About the Case - Summary
By
Owolabi Salis
The Complainant, Respondent, Plaintiff and Appellant
The Complainant was a licensed attorney in the State of New York whose practice includes immigration law. The Complainant was also the publisher (though not the Editor) of Immigrant Guide and News - a defunct monthly newspaper reporting on immigration issues.
The Complainant Yoruba African nickname is “Oba Mekunnu” meaning the “King fighter for the less privileged”. This is in the blood that the Complainant hate to see people suffering.
Problems were identified with illegal immigrant parents of US citizens and some non-parents who have fallen into distress or exposed to dangers like the gays from foreign countries who were being lynched and need protection of the United States.
The US and NY Constitutions and Laws prohibits discrimination, slavery and trafficking of human beings. There are many immigrants living in New York who are being discriminated against and enslaved because they do not have work permits and because they fear deportation.
Many of these immigrants are victims of trafficking. According to DHS Blue Campaign Human Trafficking 101, Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion in exchange for labor, services, or a commercial sex act. Human traffickers use various forms of force, fraud, and coercion to control and exploit victims. These forms include imposing of debt, fraudulent employment opportunities, false promises of love or a better life, psychological coercion, and violence or threats of violence.
Many of these immigrants are being trafficked by drug lords used for selling drugs in the streets for survival.
Common crimes some illegal immigrants' parents have been caught committing or are exposed to in meeting the responsibilities of caring for their child include the following among others:
Prostitution. Many illegal alien parents of US Citizens have been arrested for prostitution just to support their child
Tax frauds: many sell their children during tax seasons to be claimed by non parents.
Drug dealings. Many illegal alien parents of US Citizens were being trafficked to sell drugs to support their child
Theft and shoplifting. This is a serious one and common during celebrations.
Receiving stolen goods and so on
These clients' initial objective was to get work permits to enable them to obtain social security numbers, state identification cards and other financial benefits and ultimately integrate into the American dream. The enumerated advantages involved in getting work permits are:
Ability to open a bank account and build credit.
Ability to save for pensions, social security, Medicare and set up family trust.
Ability to sign on for life utilities using their social security number and state identification.
Ability to work for others or start own business.
Integration into the US system by obtaining social security number and state identification. The work permit will enable them to obtain these two important documents.
Ability to earn Earned Income Credits (EIC) and report their taxes properly and stop the criminal practice of giving their child to others to claim.
Ability to buy a home and car for self or family.
Ability to improve their family financial health and balance sheet
At the trial of the Complainant by the criminal court, all the Complainant clients recruited by the prosecution as witnesses stated on oath that they benefited immensely from the job the Complainant did for them.
A lot of benefits were derived from their contract with the Complainant and there was no force or coercion exerted on the clients by the Complainant. No clients were deceived into entering into the contract with the Complainant. It was a freewill agreement between the parties.
In order to relieve these immigrants, the Complainant had made a request for deferred action and work permit for these parents of US Citizens and some non-parents who have fallen into distress for the government to relieve them. These requests were being made on Form I-360.
The Complainant had made arguments to the Vermont Service Center (VSC) which is the humanitarian center of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to relieve these immigrants particularly parents of US Citizens, LGBTs and those who have fallen into distress, to issue work permits and place them on deferred action which will place them on low priority for deportation. The VSC responded positively by issuing work permits but denied the grant of Deferred Action except in one case, though technically the government did not deport if granted work permit except criminal alien.
About 5 years after, sometimes during the regime of President Obama, the Editor of Immigrant Guide and News published a headline on the trend of deportations titled “OBAMA DEPORTS MORE THAN BUSH, WHO IS NEXT”. In the publication, the deportation statistics from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), another arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for removing immigrants was published and its impact on immigrants. Upon information and belief, this publication triggered investigation by ICE into the activities of the Complainant (who is the publisher).
Adjudicators of the USCIS, an arm of the DHS agreed and cooperated with the Complainant to accept the petitions and applications. After about 500 work permits were approved by the same DHS over 4-5 years, the Complainant was being accused, by another arm (non adjudicators) ICE of DHS accusing the Complainant of using Form I-360 to make the request for deferred action. The petitions and applications were made on true facts and true documents which the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) agreed. The AGC also agreed that the clients paid fees only if the work permit was approved. If denied, no fees are collected.
