SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Beat the Prosecution, presented by Northern Virginia criminal defense and DUI lawyer Jonathan Cass, where we present you with regular 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 arranged a consultation. And now your host, John Katz.

SPEAKER_01 0:30

Hello, everybody. This is John Katz of Beat the Prosecution. I'm a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer here in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. I am absolutely delighted with the guests we have today. I hope I don't botch up how I pronounced her name after she reminded them. After she reminded him, Anam Petit. She is a lawyer here in Northern Virginia. I first met her years ago. She is a former law partner with my former guest of two times, Ophelia Calderon, who claimed that she doesn't think her last name is related to Cauldron. I think it is. And Ophelia's a former law partner of my former law partner, Jay Marks, but I was his law partner before Ophelia was with him. Uh Anam has a very fascinating story. I'm not going to rehash uh some of the videos that you see with her. She uh became an immigration judge, and this was a big dream of hers during the Biden administration, and she remained until the uh several months into the Trump administration, and before her two-year probation period was over, where I guess it's kind of like uh maybe like tenure in college, she received a notice, bye-bye, unceremoniously uh fired that same day, and she went back in her courtroom to issue her opinion. And uh now she's back in private practice. So, what do I want to talk to her about? I'm not interested in talking about all the politics. What I want to know about is her insights that will help about not just beating the prosecution, but for civil liberties. Civil liberties really helped drive me doing uh to go into criminal defense, and there's a lot of civil liberties issues that are going on with immigration. So I really want to know, even though Anam has said that she uh always followed the law and did not take in the go into the pressure, came into the pressure from the Trump administration about how to rule. I think that that's maybe not the same with all the immigration judges. And get this, I'm gonna ask about this. What on earth is this about that the U.S. government is advertising for deportation judges? You got that right. I'll put it on my liner notes. Uh, they are advertising, we're hiring deportation judges. Just crazy. Anam, please introduce yourself and uh what made you go into law school and uh what what is your what are your languages you speak other than English? I know about Spanish and what is that made you go into immigration, want to be an immigration judge.

SPEAKER_02 3:06

Yeah, thank you so much, John. I'm so happy to be here. Thanks for having me. I um yeah, so a little bit about myself, and I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I I've been practicing basically exclusively immigration law. I did dabble in some criminal law and family law when I was at my prior practice. I also taught in immigration law and gender-based immigration issues at Georgetown Law. And I was at the same law firm, Calder and Seguin, for many years before I became an immigration judge at the Annandale Immigration Court, where I was for two years. And now I'm back in private practice. I'm of counsel at Maria Sorrio, and we practice exclusively immigration law. So I was one of those nerds who at, you know, 15, 16 knew I wanted to be a lawyer. Part of that was because my parents, you know, Pakistani background wanted me to be a doctor, and I knew I didn't want to be a doctor, and I needed to come to them with a good alternative and one that kind of played to my strengths. And so I knew kind of at an early age that I would, I would be a lawyer. I got accepted into a BAJD program, not too many of those where I did things on an expedited timeline and got done with college and law school more quickly. And I fell into immigration in law school. I wasn't anticipating becoming an immigration lawyer. I was an immigrant myself. I immigrated to this country from New Zealand and I was a green card holder throughout law school and naturalized uh during finals, a two-all year. I had to fly back to Pittsburgh to do my naturalization interview and oath ceremony so I could apply to DOJ internships and jobs. And I never looked back. I mean, I always loved immigration for that human component to help people and keep families together. I loved the litigation aspect of it. I was in immigration court a lot and um the writing aspect. I love appellate work as well. And so it was really just a good fit. And I never really looked back. And so I do speak Spanish fluently. I do understand Urdu as well, but my Urdu is a lot worse than my Spanish these days, just because I'm not using it as much. And so that all kind of contributed to me applying for an immigration judge position as well. Um, you know, I kind of wanted to be the type of immigration judge that I wanted my clients to appear in front of, you know, knowledgeable on the law, fair, um, you know, civil and courteous and respectful to everyone who enters your courtroom, regardless of which side you're on. And uh so I felt like it was an opportunity I couldn't really say no to when I received that offer.

SPEAKER_01 5:45

So the name of your law firm is Mario Sorrio. What is your URL over there, your web address?

SPEAKER_02 5:51

Yeah, we're we're MarioSorio.com. Um, we are a nation national law firm where we're kind of growing. We're primarily in the DMV area. Yeah, M-U-R-R-A-Y-O-S-O-R-I-O. And um, yeah, so we're we're growing rapidly. Yeah, yeah. So we're we're we're everywhere these days, especially with the explosion of detention work and all of these folks being transferred all over the country. Our practice has really kind of had to adapt to this crazy world that we're living in with the Trump administration.

SPEAKER_01 6:26

So your family traveled at some point from Pakistan to New Zealand and then to the United States?

SPEAKER_02 6:33

Yeah, you know, that that migration that the typical family makes.

SPEAKER_01 6:37

What where did you go undergrad and where do you go to law school?

SPEAKER_02 6:40

So I was GW for both.

SPEAKER_01 6:43

Oh, that's right. I I graduated from uh GW law school, uh a little before you, 1989. Uh but uh and uh what led you to study Spanish and when did you start studying Spanish?

SPEAKER_02 6:57

Yeah, so I started studying Spanish in middle school and I minored in it in college, but it really crystallized my skills in at my old firm, just having to use it every day and and having to make mistakes. I still remember something Ophelia told me when I first started working there, which was like, she you just need to open your effing mouth and make mistakes. And your Spanish is a lot better than you give yourself credit for, and don't be scared of making mistakes. And so it's just gotten better over time. And um, I still I take Spanish classes actually. Our firm offers that as one of the job perks. So I meet with the tutor once a week, one-on-one, and and we work through grammar and subjunctive tense and all that stuff you kind of forget that you learned. And uh, so that keeps me sharp too.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

Being for 10 years with Jay, including for two years, well, for one year with him on a uh sponsor radio show on the old uh La Mega Radio, and uh then having so many Spanish-speaking clients, I was just forced to do it and do it well. And yeah, uh, it's my third language after French. So I think it's a lot easier to learn Spanish after speaking French for many years than the reverse. But I think it's just so important. And uh it's it's garbage when these cops who speak almost no uh second language say, well, he understood English pretty uh fine enough on the night I arrested him. I don't know why he needs an interpreter. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. I've been speaking French for over 50 years and still I can't get away with uh watching a French film without looking at the subtitles.

