Elizabeth Ising spoke to Governance Intelligence about the significance of two transactions that were recognized at the Corporate Governance Awards.
Watch the full interview.
In 2024, Gibson Dunn’s pro bono practice continued to expand access to justice and equality under the law. We provided legal representation to those who could not otherwise afford it, and we tackled some of the most important and complex legal and humanitarian issues of our day. Our pro bono work is a reflection of the diverse interests and beliefs of our attorneys, the caliber of their legal skills, and the shared commitment they have to benefiting their communities and our world. As a Firm, we devoted over 200,000 hours to pro bono work and launched more than 750 new pro bono projects in 2024—smashing all prior records. We have no doubt that Gibson Dunn’s pro bono practice will continue to grow in 2025, as we lean into new challenges, address an ever-changing legal landscape, and battle the ever-present inequities that persist in our world.
You can read more about the important work of our pro bono practice in our 2024 Pro Bono Report.
Gibson Dunn’s Immigration Task Force is available to help clients understand what these and other expected policy changes will mean for them and how to comply with new requirements.
Over the past month, the Trump administration has imposed several limitations on the ability of noncitizens from countries experiencing times of crisis to obtain temporary refuge in the United States. For example, the administration canceled a Biden-era program allowing nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela with U.S.-based sponsors to obtain short-term lawful status and work authorization in the United States. The program was created in part to minimize unlawful migration from individuals fleeing desperate circumstances, as each of these countries has experienced massive economic collapses, widespread government corruption, and persecution of political dissenters and marginalized groups over the past few years.[1]
Further, earlier this month, the administration announced that it was “pausing” these individuals’ applications for other, more durable forms of immigration status in the United States.[2] While presently unclear, this ostensibly includes forms of relief individuals fleeing persecution are entitled to seek under applicable U.S. and international law. Court challenges for each of these actions is either already underway or anticipated.
Termination of the CHNV Humanitarian Parole Program
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order, titled Securing Our Borders, that directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to “take appropriate action to . . . [t]erminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in [President Trump’s] Executive Orders, including the program known as the ‘Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans,’” also known as the CHNV program.[3] Recently, news sources have reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed (in an unpublished memorandum) such termination of the CHNV program.[4] The proposal would purport to revoke the parole status of CHNV parolees and place them in deportation proceedings if the parolees have failed to apply for, or obtain, another immigration benefit.[5]
The CHNV program was announced by the Biden Administration on January 5, 2023, and allows certain nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to apply to be temporarily paroled into the United States for up to two years.[6] The CHNV program, which does not grant long-term immigration status to these individuals, is an emergency measure that allows applicants from these four countries who meet stringent requirements to come to the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons. The program requires applicants to meet various criteria, including having a U.S.-based financial supporter and passing security vetting. Once accepted, “parolees” can seek certain immigration benefits, including employment authorization, and can apply for other forms of humanitarian relief (e.g., asylum). The program accepts only 30,000 people each month; through the end of December 2024, approximately 531,000 people had been granted parole status through the CHNV program.[7]
The full effects of the program’s termination are currently unclear. Nothing has been reported on how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will handle pending CHNV applications, although it seems likely from the Trump Administration’s rhetoric that those applications will be rejected, and thus those applicants not eligible to apply for work authorization on that basis alone. It is also unclear how many of the 531,000 parolees under the CHNV program have applied for alternative immigration benefits (and thus are potentially able to, if eligible, retain work authorization under those programs). Based on what has been reported, it seems likely that parolees who have not applied for alternative immigration benefits could have their parole—and work authorization—revoked. In that event, without status or parole permitting the parolees to stay in the country, they could be at risk of removal from the United States; many parolees could even be subject to an expedited removal process whereby they could be removed from the United States without ever seeing a judge or being permitted to raise claims for relief in a court.
The CHNV program may not be the only humanitarian parole program currently at risk of termination. On January 28, 2025, USCIS reported that it was pausing acceptance of the form that U.S. supporters of CHNV applicants need to submit to start the application process (Form I-134A, the Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support).[8] But this is the same form used for applications for other “categorical” parole programs, including Uniting for Ukraine (for Ukrainians fleeing Russian invasion). Thus, new applications under those programs may also not be processed. In addition, several U.S. Senators have written a letter expressing their concern over the Department of Homeland Security’s directive to “‘phase out’ humanitarian parole” and the potential impact on Afghans fleeing from the Taliban who are seeking such status.[9]
Petitioners are still technically able to submit humanitarian parole applications for either themselves or other individuals located outside the United States, including individuals from the CHNV countries, which will be processed on a case-by-case basis by federal agencies. However, given the Trump administration’s expressed skepticism toward this mechanism and the discretionary nature of humanitarian parole, those individual applications likely have a very low chance of approval.
Pause on Certain Humanitarian Parolees’ Ability to Apply for Others Forms of Status: On February 14, 2025, Andrew Davidson, the acting deputy director of USCIS, ordered an “administrative pause” on accepting or processing applications for immigration benefits other than humanitarian parole for recipients of the CHNV and Uniting for Ukraine programs, as well as certain other individuals.[10] USCIS cited fraud and national security risks as the justification for the freeze.[11] Under this administrative pause, USCIS will not process any applications for asylum, temporary protected status, or family-based visas from individuals who entered the United States under one of the affected humanitarian parole programs.