The ICE of DHS complaint did not allege that fraudulent documents were submitted or any forgery done, only that the petition was made on Form I-360 based on the written testimony submitted. All the information submitted was true and correct. The complaint only challenged the procedure used.
The law is clear and undisputed that the DHS has discretionary powers to grant reliefs which is not disputed by the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC). INA § 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their particular immigration status.
On or about July 24, 2014, the Complainant was arrested after an indictment by the New York City district attorney.
One of the critical missions of the DHS is advancing American prosperity and economic security long into the future including ensuring a prosperous Homeland. The good people of the USCIS of DHS understand that by issuing work permits on their discretion to immigrants will help achieve this mission. The work permits were issued by the USCIS of DHS on true information and documents submitted for over 4 years. The work permits were not printed by the Complainant.
Because the Complainant did nothing wrong, the offer to plead guilty to possession of forged instrument with no jail term was rejected by the Complainant and after about 3 weeks of intense trial of which the DHS and the Grievance Committee were witnesses including at the grand jury, the Complainant was discharged and acquitted of the charges. See Resp-Ex. 19. Bates page 0828-0829 in the record.
On or about Jan 27, 2017, certain officials of the DHS unsatisfied with the judgment of discharge and acquittal of the Complainant, submitted a complaint against the Complainant to the Grievance Committee of the First Judicial Department based on the same facts of the indictment seeking that the Complainant be sanctioned.
At the time the complaint was submitted, the Complainant had left the First Judicial Department to the Second Judicial Department on or about October 2012 (almost 5 years after). The Complainant was already outside the jurisdiction of the First Department but the Committee forced jurisdiction upon itself arguing that the Complainant maintained a US post office box in the First Department. The first statement in the Disbarment Order was to claim I am in the First Department when I am not; there is an attempt to influence the google search for Salis Law to reflect 42 Broadway which was not my office.
After the Complainant was discharged and acquitted, certain officials of the DHS took the following actions that amount to retaliation against the Complainant:
Blocking the work of the Complainant clients through a security block by monitoring the Complainant G28. Clients whose work was overly delayed had called the DHS and were told their work was blocked for security checks.
Delay in releasing Complainant passport through security clearance blockage.
The Complainant was the only passenger targeted for search on a British Airways flight from New York to London in 2017. It is the Complainant's belief that an alert was put on his biographic data.
The Complainant was the only passenger targeted for search on a KLM flight from New York to Amsterdam in 2017. It is the Complainant's belief that an alert was put on his biographic data.
The Complainant was consistently stopped for secondary search and questioning on arrival from foreign trips. This happened about 10 times in 2017 and 2018.
The DHS documented a report on the Complainant record putting the Complainant on terrorist watch as an Arab terrorist even though the Complainant is not of Arabian origin and never a terrorist. Upon information and belief, this was done so that the Complainant will be detained for secondary questioning and searches upon return from foreign trips. See Resp-Ex. 7 Bates page 238-0253 (Specific page 0243) in the recor
Finally submitting a complaint to the Grievance Committee based on the same facts of the prosecution.
The summary of the case is that the Complainant wanted to solve a problem for illegal parents of US Citizens and non parents who are ill or experiencing some hardship. The initial objectives of these aliens is to be able to work to support their families, get state identification and social security number, relief from deportation and so on that will allow them to integrate into the system.
The Complainant submitted petitions and applications for deferred action and work permits for these immigrants on Form I-360 using true information and true documents. No false information. No false documents.
Certain officials of the ICE of DHS through the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) argued that Form I-360 cannot be used to make a Request for Deferred Action and that the procedure used is in violation of Rule 8.4(c) engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; in violation of Rule 8.4(d) engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) having advanced frivolous claims in violation of Rule 3.1; and overall, having acted in a manner that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(h).
In support of the above charge, the Committee submitted two DHS witnesses, Dustin Stubb and Peter Giannakos which stipulated as follows:
Dustin Stubbs who testified as follows:
He has served as Section Chief for the USCIS Vermont Service Center since 2019 and was earlier a supervisor there for three-and-a-half years. Mr. Stubbs is an attorney who had practiced in the field of immigration prior to joining USCIS.