SPEAKER_02 8:32

That's true. It doesn't apply.

SPEAKER_01 8:36

Why is it that being an immigration judge was a dream job for you? Because for me, when people say to me, Do you ever want to be a judge? I said, Well, hell no, because I don't want to uh put anyone in detention pending trial for the most part. And uh uh I I might sentence a bank robber to maybe uh 10 days in jail at most. So I would be impeached. So why for you was it a dream job? And were you concerned about uh holding people in detention and uh denying people relief, not because you thought that was fair, but because you were following some Kakamami BIA decision, Board of Immigration appeals, or some kakamami decision from the federal court that you didn't agree with?

SPEAKER_02 9:19

Yeah, I mean, it it was a hard decision to say yes to the offer. I really had to think about a lot of things going in, uh going on in my life at the time. I was happy at my firm, I was doing well. We uh I had been at that firm for many years and and was an equity partner. And so I I was ready for something new, which also factored into it since I had been at the same firm since law school. And I just, you know, I really wanted to be the type of judge that was knowledgeable on the law, applied due process, and gave a fair decision, even if it had to be a denial. And I knew that that would be our hard part of the job. I don't think any judge enjoys ordering someone removed, or at least the judges who I got along with. And um, but you know that they've got a right to appeal. You know that if you made any errors, you know, that might come back to you and it could get remanded. But at least you gave that person a fair shot. You listened to their story. I would always, especially with pro se applicants, really double over to make sure that I was exploring every factual avenue for potential relief or any, you know, that was where my prior background really helped me because I was used to screening people for relief. And I think some of these newer judges who don't have immigration backgrounds and don't have adequate training may not understand a lot of the nuance with some of those other options. And so I just I wanted to be a fair adjudicator and I wanted to have that opportunity to try something new as well. And I and I did love it in those two years that I was on the bench. It by no means was an easy job, but uh I really did enjoy the challenge of it.

SPEAKER_01 11:05

So, what was the case mix of the case you were doing? To what extent was it deportation, to what extent was it uh detention uh pending a hearing? And to what extent did you have to deal with those heartbreaking hearings with the uh the young children who were unaccompanied by an adult or or or by a lawyer, which is so common, at least at the southern border?

SPEAKER_02 11:27

Yeah, so I didn't really do any detention work. Um, at the Anandale Immigration Court, there's a dedicated detained docket. I would occasionally have to step in for a detained judge as a backup judge. And so I did do a few detained cases, but I was primarily non-detained. And I was the backup juvenile judge as well. So I did actually hear a lot of those unaccompanied uh children cases and the juvenile cases. And I had a lot of aged-out juveniles as well. So maybe they entered as a minor, then they turned 18, and then the juvenile judge would transfer the cases over to me. But my my case docket was primarily families or adult individuals and a lot of removal proceedings, primarily removal proceedings. I had a smattering of other types of proceedings, which are called withholding-only proceedings or asylum-only proceedings, credible fear, reasonable fear, but I was primarily removal. So I was there to adjudicate any relief or defense that they might have to stay in the United States lawfully.

SPEAKER_01 12:30

So, what's the difference between a removal proceeding and a deportation proceeding, or do they overlap?

SPEAKER_02 12:38

So deportation proceedings is just an outdated word. They used to be called deportation proceedings, and then there was a law called IRA IRA that merged these prior exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings into removal proceedings. So now they're, you know, someone gets ordered removed, they don't get ordered deported. Um, but if you have an old case that maybe gets reopened now, that person might be in deportation proceedings and different laws actually apply to deportation proceedings versus removal proceedings. So that was why it was particularly ironic that they were being called deportation judges because those of us were kind of scoffing and being like, that's not even the right term anymore. You know, we're not in deportation proceedings anymore.

SPEAKER_01 13:22

So the deportation judge advertisements are a creature of the Trump administration?

SPEAKER_02 13:28

Yeah, I mean, we've never heard that before. And I and I haven't seen it in officially in any EOIR correspondence, it's just when they're recruiting for the job. But I mean, it's crazy. I mean, speaking to a criminal defense attorney, it's akin to calling a judge, you know, a conviction judge or an imprisonment judge or a jail judge, right? Like that's one of the outcomes that can certainly occur in immigration court, but you shouldn't go into a hearing thinking that's exactly what you're gonna do.

SPEAKER_01 13:55

I heard you say in one of your interviews that uh during the Trump administration under his first attorney general, that Pam Bondi was your boss. Now, was that only really a name only? If you're also saying that you were always following the law and not caving into pressure, uh unspoken or spoken, to rule a certain way in a in a biased way against your oath in order to keep your job. And to what extent are the other immigration judges maybe uh bending their oath so they can keep their job?

SPEAKER_02 14:26

Yeah, I mean, I think that there's incredible pressure right now to be an immigration judge. And I really feel for my colleagues who are still there on the bench, who are many of them who are trying to do the right thing every day and ensure due process is upheld and make the right decisions on a case. But we were receiving constant memoranda by Cersei Owen, who is the then EOIR director, with really inflammatory language, you know, about singling out people from immigrant defense backgrounds and, you know, uh favoritism towards immigrants and not towards DHS, and how that it showed bias for certain immigration judges. And then on top of that, you know, they're really looking at every judge's docket, how they're deciding who's granting bond, who's granting asylum, who's granting continuances and termination and admin closure and change of venue, all these things that this administration doesn't want. And they're asking questions, and that can make judges feel uncomfortable or make them feel like they don't have judicial independence. And then on top of that, their colleagues are getting fired left and right without reason, without any basis or justification given to them. And that just adds to this environment of pressure. So it's it's really deeply problematic.

