SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Beat the Prosecution, presented by Northern Virginia criminal defense and DUI lawyer Jonathan Katz, where we are here to regularly present you information and ideas for beating your prosecution as best as possible. Nothing on any of our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or for individuals who have paid for a consultation. And now for your host, John Katz.

SPEAKER_01 0:32

Hello, everybody. This is John Katz at Beat the Prosecution. I'm a criminal defense and DWI defense lawyer in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. You will see a pattern going on here. I've been having numerous guests who have been great influences and teachers on me, some for several decades, including today's teacher and friend, Paul Grusendorf. He is a lawyer. He is an immigration lawyer, a former immigration judge. He is an author. He wrote a book that you can get on Amazon by Kindle and Paper, My Trials, What I Learned in Immigration Court. He can tell you what his other book is that's under an assumed name, if he's willing to give that one, uh, about his experiences in DC while as a musician. Paul was the first person who ever joined me at trial. Uh, this was when I was in the immigration clinic, uh batting a thousand, getting two deportation orders, but also winning in uh an asylum application through an application uh uh interview over in Baltimore. With Paul, he was the first person with whom I ever uh went to a jail. Without further ado, Paul Grusendorf, please introduce yourself.

SPEAKER_02 1:56

Thank you, John. Uh this is Paul Grusendorf, the first person who ever took you to a jail, I guess. That would have been a good one. Whose jail was that?

SPEAKER_01 2:05

I think that was the Rappahannock jail in in in Virginia when we had that deportation hearing in front of uh administrative law judge uh Aerosmith in 1990, uh 1997, I think it was, yes, 1997, for that man who got convicted for importing two kilos of cocaine.

SPEAKER_02 2:29

Right. Okay. Well, you you got off on a on a good track, I can see.

SPEAKER_01 2:36

You didn't give me an easy one. Paul, uh, where are you based out of? What kind of work are you currently doing? What are you doing with the Innocence Project right now?

SPEAKER_02 2:51

Well, the Innocence Project, that's uh a newbie, and uh that's I I wasn't planning on on uh highlighting or emphasizing that, but I I I applied uh over a year ago just to be on their list of volunteers to be a screener, and uh because there's so many innocence projects around the country, and there's such a great need. But since I'm right here in the DC area, I went for the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, and I finally they finally sent me my first case in December. Uh so this this is they they they have screeners uh for various things, and this is one one of their main uh screening uh duties is to screen people who file for a review of Brady violations. So this guy was convicted actually a com a a number of years ago in in Baltimore uh for uh um murder and uh felon in possession of a weapon and weapon and use of a murder. Uh but he's somehow managed now to file uh uh a request to have all potential uh Brady violations uh reviewed. And and that's probably all I should get into at this point on that.

SPEAKER_01 4:15

And I'm looking forward to finding out more.

SPEAKER_02 4:17

Otherwise, what uh otherwise, what am I up to these days? Well, uh you know, I had a long history uh both uh uh as you recall with the George Washington Immigration Act and then as an immigration judge, and then I left that position in uh 2004 specifically to do refugee work, and after my first UN refugee uh agency contract in Seoul Korea in 2005, while I was there, that's when the the uh US is uh I think Paul is frozen.

SPEAKER_01 5:02

I'm looking forward to coming back, Paul. Is Paul calling me now gonna get back in? Paul, waiting for you. Yeah, okay, so I see you now, Paul.

SPEAKER_02 5:19

What happened? We got we got disconnected and then my face appeared. I don't understand.

SPEAKER_01 5:24

Good to see you, Paul. I see you have your uh mustache and beard again.

SPEAKER_02 5:29

Yeah, so uh I don't know where I got disconnected, but I uh in 2005 the the U.S. government under uh U.S. uh citizenship and immigration services opened their uh refugee affairs division, which was to have specifically a dedicated uh corps of trained officers available to deploy out into the field uh overseas to uh it's kind of like the the tail that is wagged by the State Department dog. The State Department would decide which uh which population of refugees and which country, often in which refugee camp they wanted to uh interview and screen and and admit to the United States. And then uh these officers, including myself, would deploy usually for six weeks at a time to uh to coordinating with the State Department, with the UN. Usually these were at the UN uh High Commissioner for Refugee UNHCR camps to do to do these uh screenings to bring uh refugees to the US. And I did that until uh 2011, and then I did some more uh direct UN refugee agency contracts, and then I went back to the to the government and did some more refugee work and then specifically asylum work. Uh so my last position was a as a supervisory asylum officer in the Arlington, Virginia office until 2019, and then when I officially in quotes retired from the government, then I continued to do contracts with the UN Refugee Agency. And uh, of course, COVID got in the way of that, but I've I've worked the more recent contracts were in Rwanda and in uh Zambia. So uh, and right now I'm on a short list uh both for Senegal and for Indonesia for those kind of contracts.