That the USCIS'S I-360 petition for Amerasian; widower, or special immigrant is not, and was not during the relevant period, an all purpose form.
That the USCIS petition for Amerasian, widower or special immigrant is not, and was not during the relevant period, a permissible form for seeking ad hoc deferred action.
That during the relevant period ad hoc deferred action requests were properly made to the USCIS Field Offices, not USCIS Service Centers.
That during the relevant period, the initial review of the I-360 petitions received by the Vermont Service Center was not performed by an adjudicator and were cursory in nature.
Peter C. Giannakos who testified as follows:
He is a special agent for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and during Mr. Salis' prosecution by the New York County District Attorney, belonged to the Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force which included agents from multiple federal agencies.
In connection with Mr. Salis' prosecution by the New York County District Attorney, authority seized a number of computer hard drives from Mr. Salis' office. Those hard drives were copied by the New York County District Attorney and Agent Giannakos returned all of the original computer hard drives to Mr. Salis.
Following Mr. Salis' acquittal, Mr. Salis arranged for the retrieval of approximately 160 boxes of files seized from his office and held by the New York County District Attorney during the pendency of his prosecution, dated May 11, 2021,
Unsatisfied by the discharge and acquiescence of the Complainant, certain officers of the DHS complained to the Grievance Committee and also engaged in bad faith conduct by putting security block on all the works of Complainant using the G28 and preparer report. The clients were being damaged unless the G28 is omitted in the filing which the Complainant did. The Complainant submitted several complaints on the security blockage to the USCIS ombudsman.
The Committee charges that the Complainant omitting the G28 and preparer report (which is after the prosecution) amounts to deception in violation of Rule 8.4(c), of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d); of intentionally and habitually running afoul of established Rules in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) and by seeking to evade professional accountability which adversely reflected on his lawyerly fitness in violation of Rule 8.4(h). The Committee has no witness submitted here and the G28 was ruled by a Federal Court as non compulsory and a violation of free speech.
The Complainant is also a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, FCCA, ACIB, holds advanced degrees, a series 6 and 67 holder, as well as a lawyer. The Complainant is also a researcher on democracy and some public policy issues like EDUFIN, EDUBOND, EQUITOCRACY and so on. The Complainant wrote a book titled “EQUITOCRACY” in the early 90s. The Complainant had participated in World Bank and IMF meetings in the past and also a key participant at the United Nations Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, 2001 including the preparatory meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The Complainant website which was built sometime in 2004 has an advertisement for government services which the Complainant believed had the ability to perform before.
By twisting language used in the advertisement, the Committee alleged that the website falsely asserted that Complainant practiced in the area of “Government Relations” and “Government Projects”, including “consulting services for government (“local, national and international”) and that he had actually been employed by governments to perform governmental functions, that his law practice also included “escrow management and trust services”. The Committee alleges that due to the purported areas of practice, Complainant had engaged in false advertising in violation of Rule 7.1(a)(1). The Committee further alleged that by failing to label his website as “Attorney Advertising” Complainant had further violated Rule 7.1(f). Note that the website is titled www.salislaw.com which openly suggests it is an attorney website advertisement.
The complaint on getting the work permit for distressed clients is about the procedure used for requesting the deferred action and work permit. Parties agreed there is no fraudulent document submitted or no false information and that the client paid attorney fees only when approved. The disagreement is on the procedure used to obtain the work permit whether Form I-360 can be used to make a request for deferred action or not.
Before the hearing, a settlement was discussed between the parties that the complaint of the DHS will be dropped if the Complainant stopped practicing immigration law. The Complainant examined the offer, found it discriminatory against immigrants and refused the offer. Thereafter, the Complainant's previous attorney before the AGC decided to withdraw representation and the Complainant proceeded pro se (on its own).
There are 3 charges that were discussed at the hearing and post hearing submissions
Charge One: That the Respondent making an application for work permits for parents of US Citizens and some immigrants who have fallen into distress and also petitioning for deferred action or administrative relief using USCIS Form I-360 is procedurally wrong and is in violation of Rule 8.4(c) engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; in violation of Rule 8.4(d) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) having advanced frivolous claims in violation of Rule 3.1; and overall, having acted in a manner that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(h).
