ILNews

Law students help gain political asylum for clients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three immigration clinic students from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law have won political asylum for two people – a young woman who fled to the United States after being subjected to female genital mutilation and a young man who feared persecution in Zimbabwe because of his HIV status.

Zoe Meier, a 2012 law school graduate, worked on the woman’s case, who wanted asylum based on her subjection to the female genital mutilation and her fear of forced marriage, tribal banishment, and other reprisal from her father for refusing to marry. Meier was responsible for all cross-examination, document filing and witness preparation before the immigration judge in Chicago. She continued to help the woman on a pro bono basis after completing her graded clinical work last year.

Recent law school graduates Aimee Hetz and Serge Zaitseff began working on the case of the young man with HIV in January. He was awarded asylum based on his HIV-status and his fear of being subjected to persecution because of it if he returned to Zimbabwe.

A release from the law school says the win in this man’s case is significant because he had been detained by federal immigration authorities for seven months because he was unable to pay the $3,500 bond. Hetz and Zaitseff had challenges communicating with the client because of his ongoing detention and transfer to various facilities and weren’t able to meet with him in person until February.

The law school said immigration clinic students actively represented around 50 people during the 2011-2012 academic year. Student work included representation of applicants for asylum, U visas, U.S. citizenship and temporary protected status.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT