him on this plane with all this machinery, and fly him back to nepal. and the one caveat being that his daughter had a hold of his passport and refused to give it up. but they come under no sense was eager to try to go to a court. they wanted her to turn over the passport to the hospital, and for them to just putting on this plane and off he would go. we were luckily able to resolve that pretty readily because i think fairfax's general counsel was probably smarter than other hospitals in that when we forwarded some of the instances

such as the florida case with a hospital was found in contempt of course and the personal injury suits that result in this sort of action, they decided, they changed their mind and they did actually find rehabilitative care for the man, but it's led me to think that there are perhaps more, this is going on more than we know about. i guess i would just leave you with, if you do ever hear of anything like this going on, know that it is, that there is some abuse that can happen with this and that perhaps the patient or their family should be seeking assistance. >> thank you, matthew. yeah, i mean, i think that hits

home in a sense of how real this could be for any of us, or for example, i know in virginia some moving traffic violations could constitute a misdemeanor. so for even a green card holder that could be disastrous. with that i think we will open up to questions from the audience and think at some last comments from the panel. so with that i think, make sure we have enough time for your questions. >> is this on? okay. if you are representing a client and you make an assertion to file a court document, and then you later discover that the client doesn't have lawful immigration status, what are you supposed to? i've looked at the model rules and you have conflicting rules. one says tribunal, the other

says conference of the client should be kept. >> you mean if you've made an assertion to the court that the person does have -- >> yet, and lawyers i think at -- >> because there's nothing wrong with filing an action on behalf of a client that doesn't, when their immigration status isn't implicated, it's not that you have a duty to volunteer -- will be and examples be i think it was a case where a boy was disciplined for failing to -- they made an assertion to the department of labor and some sort of filing, and they failed to correct it and they were disciplined for that. >> i would assume that if you have said, if you don't the department, can't think why this would, but if he told the department of labor that this person has work authorization or something, that was part of the case, and you later found out that fact was not true. i would think you'd have a duty to correct that.

but normally like a typical wage that case, that's not an element of the click of an element of the claim is that they were authorized to work, just that they performed the work. and so i actually haven't ever been put in that situation. i don't know if anyone else has. >> i haven't. i already know my clients status for the most part. i guess it depends, what i think the answer depends on is what we are talking about. i think if you say in immigration filing that my client entered on x. date at x. location and update x. status of the day, that's really relevant, they turn for the case 99% of the time. in a criminal context i guess, again i think it's not relevant unless you're on the habeas site, but i think it depends on the nature, no? >> in fact there's actually a set of laws that are in conflict with each other on this point.

for example, for people who are filing matters before the department of homeland security, uscis, or before the department justice, executive office of immigration review there are federal regulations that require certain disclosures to the court or to the government agency, before the tribunal as you mentioned. generally a requirement for attorneys as a matter of state law also, and so we talked about what a model rules are and how each state has adopted either based on the morals or some other version of the role. those rules, for the tribunal can be different than what the federal regulations are. sometimes those things are in conflict but even more so that our duties of confidentiality as well to the clients and that he can be a matter of state rule as well as federal regulations. this is a big issue for immigration practitioners studying ethics issues because you do have a duty of confidentiality which are carted

-- counterbalanced to the tribunal. so again it depends on the context in which nobod a look ae situation. that's always really important. once you know the context, you can take a look at exactly where to go from there. >> another question? >> i just wanted to go back to padilla really quick. in terms of informing the client of the immigration consequences, once a conviction is made, how much is informing them? we were working on a case when the judge said, did you tell your client there's immigration consequences? the answer was yes. and it's like and what does that mean? how much is informing? do you have to i can say if you are convicted of what we said you would be, you will have this consequence, it will be an aggravated felony, therefore, you will be able to get released? is that how explicit you need to

be or just generally state that will be immigration consequences to? i think it depends again. i think the supreme court, the statue that was in question in padilla was drugs, right? it was very clear on the face of the statute, you have these drugs, you are deportable. i think what they're saying was, i think there's no question this up enforcing the statute is clear, that this conviction is going to lead to deportation as you have an affirmative duty to say not just to the immigration consequences but, in fact, you are removable. and then toledo said what about this, what about that? because, in fact, contrary to what what some i think how i think in the passage below that of a myth about the complexity or lack thereof in immigration law. when, in fact, it's extraordinarily complex. that are parts of the statute that would be more complicated, and more importantly your