USCIS justified their directive by stating that “fraud information and public safety or national security concerns are not being properly flagged in USCIS’ adjudicative systems.”[12] The concerns include “serial sponsors,” applications submitted for deceased individuals or with identical addresses, and grants of parole without being “fully vetted.”[13] The USCIS memorandum references the Biden Administration’s July 2024 pause to the CHNV program due to fraud concerns over screening processes for sponsor applications.[14] However, this temporary pause only affected travel authorizations and did not affect the application process—let alone these individuals’ abilities to apply for entirely separate forms of immigration status while lawfully present in the country.[15]
While the administrative pause is indefinite, the memorandum states that the pause will be lifted only after a “comprehensive review and evaluation of the in-country population of aliens who are or were paroled into the United States under these categorical parole programs.”[16] Currently, it is unclear how applications for other forms of immigration status submitted by these individuals will be treated by USCIS—it is possible they will simply not be processed.
Termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a lawful immigration status granted by “[t]he Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government” to nationals of a specific country who are present in the United States at the time of the country’s designation.[17] TPS is unavailable to individuals who have been convicted of most crimes or otherwise present security concerns; it is within the Attorney General’s discretion to grant TPS.[18] If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the designated country no longer meets these conditions, the Attorney General must terminate the designation.[19]
In response to the “severe humanitarian emergency” in Venezuela—marked by economic crisis, political crisis, health crisis, food insecurity, a “collapse of basic services,” crime, and human rights violations—then-Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas designated Venezuela for TPS in 2021.[20] Then-Secretary Mayorkas later extended that designation twice for a total of 36 months. At the time of the second extension (October 3, 2023), he also redesignated Venezuela for 18 months, explicitly creating “two distinct TPS designations of Venezuela”. In other words, Venezuelans who had obtained TPS through the initial 2021 designation could extend their TPS status through September 10, 2025, while more recent arrivals could apply for TPS via the 2023 designation. On January 17, 2025, then-Secretary Mayorkas consolidated and extended those separate designations for 18 months, such that TPS status for all Venezuelans was extended through October 2, 2026.[21]
On January 28, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem vacated the January 17, 2025 extension of Venezuelan TPS.[22] A week later, on February 5, 2025, USCIS announced the termination of the October 3, 2023 designation of Venezuela for TPS, effective April 6, 2025.[23] Although USCIS did not terminate the 2021 TPS designation, it vacated the extension through October 2026. As a result, TPS status under the 2021 designation is now set to expire on September 10, 2025, barring any further agency action.[24] The vacatur and termination already are the subject of two lawsuits, which are pending in the Northern District of California and the District of Maryland.
Policy Considerations. The February 5, 2025 notice explains that termination of Venezuela’s TPS designation is based not on changed conditions in Venezuela, but rather on DHS’s assessment that “it is contrary to the national interest to permit the Venezuelan nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Venezuela) to remain temporarily in the United States.”[25] This conclusion rests on four “policy imperatives” articulated by President Trump in recent executive orders and proclamations.[26]
- First, DHS points to the direction to terminate the CHNV program. The notice explains that an estimated 33,600 individuals in the country as CHNV parolees secured TPS status and employment authorization under the 2023 authorization and cites concerns about the resources of local communities where those with TPS status are settling.[27] The notice also cites concerns about crimes blamed on a Venezuelan gang.[28]
- Second, DHS cites President Trump’s emphasis on enforcing immigration laws, as well as his statement in Executive Order 14159 (“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”) that “the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States [that] . . . has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.”[29] That same order instructed the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “ensur[e] that designations of Temporary Protected Status are consistent with [the INA], and that such designations are appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute.”[30]
- Third, DHS points to President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, combined with the potential “magnet effect” of a TPS designation.[31]
- Fourth, DHS points to President Trump’s directive that “the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.”[32] Expanding on this pronouncement, the notice states that “U.S. foreign policy interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, are best served and protected by curtailing policies that facilitate or encourage illegal and destabilizing migration.”[33]
Current Status: The status of Venezuelan nationals who were granted TPS under the 2021 designation is currently unchanged, although their TPS status will now expire on September 10, 2025 (instead of October 2, 2026). Those who received TPS through the 2023 designation and have no other form of lawful immigration status may lose their immigration status and employment authorization on April 6, 2025, barring injunctive relief in the litigation challenging the termination or changes to individual circumstances.
[1] See, e.g., Amnesty International Report on Cuba 2023/4, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/central-america-and-the-caribbean/cuba/report-cuba/; Amnesty International Report of Haiti 2023/4, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/central-america-and-the-caribbean/haiti/; Amnesty International Report of Nicaragua 2023/4, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/central-america-and-the-caribbean/nicaragua/; Amnesty International Report of Venezuela 2023/4, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/
[2] Camilo Montoya-Galvez, US Pauses Immigration Applications for Certain Migrants Welcomed Under Biden, CBS News (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-pauses-immigration-applications-for-certain-migrants-welcomed-under-biden/
[3] Exec. Order No. 14165, 90 F.R. 8467, § 7(b) (Jan. 20, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/30/2025-02015/securing-our-borders.
[4] See, e.g., Camilo Montoya-Galvez, Trump Officials Make Plans to Revoke Legal Status of Migrants Welcomed Under Biden, CBS News (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-officials-make-plans-to-revoke-legal-status-of-migrants-welcomed-under-biden/.
[5] Id.
[6] See The Biden Administration’s Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans: An Overview, Am. Immigration Council (Oct. 31, 2023), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/biden-administrations-humanitarian-parole-program-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-and; What is the CHNV Parole Program?, Global Refuge (Oct. 23, 2024), https://www.globalrefuge.org/news/what-is-the-chnv-parole-program/.
[7] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-december-2024-monthly-update
[8] See Update on Form I-134A, USCIS (Jan. 28, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/update-on-form-i-134a.
[9] See Letter from Amy Klobuchar, United States Senator, et al. to Pete Hegseth, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Marco Rubio, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of State, and Kristi Noem, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/2/klobuchar-colleagues-call-on-administration-to-clarify-status-of-afghan-wartime-allies.