SPEAKER_01 7:41

Okay, now when I met you, this was in 1986 or 87. I started GW Law School in 86. I wanted to save the world. I went to Wall Street uh with a big bank there during the year between college and law school, convinced that there was a way to marry capitalism with uh with human rights, civil liberties, and saving the world. It took a lot of detours, but uh you really helped me uh realize that I can save the world or at least start with my corner of it. And what I really appreciated with you is what you taught me. And although you were an older law student, I guess, compared to the others, didn't you start when you were around in your late 20s or or in your 30s when you went to Howard Law School?

SPEAKER_02 8:32

Yeah, I I attended Howard Law School uh when I was 32. So after a prior career in uh documentary film, and uh it's an interesting footnote. So I started in exactly uh uh 1982, uh and uh then exactly 30 years later, I returned to how I was invited back to Howard School to teach as an adjunct to teach their uh refugee asylum component. Exactly 30 years age.

SPEAKER_01 9:09

And if my math is correct, when I took when I was in the immigration law clinic and had you as my immigration law class professor in 1987, you were only around maybe three, four, five years out of law school. So that was my inspiration that uh you don't have to wait until you're 10 to 20 years out of law school to do something great. You don't have to wait for other people uh to let you do it. You make it happen. And with one of the first clinic clients I had at the clinic, I took them over from Larry Stein, I think. I'm sure you remember uh Larry, a fellow vegetarian of mine. Uh, I started telling you about what I was gonna tell this client uh about some things I knew about his country. And without you telling me what you might have thought, you know, you dope, you nink em poop, you green person, you don't start talking at your client. You don't start telling him what you know, you ask him to teach you. This was uh this was an asylum applicant, and yes, I had to learn from him. That was so critical, Paul. And I learned from that in all my dealings with my clients later on. You know, about uh it was about five years later that I became uh four years later that I became a public defender lawyer uh after being with a corporate law firm for two years. And you gave me the opportunity to first chair two trials, even though I lost them. Now, maybe you saw them as losers, and that maybe there was less to risk with you being there with me uh as the lawyer who moved my admissions. So the first one was that cocaine case, and I realized in retrospect that wasn't the greatest defense we had to say, okay, he's got a green card. He had a conviction for importing two kilos of cocaine into the country, and the best we could do was to put him up on the witness stand and say, Well, I didn't know there was cocaine in that uh teddy bear that my uh relative handed me to bring to my niece in America. Paul, if you think about it, and it was interesting that the government lawyer didn't bring this up, how on earth wouldn't you notice that that teddy bear with four pounds with two kilos, meaning over four pounds of cocaine, was a little too heavy? Uh Judge Arrow Smith knocked that one down. And then I was hoping that the next one we would win. That was the man who went from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe and then came over to the U.S. And the uh the prosecutor or whatever you call it, the the government lawyer for that one didn't even argue hard because she probably realized we would lose. And uh Judge Aerosmith said that was forum shopping. He found a place of safety in Zimbabwe and came to the U.S. The only saving grace there was that uh with Reagan being the president of the time and Reagan's administration not willing to deport anyone to Ethiopia, at least the client got uh, you know, didn't get deported and was eligible for for work, uh a work permit at the time. But the person who we did win for it, it was this woman. She didn't even have any, uh she didn't even have any paperwork to confirm it, no documents, no witnesses. She was from Ethiopia, she was very religious as a Christian, and we had an interview. Uh we went with Konjit Gitachu. Remember Konjit? And uh she she was the interpreter, she wasn't even a lawyer yet, and uh we got granted asylum by the immigration officer in Baltimore uh on the claim that uh that this client got repeatedly harassed by the authorities for being involved with religious activity. And I made sure to underline in the applic the the uh asylum application, I think, that uh that our client was seeking asylum from the uh Marxist communist government over in Ethiopia, since that was a very anti-communist uh uh administration of Reagan at the time. So what I'm saying here is I'll say this early on. What I often say in my shows, Paul, uh one of my martial arts teachers says, don't let your teachers forget how much you appreciate them. And uh you were one of the bedrocks for my becoming a great criminal defense law, at least for those who think I am, through the trial and error and working through with you. And when I was able to apply for a public, or should I say, interview for a public defender job, I was able to say that I had trial experience. I didn't have criminal trial experience, but I had the trial experience with you. And I really appreciate that, Paul.