putting together the 18-point to dash blah, blah, blah, from virginia whatever the maryland is, i forgot all the statute names. and then applying that come a point that to your immigration analysis that could be more complicated. i'm not sure how you determine actually when he so coveted that you have to go out and get -- i pretty much think if you don't know the answer then you just come at all, you should go get an immigration attorney. that is what i advise for most attorneys. >> what the padilla bench said, the supreme court, is that the consequences are clear, you have to advise a criminal defendant about what those consequences are. i think what the supreme court was contemplating is that if you open up the immigration and nationality act, if you go to section 237 which is the primary section that talks about how you can be deported from the united

states, and it talks about what the criminal issues are that renders deportation and remove ability. if you can see in that particular statute clearly what the problem is, that's fine. as we've all talked about immigration law is complex. you have to consult with a lot of parts of immigration and nationality act to get to look at court cases have interpreted what things are a good philly. were talking about federal courts also state courts, administer law courts, board of immigration appeals as well, got to look at the regular should and interpretations given to those regulations by the differing departments but it's very complex. if you have, very clear, someone commits a murder, that's specified in the statute to keynote that will result in deportation or removal. so big a little less clear, i always believed that you should refer out to immigration counsel to be able to actually give proper advice on that matter.

>> sometimes also a situation -- i'm sorry. i agree of course it's the case law, the statute, as one has to engage in statutory analysis. maybe not, but also there's also circumstances of the client. so a person who, this is what they mean by it gets coveted. this person ended the united states lawfully 10 years ago on a student visa and never depart. is this person going to be deportable for having an offense in the first five years of? no. it automatically you look, so it is, in fact, really coveted. and, of course, there's the other section of law, and i personally have said to criminal defense attorneys, you know, i think you need to refer out all the time. and there are different ways that they do it, and it's good for them and it covers the. i think they have to cover themselves because the duties are on the no. >> i will frequently be hired as

an expert witness, and i want to research and repair expert legal opinion that we submitted to a judge or i will be asked to come testify in court if need be to explain what the immigration consequences are. i might meet with a criminal defendant directly or just work with a criminal defense attorney. in those cases you can really sort of planned what are the safe harbors from what are the things people can sort of work with that have the least immigration consequences. i would always recommend that if someone is not a u.s. citizen, you on to get an immigration attorney involved in a criminal charge. >> but is that how high it is been raised because of padilla or what ideas and but we want him to refer out? spent i thin think the supreme t said if it's clinton have an affirmative duty to inform them of what the consequence is. if it's not clear, then i think you have an affirmative duty to tell them that they are immigration consequences related

to that. and then i think that's the only tricky part, which is okay, do you just say this is -- i really don't understand, you would have to go get an immigration attorney. and i think the answer is to cover yourself as a criminal attorney, the answer is you have to go get someone, and we have to get this advice. if you as a criminal defense attorney know that your client, the defendant, as xyz immigration status and that there may be something, you are not doing yourself a favor for the future by not forcing them into giving the council but if you don't want to do if they don't want to do it but you have to cover yourself. there are a lot of criminal defense attorneys who i know who will make the call on their own. they just want to know. >> thank you. while we have our next question, up, that touches on questions i had before you all. for each of you i'm curious to know how your practice has

changed, or how you've seen other practices of other attorneys change in light -- you see as utah's found that it has had an impact on people run their practices, particularly now you see this play out especially in cases where because of the place where you are in the proceedings, where time or resources also are limited to manage the case, are you saying that attorneys are, in fact, branching out and having, consulting more with colleagues in other areas of law in order to meet these standards? >> i'm here so i will go first. for me, i think it is a difference. i have to say that a lot of criminal attorneys that he forthwith in virginia over the last 10 years, so prior to padilla, i feel like a been whether to are these immigration consequences so i've had long-term relationships with many attorneys where we're going back and forth and discussing this, and some for some i think