[10] Camilo Montoya-Galvez, US Pauses Immigration Applications for Certain Migrants Welcomed Under Biden, CBS News (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-pauses-immigration-applications-for-certain-migrants-welcomed-under-biden/.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. See Kristina Cooke & Ted Hesson, US Pause Humanitarian Entry Program for Citizens of Four Countries, Reuters (Aug. 2, 2024), available at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-pauses-humanitarian-entry-program-citizens-four-countries-2024-08-02/.
[15] Ted Hessen & Kanishka Singh, US Government Resumes Humanitarian Entry Program for Citizens of 4 Countries, Reuters (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-government-resumes-humanitarian-entry-program-citizens-4-countries-2024-08-29/.
[16] Camilo Montoya-Galvez, US Pauses Immigration Applications for Certain Migrants Welcomed Under Biden, CBS News (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-pauses-immigration-applications-for-certain-migrants-welcomed-under-biden/.
[17] 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1).
[18] 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B); see also Asylum Bars, USCIS (last updated May 31, 2022), available at https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/asylum-bars.
[19] 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(B).
[20] Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status and Implementation of Employment Authorization for Venezuelans Covered by Deferred Enforced Departure, 86 FR 13574 (Mar. 9, 2021), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/09/2021-04951/designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status-and-implementation-of-employment.
[21] Extension of the 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, 90 FR 5961 (Jan. 17, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/17/2025-00769/extension-of-the-2023-designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status.
[22] Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela, 90 F.R. 8805 (Feb. 3, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02183/vacatur-of-2025-temporary-protected-status-decision-for-venezuela.
[23] Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, 90 F.R. 9040 (Feb. 5, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/05/2025-02294/termination-of-the-october-3-2023-designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1).
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 F.R. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02006/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Id.; see also Proc. 10886, Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States, 90 F.R. 8327 (Jan. 20, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-01948/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states.
[33] Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, 90 F.R. 9040 (Feb. 5, 2025), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/05/2025-02294/termination-of-the-october-3-2023-designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)).
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, any leader or member of the firm’s Pro Bono, Public Policy, Administrative Law & Regulatory, Appellate & Constitutional Law, or Labor & Employment practice groups, or the following members of the firm’s Immigration Task Force:
Stuart F. Delery – Co-Chair, Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice Group,
Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8515, sdelery@gibsondunn.com)
Naima L. Farrell – Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group,
Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3559, nfarrell@gibsondunn.com)
Nancy Hart – Partner, Litigation Practice Group,
New York (+1 212.351.3897, nhart@gibsondunn.com)
Katie Marquart – Partner & Chair, Pro Bono Practice Group,
Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7475, kmarquart@gibsondunn.com)
Laura Raposo – Associate General Counsel,
New York (+1 212.351.5341, lraposo@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Rozen – Partner, Appellate & Constitutional Law Practice Group,
Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3596, mrozen@gibsondunn.com)
Ariana Sañudo – Associate, Pro Bono Practice Group,
Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7137, asanudo@gibsondunn.com)
Betty X. Yang – Partner & Co-Chair, Trials Practice Group,
Dallas (+1 214.698.3226, byang@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Gibson Dunn’s Pro Bono Committee is thrilled to announce the winners of the 2024 Frank Wheat Memorial Awards. By harnessing their impressive legal skills, our winners were able to change their clients’ lives and make a positive impact on our global community. The stories of their accomplishments reflect the best of Gibson Dunn.
This year’s Frank Wheat Award winners showcase different aspects of the Firm’s diverse and vibrant pro bono practice, including work on behalf of immigrants, criminal justice reform, defense of survivors of domestic violence, and our newly-launched Justice for Women and Girls initiative. In 2024, more than 2,000 Gibson Dunn attorneys around the world have devoted more than 206,000 hours to pro bono work. In total, these matters were valued at approximately $251 million.
We are especially honored to include amongst this year’s honorees Scott Edelman as the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award. Scott recently retired from Gibson Dunn after decades as a Partner at the Firm. Scott served as the inaugural chair of Gibson Dunn’s Pro Bono Committee, a role he held from 2005 to 2021. Scott’s dedication to and stewardship of our pro bono practice led it to grow by leaps and bounds and become the pillar that it is today.
Frank Wheat was a former Los Angeles partner, a superb transactional lawyer, SEC commissioner, and president of the Los Angeles County Bar. He was also a giant in the nonprofit community, having founded the Alliance for Children’s Rights in addition to serving as a leader of the Sierra Club and as a founding director of the Center for Law in the Public Interest. He exemplified the commitment to the community and to pro bono service that has always been a core tenet of the Gibson Dunn culture. Recipients of the Frank Wheat Memorial Award each receive a $2,500 prize to be donated to pro bono organizations designated by the recipients.
Gibson Dunn today announced that a pro bono team of litigators has secured a settlement on behalf of client Dr. Bidisha Rudra, who was the victim of an unprovoked and violent assault unleashed on a group of Indian American women. While the terms of the settlement were not disclosed, the matter has been resolved to the parties’ satisfaction.
The suit arose from an August 24, 2022 incident in which Esmeralda Upton began an unprovoked and violent assault on Dr. Rudra and three other Indian American women, Sabori Saha, Indrani Banerjee, and Anamika Chatterjee, in the parking lot of a Plano, Texas restaurant. The attack lasted several minutes, during which Ms. Upton screamed racial epithets, struck the women, and threatened to shoot them. The victims were able to record Ms. Upton’s disturbing behavior on their cell phones while they waited for police to arrive.