Charge Two: That the Respondent omitting the G28 (Notice of Appearance on behalf of clients and his name) (which is after the prosecution) amounts to deception in violation of Rule 8.4(c), of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d); of intentionally and habitually running afoul of established Rules in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) and by seeking to evade professional accountability which adversely reflected on his lawyerly fitness in violation of Rule 8.4(h).
Charge Three: That the Respondent by advertising for government services had engaged in false advertising in violation of Rule 7.1(a)(1). That the Respondent failing to label his website which is titled: www.salislaw.com as an “Attorney Advertising” Respondent had further violated Rule 7.1(f).
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND CONCLUSION OF THE REFEREE ON THE CHARGES. THE PARTIES ARE THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIRST DEPARTMENT (AGC) AND ATTORNEY OWOLABI SALIS, ESQ., THE RESPONDENT.
Charge One:
That the Respondent making an application for work permits for parents of US Citizens and some immigrants who have fallen into distress and also petitioning for deferred action or administrative relief using USCIS Form I-360 is procedurally wrong and is in violation of Rule 8.4(c) engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; in violation of Rule 8.4(d) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) having advanced frivolous claims in violation of Rule 3.1; and overall, having acted in a manner that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(h).
Arguments:
Parties agreed and referee concur that there is no fraudulent document submitted and no false information forwarded and that the client paid attorney fees only when approved. Parties further agreed that the work permits were issued by the DHS and not printed by the Respondent outside. The disagreement was on the procedure used to obtain the work permit and whether Form I-360 can be used to make a request for deferred action or not. The Respondent argued that the procedure used is proper and in accordance with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) guidelines. The AGC argued it was improper and the Referee wrongfully held for the AGC.
In arguing that the procedure used is improper, the AGC relied on a witness from USCIS, one Dustin Stubbs who was also a witness in the prosecution of the Respondent in the New York Criminal Court. The witness was not credible in his testimony before the jury in the criminal court and was defeated in the criminal court and the Respondent was discharged and acquitted. The AGC representative was also a witness at the criminal trial.
Below you will find why the witness was not credible from the Respondent response. The AGC merely adopted the testimony of the witness and the Referee adopted the same without considering the arguments of the Respondent. The witness testified to challenge the procedure by a written testimony as follows (in the next 5 paragraphs):
“He has served as Section Chief for the USCIS Vermont Service Center since 2019 and was earlier a supervisor there for three-and-a-half years. Mr. Stubbs is an attorney who had practiced in the field of immigration prior to joining USCIS”.
“That the USCIS form I-360 petition for Amerasian; widower, or special immigrant is not, and was not during the relevant period, an all purpose form”.
Respondent Response: This is not true. Section m of Form 360 used then stated “M Please explain ____________________” giving the requesters or petitioners to explain what they want. DHS also has a sundry list of discretionary factors released by John Morton which are not exhaustive, meaning, you may have issues outside the lists. Among the list is parents of US citizens, those with medical problems, LGBTs etc. The Respondent majorly made requests for parents of US Citizens who have fallen into distress. See Resp-Ex. 8. Bates page 0254-0260
“That the USCIS petition for Amerasian, widower or special immigrant is not, and was not during the relevant period, a permissible form for seeking ad hoc deferred action”.
Respondent Response: This is not true. You can use the form to request for deferred action under “section m others explain ____”. One of the requests was done on the form 360 and was approved by the DHS. If it is true, it will not be approved. See Resp-Ex. 13 Bates pages 0303-0323. At the trial of the Respondent-Appellant in criminal court, Dustin Stubbs was presented with the DHS memo allowing the use of form 360 for deferred action request of which he withdrew further arguments. He said “this is not my area of expertise. I don't believe it is, but I very well may be wrong on that. So I just don't know.” See Resp-Ex. 17. Bates page 0777-0826 recopied below:
Q. Can an I-360 form be used deferred action?
A. According to the memo, at one point in time it could be, yes, in a specific situation where there is a widow/widower. But there has been a statute that's been enacted with regulations 204(L), which addressed specifically this scenario. I don't know if deferred action is still available to these individuals because I don't -- this is not my area of expertise. I don't believe it is, but I very well may be wrong on that. So I just don't know.