there is a change, for others i think there's not. of the people are our ready-to-weaready away this is t affected the client, and that's good. i don't personally, i mean, to consult with criminal attorneys but i'm a regular practitioner as well. i don't know anyone who only does that. i think there's a place for that. the place that they really need this isn't public defenders offices, and those public defenders offices where they have that, i think that's really amazing in my opinion. i have a long-standing relationship with the pd office with fairfax county, and to do my best because they do need is important to me but there's a limit to how much you can give. i do know that in maryland in the -- that people who know so much more about immigration and also the district of columbia. they have the funding for it which i think is remarkable. >> it's not just in the criminal defense context that we can't, reach out from attorneys by do

on family law work and i get hired as an expert attorneys also in family law cases that are immigration components. i be asked to advise on a premarital agreement, for example, would've a significant whether whether child support is going to be an issue, how child custody is affected by international property rights. i think attorneys generally look at their clients has people who want to help everyone to serve on a holistic sense will be more likely to reach out for immigration assistance. i think attorneys who look at the job as being very discreet and very limited and just in the context of the law in which they practice, those attorneys aren't going to ask anybody anything that relates to the cases. not for tax issues, bankruptcy issues or any other area of law because they just see that they're doing every discreet service. so i think in those cases, i could educate attorneys wanted the chance that they need to really think about the overall

approach and the impact that things can have. you can't just look at something in a very small box, because people in our communities have a great number of legal issues and they are touched on in many different areas let a criminal matter. >> i think that's where one area where i've increasingly now at least give people the opportunity to go and have a second opinion as i get asked about what are the risks, particularly if i have an undocumented immigrant who has been a victim of discrimination or wage theft that wants to know what the risk is when they bring this suit of deportation. >> or personal injury. >> i make sure, i told emma own experience i've never had a client, you know, that would run afoul with that, but that they should probably for peace of mind talk with someone else. i would give them referrals to consult on that.

>> we saw this play out i think in a pretty good way for all the clients involved in it, notario fraud matter, were a victim of notario fraud was actually being prosecuted because it sort of assisted in the overall scheme as well. and so maryland public defender who is representing the victim in this criminal prosecution referred to the person in his office that knows recrimination issues and is there to advise criminal defense attorneys about possible immigration consequences, and through working with the client through her being involved as well realized that this was actually a victim and was able to sort of refer the case and actually get it so that they didn't prosecute, they did move forward on the case but it can even result in not even prosecuting the matter when you have someone who can say this is an immigrant victim of a crime who, because of some issues with interpretation, is now being prosecuted and because of some confusion around the case.

i seem to play out just that one time very well. >> thank you. question? >> yes. how can you find a through the freedom of information act if a person is an american citizen, legal or illegal immigrant? >> well, i guess you could file a foia to uscis. >> you can't because -- >> a birth certificate search audio citizen i guess. but in terms of dhs i don't think you can get the information directly from them. >> not from the -- >> not you as a random person but i think the person who wants the information for the department of homeland security is the person is that person. so i want my file from uscis. i must sign a foia request. >> you can do census data research, and you can do other

research through the government's national records agencies. they will do, for example, if you want to find out if somebody came over on a ship manifest, that information is available under the freedom of information act or something already published online. you can find out if someone came over to the trendy. for someone's immigration records, those are usually a matter of privacy. so the federal government only releases those records to the individual who is requesting them, their own personal records, or designated representative like an attorney. >> one of your can't avoid a lawsuit against that person and you're kind of find out his status speak as well, if you see somebody of the right to discovery. if your question is relevant to your lawsuit, and you can keep that information in discovery but usually immigration status and citizenship, that would not be relevant to most matters that they're legal in the united states, but perhaps in your

particular case it might be relevant and subject to discovery, to the dispute about a judge to resolve up for. >> prior to discovery or prior to instituting a lawsuit, how would you find out the status of a person? >> i don't think you can. i guess that the person is a u.s. citizen you could do a regular -- i feel like those birth doctors are more available ironically. but other than that i don't think again. >> it's less of a right to privacy so it's possible you can get more information about that person. >> you can always ask the person if you want as well. >> let's say the person has a license of some type, like, say, a pilots license. would he have to be able, would you be able to check with the faa to see if he's a citizen or noncitizen? >> i don't know the answer to the faa question. i mean, i think it's actually going to be probably regulate.