SPEAKER_02 13:42

Well, thank you, John. And uh one thing you mentioned about uh how your first client uh ended up teaching you. I was just gonna interject. That's one of the really fascinating and rewarding things about uh practicing asylum or refugee law, is that there's just so much to learn that you have an opportunity and even an obligation to dig into people's culture and to come to terms with what is the current uh affairs, political affairs in that country, and what what were the what was the motivation that caused the applicant to have to flee in the first place? So you you were constantly being hated from many different uh countries around the world and interacting with such fascinating people from different cultures. That's what really kept me uh in involved in that linebook. When you when you mentioned uh uh your client uh down in Rappahannock with a cocaine conviction, that brought to mind kind of an ironic uh situation. Uh, I think it was probably uh in in the later 1980s that the clinic we had a client, he was uh a Lebanese, a young Lebanese man from uh from an extended family in in the United States, and he had a conviction that I think the conviction was for possession of heroin. And of course, there were allegations that he had been a trafficker, but uh we were able uh in that kind of a case uh uh in order to get what we call relief from deportation, it's almost like a miracle that you could get somebody like that. We we were able to get him uh the 212C relief uh that to allow him to remain in the country despite the the type of crime he had been convicted of. And actually that that went up on appeal because the the judge had ruled just on the issue of credibility, that even though the applicant had had his family in court and his mother was in court, he had chosen not to present his mother as a witness because you know she was concerned cultural reasons not to appear on the witness stand. And the judge ruled against the client specifically, even though he found that the client's testimony was credible, he found that because the mother didn't testify, he failed the overall just invented by that judge credibility test. And the Board of Immigration appeals, they reversed and rather than sending it back for another trial, they just outright granted our application. But then uh a few years later, when I was an immigration judge in Philadelphia and where one of my duties was to handle the uh you know the the prison uh the individuals who were uh being removed while they were in prison by ISA. And we had a video connection to Deerfield, Pennsylvania uh federal penitentiary. And so it was a so-called master calendar where you're seeing many clients at one time. And then this one guy sat down in front of the camera, and uh I he greeted me, I greeted him, and then the the ICE attorney he held up a file and he said, Your Honor, we moved to reacuse. You were actually the attorney on this case, and so it was that same guy who had after we had pulled a miracle in his case, a few years later he had got convicted for actually trafficking heroin. And I said, uh, well, sorry, but nothing I can do. You're gonna have to you're gonna have to go before another judge on this one. And uh so that was uh uh kind of a sad irony what happened to that guy.

SPEAKER_01 17:47

Well, uh what you were just talking about, Paul, that really packed the wallop. And uh, in many ways, uh I did uh part of my wanting to save the world uh when I was applying for uh law school was to do a lot of representation of individuals. And uh that that personal aspect of doing the the immigration work, at least for the individuals, rather than the corporate immigration. Where of course you can deal with individuals as well, as and doing the criminal defense just means so much. I mean, that that uh that woman from Ethiopia who uh who I was successful with your help uh and guidance getting uh getting asylum for, she she stopped by the immigration clinic, I think, knowing that I wasn't there all the time. She didn't make any phone calls, she would just stop by sometimes to see if I was around. And she dropped off, I think it was like one of those roses in the little vase, one for me and one for you. And I received your voicemail. I mean, this was before the days of email. This was 1987, and your voicemail said, uh, John, come on over. Uh Ms. So-and-so has brought over a gift. And uh, I think you just said to me that in the culture she was in, you you don't make a phone call. You know, even if the the professional or person you're visiting is might not be in, out of a sign of respect, you just you just stop by. If they're there, they're there. And and and and if they're not, uh uh they're not. And even that man where we lost his immigration hearing uh because he went to Zimbabwe first from Ethiopia before coming to the United States, he insisted on uh taking me, buying me lunch. And of course, now I'm feeling so bad. I I've just lost his hearing, and he's insisting on buying me lunch. And just what I learned from that encounter, that was when that Red Sea Ethiopian restaurant was on 18th Street. The quality of in Adams Morgan, the quality of Ethiopian restaurants has just improved so dramatically in the DC area. And uh a lot of the best ones, of course, are in Ethiopia town, little Ethiopia over in uh over in Arlington near Bailey's Crossroads or thereabout. And uh he he told me, for instance, how in uh in the Ethiopian culture you do not eat alone. So if you go to a restaurant and you're by yourself, you find somebody just just just to join you, uh, just to join you for the eating. And um this this connection uh with our clients is is so important for me. I I resolved that uh, for instance, when I became a public defender lawyer, how important it was to uh do great work for criminal defendants, even if they didn't have the money for a lawyer. And I remember how excited I was when one of my clients said to me after I got him released uh after trial or just got the case dismissed. He said, Mr. Katz, I'm gonna invite you to my family's reunion this summer. And I was so excited about it, and I told my supervisor about it, and I thought she was gonna be excited with me. And instead, she said, John, you gotta keep your clients at arm's length. Totally opposite, Paul, from what Jerry Spence said to me two or three years later when I had uh gotten a murder conviction reversed from my client on post-conviction, and he uh asked me to do the retrial. And Jerry said to me, So is your client uh out of jail now? I said, No. I said, he's being held without bonds still. And he said, Well, where's his home? I said, it's uh it's not far from the jail. He said, Are you gonna visit the home? How about this? You're gonna spend the night over there and understand, you know, at your client's family's home what it was like to live. That's the way that I believe in doing it. That's the way I do it. And that's I think that's the way you do it. I I remember we had this hearing that I joined you for. You did the hearing. It was an easy one over the Arlington Immigration Court. It was around 1987 or 88. It was a very quick hearing. You got whatever relief it was for your client, and the client uh brought uh both of us for drinks and snacks. I mean, that kind of human connection is just so meaningful. So many prosecutors try to uh talk to me about my clients just as numbers. In your book, you talk about. You don't use this words, but it's the words I often use for these government lawyers, whether they're immigrant whether they're immigration side for the government or whether they're prosecutors, you know, hatched. You know, there was a colleague of mine who talked about new prosecutors being hatched. They're hatched from a shell at 25 years old, with a diploma from law school in one hand, with no real life experience, and just trying to treat your client as a number. And uh you and I, Paul, and so many of us other uh lawyers who care about our clients and immigration and criminal defense, for instance, we're humanizing our clients. And I you talk about that in your book, right? About how so many of these government lawyers on the immigration side just aren't able to see these immigrants uh or whatever you uh whatever they're called, the applicants for immigration relief, they don't see them as anything but numbers.