Media coverage of the recorded attack sparked national outrage. Following a joint state and federal investigation, Ms. Upton pleaded guilty to three criminal counts of assault and one criminal count of making terroristic threats, with each count accompanied by hate-crime enhancements.
Dr. Rudra, along with Ms. Saha, Ms. Banerjee, and Ms. Chatterjee, filed a civil suit against Ms. Upton for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gibson Dunn received Dr. Rudra’s case by referral from The Alliance for Asian American Justice (The Alliance), a national pro bono organization that advocates for victims of anti-Asian hate crimes. The Alliance co-founder and Gibson Dunn partner Debra Wong Yang said: “The Alliance was formed to try to deter acts of hate but to also protect our community of AANHPIs in America and show them they are not alone. We all stand together in condemning acts of hate.”
Following the civil suit settlement, Dr. Rudra looks forward to focusing on the future. Earlier this year, motivated by a desire to serve her community and bolstered by her experience working in the healthcare industry, Dr. Rudra opened the Frisco, Texas office of Senior Helpers, an organization that provides compassionate care to seniors in the Dallas-Fort Worth community while offering much-needed support for primary caregivers.
Commenting on the settlement, Dr. Rudra said: “While this settlement offers a measure of closure, the deep scar left by the racial hate crime I endured remains with me. The pain and trauma are not easily erased, and they fuel my resolve to keep fighting. This crusade against racism is far from over. I will stand as an ally and a voice for those who are too afraid or hesitant to speak out. I am also grateful to Gibson Dunn and The Alliance for Asian American Justice for their support and legal expertise in the fight against racism and bigotry. Together, we must continue the fight to eradicate racial hate and build a more just and equitable society. This journey toward justice continues—for me, for all of us.”
Poonam Kumar, partner at Gibson Dunn, remarked, “Gibson Dunn is proud to have represented Dr. Bidisha Rudra in the wake of this attack and throughout this multi-year litigation. While this case is now over, we look forward to continuing to work with Dr. Rudra and others in the ongoing fight against hatred and bias.”
The Gibson Dunn team representing Dr. Rudra was led by partners Debra Wong Yang, Betty X. Yang, and Poonam Kumar; and included associates Claire Piepenburg, Bina Nayee, Ryan Mak, Arjun Ogale, Maya M. Halthore, Nancy Ding, and Brianna N. Banks.
A Gibson Dunn pro bono team won an important victory for an elderly Berkeley homeowner in a significant case against a Receiver appointed by the City of Berkeley, ostensibly to correct a set of minor code violations in our client’s two-story Harmon Street home.
The first phase of the bifurcated case went to trial in February 2024, addressing the reasonableness of the work performed by the Receiver and the first installment of the Receiver’s fees. The Gibson Dunn team compiled a formidable record at the trial court level to support our client’s challenge to the Receiver’s actions, including for purposes of any ultimate appeal. The trial evidence showed that our client, a U.S. Army veteran and U.S. Post Office retiree who worked part-time as a Berkeley school crossing guard, bought his 1910 house as a fixer-upper in 1975 with his wife, who passed away 20 years ago. In 2014, he received a Notice from the City of 33 health and safety code violations at his home, ranging from broken window glass and rotted stair rails to exposed electrical wires and peeling paint. Although it’s unclear what prompted the City’s inspection, press reports suggested it was triggered by neighbor complaints or a police visit on an unrelated matter. On receiving the Notice of Violation (NOV), our client and his sons immediately undertook to correct the violations, including by engaging contractors to perform any specialized work. By the time the Receiver was appointed, all 33 issues listed in the NOV had been corrected or addressed in estimates provided by outside contractors.
At trial, Gibson Dunn argued that the Receiver’s authority was limited to correcting the code violations that triggered the receivership, and presented expert evidence showing that the work could have been done for under $65,000—even putting aside the corrections our client and his sons already made. The Receiver nonetheless undertook a course of major renovations and construction, almost all unrelated to the 33 NOV items. Among other such work, the Receiver converted the home to a duplex from the single-family framework that had supported our client’s family for four decades, entirely renovated the kitchen with granite countertops and other high-end features that our client neither requested nor needed, removed sliding pocket doors and other solid doors from the home and replaced them with hollow doors, and cut down a stand of decades-old juniper trees that the family had planted and nourished. There was strong evidence that the Receiver’s plan was to flip the home—a troubling prospect for a senior citizen and homeowner living in a historically Black neighborhood that already had seen a sharp decline in Black families in recent decades. The Gibson Dunn team argued that the construction costs of nearly $550,000—all of which were imposed on our client by means of direct charges or the addition of debt to the home itself—were grossly excessive compared with what would have been required to fix the code violations.
Although the trial court sided with the Receiver on whether the construction work was authorized by the court’s prior orders—an issue the Gibson Dunn team fully preserved for appeal—it agreed with Gibson Dunn that the Receiver waived his right to about $165,000 in fees, clearing the way for a refund to our client of amounts he already paid.
In the second and final phase of the case, the Receiver sought another $285,500 in fees and costs—including nearly $215,000 in legal fees incurred during the first phase of the case. The trial court disallowed almost half of the fees the Receiver sought based on the “significant portion” of fees it had disallowed in the first phase.
Following the ruling in the second phase, the Receiver sought to secure his outstanding fees through an immediately enforceable, super-priority lien against our client’s home—a potentially devastating result for our client that may have triggered foreclosure. Gibson Dunn argued the Receiver’s allowed fees should be secured by a lien subordinate to our client’s existing mortgage and should not be enforceable until six months after the resolution of any appeal. The Gibson Dunn team also asked the trial court to waive the bond requirement on appeal, arguing that the Receiver’s monetary relief would be fully secured by the lien.
