English
Motion Memorandum Argument
File
Memorandum from Joe Q…………………………………………………………………………1
Office memorandum on persuasive briefs………………………………………………………...2
Memorandum to file re: interview with Bill Row………………………………………………...4
Affidavit of Sara Stole…………………………………………………………………………….6
Memorandum to file from Henry Lamb…………………………………………………………..8
Library
Part of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. Section 1186a………………………9
Part of Code of Federal Regulations…………………………………………………………… 10
Hua v. Napolitano, U.S. Court of Appeals (15th Cir. 2011) …………………………………….11
Connor v. Chertoff, U.S. Court of Appeals (15th Cir. 2007) …………………………………14
1
Law Offices of Joe Q 123 Charles St.
Franklin city, Franklin 33797
TO: Student
From: Joe Q
Date: February 1, 2017
RE: Matter of Bill Row
We represent Bill Row, a British citizen, who has lived in this country as a conditional
permanent resident because of his marriage to Sara Stole, a U.S. citizen. Mr. Row now seeks to
remove the condition of his lawful permanent residency.
Normally, a married couple would apply together to remove the conditional status, before
the end of the two years of the noncitizen’s conditional residency. However, ten months ago, in
April 2016, Ms. Stole and Mr. Row separated, and they eventually divorced. Ms. Stole actively
opposes Mr. Row’s continued residency in this country.
However, Ms. Stole’s opposition does not end Mr. Row’s chances. As the attached legal
sources indicate, he can file Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, but in the
petition he must ask for a waiver of the requirement that he file the petition jointly with his wife.
Acting pro se, Row timely filed such a Form I-751 petition. The immigration officer
conducted an interview with him. Ms. Stole provided the officer with a sworn affidavit stating
her belief that Row married her solely to obtain residency. The officer denied Row’s petition.
Row then sought our representation to appeal the denial of his petition. We now have a
hearing scheduled in Immigration Court to review the validity of that denial. Before the hearing,
we will submit to the court the information described in the attached investigator’s memo, which
was not presented to the immigration officer. We do not expect Stole to testify, because she has
moved out of state.
Please draft our brief to the Immigration Judge. The brief will need to argue that Mr. Row
married Ms. Stole in good faith. Specifically, it should argue that the immigration officer’s
decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record before him and that the totality
of the evidence supports granting Row’s petition.
I have attached our guidelines for drafting briefs. Draft only the legal argument portion of
the brief; I will draft the caption and statement of facts.
2
Law Offices of Joe Q 123 Charles St.
Franklin city, Franklin 33797
TO: Attorneys
From: Joe Q
Date: March 29, 2017
RE: Format for Persuasive Briefs
These guidelines apply to persuasive briefs filed in trial courts and administrative
proceedings.
I. Caption
[omitted]
II. Statement of Facts (if applicable)
[omitted]
III. Legal Argument
Your legal argument should be brief and to the point. Assume that the judge will have
little time to read and absorb your argument. Make your points clearly and succinctly, citing
relevant authority for each legal proposition. Keep in mind that courts are not persuaded by
exaggerated, unsupported arguments.
Use headings to separate the sections of your argument. In your headings, do not state
abstract conclusion, but integrate factual detail into legal propositions to make them more
persuasive. An ineffective heading states only: “The petitioner’s request for asylum should be
granted.” An effective heading states: “The petitioner has shown a well-founded fear of
persecution by reason of gender if removed to her home country.”
Do not restate the facts as a whole at the beginning of your legal argument. Instead,
integrate the facts into your legal argument in a way that makes the strongest case for our client.
The body of your argument should analyze applicable legal authority and persuasively argue
how both the facts and the law support our client’s position. Supporting authority should be
emphasized, but contrary authority should also be cited, addressed in the argument, and
explained or distinguished.
3
Finally, anticipate and accommodate any weaknesses in your case in the body of your
argument. If possible, structure your argument in such a way as to highlight your argument’s
strengths and minimize elements of your claim or defense.
4
Law Offices of Joe Q
123 Charles St.
Franklin city, Franklin 33797
TO: File
From: Joe Q
Date: November 25, 2016
RE: Interview with Bill Row
I met with Bill Row today. Row is a British citizen and moved to the United States and to
Franklin about two and a half years ago, having just married Sara Stile. They separated in April
2016; their divorce became final about 10 days ago. In late April, after the separation, Row,
acting pro se, petitioned to retain his permanent residency status. After that petition was denied
by the immigration officer, Row called our office.
