"The appeal was a disaster. It was completely inaccurate," says Cara Jobson, Espino's new lawyer. Pineda's appeal misstated the judge's findings regarding Espino's cancellation of removal claim, and included only four sentences that directly addressed Espino's claims of hardship, as Jobson notes in her movement to reopen Espino's case. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected Pineda's appeal. According to Espino, Pineda once again told her not to worry, and that they would appeal to the 9th Circuit. A little while later, Espino went to Pineda's office to renew her work permit, and one of Pineda's assistants asked Espino if anything had changed in her life that would affect her case. She said no.
"They said, 'We can't represent you anymore; there is nothing more we can do,'" Espino remembers. "'You have to leave. You have 10 days to leave the country, and if you don't leave, immigration is going to come and deport you, and then you'll never get your papers fixed.'" Pineda had apparently decided against filing an appeal at the 9th Circuit, perhaps because he knew that as Espino's case stood, it would be denied — a change in practice, according to the state bar complaint, which says he often filed "vague and worthless appeals" to the 9th Circuit.
James Sanders
Martha Ornelas' son was deported in January.
Maria Rosalba Espino is one of Walter Pineda's former clients.
Related Content
More About
This abrupt dismissal was the first indication she had that her case hadn't gone according to plan. It was the summer of 2004, about 2 1/2 years since Espino first walked into Pineda's office — around the time she had expected to become a permanent resident. Instead, she was scrambling to find another attorney, and to see if any hope remained for her.
Jobson told Espino that she does have a strong case for cancellation of removal — that if her circumstances were fully explained in court, a judge might well find that deportation would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her daughters. If deported, Espino would have to choose between bringing her daughters to Mexico, where she'd be a friendless single mother in a poor country, and leaving them behind in the U.S., where they'd have better educational opportunities, but no mother. Complicating matters is the fact that Jessica's father, Espino's ex-husband, might fight for custody of Jessica, possibly forcing the two girls to split up. (Jennifer's father has never been a part of her life, and her stepfather, Jessica's dad, turned away from her after the divorce in 2003.)
They succeeded in getting Espino's case reopened in 2004, and a new hearing for cancellation of removal was held last summer, at which Espino testified for several days about her childhood in Mexico and about the family's current circumstances in Berkeley. The judge's decision is expected this June. Jobson is optimistic that it will go in Espino's favor, and that after 14 years of longing for legitimacy, the hardworking woman will finally be given a legal way to stay in this country.
On May 1, Espino took the day off work and took her daughters out of school to join the 30,000 people rallying for immigrants' rights at the Embarcadero. Whether or not Congress passes an immigration reform bill, those people aren't going anywhere, and neither are their urgent desires for jobs, homes, and acceptance as American citizens. The question that remains is whether that desire will set them up as easy victims for lawyers like Walter Pineda.