The trial court agreed with Gibson Dunn on all counts. The court’s decision will allow our client and the Gibson Dunn team to pursue a full appeal from the trial court’s adverse rulings without the threat of the Receiver forcing foreclosure and the additional hurdles of posting a six-figure bond as a senior on a fixed income.
The Gibson Dunn team was led by partners Marcellus McRae, Kristin Linsley, Andrew LeGrand, and Jeff Krause, and associates Jeremy Ochsenbein, Lauren Dansey, Kelsey Matevish, Yana Nebuchina, Warren Loegering, Matt Getz, Jesse Schupack, and Lindsay Laird.
Gibson Dunn has been awarded the Family Violence Appellate Project’s inaugural California Pro Bono Cup. The award honors exceptional pro bono contributions that help survivors of domestic violence access justice and safety through the appellate process. Since 2015, Gibson Dunn lawyers “have collectively provided over 4,900 hours of pro bono legal assistance to secure protections for survivors and their children.” The award was presented at the 2024 Battle of the Bands: Banding Together to End Domestic Violence, an annual fundraiser benefiting San Francisco’s Family Violence Appellate Project. The award was presented on September 26, 2024.
Judge Carol Whitehurst of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a Report and Recommendation denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit seeking to hold Louisiana District Attorney’s office liable for the unconstitutional incarceration of innocent third-party witness for more than six months in flagrant disregard of her constitutional rights.
Lafayette, La. Magistrate Judge Carol Whitehurst has recommended denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss a civil rights action filed by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC on behalf of Tayjha Alfred against Martin Bofill (“Bo”) Duhé, the District Attorney for the 16th Judicial District of Louisiana, and Assistant District Attorney Alister Charrier. The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief for the constitutional violations Ms. Alfred suffered when the defendants caused her to be incarcerated as a material witness for more than six months despite never charging her with a crime, and for similar constitutional violations against other material witnesses. The suit also seeks to have Louisiana’s material-witness statute declared facially unconstitutional.
In 2019, Ms. Alfred happened to be in the vicinity of an area that later became the scene of a murder and voluntarily told police who she saw in the area before any crime occurred. More than three years passed before Bo Duhé and Alister Charrier decided they wanted Ms. Alfred to testify at the trial for the murder suspect. In the interim, Ms. Alfred had obtained a nursing degree and became a traveling nurse, providing care to the nation’s most vulnerable at the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic. In February 2023, rather than serve Ms. Alfred with a subpoena, they caused Ms. Alfred to be arrested and incarcerated for more than six months as a material witness until she testified at the trial. Ms. Alfred was never charged with committing any crime, nor was she a suspect. During her incarceration, Ms. Alfred was never appointed counsel—as every accused criminal defendant receives upon arrest—nor was she provided with an appearance bond or any meaningful hearing to challenge her incarceration. Ms. Alfred lost her job and her spot in an advanced nursing program while she was incarcerated and suffered severe mental and emotional distress.
Mr. Duhé and Ms. Charrier moved to dismiss Ms. Alfred’s complaint on multiple grounds, including that they are immune from any liability for their actions against Ms. Alfred. Ms. Alfred opposed that motion, and Judge Whitehurst recommended denying it in full. Judge Whitehurst recognized that Mr. Duhé’s and Ms. Charrier’s actions of allowing an innocent third-party witness “to remain in jail for six months without the chance to defend herself and without the most basic rights given even to accused criminals” are not protected by prosecutorial immunity. She also held that they are not entitled to qualified immunity, because Mr. Duhé and Ms. Charrier should have known of the “obvious constitutional problems of incarcerating an innocent witness for an extended period of time without access to counsel, the opportunity for bail or bond, or the opportunity to defend herself.”
Judge Whitehurst also rejected the defendants’ attempts to dismiss Ms. Alfred’s claims against Mr. Duhé in his official capacity as district attorney, finding that Ms. Alfred had alleged that Mr. Duhé’s office had misused the material witness statute 100% of the time it had invoked the statute. And Judge Whitehurst recommended denying dismissal of Ms. Alfred’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for reputational harm. Mr. Duhé and Ms. Charrier have until September 11, 2024 to file objections to Judge Whitehurst’s Report and Recommendation to the district court.
Katherine Marquart, partner and chair of Gibson Dunn’s pro bono program, stated: “We are grateful to the Court for its ruling, recommending denial of the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss Ms. Alfred’s civil rights lawsuit. As the Court recognized, imprisoning an innocent witness for 6 months to testify at a trial for 30 minutes is an obvious and outrageous constitutional violation. District Attorney Bo Duhé and Assistant District Attorney Alister Charrier put Ms. Alfred in jail and threw away the keys, without providing even the barest procedural processes. This unconscionable conduct cost Ms. Alfred her nursing job and educational opportunities she had earned to advance her career even further. We look forward to holding the Defendants accountable.”
Judge Whitehurst’s order recommending denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss is available here: Report and Recommendation, Alfred v. Duhé.
The Amended Complaint is available here: Tayjha Alfred v. Martin Bofill (“Bo”) Duhé, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the 16th Judicial District Attorney; and Alister Charrier, in her individual capacity.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Keith Puckett, a Black resident of the City of El Segundo, against the City of El Segundo for racial profiling and unlawful detention by the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD). The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and an injunction barring the City from engaging in unconstitutional conduct and requiring the adoption of appropriate policies and training of ESPD officers.
Empirical data collected by El Segundo under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act confirms ESPD is engaged in widespread racial profiling. Most notably, even though fewer than 5 percent of El Segundo’s residents are Black, more than 20 percent of all ESPD stops are of Black people. Recently, a documentary film called “Black in Mayberry” premiered at a local El Segundo museum. The film incudes powerful stories of racism experienced by El Segundo residents, many of which were echoed in the experiences of community members Gibson Dunn interviewed while preparing Mr. Puckett’s complaint.