whatever the agency is, it's going to be regulated by whatever the regulations are regulating the particular agency. if there's a license requirement, whether state or federal requirement, then i think you would foia them for the application but i don't know again that they would issue that -- i don't know that the status quo shall be a requirement. so, therefore, that information might not even be there. >> all the federal government is controlled by both the freedom of information act and the federal privacy act. no matter what federal agency want to go to, you are going to be governed by the same rules and the same law. >> thank you. any other questions? >> no more questions? i'd like to know also how, if we could just sum up. anne touched a little bit on remedies available, but as far as malpractice more generally,

in these kind of situations we discussed today, or within padilla can each of you talk a bit about also a guess at the state level, this is very important, different remedies available to clients? >> i mean, you know, the remedy i guess depends on the rights that we are looking for. i can really only speak to the remedy of the habeas in virginia because that's pretty much all that i do on the level with respect to what padilla does to me and for my client. as i said it's already been limited by the commonwealth, so that's the end of that. hopefully, we're going to the case, the case is going to be one that falls within the requirements of the statute and so we will be able to get it in. >> i'm sorry, how does that differ from your cases at the federal level, in general? i cases you might be handling

for immigration or asylum, et cetera, at the federal level? >> you mean the criminal cases? >> yes. is there a difference there between state and federal? >> while i mean, only to the extent of course that whatever the criminal outcome is as always come whether it's state or federal is going to have its effect on whatever is happening in the immigration context. i personally do not and our habeas decision and the commonwealth of virginia because although i'm license their i'm not a criminal practitioner and that's why i have one in my house. i my house i mean my firm. not hidden in the hope of anything like that. it's a good combo to have that. so that you can work on those issues. and yes, of course there would be a remedy. it translates itself in immigration court later on down the road. but with respect to the other issues that were raised in terms of notario fraud, i asked to come back on that because i think at the end of will be the negative one again because i think what they're doing in maryland and in the district,

there are real inspiration for we should have more in the commonwealth. the commonwealth has what the virginia state bar does. it hasn't unauthorized practice of law committee and they do what they do inside the conscious of the bar. the bar is designed to virginia bar is designed to police lawyers, not necessary to police nonlawyers. the our volunteer lawyers were on the committee. it's a long road when you file a complaint with the virginia state bar. they can only do the investigation and to refer the case out of law enforcement agencies. at the end of the day what virginia really needs is a better statute, not unlike the one will hear about john and anne, but we need more by. we need is have more than just the possibility of having a class one misdemeanor hanging over your head. >> thank you. >> i think one of the issues that we ought to touch base with on at this point is that maryland has a specific statute that gives remedy when people

consult with no barrios or use nonlawyers to provide terrible ineffective assistance. for nearly immigration consultant act is found in the commercial article, section 14-3301 through 3306 i believe. yes. the statute actually will prohibit immigration consultants from providing legal advice or legal services related to immigration matters. but it goes beyond that. is a statute i had a little bit of involvement on in a consulting role regarding some of the creation of the language. one of the things it does require that an immigration consultant has to have a written contract with an individual about what services are that would be provided to it can't be legal services. it can only be essential secretarial services such as making translations or typing down information exactly as it is provided.

the statute does it describe the creation of legal services providing forms, telling people how to fill out forms, filing for forms for them, all this constitutes the creation of legal services. in addition to this, an immigration consultant has to post in a conspicuous place in the business, the person is not an attorney licensed to practice law. so that that is clearly visible to people who might be seeking consulting services. the statute if there's a violation does provide for the building to sue civilly, to be able to obtain not just recuperation for the money paid to the consultant, but really three times that amount, treble damages plus it provides compensation for the attorney who is bringing the lawsuit. that's an important incentive for attorneys to be able to bring such cases, because then they can get compensation as well. it does create the criminal penalty as well, present up to a

year in jail, up to $1000 fine or both. and that is per infraction. we've seen in some these cases immigration consultants, notarios are not just taking on one case. it's dozens of cases, bring in all of these potential charges, talking about a substantial penalty that can be applied. it's only been around for less than 10 years, and so it hasn't been applied very frequently. but maryland's attorney general has created a website and has provided information to the public to try to encourage people to come forward. so the are some remedies in this particular area. >> and i would say i guess the struggle that we see even with marilyn immigration consultant act is that often it's too late when the client realizes that they have been the victim of notario fraud to be able to use the act because of the one you statute of limitations.

