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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT