Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (May 2008)
This article may not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
This article has been tagged since May 2008.

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since May 2008.

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) is a non-profit legal services organization in Washington State. NWIRP is committed to defending and advancing the legal rights of low-income immigrants in Washington State.

Founded in 1984, the project was created to address the legal needs of Central American refugees and others who were able to legalize their status under Amnesty programs.[1] NWIRP has grown significantly in scope and currently serves low-income immigrants and refugees from more than 100 countries across Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern and Western Europe and Africa.[2]

NWIRP has four offices in Washington State. The Seattle Office serves the low-income immigrant communities in Western Washington. The Granger Office (in the Yakima Valley) and the Moses Lake Office, serve the low-income immigrant communities in Eastern Washington. The fourth office, located in Tacoma, focuses solely on serving the 1000 persons detained at the Northwest Detention Center (owned and operated by the GEO Group).[3]

NWIRP provides direct representation to individuals who are applying for political asylum, family visas, lawful status under the Violence Against Women Act, and naturalization or citizenship. NWIRP also provides direct representation, defending individuals who are placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. In addition, supported by a grant from the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the U.S. Department of Justice, NWIRP provides legal orientation sessions to all persons detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, who are placed in removal proceedings.[4]

Apart from representing individuals in administrative proceedings, NWIRP also provides direct representation before the federal district courts in Washington State and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. NWIRP has successfully represented individuals on several published decisions, including:

Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey: The Court ruled that an identity theft conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony theft conviction for immigration purposes because the elements of the identity theft statute encompass many forms of conduct that do not fall under the common law definition of theft. The Court also clarified that it was not appropriate to remand the case to the BIA where the BIA’s interpretation was not entitled to deference and the BIA had an opportunity to address the issues presented. Finally, the Court reconfirmed that the government may not rely upon an individual’s concession of removability that is incorrect as a legal matter[5]; Suazo-Perez v. Mukasey: The Court held that the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner’s misdemeanor conviction for assault constituted a crime of violence and thus rendered him deportable despite his lawful permanent resident status[6]; Hosseini v. Gonzales: The Court found that an applicant for relief who has been identified as a supporter of a counterrevolutionary group in Iran qualifies for relief under the Convention Against Torture even where the individual had not experienced past torture[7]; Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft: In this case, the Court reaffirmed an often-ignored principle: that the government cannot use statements against non-citizens in removal proceedings without making a reasonable attempt to have the affiants available for cross-examination. This point is especially crucial where the government itself removed the affiants instead of making them available at the removal proceedings[8]; Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales: The Court held that a conviction for burglary in the State of Washington does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. In addition, the Court ruled the lawful admission and residence of the parents can be imputed to a minor child for purposes of qualifying for cancellation of removal[9]; Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft: The Court found that certain individuals with prior deportation orders are nonetheless entitled to have their applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence along with the necessary waivers adjudicated before the government can moved to reinstate the prior order of removal. The Court held that notwithstanding the prior deportation or removal orders, such individuals are still eligible to become permanent residents. Before Perez-Gonzalez, the vast majority of these individuals were being summarily deported without a hearing and denied the opportunity to become permanent residents[10]; Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft: The Court ruled that, (1) prior offense of grand theft would not be considered misdemeanor under California statute providing that “wobbler” offense was to be treated as misdemeanor after judgment imposed punishment other than imprisonment in state prison, but (2) California court's declaration that such offense was misdemeanor was binding on BIA[11]; Castro-Cortez v. Ashcroft: The Court found that it had jurisdiction to directly review administrative reinstatement orders, and that the provision of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) permitting INS to reinstate prior orders of removal did not apply retroactively[12].

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.nwirp.org/AboutUs/AboutNWIRP.aspx
  2. ^ http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040917&slug=nwirp17m
  3. ^ http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060930&slug=detention30m
  4. ^ http://www.nwirp.org/ServicesProvided/Overview.aspx
  5. ^ -- F.3d – (9th Cir. 2008).
  6. ^ 512 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2008)
  7. ^ 464 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006)
  8. ^ 394 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2005)
  9. ^ 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005)
  10. ^ 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004)
  11. ^ 334 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2003)
  12. ^ 239 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2001)