so that's something we're struggling to get information out to the community before the issue happens, or directly after so that they can take advantage of some of these remedial measures. i would also say one of the issues we've seen with using the consumer protection act in the d.c. or virginia context is that the notario may jump ship or they may move all of the money somewhere where we don't have access to it anymore. and so i was interested to hear manuel said it. we have lots of clients who are still owed money, so when he's released i am curious to know if we can look into that. ..

so that's one tool that we think could help create a little bit more ability for people to speak up. >> thank you. last, just some parting thoughts, last parting thought from each of our panelists. magic, we will start with you, what each of us can do in our particular role for the topic at large as part of the practice. >> i think one of the struggle -- the struggle and the effort, the goal that -- a lot of what my organization is trying to do, particularly with our in my rights project is to balance both protecting -- protecting

from rest those persons who, where one's immigration status is going to bear on their ability to exercise their rights but also recognizing that those are some of the most vulnerable people and some of the people who are being exploited the most and so have the most reason to try to exercise those rights. and so at the outset of any of our cases whether -- how immigration status will play a role. sometimes the fact that his client is undocumented is actually going to be an element of the -- not the civil rights abuse, the fact about an employee has been sexually harassed for years or even sexually assaulted for years because the employer is trend to turning them over to ice.

so that will beat somebody into submission. really keen on trying to make sure that we can give voice to those people, but at the same token and same time not putting them at some sort of risk that they have not consented to being in. >> any other thoughts? >> i would like to share with you a brief statement that i heard in the district court in maryland which is the sort of general level court, one of the people involved who was actually a victim and survivor. and in that particular case the opposing party had taken the passport from this person, and has been holding her passport

and has threatened to call immigration in order to have her removed from this country. and he is married to her. they have a child together. and the judge who is not an immigration lawyer or immigration judge, not an immigrant herself said in front of everybody in the court room, i can think of no greater abuse that you could commit on person than withholding her passport, threatening to have her deported, and taking her away permanently from a child. how dare you. so when we are talking about -- the access to justice issues, there are -- there is recognition that i think is growing among judges and state legislators, not uniformly, but rights and their remedies are out there, even people who don't speak our language or don't seem to be the same as us, people are

starting to understand that immigrants are important people in this country and that the rights that immigrants should have should be the same as writes that everybody has a america. >> thank you. at think that is a great note. thank you all so much for being here. i'm going to pause for applause for are exceptional panel. >> local officials said today that the death toll from last month's mudslide in washington state has risen to at least 41. president obama visited the site of the mud slide. there he is noting that the victims' families and first responders. at 6:45 p.m. eastern, you can see that live here on c-span2. and for washington state the president heads to asia.

he starts off the trip in japan and then heads to south korea and the philippines and finishes the trip early next week. president obama will be the first sitting u.s. president to visit malaysia says lyndon johnson in 1966. >> and we are back. the executive director of the league of young voters. here to talk about the role that they will play in 2014. what do you think that role will be? >> i think this is an important year in terms of elections. people think that young people won't turn out. in places where young people are organized and active there will be a big turnout. >> how does it compare to 2010? what do we see from the youth vote in 2010 in an off-year election? the president -- there was a presidential election. >> a lot of times people say, young people did not turn out which is not true. in fact, there was an increase in turnout amongst young people.

i'm proud of that. keep doing that. are not going to be a will to push people to the polls. >> why is it going to be tougher ? >> i think young people are hurting. financially college debt is kicking our but. i think people have not felt the recovery yet. >> so what are you doing? what is your group going to try to get them to turn out? >> we use oceanarium, twitter, histogram, and we are on the ground. we have young people who are paid staff who are running training, getting people active and organized. we are there. we will keep going. virginia, wisconsin, georgia, pennsylvania, and working on virginia. >> are you feeling it in your organizations that you don't have the field workers that you did at this point in 2010?