SPEAKER_01 15:47

So, to what extent are there immigration judges who are just not following their oath in order to keep their jobs?

SPEAKER_02 15:54

Yeah, I mean, I I think that there's uh, you know, I think it has to be happening. I mean, I couldn't tell you, you know, this is exactly what's happening with judge A or Judge B. And there's just, you know, all these decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals as well, which are really anti-immigrant, pro-DHS that are really forcing IJ's hands as well to rule in a certain way. And so it's just a combination of all of these forms of pressure that, you know, are making a lot of judges rule a lot more conservatively than they did previously.

SPEAKER_01 16:28

When you were an immigration judge, to what extent did you have uncomfortable conversations with some of your colleagues telling you that you were making Kakamami rulings, for instance, or that you should rule the way that they uh uh were ruling that you disagreed with?

SPEAKER_02 16:42

As I was very lucky and I didn't have those types of conversations. I mean, I definitely had colleagues with whom I discussed cases with and issues with and said, I'm really grappling over this one issue, or I'm really grappling about this one case. You know, I uh maybe it would come down to credibility, like, hey, I'm just not sure I believe this guy. There were all these issues that came up in his testimony, but I have to look at this overall and totality of the circumstances. And so those there were those types of conversations. I was very lucky in that my assistant chief immigration judge for the vast majority of my tenure was amazing. Um, she was also terminated a few months before I was, but she was my primary ACIJ who overlooked my performance and had overwhelmingly positive things to say throughout all of my probationary meetings. And uh then the other ACIJs we had, we had several after that. Also, I had no oversight or feedback on, but I think things have changed since I left the bench in September of 2025. I think that the pressure has become a lot more overt.

SPEAKER_01 17:48

Who was that supervising judge who you're talking about?

SPEAKER_02 17:51

Rebecca Walters. And she's that she's back in private practice as well.

SPEAKER_01 17:56

For those who don't understand the structure of the immigration court, can you just briefly explain it uh because this is an administrative type of court, right?

SPEAKER_02 18:04

Correct.

SPEAKER_01 18:04

Yeah, not an article three court.

SPEAKER_02 18:07

Yeah, if if only we were an article three court, and that's uh reform that I personally believe really needs to happen to safeguard the integrity of the system. But yeah, we're we're an administrative court, we're nestled in part of Department of Justice, hence Pam Bondi being our ultimate boss. And uh so we have line immigration judges at immigration courts, and then their assistant chief immigration judges who run each court. Sometimes an ACIJ runs multiple courts, sometimes there are backup ACIJs as well, and then they go up to their regional um uh immigration judges as well who kind of manage the ACIJs, and then you go up to the chief immigration judge. And as you can imagine, there's been a lot of fluctuation uh in all of these positions since the Trump administration started.

SPEAKER_01 18:57

So, what is the reason for paying what I consider pretty high salaries for these uh immigration judges, but not having uh always much or any personnel in their courtroom and in your situation with you having such a high uh case load that you were uh working through lunch at the very least?

SPEAKER_02 19:15

Yeah, it's like I said, it's a tough job. It is a tough job to be an immigration judge. They're super understaffed. You have one legal assistant who um is there managing, you know, hundreds or thousands of cases for you. And then you have a supervisory legal assistant as well. But in your courtroom, you know, I would do all my trials by myself. You know, I didn't have my legal assistant with me because he needed to be doing a bunch of other things, like physically pulling files for the next couple of weeks and serving decisions and printing things out and just making sure that things run smoothly. So when I'm in the courtroom, I'm managing the recording device, the DAR, to make sure everything's getting recorded. I would be printing things out by myself. I didn't have security in the courtroom either. There are no bailiffs, you're just there, you know, dealing with your interpreter, fig assigning the forms for the interpreter to come in and out, making sure it's the right language. I mean, there are a lot of hats that immigration judges have to wear, in addition to just getting your record in front of you, having your preparation there so that you can make a decision quickly.

SPEAKER_01 20:23

So, my understanding from hearing you in one or more other interviews was you were making sure uh not to have a backlog of cases. So, how did you achieve that? Not to have a backlog of cases, but to still give uh enough time, uh, you know, the due process that was due for each hearing that you were handling.

SPEAKER_02 20:40

Yeah, I mean, for me, the key was to in preparation. I just needed to have reviewed the case really well so that I could walk into the courtroom. I would know what the issues are, I've already reviewed the affidavits and evidence, the forms, I've like flagged what are the issues, I've literally highlighted them. I would have different colored pens based on the notes I'd make before the hearing, the notes I'd be making during the hearing, and then just being very prepared with templates and shells and outlines so that I could pull other parts of a decision together pretty quickly to issue my oral decisions. I always tried to issue an oral decision at the end of a hearing or scheduled it for an oral decision promptly after that hearing. I hated doing written decisions because I just didn't have time to write written decisions. And I also hated punting them out because it would usually take me a lot longer to write the decision if I had the trial weeks ago and it was just a lot less fresh in my memory. And so for me, it was just preparation and oral decisions. And I was always very on top of my motions cue as well. Um, and one of my mentor immigration judges in the Annandale Immigration Court had a great mentorship program. It was also very tech savvy. And so she taught me how to run all of the reports on the EOAR data on my So that I could always catch maybe a motion that had been filed under my name, but hadn't actually been given to me, and just so that I wouldn't get dinged for a motion that had been pending for a long time when I had never even seen it. And so there was a lot of oversight as well on legal assistance because, you know, at the end of the day, you're the one who's accountable for your docket.

SPEAKER_01 22:21

So as an immigration judge where it sounds like you were working uh weeks that were much longer than 40 or 50 hours, perhaps, and perhaps your current law firm working longer than that, what do you do to get the right life balance or at least self-care, whether it's exercise, yoga, spirituality, whatever?

