Location: San Francisco, California
Email: Email Me
Asylum: Through his litigation efforts, Mr. Jobe has defined the contours of asylum law in the western United States on issues ranging from the definition of persecution and whether the threat of persecution must exist country-wide to whether an alien who has engaged in "terrorist activities" can be barred from asylum as a danger to national security. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005), Lolong v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), Narayan v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Cheema v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2004); Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003); Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501 (9th Cir. 1995); Hardev Singh v. Moschorak, 53 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 1995); Surinder Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375 (9th Cir. 1995) ; Jagraj Singh v. Ilchert, 801 F. Supp. 313 (N.D.Cal. 1992); Matter of N-M-A-, Int. Dec. 3368 (BIA 1998).Congressional Testimony: On May 8, 1996, Mr. Jobe testified before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights about the need to enact legislation to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Criminal Aliens: Mr. Jobe has litigated a wide variety of cases relating to criminal aliens, including Murillo-Salmeron v. INS, 327 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (simple drunk driving is not a crime involving moral turpitude); Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (the particularly serious crimes bar to asylum does not apply to guilty pleas obtained before the bar's enactment); Park v. INS, 252 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (to be a crime of violence, an offense must have a mens rea of at least recklessness); Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) (convictions for simple possession of a controlled substance which have been expunged pursuant to a state rehabilitative statute can not be a basis for deportation); Aguilera-Medina v. INS, 137 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1998), (lawful temporary resident aliens who have been convicted of alien smuggling within five years of a "brief, casual, and innocent departure" are not deportable).
Suspension of Deportation: Mr. Jobe was at the forefront of efforts to blunt the impact of legislation (enacted in 1996) which restricts the availability of suspension of deportation (a defense to deportation which had been available to aliens who have lived in this country for more than seven years). In Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999), aff'd 236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2001), Mr. Jobe challenged the government's refusal to adjudicate applications for suspension of deportation until the legislative restrictions took effect. Through that litigation, Mr. Jobe and his co-counsel obtained an injunction against the deportation of hundreds of class members.
In Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS, 250 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2001), Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2000), and Matter of N-J-B-, 21 I & N Dec. 812 (BIA 1997), Mr. Jobe challenged the government's application of the new "stop time" rule, which requires a suspension of deportation applicant to demonstrate that he or she had accumulated seven years physical presence in the United States before the commencement of deportation proceedings. In Guadalupe-Cruz, the court precluded INS from applying the stop time rule to applicants who had hearings before April 1997. In Castillo-Perez, the Court ruled that the stop time rule can not be applied to aliens who would have had a hearing on their application for suspension of deportation before April 1997 but for the ineffective assistance of a former attorney.
Visa Processing: In 1995, Mr. Jobe and his best friend from law school, Daniel Wolf, spearheaded a pro bono legal challenge to the Department of State's policy of refusing to issue immigrant visas to Vietnamese boat people detained in Hong Kong. See, Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep't.of State, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995)("LAVAS I"); Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep't. of State (LAVAS II), 74 F.3d 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1996); and Vo Van Chau v. Dep't. of State, 891 F. Supp. 650 (D.D.C. 1996). In LAVAS I, the D.C. Circuit declared the State Department's policy unlawful. The State Department appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Shortly before oral argument in the United States Supreme Court, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to specifically override the D.C. Circuit's decision in LAVAS I. The Supreme Court then vacated LAVAS I and remanded for reconsideration of the legislative changes. As a result of the litigation, however, over 100 Vietnamese nationals living in refugee camps in Hong Kong were able to immigrate to the United States.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:Maravilla-Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (to establish prejudice, aliens alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show only plausible grounds of relief); Matter of N-K- and V-S-, I & N Dec. 879 (BIA 1997), (an attorney's failure to notify an alien of the date, time, and place of her exclusion hearing constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and requires reopening of an exclusion proceeding conducted in absentia).