With this admission that he may be wrong, the Referee still held for the Committee a finding of liability.
“That during the relevant period ad hoc deferred action requests were properly made to the USCIS Field Offices, not USCIS Service Centers”.
Respondent Response: This is not true. Ad hoc deferred action requests can be made to any of the service centers too. Even the popular DACA Requests for Deferred Action were made to Service Centers. The Service Centers oversee the local centers and they have the superior right to accept the Requests. The one that was approved was made to a service center. The Neufeld memo was also directed to the Service Center. See Resp-Ex. 13-360 Approved Petition for Deferred Action on Form I-360 Bates pages 0303-0323 contrary to claim it cannot be used
“That during the relevant period, the initial review of the I-360 petitions received by the Vermont Service Center was not performed by an adjudicator and were cursory in nature”.
Respondent Response: This is not true that they were cursory in nature. The Respondent does not work in DHS and does not have the knowledge of their working but it is not true they were cursory because there is deep screening done leading to rejection of petitions and applications at the inception as opposed to denial of petitions and applications. The witness was saying the government employed stupid people. That cannot be. Attached is a sample letter from Vermont confirming strict scrutiny. Resp Ex. 31 Bates page 1003-1004.
The Respondent argued that by law, the DHS has discretionary powers to grant work permits. The INA § 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their particular immigration status. The AGC frivolously disagreed and the Referee claimed did not understand the provision.
Parties agreed that Ethical rules encourage lawyers to fight to relieve problems and make arguments for modifications and extensions of the laws and or regulations.
The Respondent argued that the request for deferred action is controversial and discretionary in nature and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Ombudsman (an arm of the DHS) investigated the request for deferred action and submitted a controversial report that
Stakeholders lack clear and consistent information
No national procedure for handling request
There is confusion on what to expect
USCIS processes two types of deferred action requests: 1) those submitted by individuals who qualify based on a USCIS decision to use deferred action as a pre-adjudication form of temporary relief for those who have filed certain petitions or applications and 2) those submitted by individuals in exigent circumstances. See Resp-Ex. 10. Bates page 0270 in the record.
The AGC argued the USCIS Ombudsman report is “nonsense” in the Respondent’s Cross Motion to Dismiss as if the AGC knew more than the USCIS Ombudsman. The AGC further argued that the report is “advisory and lacking in juridical efficacy” and therefore “what”. Continuing to argue against form I-360 use is like advancing a frivolous claim based on a non credible witness which the AGC has reason to know based on the admission of the witness that he may be wrong.
The parties agreed on the importance of lawyer meeting client objectives above all and that the respondent so adhered.
There is complete absence of misconduct but there is an attempt to create one by all means relying on the production of malice by certain DHS officers.
The Respondent strongly supports the importance of meeting the client objectives which is advocated as prime by the AGC Representative during the jury proceedings.
In this case, the clients were immigrant parents of US Citizens who have fallen into distress in taking care of their children leading them to crimes like prostitution to survive, working with fake documents, shoplifting, selling their children social security numbers during tax seasons, being trafficked by drug barons and so on. It also includes clients in danger and hardship situations like LGBT immigrants who are being attacked and discriminated against. These people need lawyers to achieve their objectives.
One of the key objectives of these clients is to work lawfully, get their own social security numbers and report their taxes as at when due and finally regularize their stay. The key to achieve this objective is in the hands of the DHS to grant work permits to them and regularize their stay.
By law, the DHS has discretionary powers to grant work permits. The INA § 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their particular immigration status.
Applications were made on behalf of these distressed immigrants to the DHS using true facts and information and that is conceded by the AGC. No false information was provided.
These applications were also made using true documents. No false documents submitted.
The applications were made with full disclosures sometimes with big “Explanatory Flags” pointing to the request needed.
Client paid the DHS fees for the applications and the DHS cashed the fees.
The Respondent only made an application on behalf of the distressed clients with full disclosure for discretionary relief which the DHS has the power to give.
The DHS examined the applications and issued the work permits. The work permits were issued by the DHS and not printed by the Respondent-Appellant outside.