SPEAKER_02 22:40

Yeah, it's hard. I mean, uh you might be surprised to hear this, but my work-life balance as an immigration judge was actually better than my work-life balance now being back in private practice. And I think part of that is just the culture of the federal government. You know, when people leave, they leave. They do not take their work laptops home. They do not, we didn't even have work phones. So no one really had a way to contact me once I left the office. And I actually, I was pregnant when I started as an immigration judge. I had my son a few months into becoming an immigration judge. And so then that was that was my first child, my first and only child. And I, so that was a whole new type of lawyering for me, where I'm a lawyer, but I'm also a mom and I want to see my child when I don't get to see him that much during the work week. And so that helps me compartmentalize and really set those boundaries to really leave and be present at home. Um, and for me, you know, it's just definitely going on walks outside with my big fluffy dog and my kid helped a lot. You know, I was working out a lot more back then than I am currently, but that helped as well. And um, yeah, just, you know, really having those boundaries. I think now that I'm back in private practice, it's a little bit easier or, you know, for that work to bleed into my personal life because I do just have, you know, emergencies that come up all the time. I'm in a more mentor mentorship supervisory role here at my new farm. So if, you know, one of the younger associate attorneys messages me at 9 p.m. and says, Hey, can you review this motion? I've got to file it tomorrow. Like, I'm gonna try and put eyes on that if I can, because reviewing is something I can do, you know, without a ton of bandwidth on my end. But um yeah, I mean, it's something I teach these baby attorneys as well, you know, is like having boundaries and communicating and just trying to manage your time effectively. It's uh easier said than done.

SPEAKER_01 24:39

Well, for me, two things that have helped very much. I don't miss a day of practicing my Tai Chi Chuan martial art, which is both meditation, but also excellent for sparring in court because I spar physically with it several times a month. And then in court it's sparring. And also I found when my only child uh after he was born that actually helped me focus my time better because when I was with them, I was with them, you know, and still am. I'm with them fully. And it's just wonderful.

SPEAKER_02 25:08

Yeah, I think I I try and be careful when I talk about it because I definitely don't think you need kids to have that sort of perspective. But for me, it did give me perspective, especially when I was going through a really tough time at court and I was seeing judges being fired and just like wondering, am I gonna be next? Is this my last day? Is this my last decision? Should I be applying to jobs? Like, what are we gonna do? We're a dual-income household, we've got bills to pay. I need health insurance for my kid. I mean, you know, personally it was very difficult. And so having a kid like my kid who I love and my husband who I love and come home to them did give me that perspective to be like, okay, work isn't everything. If they fire me, they fire me and I'll be okay and I'll figure out what's next. But there was a little bit of relief as well when I got fired, just because it had been hanging over my head in a really unhealthy way for so long that when it happened, I was just like, okay, enough. This is done now, and I need to move on.

SPEAKER_01 26:07

I'm a little out of touch with the procedures and immigration court. I was in the immigration clinic at GW, and then Paul Grusendorf, who you may know about, was my guest a couple of years ago. He was actually the head of our uh immigration clinic at the time. So is it still a situation with what Paul said and what I experienced, which is you really don't have the federal rules of evidence there, and there's relaxed rules of evidence during these removal hearings?

SPEAKER_02 26:32

Yes. So the federal rules of evidence are not binding in immigration court, but they are persuasive. And so, um, for example, you know, there you you can have hearsay in immigration court. That's something that's really hard for other lawyers who appear in other courts to get used to. And actually, a lot of these cases are built on hearsay, and it's what other people have told them and what they've learned, and it's being offered for the truth of the matter. Um, but you know, you can still use the federal rules of evidence as guidance for objections and for admission. And um obviously we still have the constitution as well and due process fundamental fairness are should be guiding these proceedings, although they don't always in in this age.

SPEAKER_01 27:13

How as a judge, how would you decide if a person was telling the truth or not? Can we really know that?

SPEAKER_02 27:21

Yeah, I mean, I will say I made more adverse credibility determinations as a judge than I expected to. Uh, and that caught me a little bit off guard because I had had maybe one adverse credibility finding in 11, 12 years of being an immigration attorney and being in immigration court a lot. But uh for me, it was always the totality of the circumstances. I would look at everything I heard, everything I reviewed in the record. And, you know, for me, minor isolated inconsistencies and discrepancies wouldn't be enough to make an adverse credibility finding, especially if there were reasonable explanations for them. And for me, I've also just worked with so many immigrants and even just having them appear before me in court, I know that culture, education, literacy, trauma, memory, age can all affect how someone tells a story. And they can tell it in a very non-linear way. And I think sometimes judges really want a linear way of hearing a story. They want it to be a perfect timeline and perfectly chronological. And I just know that's not how so many people who are telling the truth tell their truth. And so for me, I would really have to just look at it very case by case, fact-specific. If I made an adverse credibility finding, I would have a slew of reasons kind of justifying it. It wouldn't be like, hey, you said this happened on February 14th in your affidavit, and now you're saying it happened on February 16th. Like, I don't think you're telling the truth. For me, that wasn't enough. But unfortunately, you know, and now that I'm back on the advocacy side, we need to prepare for those. And we try to make our cases as squeaky clean as possible and try to minimize those isolated, those discrepancies and inconsistencies, because I know many judges are keen on making adverse credibility findings. And they're really a kiss of death, you know, for an appeal because they're subject to clear error. And with this Board of Immigration Appeals as well, which has become very conservative during the Trump administration, you know, it's going to be almost impossible to get that overturned.

SPEAKER_01 29:31

So, Anam, to what extent are you doing uh advocacy work currently, uh, you know, versus, you know, just uh the out-of-court work right now?

SPEAKER_02 29:42

Yeah, so I'm I'm primarily doing immigration court work. I'm on the defensive team at Maria Sorrio. I also do federal litigation, but more on the Court of Appeal side and the Board of Immigration Appeal side, less district court work. We have an amazing team that that heads up that. And um, so uh I'm also involved on the side in a nonprofit called Arrived, formerly Asylum Works. And they do really great work in the DMV area with uh helping asylum seekers and other folks with of various immigration backgrounds get acclimated to life here in the United States, and they provide them with a lot of different um sources of support, including legal, but also employment and housing and mental health.

