Several types of bias make the process of obtaining post-conviction relief for immigrants more difficult.  Many judges and prosecutors harbor ill feelings or contempt of one kind or another against stereotypes of immigrants to this country, even though all of us, not even excluding Native Americans, were originally immigrants.  Many prosecutors and judges (most of whom are ex-prosecutors) also harbor ill will against criminal defendants.  Third, many of them (abetted by DHS enforcement officials) oppose on principle what they see as efforts to frustrate the will of Congress to deport as many “criminal aliens” as possible.  This triple load of enmity presents formidable challenges to those engaged in the difficult task of attempting to obtain post-conviction relief for immigrants.  Relief may be that much more difficult in the wake of terrorist atrocities and a further increase in anti-immigrant sentiment.

 

This section will offer several legal strategies by which to oppose these types of discrimination against our clients.  It is of course illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of national origin.  Some techniques are offered for negotiating these cases.  The law provides that (a) criminal defendants are entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts concerning the facts and law, and (b) in light of the drastic consequences of deportation, immigrants as well are entitled to all reasonable doubts in these cases.

Other

POST-CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " JUDICIAL BIAS " BIAS AGAINST IMMIGRANTS
In re M.M., 587 S.E.2d 825, 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (statements of open bias such as I have a problem with your immigration situation); see also People v. Phuong, 679 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (chastising trial judge for discriminatory comments such as [n]othing like a bench trial with a Chinese interpreter); Mejia v. United States, 916 A.2d 900, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (reversing a conviction on the grounds that a judges musings, though potentially well-intentioned, created a perception of bias); In re Goodfarb, 880 P.2d 620, 623 (Ariz. 1994) (sanctioning a judge for using racially inflammatory language in court); see also In re Schiff, 635 N.E.2d 286, 287"88 (N.Y. 1994) (disciplining judges for purposefully disparaging Puerto Ricans in the presence of an Hispanic attorney);