>> you must have of the political people on the show with you. rehearsing a scaled-back. it is mostly being felt in use communities of color. they have done a great job of passing the reins and the progressive sector as a whole. to erode an article a couple of weeks ago pushing people to pass the reins over to young people. they're smart, talented. >> what is going on in these communities of color? what is going on with the african american male youths and his connection to the government? >> well, there is lot of polls that say young people cannot if you look at young black men, we are proud of what the president, it's a huge initiative.

$200 million. >> what do you think this will do for that young african-american communities? >> the most important thing we're trying to do is change the narrative. far too often -- in fact, pugh did a study that said 95 percent of the images and news of african-americans are other sports or chemical to of criminals. when you look at the statistics, it's huge. we want to change this narrative we will continue -- he is hosting round tables all across the country. yesterday was that conversation about the narrative. >> this is from the white house, from their website, my brother's keeper, understanding the problems. by the time they hit fourth grade 86 percent of african-american and 82 percent of hispanic boys a reading below

proficiency levels. african-american and hispanic gang men are more than six times as likely to be victims of murder, this on the white house website. what does that say? what is the president's proposing to do? >> it says we have a lot of problems in our community, which is true. if you look at the war on drugs, we have been hit the hardest. a lot of people are saying this is their war on drugs. is it can only be prompted the problem based. every day young man i taking a kid to school. young african-american men are more likely to spend time in their children's lives. so the president is holding round tables all across the country, being involved on twitter.

but your story up. the key thing i found is that he is never putting an idea up there and then says this is the way it will be. he has incurred some people. that is what we will do. but your story up. >> let's show our viewers what the president has said. >> what we are talking about here today with my brother's keeper is a more focused effort. boys and young men of color who are having a particularly tough time. and in this effort government cannot play the only or even the primary role. we can help give every child access to quality preschool and help them start learning from an early age, but we cannot replace the power of the parent who is reading to their child. we can reform our criminal justice system to insure that it is not infected with bias, but

nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son's life. [applause] in other words, broadening horizons for our young men and giving them the tools they need to succeed will require a sustained effort from all this. parents will have to parent and turn off the television and help with homework. teachers will need to do their part to make sure our kids don't fall behind and that we are setting high expectations for those children and not giving up on them. business leaders will need to create more mentors ships and apprenticeships to show more young people what careers are out there. tech leaders will need to open young i still feels like computer science and engineering . phase leaders will need to help our young men develop the values and ethical framework that is the foundation for a good and productive life.

so we all have a job to do, and we can do it together. black and white, urban and rural, democrat and republican. >> what is he talking about? how is this going to work? >> well, first of want to say when that clip was taking place i was in no room and once with 58 mayors from an organization. this was an amazing meeting with young people from all across the country, mayors, chief staff. poetry in the room, young people were passionately telling people 20 years ago, the one solution. so their efforts all across the country. you want to get involved in the round table discussion, they have a list that a taking place. this is only going to work -- the philanthropy community is strong. young people step up and demand

changes. far too often there are conversations about the boys being involved. it's like old media. unfortunately all media pay so little attention to young people that many people had to cussed-dramatically. they're is a huge opportunity to get people's voice in the conversation. >> the president is talking about the role that teachers will have to play. so what is the expecting from teachers? how is it going to work? >> yeah. well, you keep asking me. you're putting me on the spot. i think that is the great thing. we are designing it. the president gave us an 90-day order. it takes usually a year or two. he said to do this in 90 days.

i live in milwaukee, wisconsin. i'm part of the black man achievements conference. our mayor and all the men have convened about 60 organizations having a conversation about designing methods for improvement, focusing. and this is unique because oftentimes when these things happen it is criminalization and not improvement. >> book tv in primetime continues tonight on c-span2 with stories from the white house. at 8:00 eastern diane jacobs