SPEAKER_02 22:55

Right. Well, um uh of course, part of it uh I ultimately, and I saw that a lot more closely uh when I was an immigration judge in Philadelphia and then San Francisco. I saw I was interacting more with the ICE attorneys and with their managers, and ultimately, I think as I did in the book, I came to lay the plane the blame on the on management, not on these young attorneys who just graduated from law school. It's the kind of culture that management uh uh cultivates in in the office. And if if management uh only sees uh the the cases as numbers being pushed through the bureaucracy, then that's the way their attorneys are going to see it. And the the uh it's interesting to point out just how poorly those ICE attorneys are trained. And uh I'm talking about both uh 20 years ago when I was an immigration judge, but even now recently, because I've had uh recently I've had colleagues, for example, from the asylum office who were attorneys, and then they managed to to apply for and get jobs as ICE attorneys, and they they assured me that the that the training is just as short and just as shoddy as it was uh 20 years earlier. And uh if as as a as a criminal defense attorney, uh I have no doubt that you're you're an excellent cross-examiner. Uh well these ICE attorneys, that's their whole, the prosecutor, that's that's their whole job is to cross-examine. And uh they're they're so uh in immigration court, they're so bad at it, so ineffective, that basically almost universally, what they would do is when it was their turn cross-examine the witness, they would just take the file and they would just start, they they would just uh have the applicant narrate the whole history again. Not only being not only being completely ineffective and and wasting everybody's time, but often then giving the the uh client the opportunity to bolster their testimony. Right. So and I I I can't tell you how many judges just got so angry sitting there, sitting through uh an hour or longer cross-examination that should take 10 or 15 minutes, just hit the key points and get out. So the the the the training and the the that criticism of course goes to the immigration judges too. Yeah, and the the training the training of the immigration judges hasn't improved uh much since since uh I was there and I in in uh so I I became an immigration judge in uh 1997, and then in 2001 I was invited to be part of the Immigration Judge Training Academy, where I trained in the uh the uh subjects of asylum and refugee law and withholding of removal, which is uh kind of a collateral to asylum. And uh at that time, the entire training for immigration judge was a two-week course. Asylum refugee law, which is probably the most important subject matter, that consumed the the uh fully one day, which when you cut out uh lunch and coffee breaks, we're talking about maybe four and a half hours total for asylum and refugee law. And again, more recent hires have informed me that that's still basically what the what the training entails. Wow. And uh so you take taking a look, what does it what is the responsibility of an immigration judge, including the responsibility to know the law, where uh immigration law is considered perhaps only second to tax law as the the most complex area of law uh in certainly in the United States. And uh there's just so much to know. Now, of course, uh typically an immigration judge wouldn't need to know how to apply for an H1B visa, for example. Right. But they certainly but they certainly need to know if there's somebody sitting in front of them, especially if that individual doesn't have an attorney, they need to know not only the specifics of what is the law that is compelling ICE to try to deport them, but also if there's any other collateral form of relief that even the applicant might not know about. Because the immigration immigration judge has a duty by by statute and regulation and case law to actually in a way represent the interests of the applicant before him if if they are not represented by counsel, to at least to be able to adequately inform them of what their rights and privileges are in immigration court. And they are so now, of course, and currently there are some uh 650 immigration judges around the country. So, how are they chosen? The only requirement, the only uh bare bones qualification to be considered as an immigration judge is to have been a licensed attorney for seven years. That's it. Now, of course, uh many of the judges will be drawn from the ranks of ICE attorneys and even nonprofit immigration lawyers who've had possibly spent years practicing the law so that they would be more up to speed. But many of them are being borrowed from other agencies like Social Security or uh even JAG Core, that kind of thing. And what is a Social Security judge gonna know about immigration law? And then they're thrown into like a two-week training session, and then they're sitting there, they're sitting there in court making decisions on people's lives on a daily basis, day in and day out. So that's again, that's just my my soapbox of how paltry and and uh shameful the the training of immigration judges is.

