State of Oregon v. John Doe
Sep 05, 2024OUTCOME: Won
SB819 Win!
PRO
N. David Shamloo's Legal Cases (26)
Hillsboro, OR
Immigration Lawyer at Hillsboro, OR
Practice Areas: Immigration, Criminal Defense, Appeals
ICE v Doe
May 09, 2024OUTCOME: Won
won a cancellation of removal case even though there had been a marriage fraud finding!
Ice v Doe
Apr 01, 2024OUTCOME: Won
Won CAT claim involving cartels!
DHS v. John Doe
Jan 08, 2024OUTCOME: Won!
Granted CAT based on cooperation with the government. Very rare win!
DHS v. John Doe
Dec 21, 2023OUTCOME: Won!
Granted green card to Vietnamese national had previously been deported, reopen and won the case after 10 years.
ICE v Doe
Dec 20, 2023OUTCOME: Won
Won CAT claim involving cartels!
MILENKO KRSTIC V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-72542 (9th Cir. 2020)
Mar 11, 2020OUTCOME: Granted in part, denied in part, dismissed in part
Krstic argues that his signing of supply disbursementsdid not constitute participation in persecution. An individual’s actions must be considered along a “continuum of conduct” before deeming those ac ... tions persecutory. Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 3F.3d 915, 926 (9th Cir. 2006). This inquiry “requires a particularized evaluation of both personal involvement and purposeful assistance in order to ascertain culpability.” Id.at 927(some citations omitted)(citing Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2004)). Thus, thereare two questions we must address: first, whether Krsticwas personally involved in persecution; and second, whether he purposefully assisted in that persecution. Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2013). The government must present “threshold evidence of eachelement”to trigger the bar.Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2016)(emphasis in original). Regarding the first question, we consider“whether the petitioner’s involvement was active or passive.” Kumar, 728 F.3d at 998 (citing Miranda Alvarado, 449 F.3d at 927–28)). The petitioner in Miranda Alvarado—who had served as aQuechua interpreterfor Peruvian government torture squads—exemplifies this distinction. Whereas Miranda Alvaradowas a key part of the interrogation teams and was present and active during the torture sessions, Krstic did not participate in the Srebrenica murders and was neither present nor active during the killings. See Kumar, 728 F.3d at 998–99 (citing Miranda Alvarado, 449 F.3d at 928). In this respect, the government failed to present a prima facie case that Krstic was culpable under the first prong of the persecutorbar inquiry. The agency thus erred in finding thatKrstic was personally involved in persecution. Because the government must present threshold evidence of each element of the bar, Budiono, 837 F.3d at1048, this error standing alone is 1The dissent assertsthat“Krstic personally verified the delivery of the fuel, its recipient,and its intended use” and that “[t]he government’s expert witness left no doubt that Krstic ‘authorized and verified the release of this fuel . . . for the purposes of the execution and reburial [of Muslims].’” There is no indicationin the record, however,thatKrstic intended that the fuel assist in theexecution of theSrebrenica Massacre. Similarly, the dissent is mistaken in stating that “Krsticgave the order to release” fuel used in the genocide. The uncontested evidence established that Krstic’s signature was necessary to secure already-ordered supplies—not that Krstic himself gave orders to disburse fuel. 5sufficient to grant Krstic’s petition for reviewand remand to the BIA. As a result, we need notproceed to the second step of the persecutor bar analysis. 3.Krstic next challenges the agency’s denial of a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). The BIAdenied Krsticsuch a waiver because it concluded that he had “participated” in “genocide” or “extrajudicial killing” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(D).The same test for the persecutor barapplies to the section 1227(a)(4)(D) bar in determiningwhether an applicant for awaiver of inadmissibility is eligible for such a waiver. SeeMatter of D-R-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 445, 452 (BIA 2011).For the same reasons the agency erred in finding Krstic subject to the persecutor bar, it erred here too. Krstic appears to request that wego one step further and affirmatively find that he merits a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility.But, as the government points out, it is not for this court to decide whether Krstic is entitled to relief that the statute entrusts to the Attorney General’s discretion. As a result, we grant Krstic’s petition for review on this claim and remand to the BIA to determine whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
16-71810 Omar Gallardo-Torres v. Jefferson Sessions
May 16, 2018OUTCOME: granted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRetyWc9AeE
ICE v. Doe
Jul 26, 2017OUTCOME: Granted
Illegal arrest by ICE without a warrant. ICE released client after filing motion for immediate release based on illegal arrest.
ICE v. Doe
Dec 16, 2016OUTCOME: Won
Person convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, ordered deported to Vietnam 13 years ago. Reopen case and dismissed case.