Turin Turin & Olinger is in the forefront of immigration law. In our last Bulletin, we reported that we were
counsel for the alien in Max-George v. Reno, 205 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1999). On June 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our certiorari petition (by a vote of 5 to 4!), vacating and remanding the Fifth Circuit
opinion reported above. We appeared pro bono before the Supreme Court due to the fundamental importance of this case to our entire system of jurisprudence. The issues involved are fundamental. The "IIRAIRA" immigration law amendments provided that no alien could obtain federal judicial review relating to either a " discretionary" ruling or a ruling involving a criminal alien, once the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA], an administrative agency, had entered a final order of deportation. In effect, this meant that only asylum seekers could obtain judicial review. In this respect, IIRAIRA was unconstitutional, because the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process and Article 1, Sec. 9, clause 2's guarantee of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, apply to "persons" in the United States, not just U.S. citizens. Although the Supreme Court did not declare IIRAIRA to be unconstitutional, they did hold that IIRAIRA could not be interpreted to permit suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Fifth Circuit's 1999 ruling in Max-George v. Reno also held that the "Mendez Rule" applies in the
Fifth Circuit. This rule holds that an alien who has been deported-or has departed the U.S.-may continue
to litigate against INS. This aspect of Max-George v. Reno was not reviewed by the Supreme Court and
presumably is the current rule. This has both good and bad consequences for aliens suing the federal
government. The plus side is that INS can no longer "get rid of" someone's claim, just because the person
has had to leave the country. The minus side is that this ruling may lead the Fifth Circuit and the federal
district courts in this Circuit to deny applications for stays of deportation, during the pendency of litigation.

The principles we defended in Max-George v. Reno are indispensable to American liberty, particularly
following the tragic incidents of September 11. Understandably, Congress now seeks to give our law
enforcement agencies virtually unlimited power to detain anyone suspected of involvement in terroristic
activities. The problem is that law enforcement agencies, left to themselves, usually "shoot first and ask
questions later." Already, there are publicized incidents of erroneous arrests and lengthy incommunicado
detentions of aliens. The writer, John Steinbeck quotes Dr. Johnson as saying that easy patriotism in a time
of crisis is "the last refuge of scoundrels." We all should reflect on what has made the United States the
greatest nation on earth during the past 200 years. The answer is easy: liberty. Protected on either side by
oceans, the U.S. has never had to endure the personal casualties and physical destruction we witnessed in
Manhattan. For us, liberty has come relatively cheaply; the most serious casualties we've suffered were self-
inflicted during the Civil War. While we must defend ourselves physically, we must also do so morally-we
must defend the unparalleled liberties we subsume in the name "America."

In the past 6 months, Turin Turin & Olinger has successfully litigated approximately 20 cases involving
aliens being deported for "driving while intoxicated" offenses. We also have successfully litigated several cases involving " Sec. 212(c) waivers," which were improperly foreclosed retroactively by the Justice Department, following the enactment of IIRAIRA. Our legally resident clients in this posture have obtained reopened hearings, or are in the process of doing so.

In other litigation now pending in the federal district court, we are challenging yet another unconstitutional
provision of IIRAIRA-Sec. 212(h) [as amended]-which provides that aliens who have never been legal
residents may obtain a discretionary waiver for certain crimes, but aliens who have been legal residents may
not. There is already a dispute among our federal circuit courts as to the constitutionality of this provision.
It is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws. The distinction made by this statute is
irrational because it rewards aliens who are in the U.S. illegally and punishes those who are not. It also
punishes aliens who have lived here legally a very long time and who usually have their entire, extended
families in the U.S. By contrast, aliens who have lived here illegally, for much shorter periods, are
benefited. Howsoever "intended" this statutory distinction was by Congress, it is simply irrational and also
violates the doctrine in equity that a person should not benefit from his fraud or unlawful conduct. One who
crosses our borders surreptitiously should not be penalized in distinction to one who has immigrated lawfully.

In addition to this litigation, Turin Turin & Olinger successfully obtain visas for business managers and executives[L-1s] for investors from countries with Treaties of Trade, Navigation and Commerce with the
U. S. [E-2s], or nonimmigrant professionals (such as engineers and programmers) [H-1s]. We assist aliens and their employers in cases involving alien labor certifications, employer sanctions, and student & visitor visas, as well as in cases involving naturalization and citizenship claims.

Joshua Turin has been involved-since 1984-in virtually every imaginable kind of immigration law case,
including visa classifications for crews of seagoing vessels, vehicle seizures, acquired and derivative
citizenship claims, registry, and a number of other unusual cases.

Joshua Turin has litigated questions of "first impression" in the federal courts since 1985. He has argued
several times in the Circuit Courts (in New Orleans and San Francisco) and was counsel for the alien in the
following matters: Medrano-Villatoro v. INS, 866 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1989) [holding that the BIA could not
summarily dismiss an alien's appeal, for failing to file a brief, when the BIA's regulations did not expressly
require it]; Mulligan v. Schultz, 848 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988) [holding that the doctrine of "consular
nonreviewability" shielded the Secretary of State from judicial scrutiny of arbitrary rulemaking in the "visa
lottery" program]; Cipriano v. INS, 24 F.3d 763 (5th Cir. 1994) [holding that the Board of Immigration
Appeals [BIA] could not blame the alien for residing unlawfully in the U. S., for purposes of suspension of
deportation eligibility, where the BIA itself was responsible for the delay; Bernal-Garcia v. INS, 852 F.2d
144 (5th Cir. 1988) [holding that the BIA was required to consider newly acquired evidence in an asylum
case]; Yahkpua v. INS, 770 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985) [holding that an alien in deportation proceedings
could be removed, even though INS was dilatory in processing his visa petition]; Bahramnia v. INS, 782 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1986) [holding that the BIA could deny asylum to an alien fleeing the Ayatollah Khomeini Regime in Iran, due to allegations of marriage fraud].

We look forward to meeting the business and personal needs of all of our clients.