Part of the client objectives were met and satisfied by working lawfully, obtaining social security number and filing taxes as at when due. Note that a work permit is used by immigrants to obtain a social security number which does not expire in usage and social security number is used to file taxes, open bank accounts, buy homes, buy insurance, and integrate into the American dream. That is why work permits are important to immigrants.
What is the misconduct here? None but attempts by certain officers of the DHS to create one on production of malice. The Respondent did not see any misconduct.
The DHS was not prejudiced. The US government as a whole was not prejudiced. The economy expanded. Less crime and so on. There is no damage to the government by the Respondent-Appellant action but rather brought positive action. There is full disclosure to the government in obtaining the work permit and no fraudulent information and no fraudulent document which the parties agreed. Then where is liability coming from? The DHS adjudicators obviously knew what they were doing and they were intelligent about it. The argument of the AGC that the adjudicators approving the work permit unintelligently by cursory look is like calling them fools; No, they are not. The adjudicators approving the work permit expands the economy and it is part of the effort to achieve one of the critical missions of the DHS in advancing American prosperity and economic security long into the future including ensuring a prosperous Homeland.
The Referee arguing otherwise amounts to invasion of the client objectives and plotting against the critical mission of the DHS.
The Respondent argued that the AGC of the First Department lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the DHS because the office of the Respondent has been in the Second Department, Brooklyn since 2012, and not Manhattan or the Bronx meant for the First Department. The complaint was 2017 and the arrest was 2014. The AGC argued that they have jurisdiction because the Respondent maintained a post office box in Manhattan. The Respondent argued that the Representative of the AGC was also a witness in the prosecution of the Respondent creating fairness problems. The argument of the AGC further contends that the Second Department was not competent to handle the matter when actually they are, how be it, objectively. The AGC was wrong to argue that the second department without consent of the Respondent transferred jurisdiction to it when the complaint of the DHS was never addressed to the Second Department. This is forced jurisdiction of an interested party; the First Department participated in prosecution of the Respondent along with the DHS that wrote the complaint and the Respondent was discharged and acquitted. The AGC conceded that the Second Department is the appropriate jurisdiction in the following undisputed facts but forced jurisdiction upon itself as an interested party.
“2.Undisputed: From at least as early as April 2004 until at least as late as April 2012, Respondent's main business address was in the First Judicial Department, specifically, New York County.
“3.Undisputed: Respondent currently maintains an office in the Second Judicial Department at 1179 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 112113. (Note that at the time of the arrest 2014 and complaint of DHS in 2017, the Respondent had moved to the Second Department)
“4.Undisputed: Respondent is currently an attorney in good standing.
“5.Undisputed: Respondent has not been the subject of public or private discipline in either the First Judicial Department or the Second Judicial Department or in any federal court.”
The Respondent argued that the DHS has unfettered powers to grant work permits and deferred action and submitted some memos of the DHS to support the argument including:
Resp-Ex. 8-Morton Memo on Deferred Action - factors for consideration
Resp-Ex. 9-USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for Deferred Action Request
Resp-Ex. 10-USCIS Ombudsman Complaint and Recommendation on Deferred Action Requests
Resp-Ex. 11-Neufeld Memo mandating use of Deferred Action on Form I-360
Resp-Ex. 12-Law Professors on Prosecutorial Discretion Affirmed by General Counsels of USCIS
Resp-Ex. 13-360 Approved Petition for Deferred Action on Form I-360 contrary to claim it cannot be used.
The AGC dismissed the memos as not binding and the Referee said he did not see the memos even though they were part of the records. The Referee in his finding of liability misinterprets the laws and ignored all the Respondent’s exhibits which were part of the record claiming they were not presented at the virtual hearing even though they were submitted before the hearing for purpose of reference for the virtual hearing and after the hearing as part of the record before the Referee decision. The Report of the referee seeked to interpret for the Committee and ignored the arguments of the Respondent.
Charge Two:
Arguments:
That the Respondent omitting the G28 (Notice of Appearance on behalf of clients and his name) (which is after the prosecution) amounts to deception in violation of Rule 8.4(c), of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d); of intentionally and habitually running afoul of established Rules in violation of Rule 3.3(f)(4) and by seeking to evade professional accountability which adversely reflected on his lawyerly fitness in violation of Rule 8.4(h).
