Kathleen Campbell ’16 and Benjamin Haldeman ’16 conducted a trial in the Hartford Immigration Court that ended with an asylum grant for L—, a 19-year old from Ecuador.  While employed as a poll worker during legislative elections, L— saw political operatives burning legitimately-cast ballots and replacing them with votes for the ruling party’s candidates.  When L— reported this corruption to an electoral official and the police, he began to receive threatening phone calls.  He tried moving to another city, but there was threatened by a man who pointed a gun at him and warned that he would be hurt for “speaking out.”  The testimony, evidence, and legal arguments Ben and Kathy presented at the hearing convinced the immigration judge that L—’s whistle-blowing conduct amounted to an expression of political opinion, and that L—would face a high risk of being killed anywhere in Ecuador.

Hannah Tenison ’16 and Jaime Welsh ’15 convinced the Department of Homeland Security’s Asylum Office to grant asylum to M—, a woman from a central African country.  M— courageously spoke at a Women’s Day rally about her experiences as a rape victim.  The government’s security forces viewed the speech as an indictment of government inaction in the face of widespread rape.  Two days later, M— was arrested and taken to prison.  Interrogators accused her of inciting the crowd against the government and told her that she would be killed unless she provided the names of co-conspirators.  After five terrifying days, M—’s family was able to bribe a guard to allow her to escape.  She spent two months in hiding before she was able to flee the country.  Despite extensive corroborating evidence, the Asylum Officer who conducted the hearing initially denied the application, finding that certain aspects of M—’s testimony were inconsistent with country conditions information.  However, when the Clinic requested reconsideration, pointing out that our client had never been confronted with or given an opportunity to explain the alleged “inconsistencies,” the Asylum Office took the rare step of granting a re-hearing.  All of the Asylum Officer’s concerns were assuaged at the new hearing, and M— was granted asylum.