SPEAKER_01 29:36

Well, uh that soapbox brought up a lot, including so the first time uh and I think only time, Paul, that I observed a deportation hearing before I actually did the two hearings with you, is when you brought the uh the students from the immigration clinic to a hearing with Judge Arrow Smith. And there was some pro bono lawyer. Paul, for all I know, she may have been with one of the top law firms in D.C. where you have to be in the top half percent of your class and all that, but she must have had no trial experience because at one point she asked her client who I guess was applying for uh asylum or some sort of relief from Salvador. She said to him, uh, is your life here any better than Salvador? Because she was trying to show, I guess, that he was having a hard life here so that he didn't come to the U.S. for economic reasons. And he said, Oh, I'm doing great economically. I think he said something like, I'm able to send money back to my family. My family adores me. And so Judge Aerosmith, who already knew that we were in the courtroom, she leans into her microphone and said to us, let that be a lesson not to ask your client the question to which you don't know the answer. And of course, uh, not only did the judge deny asylum, but she said he came here for economic reasons. He didn't come here because he was a refugee. He didn't come here because, you know, he he he he met any of the requirements uh for being an asylum. And there's so many lawyers out there who who never who never step foot into a courtroom. And they better not step into the courtroom uh at the risk of their pro bono client just to get uh uh trial experience. They better have prepared and they better have uh have had some training or someone sit next to them showing them how to direct examine, cross-examine, and do everything else in court.

SPEAKER_02 31:27

Right. Well, especially uh with these kind of clients who they're coming from different cultures and they're already going to be inclined to be distrustful of the system and of everything, including most likely yourself as their lawyer, the more time you can spend with them, the more you can work with them, the more you can prepare them, uh the better off you're gonna be. And it's amazing, like in the clinic, when we would actually be meeting over a period of months with our clients before a hearing, how much uh more once you you could see clients opening up and coming to trust you more, how much more they would they would share with you uh as time went on. Crucial. And the the point you said earlier about uh Jerry Spence and your clients' home, which I I I had wanted to come back to. I I never met the gentleman, but I read all of his books and look at all this YouTube stuff. Was that uh actually toward the end of my tenure at the GW as a clinical instructor, it occurred to me, hey, a great way to prepare my client from from Ethiopia or Angola, whatever, rather than preparing them here in my office, especially since their family is going to be there in the courtroom with them, let's invite ourselves to their dining room.

SPEAKER_01 32:58

Yes.

SPEAKER_02 33:00

I actually started going to the to the client's house and and working with them and preparing them with the entire family there, and which is just a difference in night and day of how productive how productive that can be. And again, uh eliciting information from your client and making sure that everybody kind of understands what's going on.

SPEAKER_01 33:23

Absolutely. Well, Paul, um, so I I took from your um from your book, My Trials, uh, that uh you wanted to save the world too, or else your corner of the world. So, how did you snag the uh the immigration uh clinic director position at GW so such a short period out of uh law school, uh out of law school? And uh and how did you snag a position, well get a position, however you call it, as an immigration judge?

SPEAKER_02 33:55

Uh both very good questions and very bizarre answers. My very uh actually, while I was still in school, I'd uh when I attended school, I had uh criminal defense and possibly on the southwest border on my mind. So criminal defense of uh uh of uh people coming from that culture. Uh and I got exposed to immigration law and especially asylum while I was in in school. And then my very so then I had my eyes set. What do I want to what do I want to do? Hit hitting the ground running. And I was able to to land an interview, and my very first job uh after law school was with the Central American Refugee Center, and that was in 1985, when of course uh the United States was afloat with refugees fleeing from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. So that was an incredible uh period. And in fact, uh, I think a lot of uh immigration lawyers of my generation, they actually were motivated to become immigration lawyers, especially in the DC area, because they saw what was going on and the U.S. government's reaction of just uh brick wall denial that those that those fleeing uh those civil wars were in fact refugees and not, as you said, uh economic migrants. And so uh that was uh just such an exciting and rewarding job. But while I was there, and just quint to answer your first question, the GW clinic, just coincidentally, because the Central American Refugee Office Center office was on Mount Pleasant Street, which is a Hispanic neighborhood in DC, uh then one day I picked up a Spanish language newspaper on the street, and in the back, the clinic had advertised in Spanish hey, uh, we're we want you to possibly interview for a clinic position. Buscamos un jefe. Yeah, and so and that's what happened. Then I I I went and met with Eric Surilnik and I was offered the job. And then uh uh 10 years later, uh actually you you might recall there was some politics going on. It uh we uh the the the law school uh accepted a dean, uh, or accepted an attorney, uh professor to be a dean who was formerly from Stanford, who I learned later already had a history of pushing clinics off campus.

SPEAKER_01 36:50

Was that Jack Friedenthal or his successor?