>> more than a year there have been allegations, simulations that i knew about the planning of the watergate break-in and that i was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. the house judiciary committee is now investigating these charges. on march 6th i ordered all materials that i had previously furnished to the special prosecutor turned over to the committee. these included tape recordings of 19 presidential conversations and more than 700 documents. on april 11 the judiciary committee issued a subpoena for two additional tapes of conversations which it contended were necessary for its investigation. i agreed to respond to that subpoena. >> forty years ago on april 29th president nixon responded to the house judiciary committee subpoena for

additional watergate tapes. his response plus reflections from former "washington post" journalist sunday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span three. >> arkansas senator john bozeman is in recovery following heart surgery. this 63 year-old republican was taken to the hospital overnight after suffering from pain in his chest and arm. after tests doctors perform heart surgery and said he responded well to the operation and are monitoring his recovery. now conversation on china's economy. former officials with the treasury department, cia, and the world bank discuss whether the rate of china's recent economic growth is sustainable. from the center for strategic and international studies in washington this is an hour and 15 minutes

>> a few others haven't conserved. >> well, good morning all. my names >> well, good morning. i am delighted to be year and introduced this terrific panel. we have already met man, the william e simon chair in political economy. many know that matt was white house coordinator for asia-pacific economic cooperation and coordinator on the east asia summit. on my far left, how do you feel about that far left? >> that's where i belong. >> david dollar is currently senior director at the brookings institution but was formerly at the treasury department as their representative in beijing. were you the first? >> no, no. dave was. >> that's right. but the best so far. and was also, world bank representative. dave's made that magic washington transition from being

a policy-maker to being a resource to everybody for which we're all most grateful. on my far right and i know how you feel about that, chris johnson is senior advisor here and one of the coauthors of the study and freeman chair of china studies at csis. chris spent nearly two decades in the intelligence and foreign policy community on behalf of the u.s. government. on my immediate left, olin wethington, former assistant secretary of the treasury for international affairs, special envoy to china and leader of our financial financial negotiations with them and founder and head of the wethington international right now. where you work on m&a work and outbound investment of all kinds. yeah, maybe it is the cold rain but on the way over i was reminded and kind of chastened by the idea that it has been exactly 40 years ago that i was, probably making in the same

weather about same time of year the transit of the university of michigan diag to go to mike oxenburg's class on chinese political thought. mike didn't waste all his time with ungrateful undergraduates, as many of you know he went on to be carter's senior director for asian study and spearhead the china normalization effort. mike, among the many things that he taught us, he emphasized the need in looking at china for intellectual rigor and honesty and also for a necessary modesty appreciating what we don't and can't know in trying to understand china's instincts and motives. i think he would look at the study as a durable contribution to the literature in this area and it would meet mike's high standards. for that i commend you all. i think this is an important contribution to the literature. matt, let me start with you.

in listening to your overview, most all of us appreciate china is not a place where the internal incentive structure permits people to walk around and have free and unfettered views of who is in charge here any way and how does this really work? those are dangerous conversations in washington and certainly not without risk in the chinese political environment. can you say more about you how you guys went about this analysis and some of the, both the problems and the surprises that occurred in the course of what, over a year's worth of discussion? >> sure. thanks. let me say mike was also an inspiration to us. he and ken lieberthal did a lot of original work we read to get a foundation for this. a terrific guy and tragically died way too young. one of the surprises in this

project was it was pretty easy to talk to people. i found very little resistance to talking about this stuff. of course we were in this first year trying to map the whole elephant as it were. i think one thing, one explanation there are a lot of blind people who know the tale or trunk or tusk in china but they kind of had an interest themselves in sort of understanding how the big picture works and so i think that was part of the explanation. partly these are not as controversial issues as some other things that one could ask b we certainly weren't asking, sort of deep, difficult questions that others might. so i think actually, and i think that the chinese authorities want us, all of us in this room to really understand how china works better because they want, you know they want a better dialogue, better exchange. no more difficult than i think it would be in washington to get access and information and insight. >> indeed, indeed. the end product speaks for