SPEAKER_01 30:27

So during these hearings when there have been lawyers, well, let me back up. Uh, did the procedures for these uh removal hearings allow non-lawyers to uh appear as representatives for any of the litigants?

SPEAKER_02 30:42

So you can represent someone in immigration court as an accredited representative, but there is a pretty rigorous process to get that accreditation as an accredited rep. And there are forms that you also need to file with the court. I don't think in my my two years of being an immigration judge, I ever had an accredited rep appear in immigration court for a hearing. Uh, but I did have them prepare applications or motions kind of on one-offs. And there were there was a specific form that they'd have to include for that.

SPEAKER_01 31:13

So uh what type of spectrum of quality of lowering did you see? I assume it was a real wide spectrum.

SPEAKER_02 31:21

Yeah, I mean, one of the most disappointing and frustrating parts of being an immigration judge is the quality of representation. Uh, and I'm I'm speaking more to the folks who are representing the the respondents than than DHS. I mean, DHS definitely there's a spectrum as well. I think right now they're just hiring so many attorneys and um not really investing a lot of time in training that you're definitely seeing some problematic issues on on DHS side. But I I was honestly kind of used to that. You know, I kind of knew what to expect with DHS attorneys after years of going up against them, but I didn't really know what to expect with other immigration attorneys because, you know, when you're another attorney, you see them in master calendar hearings or preliminary hearings, but you don't really see anyone in the trials. And I was really disappointed in the level of preparation, the quality of brief writing, the lack of detail and attention spent on these cases. And you would see um common culprits, you know, like you'd see the same attorneys who are kind of appearing before you each time, the same ones kind of dialing it in, not knowing the case, not making the right arguments. And that was something that I always struggled with too, because I was there to be a neutral, objective arbiter to decide the case. And I couldn't be respondent's attorney, right? I can't be there to make arguments for them that they're not putting on the table. I can ask questions, I can explore, I can develop the record as I'm required to as a judge, but I can't build the record, you know, I can't um file evidence that the attorney didn't file or ask for, or um, you know, leave, you know, stones that were left unturned. And so, and I never wanted to overstep to appear biased or be biased. And so that was something that was a little difficult for me at first. And then I just had to kind of be like, okay, this is my role. Um, this is what I'm here for, and I just have to hear the case.

SPEAKER_01 33:21

So the first uh removal proceeding I ever saw was when we were in the immigration clinic. I actually did two uh removal hearings, which I'll address in a moment. And uh it was I figured it's this was probably uh a younger, a newer associate from some big law firm, and the law firm is probably throwing her into doing, you know, getting some litigation experience pro bono at the expense of her client. And one of the questions she asked of her client, you know, uh it was he was applying for asylum. She said, Is your economic situation in America any better than it was in Guatemala? And even as a second-year law student, I was burying my head in my hands. And the uh immigration judge, I think it was Judge Arrowsmith, uh, who uh Paul Gusendorf actually worked for, clerk for for a brief period, she looked at us in the audience, she said, now let that be a lesson, not ask the question to which you don't know the harmful answer. And of course, she denied uh she denied Asylum. She said, he's here for economic opportunities. Now, I think it does go deeper than that, of course, Anam, which is that why do so many people come here for economic opportunities? Well, uh, how many factories in the United States? You know, uh so much of the manufacturing is going on outside of the United States. Why? Because of lower paid labor in countries that don't have uh uh labor laws that protect the workers as much and where people are driven to close to suicide in some of these uh computer and other manufacturing plants because they're working 16-hour dull days and going nuts.

SPEAKER_02 34:58

Yeah, I mean it's it's really a multifaceted issue, and the relief in immigration court is very limited. And I don't think people realize how limited the options are for folks to obtain status or just get in line, even if they're married to U.S. citizen or green card holder, even if they have U.S. citizen children, um, it's it's really an uphill battle. And this administration is just making things a lot more difficult because now, even folks with collateral relief before the immigration office, before USCIS, judges are a lot less inclined to continue or administratively close or terminate their cases so that they can pursue that other relief that they may be eligible for before the immigration office. And so we're we're just seeing unfortunately a lot of removal orders and a lot of cases that we're having to appeal.

SPEAKER_01 35:49

So when I was at the immigration clinic, I won one and I lost two. I got uh asylum for this applicant from Ethiopia, and we we won it uh at the uh uh uh interview over the Garmatz building in Baltimore, uh, at least when they were there. And my client claimed that she was very active with the church. And I underlined in my filings that it was the Marxist, the Marxist government of Ethiopia that was throwing her in jail and harassing her because Reagan was the president then. So I was using all the right, right words, and she got asylum. And then when I was attacking the Marxist Ethiopian government again uh with another client, he didn't get the uh he didn't get the asylum uh because he had found safe haven in Zimbabwe first and then come to the U.S. And the immigration judge denied it, saying, Well, that's forum shopping. And finally there was my guy who had a green card, uh, and he got convicted of uh importing two kilos of cocaine into America. That'll do it in a stuffed animal. So I put on his testimony that he didn't know it was cocaine. He lost, he he got a deportation order. But you know, uh to for me, this gets down to the agony, uh so the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and and having to uh you know, deal with those scars in order to get the wins. So uh how many um how many trials have you had in court, whether it's immigration court or anywhere else, and and you know, what what are some of the victories and and losses have you had that really stand out in going in that trajectory of winning as much as possible for the clients?