Mr. Puckett has directly experienced racial profiling by ESPD, having been targeted for his race and unlawfully detained twice in 2021. In one incident, six ESPD officers arrived outside Mr. Puckett’s home in the middle of the night and questioned him after having seen a Black man (a guest of Mr. Puckett) outside Mr. Puckett’s home. Eventually, the officers said it was all a simple misunderstanding with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and then they left.
Less than two months later, when Mr. Puckett drove to a gym to play basketball with his son, an ESPD officer drove past him in the opposite direction. The officer did a U-turn and stopped Mr. Puckett, falsely claiming the light above Mr. Puckett’s rear license plate wasn’t working. When the officer failed to discover any evidence of wrongdoing, he let Mr. Puckett go.
Mr. Puckett reported these incidents to the Chief of Police, City Manager and Deputy City Manager, and has advocated for policy changes to improve the treatment of Black people in El Segundo and reduce the use of blatant profiling tactics. But he continues to meet with resistance and the ESPD practices haven’t stopped. Mr. Puckett himself has been followed by ESPD on multiple occasions, and ESPD officers regularly follow, stop, and use displays of force and numbers to interrogate Black residents – including Black children on their way home from school – for no reason.
Mr. Puckett is an active community member, who has worked as a parent volunteer, PTA member, recreational youth sports coach, basketball coach at his son’s school, volunteer crossing guard, and lunchtime security support member.
“Racism by law enforcement is unlawful, unconstitutional and harmful to everyone who experiences it, even when it doesn’t involve violence,” said Lauren Blas, Gibson Dunn partner and counsel for Mr. Puckett. “Even if it doesn’t make national news, it’s the kind of harassing, demeaning, insidious conduct that Black people and people of color have to contend with every day. We have brought this action to protect Mr. Puckett’s constitutional rights, to hold the City accountable for its unlawful conduct and to compel it to stop racially profiling the residents of the El Segundo community.”
Blas added, “Mr. Puckett cares deeply about racial justice. El Segundo is his home, and he wants to live there without fearing that ESPD will continue to violate his constitutional rights and the rights of other Black community members. This lawsuit is a final effort to hold the City accountable for its unlawful conduct and to compel it to end racial profiling by the ESPD.”
The complaint is available here.
The National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) has named Gibson Dunn one of its 2024 Beacon of Justice Award recipients, which recognizes honorees “for their efforts to address issues related to civil & human rights. ” The award is in recognition of the firm’s substantial pro bono work, including: (i) winning a historic jury verdict for Deon Jones, a peaceful protestor subjected to police violence; (ii) defending the Fearless Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides Black women business-owners with charitable grants and mentorship; and (iii) assisting more than 300 Afghans with their humanitarian parole applications.
The Legal Benchmarking Group named Gibson Dunn as the winner of the 2024 Social Impact Pro Bono Firm of the Year award, at its inaugural 2024 Social Impact Awards Americas ceremony, “celebrating social impact and inclusion,” and recognizing “strides made by trailblazing firms in fostering diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments.”
Gibson Dunn lawyers were honored by the Daily Journal with its 2024 California Lawyer Award for their role in a “first-of-its-kind jury verdict in a historic civil rights case” in Deon Jones v. City of Los Angeles. The Award recognizes the best legal teams in California for their work over the past year.
In a sweeping victory for speech rights against overreach by state officials, Gibson Dunn and Elias Law Group convinced a D.C. federal court to enjoin an investigation by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton into Media Matters, a non-profit research and information center that reports on misinformation and political extremism in the U.S. media. On November 16, 2023, Media Matters published a post reporting that ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity were showing up next to antisemitic content on X (formerly Twitter). In response, X’s owner Elon Musk posted that he would bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters, filing suit on November 30, 2023 in the Northern District of Texas—despite Media Matters being located in Washington, D.C.
Virtually simultaneously, Texas AG Paxton opened an investigation of Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity in violation of Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Invoking the DTPA’s authority, Paxton served a broad and intrusive Civil Investigative Demand (CID) upon Media Matters, seeking a broad array of records relating to Media Matters’s reporting, funding, and reporter and editorial communications—despite Media Matters’s lack of any relevant connection to Texas. Gibson Dunn and Elias Law Group sought a preliminary injunction in the D.C. federal court, arguing that Paxton lacked jurisdiction to issue and enforce the CID, that the CID was a retaliatory action for speech in violation of the First Amendment, and that the overbroad document requests violated D.C. and Maryland reporters’ shield laws. Enforcement of the CID had chilled and would further chill Media Matters’s core First Amendment-protected speech, the motion argued, and was a direct assault on its newsgathering function.
The United States District Court for D.C. ruled in favor of Media Matters, issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining Paxton and his office from enforcing the CID. The court ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over Paxton under D.C.’s long-arm statute, that Media Matters had suffered cognizable First Amendment injury, that D.C. was the right venue, and that plaintiffs have proven a likelihood of success on the merits, noting that the threat of administrative intrusion into the newsgathering process would likely deter protected speech and undermine newsgathering and reporting in violation of the First Amendment. The victory sets valuable precedent for journalistic outfits and other entities targeted by overreaching out-of-state AGs, allowing them to fight back without having to submit to the jurisdiction of the AG’s home state.
The Gibson Dunn team includes partners Ted Boutrous (Los Angeles), Amer S. Ahmed (New York), Anne Champion (New York), and Jay Srinivasan (Los Angeles), as well as New York associates Iason Togias and Apratim Vidyarthi.