SPEAKER_02 36:53

Uh Jack Friedenthal, and he uh he he he took it on himself after uh this this was in approximately 1993, I think. He decided single-handedly, even though it was it it should have been a faculty vote, but there was no vote. He uh and the the immigration clinic, like many of them, were only on soft money. He decided, oh, we nobody needs the immigration clinic, who cares about that? We're gonna eliminate that. But uh unfortunately for him, my contract required one year's notice. Yeah, so so during the one year of notice, then the students actually rallied. The students came forth and they said, we want the immigration clinic. And uh, long story short, then the the school ended up continuing to fund the clinic on soft money until finally some hard money was found. And then by then I'd I had been there for 10 years and it was still not a uh it was not a secure position. So then I was offered the the job as an immigration judge. And I I entered, I actually interviewed for that a couple times, and I had been told by an insider if you get a call and if you if they say, Hey, do you want to would you like to have a to be a judge in Timbuktu or in Juneau, Alaska, you have to say yes. So when they called and when they called and said you want to be in judge in Philadelphia, even though I didn't want to go to Philadelphia, I said yes, and then that's where I ended up my first uh tenure.

SPEAKER_01 38:33

Well, you you and I might have some different views on Philadelphia. For me, just to be in the shadow of John Coltray in spirit would have been enough for me. But then I know you went you went to uh San Francisco after that. Uh okay, so you became an immigration judge, and your oath required you required you to follow the law, of course, with the Constitution trumping uh the statutory law. So, to what extent did you have any discomfort about any of the work you did? Because I take it that if you could have been the lawmaker, you would have probably granted more immigration to uh more immigration more asylum applications than otherwise, uh, even though I think you maybe once told me that you were one of the highest grantors of asylum to begin with. So, did you have a level of discomfort with uh you know following laws that you disagreed with? And the IA decisions that you disagreed with.

SPEAKER_02 39:32

Yes and no, of course, there there are you put it this way, when I when I was faced with the choice, do you want to be an immigration judge, or there's an interesting position just opened up with the State Department in Peru, and I interviewed for that too. My colleagues on me and they said, No, you've got to take the judge job. You've got to that you you are the person for that job, even though, of course, there are restrictions that that you just have to live with. And you just have to, you have you have to recognize that if I was, if me, this progressive, so to speak, judge was not in this position. And of course, sometimes having to sign orders that I'm not orders of removal that I'm not so happy about signing, then almost for sure somebody else would be here who would be inclined to sign more orders and maybe not give the applicants as much of a fair shake or not be inclined to look more behind what's going on on in the surface in a case. And uh the so that I I just wanted to mention as an example that in the immigration statute, this extremely complex animal, in 1988, the statute was amended to include as a as a uh reason for deportation or removal uh an aggravated felony. So there's there's no definition of what is an aggravated felony, but if you are convicted of an aggregate aggravated felony, then you're basically out of here, with very few exceptions. So it instead of defining an aggravated felony, the statute has a long laundry list of what they consider to be aggravated felonies, which are basically almost everything under the sun. Right. And so and then uh so that already threw a kink and a lot of uh people's uh applicants' abilities to get relief from deportation. Then in 1996, under the Clinton administration, when everybody was struggling with the crack the crack epidemic, and uh people were trying to figure out how to how to make removal even easier, then the the laundry list was extended to include uh a section on counterfeiting. And uh so uh an individual came into my courtroom. Uh luckily he was represented by a very good uh lawyer who was a former oil uh attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, and he had been convicted under the counterfeiting statute, and the government wanted to remove him as an aggravated felon. And so, what had he been convicted of? He had been applying uh uh fake labels to pharmaceuticals. So he had been misrepresenting what was in the pharmaceuticals and selling them, basically committing fraud on whoever was buying these pharmaceuticals. And uh so instead of maybe instead of maybe some cheap substance, he was uh indicating it was an expensive substance. I don't know. But he had been convicted under for whatever reason under the counterfeiting statute as having counterfeited all of these labels. And uh the attorney argued, and I took a look at that, and I agreed with him that if you look at the at the legislative history of the counterfeiting, the federal counterfeiting statute, they're they're not looking at fake labels, they're looking at monetary instruments. If you've been convicted of counterfeiting monetary instruments, and so I I we did the hearing, I hear heard both sides, I granted, based on the attorney's theory, that this guy was not counterfeiting monetary instruments and he should be uh he he is not removable under this statute. And I agreed and I issued an order dismissing his case. And uh the the attorney who the the ICE attorney who she was a pretty good attorney, she filed an appeal. To the board.

SPEAKER_01 44:01

Yes.

SPEAKER_02 44:03

She briefed the appeal. Her supervisor, she told me this later, who so her supervisor uh commended her on her level of advocacy in the appeal. But when they saw what was the panel at the board, the three judges saw that one of them was Laurie Rosenberg, who is uh a notoriously progressive judge, they they withdrew the appeal and let this guy float free rather than risking the possibility of precedent on that very issue.

SPEAKER_01 44:39

Right.

SPEAKER_02 44:40

So that's an interesting uh way that you know in this particular case, I was not in agreement with how the government was interpreting the law, and we did what we could because obviously, coming from a criminal defense background, you don't appreciate when people are trying to make more things illegal. We've already got enough things that are illegal without uh increasing people's exposure to either jail time or to deportation. So we were trying to trying to put the brakes on that.