The Respondent argued that G28 was always presented until after the prosecution. The DHS officer Fricke of Vermont adjudications center confirmed that G28 was presented to all filings before the prosecution of the Respondent-Appellant. See Ex. Resp. Ex. 2-Bates pages 56-57.
The AGC misrepresented that “the Respondent intentionally tried to conceal his identity from immigration authorities by not including the requisite G-28 notice of appearance form with the filings and not signing his name as the preparer thereof” and incorporated in the judgment. This is not true.
The Respondent argued that G28s were used until after the prosecution and the Respondent won, in retaliation, security blocks were put against the Respondent work by certain officers of the DHS. This led to complaints to the Ombudsman and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the DHS.
The Respondent argued that G28 is not mandatory at form submission as claimed; it is only mandatory at appearance. Anyone can assist immigrants to fill forms on consent, lawyers and nonlawyers like friends and families.
The Respondent argued that G28 was ruled as not compulsory and a violation of free speech by a Federal Court in Seattle, Washington DC See Resp Ex 25 Bates page 974. Materiality also matters in form submission and compliance with the PaperWork Reduction Act. The AGC disregarded the Federal Court Decision and the Referee claimed he did not see it even though it was submitted before and after hearing.
Note that there is no DHS witness to the G28 issues ostensibly in response to the Federal Court action but the AGC continues to raise the issue.
After the Respondent was discharged and acquitted, the DHS took the following actions that amount to retaliation against the Respondent-Appellant:
Blocking the work of the Respondent-Appellant clients through a security block by monitoring the Respondent-Appellant G28. Clients whose work was overly delayed had called the DHS and were told their work was blocked for security checks.
Delay in releasing Respondent-Appellant passport through security clearance blockage.
The Respondent-Appellant was the only passenger targeted for search on a British Airways flight from New York to London in 2017. It is the Respondent-Appellant's belief that an alert was put on his biographic data.
The Respondent-Appellant was the only passenger targeted for search on a KLM flight from New York to Amsterdam in 2017. It is the Respondent-Appellant's belief that an alert was put on his biographic data.
The Respondent-Appellant was consistently stopped for secondary search and questioning on arrival from foreign trips. This happened about 10 times in 2017 and 2018.
The DHS documented a report on the Respondent-Appellant record putting the Respondent-Appellant on terrorist watch as an Arab terrorist even though the Respondent-Appellant is not of Arabian origin and never a terrorist. Upon information and belief, this was done so that the Respondent-Appellant will be detained for secondary questioning and searches upon return from foreign trips. See Resp-Ex. 7 Bates page 238-0253 (Specific page 0243) in the record
Finally submitting a complaint to the Grievance Committee based on the same facts of the prosecution.
Charge Three:
Arguments:
That the Respondent by advertising for government services had engaged in false advertising in violation of Rule 7.1(a)(1). That the Respondent failing to label his website which is titled: www.salislaw.com as an “Attorney Advertising” Respondent had further violated Rule 7.1(f).
By twisting language used in the advertisement, the AGC alleged that the website falsely asserted that Respondent-Appellant practiced in the area of “Government Relations” and “Government Projects”, including “consulting services for government (“local, national and international”) and that he had actually been employed by governments to perform governmental functions, that his law practice also included “escrow management and trust services”.
The Respondent only advertised for prospective opportunities. The Respondent is also a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, FCCA, ACIB, holds advanced degrees, a series 6 and 67 holder, as well as a lawyer. The Respondent argued he is also a researcher on democracy and some public policy issues like EDUFIN, EDUBOND, EQUITOCRACY and so on. The Respondent-Appellant wrote a book titled “EQUITOCRACY” in the early 90s. The Respondent-Appellant had participated in World Bank and IMF meetings in the past and also a key participant at the United Nations Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, 2001 including the preparatory meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The Respondent-Appellant website which was built sometime in 2004 has an advertisement for government services which the Respondent-Appellant believed had the ability to perform before.
Note that the website is titled www.salislaw.com which openly suggests it is an attorney website advertisement.
There is no witness on this
Owolabi Salis
The Complainant, Respondent and Appellant