itself and i think it is useful to us and probably to them as well. david, look, you've been involved with many of the people that matt described as being key to this process but both in your treasury job and at the world bank but i thought many times, when we were sitting together in beijing, that you know, your bank colleagues, even those with successes like equatorial guinea, look at china and say, this isn't the development model that any of us understand. and indeed perhaps a decade ago we would have said, things should go in a very different way to produce things should go in a very different way to produce this heroic results, this kind of growth. what facts do you think best explains why china does not fit the conventional development model that we all have followed when we look at success? >> i think paradoxically when we

think of china as an authoritarian country, the thing that always struck was the power of mobile government. have a chance to work with a lot of governments around china. and my strategy was local governments that were interested in reform. usually they conceded that there were interested in a particular problem. some governments are worried about air pollution, some are worried about waste water treatment. our strategy was to find governments that have a problem and were interested in thinking about innovative ways of solving it. and our model and in our mind always was this is a country where if something is piloted at the local level and is successful it tends to spread pretty quickly. i was both impressed by the independents and the competition , but then having said that also they have very single-minded focus on economic growth. they were able sometimes to be

interested in environmental issues but it was because the particular environmental problem had risen to a level where was threatening economic growth. easier to deal with waste water and air pollution. so the incentives for local government were very, very strong to pursue economic growth which is covered in the presentation. this is coming down from the center, how you evaluate local officials. i also think we have to appreciate that the growth model in china created a lot of corruption opportunities. so there were aligned, and i worry as we move ahead about two things. one, how do you change the incentive for local government pollution and safety. that's a tough nut to crack. secondly, this model that is relying a lot on experimentation has served china well during the growth phase, but now they are moving into a set of issues, for example, opening up the service

sectors are financial reform. very hard to do that. you can't just reform in one location. some of the strength that has worked very well for them is calling to be a problem going forward. >> testing the limits of and is next phase of development of local initiative and that kind of growth? >> i appreciate your comment about humility. observe the seven next -- i am skeptical it will be able to change the incentive. >> jump in there real quick. it's so important. how to pursue this reform program. if you look at in particular some of the speeches he has been making there is an heavy emphasis on what is now being referred to as the modernization

this is the idea of improving and restructuring china's government structure but also capacity. this is designed to create a lot of the infrastructure. it was interesting. it talked about how window shopping in 1992, the reform program, he remembers them saying it would take down approximately 30 years. so again psychologically feels that is to occur during his term >> say more about what you think what is the biggest difference, most immediately the biggest difference between the previous regime of the last ten years and now who.

we have seen documents, the party documents. we were talking beforehand about how little compared to last three decades, hello. what is your compare and contrast? >> sure. i would argue the biggest difference, these guys are much more active, pursuing a much more gold process of reform. i think that -- on the one hand it is encouraging to show that boldness to do what needs to be done even though there are serious obstacles to overcome. on the other hand it also shows, i think, many of these reforms are on popular. there's a general consensus among key constituencies. and so if you look at it that

way it's coming to a fork in the road, and you have two choices. you can either slowdown grab the resistance by the scruff of the neck. so far i think it's the latter case, anti-corruption, ideological. >> this is sort of beyond. having spent so much time in negotiations. but as you look at what these guys described, what particular challenge or opportunity do you see for u.s. policy against this backdrop of dynamism, even -- and this is not just you, changes in government structure heaven forbid we should have

significant changes in the way our government is organized. we convulse every couple of years with different models and move the boxes around, but listening to what christians said, i'm trying to think of what consequences this will have >> i think it does have significant consequences. the center-right. [laughter] happy to be here on your left. >> always hear from me. >> i would like to associate having been one of the students said who he wasted a lot of time with. i think from a u.s. perspective our leaders current articulation of policy, they had said that the current economic model is

not sustainable. there have even been some, including the deputy to the groupon finance and economics who have gone so far as to say it's a dead-end. maybe not today, but at some point. and that new model of economic development, well necessitate slower growth and more balanced and sustainable growth trajectory. well, from i u.s. perspective when we see china having generated over the last number of years about 30 percent of global growth, maybe we should also ask the question, to what extent is an engineer -- at least for short and medium-term purposes slowdown in growth and our interest? well, we may not have much control over that, but i would say that from a u.s. perspective