SPEAKER_02 37:33

Yeah, I mean, hundreds, you know, uh of trials, um, you know, even more if you count the ones I presided over as an immigration judge. And there are definitely cases that stand out as good and stand out as more difficult, and ones that I really um, you know, that really stick with you. And I I know one case that I I really um really stuck with me in a good way was a client of mine from Mexico who came when he was maybe two or three years old, had DACA. He um had uh such a southern drawl accent. He was from Southern Virginia, and we were able to get him asylum and immigration court that was before Judge Perlman at the Arlington Immigration Court, where there were just a number of issues that could have gone either way, you know, on the one year, on the persecution, on the nexus, on the internal relocation. There were just so many issues that were kind of on the fence, and we were able to um to win on all of them and get him asylum and DHS didn't appeal, which felt great as well. And so he's he's a citizen now. Uh, after this was, you know, many years ago after he applied for his green card and he's now a citizen. And um, I mean, cases that have really stuck with me um in a bad way, and this is actually one as an immigration judge, um, and it was one where I had to grant part of the family, but deny one of the family members. And it was just because they were not legally married, and so the husband and wife couldn't be dependents on each other's applications and they had to independently qualify for relief. And um, the wife I remember had cancer, and the husband I had to deny. And um, I remember being very frustrated with respondents counsel because I asked her multiple times throughout the hearing why they weren't legally married. They'd been together for maybe 15 years and had children together. And you could tell just asking that question kind of went right over her head. Like she didn't even understand that that could have been legally beneficial to them to get married. So they could be dependents on each other's case. So that was that was a tough case. And again, it kind of goes back to that, you know, understanding your role in the courtroom as a judge and just kind of you have to play with the cards you've been dealt with and make the best decision and ask those questions like why didn't these two people get married? So I could have granted everyone today. And um, you know, you can but you can't overstep. But that that one jumps out at me because I I was tearing up even just issuing that decision um because I knew they'd be happy, but they'd also be devastated.

SPEAKER_01 40:10

I remember when uh when Jay and I were law partners, he was mostly doing immigration and the whole dynamic of the people who were depending on him so much uh to help you know deliver the goods, you know, so many people they they scrimped and saved uh to pay him in so often. I I loved it when you know Jay would come back to the office and say we have a new citizen or new green card holder, and and I come back and it's you know from criminal court and proclaim KFA, uh, which to use that in watered down terms was kicked butt. And um so what are some of the approaches you take in dealing with your individual clients who are seeking immigration relief? Because a lot of it must be heart heart-wrenching for you about uh what they're dealing with.

SPEAKER_02 40:57

Yeah, I uh these cases are so hard, and uh these people have really gone through so much. You know, first just immigrating to the United States. There's a trauma just inherent in that journey, being stripped away from your culture, the world you know, your family, your community, making a dangerous journey to the United States for safety, and then and then coming here. I mean, for me, it's always been paramount to orient my clients really well and treat them with the respect that they're they deserve as far as advising them about what's going on in their case, what all of our legal arguments are that we're presenting, what the evidence is, why it's important to obtain, what can happen at the court, what this means. I mean, I think just giving them that information and the dignity of that information really goes a long way. And that was something that was really important to me as an immigration judge as well. And also, you know, the teacher in me as well, to just make sure that people really understand what is their right to appeal, what's going to happen. And there was a way to do that without giving legal advice. But sometimes I'd have to kind of catch myself when they'd ask me questions and say, Sir, you know, I can't give you legal advice, unfortunately. But um, and and I think part of it too is just, and this is something we talk about at our firm since I'm really more of a mentor and supervisor here, is um being the best version of yourself and really taking care of yourself. Vicarious trauma is very real. These cases are very difficult. I know attorneys at Maria Soria work very hard and they work long hours. And um I know many of them are struggling with work-life balance. This is something that we talk about and think about as a firm, how to support our attorneys and our paralegals and staff, because it's not just the attorneys. And, you know, it's always that I come back to that, you know, on the plane, like the oxygen masks burn down and they say, you know, put one on yourself before you put one on your child. And it's kind of the same with our clients, you know, we need to make sure we're taking care of ourselves before we can be the best attorneys to these clients.

SPEAKER_01 42:59

So what is your approach with presenting the testimony of a client who's been so traumatized that maybe they don't come across as believable? And what do you do to try to convince the fact finder uh this is trauma that's caused in the way they're talking? This isn't that they're prevaricating.

SPEAKER_02 43:20

Yeah, so there, if you're in the Fourth Circuit, um, which many of our cases are around here, there are good case sites. Alonga versus Holder has a really good case site for um how trauma can affect an asylum seeker's ability to tell their story. Um, you need to have everything documented. Uh, a psychological evaluation can really do wonders for your case if it documents any PTSD or anxiety or depression that affects someone's ability to tell their story. Um, we need to make sure that we are combing through records and documents and the entire ROP, make sure that there are no inconsistencies. Or discrepancies that we do not have to fix and um just get ahead of everything. You know, the amount of times that I would be listening to testimony and I would hear a pretty glaring inconsistency that I know everyone kind of heard, and the attorney kind of just blew past it and hoped that no one caught it or that they didn't need to fix it, and then that's just something that is unresolved, you know, that hurts the case versus if you can follow back and follow up with your client and say, you know, you said this date, you know, in your affidavit, but now you're saying this. Can you help me understand? Can you explain which one's correct? Can you explain why you made this mistake? You know, that goes a long way.

SPEAKER_01 44:39

Yes. What's an ROP? Return on profits, no?

SPEAKER_02 44:44

Oh, sorry, record of proceedings.

SPEAKER_01 44:47

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 44:48

The record.

SPEAKER_01 44:49

And what is that fourth uh circuit court case you're talking about that deals with the trauma?

SPEAKER_02 44:55

Yeah, so it's a longa versus holder. I don't have the site handy, um, but it's it's a good one. And um there are they restated it recently in another case. Um, I just told one of our associates about this. Yeah, so it's a longa versus holder, 777 F.3D, 199, 2015, Fourth Circuit case. And then there's another good decision, Arevalo Cantero versus Garland, also from the Fourth Circuit, which says obstacles like language barriers, past trauma, limited legal knowledge, and restricted access to basic social services often impede asylum seekers from effectively telling their stories. And so um I would have those sites in my oral decisions if I was going to find someone credible, despite there being inconsistencies in their decisions. I always wanted to give a very thorough um decision so that you know it would keep DHS from appealing my grants.

SPEAKER_01 45:52

What is the name of the organization you were talking about? Was it Arise? I can't read my own handwriting.

SPEAKER_02 45:58

Yeah, it's a it's arrived, which is their new name. They are formally known as Asylum Works. And uh they're here in the DMV area, and they provide you know an integrated model of health and wellness, economic mobility, job training, legal uh navigation to asylum seekers and other immigrants here, and they do really excellent work.