A team of Gibson Dunn lawyers, working with The Promise of Justice Initiative (PJI) in New Orleans, has secured the release of pro bono client B.T., who in 1983 was convicted by an unconstitutional, non-unanimous jury in Louisiana. Over the dissenting votes of two jurors—who, like B.T., were Black—B.T. was found guilty of an alleged armed robbery. After his counsel failed to present any arguments on his behalf during sentencing, B.T. was sentenced to 99 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension. B.T., then 19 years of age, received what was effectively a life sentence despite important mitigating facts: the alleged robbery was of $400, B.T. had never before been accused of a violent crime, he had lived a difficult childhood, no one was physically injured during the alleged robbery, and two jurors had reasonable doubt he was guilty at all. After spending the past 40 years incarcerated in Louisiana state prisons, including Angola, B.T. received an amended sentence reduced to time served. He was released as a free man on November 17, 2023.
Gibson Dunn has been working with PJI to help individuals like B.T. seek justice after being convicted by Jim Crow juries. The U.S. Supreme Court held non-unanimous juries to be unconstitutional in Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, but the Court’s subsequent decision in Edwards v. Vannoy held that Ramos would not apply retroactively, leaving those already convicted and incarcerated prior to 2020 without hope of relief.
Despite these challenges, Gibson Dunn and PJI successfully negotiated with the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office to file an uncontested post-conviction relief application that provided B.T. with a new sentencing hearing under state law. The application for a hearing was granted, and during the hearing, the judge resentenced B.T. to 40 years, with full credit for time served.
B.T. was released into a three-year reentry program created by Criminal District Court Judges in Orleans Parish that will provide comprehensive resources and support as he adjusts to life outside of incarceration. B.T.—who is known by those around him for his selflessness, wisdom, and unwavering optimism—is excelling in the program.
The Gibson Dunn team includes associates Anna Aguillard, Alexandra Buettner, and Sam Whipple, with supervision by partner M. Kendall Day.
Gibson Dunn has received the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) 2023 Advancement Animal Law Pro Bono Achievement Award, which “honors dedicated legal professionals and law firms who help the Animal Legal Defense Fund achieve its mission to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system.” This is the second consecutive year that the firm has been honored with this award.
We have partnered with the ALDF since 2019 in representing the United Pegasus Foundation and the CARU Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in a Riverside Superior Court action to remedy the starvation and abuse of approximately 75 horses and donkeys on a purported animal “sanctuary” in San Jacinto, California. Following a favorable discovery ruling, our lawyers obtained a settlement in December 2020 that requires, among other things, regular independent monitoring of the horses’ welfare and conditions, and that the defendants surrender any unhealthy horses to our clients or another horse sanctuary; those inspections are ongoing.
We have also been working with the ALDF on litigation strategy related to challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision to issue animal exhibitor licenses to roadside zoos that engage in practices that violate the Animal Welfare Act, such as maternal deprivation of bear cubs and bottle feeding. Our work has included analyzing arguments to support admitting extra-record evidence and evaluating the best avenues for the ALDF to prove standing to bring these administrative law challenges.
Many Gibson Dunn lawyers contribute to the ALDF’s work, including Perlette Jura, Matthew Rozen, Shannon Mader, Joseph Gorman, Negin Nazemi, Becca Smith, Matthew Reagan, Jessica Pearigen, Nathan Powell, and Viola Li.
Gibson Dunn and the nine other law firms that form the Domestic Abuse Response Alliance (DARA) have received the PILnet Local Impact Award for the best, innovative pro bono legal project with an impact felt at the local or national level.
DARA is the largest pro bono project ever assembled in England and Wales to provide end-to-end representation and advocacy support for domestic abuse survivors seeking protective orders against their abusers. It represents survivors of domestic abuse who are not eligible for legal aid but who cannot afford to pay for private representation. DARA comprises a special combination of expertise to deliver social justice: legal prowess and support from 10 of the world’s top law firms, governance from LawWorks, clients from the National Centre for Domestic Violence and FLOWS (Finding Legal Options for Women Survivors), and specialist family law oversight on every case from Beck Fitzgerald.
Since DARA was launched in 2022, Gibson Dunn lawyers have obtained 12 final non-molestation orders for their DARA clients.
Established in 1997 as the Public Interest Law Initiative in Transitional Societies at Columbia University in New York, PILnet provides free legal assistance to hundreds of civil society organizations around the world every year in partnership with law firms and independent practitioners. The PILnet Local Impact Award was announced on October 17 during PILnet’s 2023 Global Forum in Brussels.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has granted a two-year domestic violence restraining order in favor of Gibson Dunn’s pro bono client, a low-income mother of a developmentally delayed child, who suffered years of physical, psychological and financial abuse from her husband. Before Gibson Dunn joined the case, our client’s temporary restraining order did not include a move-out order against her husband or an order for possession of her vehicle, leaving our client without stable housing or reliable transportation. Our team successfully amended the request for a temporary restraining order to seek the additional relief.
At the evidentiary hearing, our lawyers presented compelling evidence that our client suffered abuse from her husband throughout their 11-year marriage. After the hearing, including cross-examination of the husband—who testified that he had never physically or otherwise abused our client, and attempted to argue that our client was the abuser—the court sided with our client, concluding that she was more credible than her husband. In addition to the restraining order against her husband, the court awarded our client sole legal and physical custody of their child, exclusive use of the residence and immediate return of her vehicle. The court also ordered limited professionally monitored child visitation with the husband.