SPEAKER_01 45:13

Okay, so Paul, uh what kind of standards did you use uh versus just uh case by case and determining whether a witness uh or uh immigration benefit applicant was telling the truth or not on the witness stand? What uh what uh standards did you use about uh whether you're gonna let um scholarly articles into evidence uh for asylum application hearings, for instance?

SPEAKER_02 45:42

Well, that that uh gets to a very uh another uh interesting point that I wanted to uh address, which is it has to do, I think, generally with agency law, which is that in immigration court, as with most agencies, the the evidentiary standards are looser, which I think is a good thing. So uh in other words, uh for example, there is no uh prohibition on hearsay in immigration court. And I think that's a good thing because we all know through experience that a lot of people come into court and they're happy to lie, whether either whether possibly sometimes uh police officers or possibly sometimes criminal defendants, that they will lie about things, including what somebody said and what somebody said that somebody said. And I think that it's uh I I was never a friend uh or uh a fan of the hearsay statute. I think just cut that out and and let the adjudicator, in this case the judge, eyeball and listen to the witness and then uh weigh it with all of the other, either other witnesses or other evidence that is available to make the determination. And uh of course, in immigration court, once the government establishes their burden to show that the applicant most often did commit the crime that has had made them removable, even if that crime is only entering the country without inspection, once the government has met that burden, then the the applicants, if they want to stay in the country, they have to put on their own case, which would include taking the stand and persuading the judge that they are deserving of whatever form of relief from removal, most often asylum or withholding of a removal, or sometimes even that they're eligible for adjustment of status to get a green card. And so you're almost always hearing from the applicant, you're always listening to their testimony, you're judging them. And for the court, they're sitting right there, right next to you. So you're they're you know, they're in the spotlight, they're on the spot. And uh, and of course, sometimes you realize after the fact, well, now I I I knew that there was something wrong with what that guy was saying, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. And then you're driving home later on, and you oh, that's what it, that's what it was. That was what was bothering me. So uh you just you have to you have to do with what you you work with what is available, and it sometimes the the applicant can't meet their burden of persuasion.

SPEAKER_01 48:34

Right, Paul. The name of the show is Beat the Prosecution. You have uh advocated it uh hearings and and trials. What are your uh main approaches to um winning a trial beyond preparation, which of course is so important, and beyond everything you said, including our relationships with our clients and our witnesses?

SPEAKER_02 49:00

Well, of course, uh, as you would also uh recognize knowing the judge, having an understanding, if if not from your own experience from your colleagues, what is the background of this judge? How is this judge inclined? Uh sometimes you go into a hearing knowing that because of this particular judge, you're gonna lose the case, they're gonna give you a hard time. They they might even, especially in immigration court, unfortunately, because it's so loosely policed by management. Uh you you might get a very hostile judge who's who's even hostile to all immigrants, or they're they might just be hostile to female immigrants, or they might just be hostile to Hispanic immigrants. And so sometimes, you know, going into the case, you are there primarily to make a record, to build a record for appeal. So if you don't know that going in, you don't know who this judge is, then you might be floundering uh for the at least half of the hearing before you. And uh, a lot of attorneys, if they don't know that that guy is is gonna be that way, then they don't they're gonna they might not be inclined to fight so much to make the appeal. When the judge says, we don't need to hear that part. You might have to say, Judge, I insist that we do hear this part for the record. That kind of thing. That's that's a very and then also never be late for court.

unknown 50:34

Right.

SPEAKER_02 50:34

Make sure your client is never late for court. Make sure your your there have been a few times when a client has come in, appeared in court with their shirt open and and you know, gold hanging from their neck and stuff. You don't want to see that in immigration court. And uh immigration, preparation, preparation.

SPEAKER_01 50:58

Absolutely. Other than Crespo, which most of my colleagues know about, what's your uh favorite uh criminal crimigration idea uh to give to the criminal defense lawyers listening to this uh episode?

SPEAKER_02 51:12

Yeah, well, uh first of all, I would really recommend this book. This is the so-called crimigration, this is immigration consequence of uh uh criminal activity by Mary Kramer. So she's uh she keeps this book updated. She's uh uh an excellent attorney, and also uh I only consulted with her one time years ago, but she the uh there's so much, just there are attorneys who they specialize only now in crimigration and and understand, and for those who may not know the terminology, criminate crimigration, that's really what are the consequences of criminal uh convictions in immigration law, or specifically in immigration court. And so there's so it's such a totally topic on its own, and you you really need to have a good source to help you wade through all of that stuff. And especially, for example, in 2010, when the Supreme Court passed Pedea versus Kentucky, right? Or the Supreme Court made it clear that uh a criminal uh defense attorney must advise an immigrant or a migrant of the immigration consequences of taking a guilty plea or being convicted. And if they don't, then they are subject to ineffective assistance of counsel and the uh the uh the conviction being vacated or overturned. And so so that was such an important uh benchmark. And so every immigration attorney, they have to either themselves be kind of uh an expert in in both areas or know somebody that they can consult with who is.