SPEAKER_01 46:21

Okay, so this is a nonprofit organization.

SPEAKER_02 46:24

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 46:25

What is their web address?

SPEAKER_02 46:27

Oh, that's a great question.

SPEAKER_01 46:29

Or else, or else just look at what, arrived.org.

SPEAKER_02 46:35

So I would go to asylumworks.org, um, which is their former name. They're in the process of changing their name from AsylumWorks to arrived, but I just typed in asylumworks.org and I was able to go to their landing page. And um, they yeah, are really helping a lot of asylum seekers and other immigrants and recognizing that there is a there are holistic needs that need to be met there. You know, having an immigration attorney is great. It helps them navigate maybe the asylum office or the immigration court, but there's a lot more to being an immigrant, there are a lot more struggles there day to day. And so they kind of look at that holistic package and offer support.

SPEAKER_01 47:14

So this would be a good organization to donate to if audience members are looking for places to donate money.

SPEAKER_02 47:20

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 47:21

And the work you're doing with them is just on individual case by case, are you uh helping into in a leadership role there?

SPEAKER_02 47:29

Yeah, so I'm a former board member, and I had to step down from their board when I became an immigration judge. And I look forward to rejoining the board imminently. We're we're discussing that again.

SPEAKER_01 47:43

Now, so you're with this law firm, and uh what kind of tensions are there at the law firm between, you know, given giving it the all, but you know, still uh still serving the bottom line, you know, giving it all to the clients, but still serving the financial bottom line. Or maybe you're not feeling that tension, maybe you're just in paradise.

SPEAKER_02 48:06

No, I mean, I think these cases are difficult, right? Um it's getting harder and harder to win these cases, especially the detention cases, and they move so quickly, especially when people get transferred. But then there is, you know, we're a private firm. We charge legal fees for these cases and for the work. And um we charge reasonable fees, but these cases are also a significant amount of work and they're a significant sum of money to a lot of people with the backgrounds that they come to and uh come from. And so, you know, the bottom line is thankfully it's not something that I feel too much in my position as of counsel. Um, I think that the firm has expectations for the work that everyone should be doing, but it really is the quality of the representation that the focus is on more so than the quantity. Um, but at the same time, everyone works here so hard. And I've been so impressed since joining this firm to with all of the people I work with, whether they're receptionist, legal assistant, paralegal, or attorney, because everyone really cares to do the right thing and to do right by their clients.

SPEAKER_01 49:14

So at your law firm, what's the practice mixed generally between uh representing uh corporations or helping out the corporations versus the individuals?

SPEAKER_02 49:23

Yeah, so we have a business employment practice that we're currently growing. It's um partnered by our partner, um, is led by our partner Khan, who joined the firm um not too long ago. And so we're building up that practice with one of our other partners, Chris Carr, as well. Um, but I would say it's probably the smallest practice group. Our primary practice areas and the most amount of our work are our defensive immigration court team and our federal litigation team, who have both, um, which are both very, very busy practice areas. And then we also do a lot of affirmative, humanitarian, and consular processing as well.

SPEAKER_01 49:59

Oh, that's excellent. The name of the show is Beat the Prosecution. What have you done along the path to learn how to be a great persuader, other than just doing the work? Or is it just from doing the work and just getting the experience?

SPEAKER_02 50:15

Yeah, I mean, uh, being a judge, I never went into a case having my mind 100% made up. I had an inclination, you know, I'd review the case, I'd get a sense for the arguments, what the legal theory was, and uh, you know, I'd have an inkling, but I never went in with my decision written out or my mind made up. And I was always open to being persuaded. Um, now that I'm back in private practice, I do think principles of persuasion are very key. And I think it's just knowing what the issues are. Uh, the amount of time that I think people devote airspace to issues that are not relevant, that are not moving the needle, that are not dispositive for the ultimate decision. And then that's just time that's wasted, especially in an environment when judges are trying to decide cases very quickly and don't want to give you that time. I mean, you need to be concise, you need to get straight to the point, and you every word matters. And so for me, it's really that like, how do you pack the most amount of punch in the smallest amount of word that goes to the heart of the matter? And that's when you're going to make a difference and potentially change the judge's mind in your favor.

SPEAKER_01 51:25

Okay, well said there. Okay, so I've noticed the judges tend to let me try my case better when the judges see that I'm not wasting time. And so I sometimes see judges cutting off lawyers uh in mid-sentence during, well, almost a mid-sentence during their cross-examination of a witness, for instance, if they think they're wasting time. But if the judge sees that I can ask 20 questions within uh 10 minutes, whereas the other lawyer asks 100 questions within, you know, two hours, they're gonna let me uh try my case. So to what extent have you dealt with that as a judge, uh, you know, dealing with lawyers just wasting time? What do you do to move it along? Do you just were you cutting them off or what?

SPEAKER_02 52:06

Yeah, I would interrupt. I I got more confident doing that over time. I think when I first started out, I would kind of just like sit back and let everyone present the case exactly how they wanted to. But um, and maybe I'd be working on my decision while they're going off on a tangent. But um, for me, it was um, I I would, I would respectfully interject and I would say, you know, counsel, I think we have a stipulation to X, Y, and Z. We don't need to hear a lot about this, or counsel, I'm really struggling to find the relevance here. Do you think that we could fast forward to the dispositive issues in the case? I'm really interested in hearing about X, Y, and Z. And I try and do that in the preliminary discussions as well. You know, I would say, like, I've reviewed everything. It seems like this is well documented. I don't think I need to hear a lot on this. I really want to hear a lot on Nexus. So I really want to hear a lot about what happened when he went to the police and what the police did because I'd kind of know what the issues are that were gonna make or break the case. Um, and I think that's always helpful. And I think judge attorneys should ask judges for that sort of guidance. And it comes with a little bit of confidence and expertise as well. And say, you know, Your Honor, I know DHS might not be willing to stipulate here, but I'd really like to know if there are some issues that we can narrow here. I want to be respectful of the court's time. I see you have a 1030 case, you know, where can I focus to make this more effective to present today? And I don't know, you know, what judge is gonna say no to that, but it's it's how you ask it, right? If you go in there and say, like, hey, can we stipulate that there's this? Like in this environment, no one's gonna stipulate to anything. But if you use words like, how can we narrow this? How can we be more efficient? I want to be respectful of the court's time, you know, you might be more likely to get somewhere.