Row met Stole in Britain a little over three years ago. He had been working toward a
graduate degree in library science for several years. He had begun looking for professional
positions and had come to the realization that he would have better job opportunities in the
United States. He had two siblings living in the United States.
He met Stole when she was doing graduate work in cultural anthropology at the
university where he was finishing his own academic training as a librarian. He says that it was
love at first sight for him. He asked her out, but she refused several times before she agreed.
After several weeks of courtship, he said that he felt she shared his feelings. They moved in
together about four weeks after their first meeting and lived together for the balance of her time
in Britain.
Soon after they moved in together, Row proposed marriage to Stole. She agreed, and they
married on December 27, 2012, in London, England. Stole subsequently suggested that they
move to the United States together, to which he readily agreed. In fact, without telling Stole,
Row had contacted the university in Franklin City, just to see if there were job opportunities.
That contact produced a promising lead, but no offer. He and Stole moved to Franklin City at the
end of her fellowship in May of 2013.
Row soon obtained a job with the Franklin State university library. He and Stole jointly
leased an apartment and shared living expenses. At one point, they moved into a larger space,
signing a two-year lease. When Stole needed to purchase a new car, Row (who at that point had
the more stable salary) co-signed the loan documents. Both had health insurance through the
5
university, and each had the other named as the next of kin. They filed two joint tax returns (for
2013 and 2014), but they divorced before they could file another.
Their social life was limited; if they socialized at all, it was with his friends. Row
consistently introduced Stole as his wife to his friends, and he was referred to by them as “that
old married man.” As far as Row could tell, Stole’s colleagues at work did not appear to know
that Stole was even married.
Stole’s academic discipline required routine absences for field work, conferences, and
colloquia. Row resented these absences and rarely contacted Stole when she was gone. He
estimates that, out of the approximately two and half years of cohabitation during marriage, they
lived apart for an aggregated total of seven months.
In March of 2015, Stole announced that she had received an offer for a prestigious
assistant professorship at Olympia State University. She told Row that she intended to take the
job and wanted him to move with her, unless he could give her a good reason to stay. She also
had an offer from Franklin State University, but she told him that the department was not as
prestigious as the Olympia department. He made as strong a case as he could that she should
stay, arguing that he could not find another job in Olympia comparable to the one that he had in
Franklin.
Stole chose to take the job in Olympia, and she moved there less than a month later. Row
realized that he would always be following her, and that she would not listen to his concerns or
needs. He told her that he would not move. She was furious. She told him that in that case, she
would file for a divorce. She also told him that she would fight his effort to state in the United
States. Their divorce was finalized on November 15, 2015, in Franklin.
Row worries that without Stole’s support, he will not be able to keep his job in Franklin
or stay in the United States. He does not want to return to the United Kingdom and wants to
maintain permanent residency here.
6
IN re Form I-751, Petition of Bill Row to Remove Conditions on Residence Affidavit of
Sara Stole
Upon first being duly sworn, I, Sara Stole, residing in the County of Titan, Olympia, do
say:
1. I am submitting this affidavit in opposition to Bill Row’s Form I-751 Petition to Remove
Conditions on Residence.
2. I am a United States citizen. I married Bill Row in London, England, on December 27,
2012. This was the first marriage for each of us. We met while I was on a fellowship in
that city. He was finishing up his own graduate studies. He told me that he had been
actively looking for a position in the United States for several years. He pursued me and
after about four weeks convinced me to me in with him. Shortly after this, Bill proposed
marriage and I accepted.
3. We decided that we would move to the United States. I now believe that he never
seriously considered the option of remaining in Britain. I later learned that Bill had mad
contacts with the university library in Franklin City, Franklin, long before he proposed.
4. Before entering the United States in May 2013, we obtained the necessary approvals for
Bill to enter the country as a conditional resident. We moved to Franklin City so I could
resume my studies.
5. During our marriage, Bill expressed little interest in my work but expressed great
dissatisfaction with the hours that I was working and the time I spent traveling. My
graduate work had brought me great success, including the chance at an assistant
professorship at Olympia State University, whose cultural anthropology department is
nationally ranked. But Bill resisted any idea of moving and complained about the effect a
move would have on our marriage and his career.