Los Angeles associate Summer Wall led the team and conducted the examinations, with valuable assistance from associates Camille Houle and Chelsea D’Olivo (Washington, D.C.), and supervision from partner Michael Holecek and senior associate Patrick Murray. The team received outstanding support from our pro bono partners at the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice and from Gibson Dunn support staff, including Austin Kang.
Ms. X fled to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2016 to escape targeted gang violence. Her family staunchly and vocally opposed the gang’s control of their community and reported the gang’s activities to the police. In retaliation, the gang threatened the family with death. One of Ms. X’s cousins was murdered and dismembered by gang members, and Ms. X herself was directly threatened. After being assaulted by the gang’s local leader, Ms. X fled to the U.S.
Over the next seven years, Gibson Dunn represented Ms. X in partnership with Kids In Need of Defense (KIND). Her case was shuffled among three different judges at three different immigration courts.
Gibson Dunn faced difficult strategic choices along the way. In particular, the team learned that neither of Ms. X’s primary persecutors remained in El Salvador: one had been killed by the police, and one had traveled to the U.S. The team disclosed this information to the Court and burnished Ms. X’s asylum application with the testimony of two expert witnesses who detailed the risk of persecution Ms. X would still face at the hands of gang members who remained in El Salvador.
El Salvador’s recent Régimen de Excepción (State of Exception) also raised unexpected challenges. Under the State of Exception, the Salvadoran military has arrested and detained more than 68,000 purported gang members, often solely on the basis of anonymous tips. In the wake of these mass arrests, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun arguing that El Salvador no longer has a gang problem and that asylum seekers who fled gang-based violence, like Ms. X, should be returned to El Salvador. In fact, the opposite is true: individuals like Ms. X now face two separate persecutors—the gangs, and the Salvadoran government itself, which has been arresting deportees and individuals previously targeted by gangs for so-called “association” or “collaboration” with the very gangs that persecuted them.
On the day of the hearing, Ms. X provided powerful direct-examination and cross-examination testimony, and Gibson Dunn secured DHS’s stipulation to refrain from challenging her experts’ testimony and, notably, her application for asylum. The court entered an oral grant of asylum from the bench, and DHS waived its right to appeal.
Washington, D.C. associate Tessa Gellerson was the lead attorney during the individual merits hearing, with Joseph West as supervising partner. The team, which included former associates Ariel Fishman, Nicholas Fuenzalida, Haley Morrisson, Alison Friberg, and Nanding Chen, received outstanding support from its pro bono partners at KIND and several members of the Gibson Dunn support staff, including Ileana Rivera and Sandra Andrade, who provided invaluable assistance with translation, and the D.C. Copy Center team, who saved the day more than once with monumental printing requests.
Gibson Dunn has secured a six-figure settlement awarding attorneys’ fees for its representation of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA-NJ) against the federal Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the District of New Jersey.
The settlement follows a February 2023 ruling that held that immigration judges at the Newark Immigration Court violated a stipulation by failing to timely adjudicate motions made by immigration attorneys to appear remotely and neglecting to provide adequate reasoning when denying those motions. The judge dismissed EOIR’s explanation that “bandwidth issues” compelled the Newark Immigration Court’s sudden switch to default in-person hearings or justified denying motions for WebEx hearings, finding that it was unsupported by the evidence.
After stipulating in February 2021 to timely adjudicate requests to appear remotely, EOIR abruptly changed course in August 2022, citing “bandwidth issues” at the court. The Gibson Dunn team filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce the Stipulation in October 2022, alleging that the policy change was a violation of EOIR’s commitment. At a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Gibson Dunn team presented two witnesses, AILA-NJ’s Chapter President and a Department of Homeland Security attorney and union representative. Both testified that their members faced an impossible choice between representing their clients in person or risking their or their immunocompromised loved ones’ safety. The Gibson Dunn team also cross-examined the government’s IT expert, who conceded that there was no factual basis for EOIR’s “bandwidth issues” rationale.
In its March 2023 Final Order, the Court granted AILA-NJ permission to file a motion for attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party. Following negotiations, EOIR then agreed to a substantial settlement.
The Gibson Dunn team included partner Akiva Shapiro and associates Seton Hartnett O’Brien, Salah Hawkins, Dasha Dubinsky, Tawkir Chowdhury, and Edmund Bannister.
Carmelo [not his real name] fled his home country to escape persecution from local authorities and gang members. Since coming to the U.S., he has persevered through years of immigration detention—including prolonged isolation and even deportation in the midst of his appeal. But Carmelo and his Gibson Dunn pro bono legal team have been leaders in seeking justice not only in his case but for others like him who face persecution and torture abroad and are subject to lengthy detention during their search for protection in the U.S.
Now their work has led to an important precedent from a federal appeals court that will apply in all immigration cases within its jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion reaffirmed that people who fear returning to their countries of origin because they will be persecuted due to their family ties are eligible for asylum and other protections. It also acknowledged that immigration judges must meaningfully review all the evidence of the risk of torture before them, including people’s past experiences of torture by police and “country conditions evidence” that shows the likelihood of gang and government-sponsored violence in other countries.
In addition to the federal court appeal, our pro bono team worked alongside Carmelo through a trial, three agency appeals, and other proceedings seeking mandamus, habeas, and bond. The Fourth Circuit praised the team’s dedication and determination in its opinion: “In his administrative proceedings and on appeal, [the asylum seeker] has been ably represented pro bono by lawyers with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. [C]ounsel have performed admirably, and we are appreciative of their fine service.”
Our Washington, D.C. pro bono team included partners David Debold and Naima Farrell and associates Jessica Wagner, Tommy McCormac, Cate McCaffrey, Sam Whipple, and Austin Donohue.
This narrative courtesy of the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, which asked Gibson Dunn to take on Carmelo’s case.