SPEAKER_01 53:46

I you're probably not gonna reveal this, or maybe you don't know about it, but I'm almost convinced that sometimes I get my way as we're getting closer to lunchtime to have the judge rule in my favor know that things will go slow, will go faster. In one instance, uh, for instance, I made a motion to suppress a stop of my client's car in a DWI case, and the prosecutor said to the judge, can I call the police officer back on the witness stand? The judge had leeway to do that, but we were 15 minutes before lunchtime. So the judge knew that if he didn't let the prostor call the cop back on the witness stand, we'd win the trial earlier. Well, win the trial. Yeah, well, I won the trial. We'd finish the trial earlier. The judge granted my motion to suppress the stop. And if he had let the prostitute call the cop back up on the witness stand, I think it would be obvious. Uh no, it would have been the opposite uh to me winning. So you're not gonna share something like that, are you, about any colleagues who would just maybe roll in someone's favor so they can get to lunch?

SPEAKER_02 54:46

Yeah, I mean, I think that judges all have to manage their dockets. And I think judges are trying to get as many completions as possible. I mean, when I was an immigration judge during the Biden administration, there was a lot less of an emphasis on completions as there is currently. But um, yeah, I mean, you you you want to make the right decision on the law and on the facts, but we had to end at 12 p.m., period. We had to let give everyone a lunch break, including the security guards waiting outside and and the DHS attorneys and the interpreters. And we were really, we would get chastised if we went past 12 p.m. at the Annandale Immigration Court. And so if you can get a case done before 12 p.m. and not have to continue it for a decision, then I would always try and do that. And so sometimes it would be more so things like, oh, there's a third witness who's just gonna repeat everything that the respondent says, but I've already found the respondent credible in my eyes. And so I would talk to the parties about being like, I'm not really sure that we need to hear from this third witness. I'm I really don't have credibility issues with the respondent. It sounds like it's just gonna be a repetition of the respondent's uh testimony. Are we in agreement that we don't have to hear that testimony and we can adopt the as if they would testify consistently with the affidavit? And usually people would be on board with that. And I don't really see how that would, you know, discredit anyone or prejudice the case, but I'd be able to get a decision done.

SPEAKER_01 56:14

Okay, it sounds like you're saying that you may not have done what the judge did in my case that I won, where you just told the prosecutor, no, you can't call the witness back on, or there's there's a flip side just saying, no, you already put the witness on, you can't keep bringing them back on the witness stand. Where would you have sided on that kind of issue where where my judge just wouldn't let the prosecutor put the cop back up on the witness stand?

SPEAKER_02 56:35

Yeah, I mean, super case by case. In immigration court at least, like DHS never presents witnesses. And even if it for me, it would depend on like, am I inclined to grant or am I inclined to deny? If it was a case that I was inclined to grant, then I would bend over backwards to make sure DHS got an opportunity to present their whole case. So they have one less thing to appeal me on. I was always thinking about the appeals, you know, and trying to make sure that everyone was able to present their case because, you know, due process is primarily for immigrants, but you know, I also want to make sure that it's a fair proceeding for everyone.

SPEAKER_01 57:07

I told you we would finish by 4 p.m. There's a lot more I want to talk about. I'm sure I'll have a chance to do it later on on another date. But this is your opportunity, Anam, to say anything you want to say that you haven't said or emphasize anything that you want to emphasize and remind everyone again the name of your law firm and the website and where they can find you.

SPEAKER_02 57:29

Yeah, thank you so much. This was really such a pleasure to talk to you. Um, as a reminder, I'm at Maria Sorrio. Our website is Mare, M-U-R-R-A-Y-O-S-O-R-I-O.com. And we're full service immigration, primarily in the DMV area, but we're rapidly expanding. Um, yeah, I mean, uh immigration is such a hot topic right now, but at the end of the day, these are people who are entitled to due process and are entitled to fair proceedings. I'm very gravely concerned by a lot of what I'm seeing in immigration courts nationwide and a lot of these deportation judges who are really drinking the Kool-Aid to just deny cases as quickly as possible and without a real and meaningful opportunity to present the case. And it's it's really a sorry state. And I'm I'm worried about the damage being done in this administration to the immigration court system. And I don't know if it's something that can be rectified without reform. You know, we need to see an article one or an article three court. And I think that's really gonna be the only way that we're truly going to have independence for our immigration judges and these really life or death stakes. You know, these are cases dealing with people's lives and their lives are in danger. You know, so many of them are seeking asylum and and came here out of that fear of persecution. And so they they deserve that fair opportunity. And I hope to one day see the day. But, you know, I'm I'm cynical and and I'm getting even more cynical with each passing day, but um, we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_01 59:06

You're speaking to the choir, Anam. The only reason I didn't focus on all that is because the show has beat the prosecution, was to talk about the uh the persuasion stuff, but I agree uh totally. Throw out that Kool-Aid, throw it into the toilet and flush it. Everybody you have heard from Anam Petit. She is an immigration lawyer there at Mori Osorio here in Northern Virginia or the DC area, wherever her office is. This is John Katza Beat the Prosecution. Thank you again so much, Anam. I am a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer here in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. This is Beat the Prosecution because there is no other way.

SPEAKER_00 59:48

Stand by, please. Thank you for listening to this latest episode from Beat the Prosecution. This is a regular podcast giving people a leg up for their criminal defense. Nothing on any of our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Cass only provides legal advice to current clients or for individuals who have arranged a consultation. We welcome you to contact us via email at info at beatheprosecution.com or by calling our office at 703-383-1100. Or texting us at five seven one four zero six seven two six eight.