6. Eventually, I took the job in Olympia and moved in April 2015. While I knew that Bill
did not like the move, I had asked him to look into library positions in Olympia, and he
had done so. I fully explained to him to follow me within a few months. I was shocked
and angered when, instead, he called me on April 23, 2015, and informed me that he
would stay in Franklin.
7. I filed for divorce, which is uncontested. It is my belief that Bill does not really care
about the divorce. I believe now that he saw our marriage primarily as a means to get
7
U.S. residency. I do not think that his affection for me was real. But his job planning, his
choice of friends, and his resistance to my career goals indicate a lack of commitment to
our relationship. In addition, he has carefully evaded any long-term commitments,
including children, property ownership, and similar obligations.
8
Law Offices of Joe Q
123 Charles St.
Franklin city, Franklin 33797
TO: File
From: Henry Lamb
Date: February 20, 2016
RE: Preparation for Row Form I-751 Petition
This memorandum summarizes the results of my investigation, witness preparation, and
document acquisition in advance of the immigration hearing for Bill Row.
Witnesses: - Phil Miller: friend and coworker of Bills Row. Has spent time with Row and Stole as a
couple (over 20 social occasions) and has visited their two primary residences and has
observed them together. Will testify that they self-identified as husband and wife and that
he has heard them discussing leasing of residential property, purchasing cares, borrowing
money for car purchase, and buying real estate, all together and as part of the marriage.
- Anne Sperling: friend and coworker of Bill Row. Has spent time with both Row and
Stole, both together and separately. Will testify to statements by Stole that she (Stole) felt
gratitude toward Row for moving to the United States without a job, and that Stole was
convinced that Row “did it for love.”
Documents (Row to authenticate)
- Lease on house at 11245 Old Sachem Road, Franklin City, Franklin, with a two-year
term running until January 31, 2016. Signed by both Stole and Row.
- Promissory note for $20,000 initially, designating Stole as debtor and Row as co-signer,
in connection with a new car purchase.
-Printouts of joint bank account in name of Row and Stole, February 1, 2014, through
May 31, 2015.
- Joint income tax returns for 2013 and 2014.
- Certified copy of judgment of divorce.
9
Portion of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Title 8 U.S.C., Aliens and Nationality
1186(a) In general
(1) Conditional basis for status: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an
alien spouse … shall be considered, at the time obtaining the status of alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions
of this section.
(c) Requirements of timely petition and interview for removal of condition
(1) In general: In order for the conditional basis established under subsection (a)
of this section for an alien spouse or an alien son or daughter to be removed –
(A) the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse (if not deceased) jointly
must submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a petition which requests the removal of such
conditional basis …
(4) Hardship waiver: The secretary… may remove the conditional basis of the
permanent resident status for an alien who fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) if the
alien demonstrates that –
(B) the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien
spouse, but the qualifying marriage has been terminated (other than through the death of the
spouse) and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (1).
10
Portion from Code of Federal Regulations Title 8. Aliens and Nationality
8 C.F.R. Section 216.5 Waiver of requirements to file joint petition to remove conditions by
alien spouse
(a) General.
(1) A conditional resident who is unable to meet the requirements … for a joint petition
for removal of the conditional basis of his or her permanent resident status may file a Petition to
Remove Conditions on Residence, if the alien requests a waiver, was not at fault in failing to
meet the filling requirement, and the conditional resident alien is able to establish that:
(ii) The marriage upon which his or her status was based was entered into good
faith by the conditional resident alien, but the marriage was terminated other than by death …
(e) Adjudication of waiver application –
(2) Application for waiver based upon the alien’s claim that the marriage was entered into
in good faith. In considering whether an alien entered into a qualifying marriage in good faith,
the director shall consider evidence relating to the amount of commitment by both parties to the
marital relationship. Such evidence may include –
(i) Documentation relating to the degree to which the financial assets and
liabilities of the parties were combined;
(ii) Documentation concerning the length of time during which the parties
cohabitated after the marriage and after the alien obtained permanent residence;
(iii) Birth certificates of children born to the marriage; and
(iv) Other evidence deemed pertinent by the director.
11
12
13
14
15
16