SPEAKER_01 53:11

Right. So so, Paul, from 1998 to 2008, I was blessed to be law partners with Jay Marks, who's a great immigration lawyer, and helped my Spanish tremendously, Spanish being my third language. And uh I just wince as uh probably at least as much as you do, every time a criminal defense lawyer doesn't even know what they don't know under Padilla and anything else about what they have to find out. Paul, how does uh Mary Kramer spell her last name? Is it with a C or a K?

SPEAKER_02 53:40

With a K, K-R-A-M-E-R. I believe she's based down in Miami, but uh yeah.

SPEAKER_01 53:48

Paul, for uh for someone who summed up the state of legal education in your book, I think you said it sucks, at least in many ways. One thing that I particularly liked about your immigration class, I took your immigration class the same semester as being in the immigration clinic, is when you had Michael Maggio there. And uh you you you you've praised Michael Maggio and in in your book. And what what a great uh what a great man and immigration lawyer he was. And I I remember when he talked to us, uh one of the things he was talking about, uh I I for he he was representing, I think some he maybe was representing that radical uh American who gave up her citizenship and then was trying to get it back. And he talked about how uh that woman or someone else was living in a country where even the maids have maids. I mean, he was really humanizing ways of life I didn't know about. And he was mentioning that with some new statute, it was the first time in his life that he ever had ever broken an income of $40,000 a year. And I mean, Paul, I mean, even in 1987, uh my summer associate position at a corporate law firm ended up being uh $1,000 a week. That was more than $40,000 a year. Uh that that was a great class. I learned a lot. You taught it well, you had some great guests like uh like Michael. Um we are uh we are coming towards the end. So, Paul, uh please tell the audience uh if you want to tell about uh the book that you also wrote under an assumed name or not, if you want to talk about any other articles that you'd like people to read that you wrote, if you want to tell about any website, essentially this is your your opportunity to give your your final words about anything you haven't talked about already. Well, thank you, John.

SPEAKER_02 55:39

Uh well so my we call my legal memoir when I was when I left the bench in 2004. Then I thought, after a while, I thought, well, I should write a book about being an immigration judge because there's no books out there and people should see what's going on behind the curtain. But then I was as I was working on it, then I thought I should make my entire career has been immigration law. Uh and so I'll I'll I'll make it more of a legal memoir so that people understand more, like you said, about uh making applications before the agency and be being not only an immigration judge, but being an immigration practitioner. So that's that's the book My Trials Inside Immigration uh Inside America's uh deportation factories. Uh one other book, maybe on your invitation to mention, I write uh uh as uh my gnome de guerre is Jonathan World's W-O-R-L-D-E. And uh I have a book called Deep in the Cut, which is uh available on Amazon Amazon, Deep in the Cut by Jonathan World. And the reason I mentioned that is because that is the protagonist is an immigration attorney, and he's kind of one of these goofballs who you you would not want to have him uh be your attorney in court. But he gets himself involved, and it's it's like a neon noir uh uh crimy uh featuring uh a goofball immigration attorney, but there still is a lot to learn about immigration law in that book or the the you know the environment of practicing immigration law. And uh otherwise, uh yeah, I just uh think that uh we're we're looking at uh we're looking at another really tough four years uh before us. We know already that uh the the new administration is going to totally shut down refugee admissions. They had they did that before and then they were built back up. It's not only refugee admissions. Uh the this you know, this this uh lunatic, I call him uh Goebbels wannabe, uh Stephen Miller, he he wants to decimate uh legal immigration. And uh the and they again they did that before by undermanning, understaffing, and under financing USCIS. And just think of all of those uh applications for uh lawful permanent residence, the green card for the the to to join families and and to take essential jobs, that that's again that whole system is going to be it's gonna be under such pressure. And uh we just we need to be ever alert and and ever vigilant of how uh we as a community can respond to those kind of challenges.

SPEAKER_01 58:48

Agreed on that, Paul. Paul Grusendorf, my friend, my immigration professor, my immigration clinic director, and much more than that. Thank you so much for joining us. This has been John Katza Beat the Prosecution. I'm a criminal defense and DUI defense store in Northern Virginia. Uh, you can get Paul's books under the name Jonathan World and also Paul Grusendorf from Amazon. I have read his book, My Trials, uh, The Immigration Factories or that's called on Kindle. That is a very worthwhile read. I recommend it to everybody. And you criminal defense lawyers out there, it is important for you better for you to know what you don't know than the opposite. So call up the right immigration lawyer to advise you as needed. I'll give you names as needed as well. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 59:44

Thank you for listening to this week's episode from Beat the Prosecution. This is a regular podcast giving people a leg up against police investigations and prosecutions. Nothing discussed on our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or to individuals who have paid for a consultation. We welcome you contacting us via email at info at beattheprosecution.com by calling our office at 703 383 1100 or texting us at 571 406 7268.