GARCIA (SERGIO C.) ON ADMISSIONAmicus Curiae Brief of Dream Team Los Angeles, et al.Cal.July 27, 2012SUPREME COURT COPY ——surren e cour FILED Bar Misc. 4186 UL 27 2012 $202512 Frank A. McGuire Clerk Deputy IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE SERGIO C. GARCIA ON ADMISSION APPLICATION BY DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES,ET AL. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT SERGIO C. GARCIA Tia Koonse (SBN 281790) UCLA Downtown Labor Center 675 South Park View Street Los Angeles, CA 90057 (213) 820-5268 Counsel for Amici Curiae DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY DREAM TEAM, CALIFORNIA DREAM NETWORK, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY DREAM TEAM, UNITED WE DREAM NETWORK Shane Etchison Dream Resource Center Legal Intern 675 South Park View Street Los Angeles, CA 90057 APPLICATION BY DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES,ET AL. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT SERGIO C. GARCIA Interest of amici curiae Amici are all youth-led organizations whose missions focus on advancing the interests ofundocumented immigrant youth in California and across the country. These immigrant youth organizations have been instrumental in recent national developments affecting the rights ofundocumented students. In order to accomplish their missions, these organizations engage in outreach and education ofundocumented students issues in communities and colleges across the nation. Furthermore, the organizations engage in advocacy and organizing with undocumented immigrant youth andallies to pass policies that improvetheir well- being and contribution to society. Finally, these organizations work to foster the skills and connections needed for undocumented immigrant youth to become effective leaders in their communities. _ These organizationsare part of the United We Dream Network whose membership stretches across the country. Through this network, the organizations have been part of the federal DREAM Act campaign, have helped to pass in-state tuition legislation, and have advancedthe rights of undocumented immigrant youth and their families. Most recently, these organizations have been engaged in the successful Right to Dream campaign, whose goal wasto obtain administrativerelief from the president, stopping the deportations of undocumented youth and providing them with work permits. The Court has specifically invited amici curiae briefs in support of Sergio Garcia’s motion. Because Mr. Garcia is an undocumented law school graduate in a situation similar to that which manyoftheir own members might face, amici have a vested interest in the outcome of his motion for admission to the State Bar of California. In its invitation, the Court directed parties and amici curiae to addressfive separate questions. The attached brief will answerthe fourth _ question: “If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law?” In answering this question, amici address the potential issues that a denial of Mr. Garcia’s application would have on the hundreds of thousandsofstudents that they seeksto help. il In accord with this Court’s invitation and amici’s interest in the outcome ofMr. Garcia’s motion, amici respectfully request permission to submit the attachedbrief. Dated: July 24, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Tia Koonse (SBN 281790) Counsel for Amici Curiae . DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY DREAM TEAM, CALIFORNIA DREAM NETWORK, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY DREAM TEAM, UNITED WE ~ DREAM NETWORK ili _ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPLICATION BY DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES,ET AL. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORTOF APPLICANT SERGIO C.GARCIA i TABLE OF CONTENTS Iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES vO INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 ARGUMENT 2 I. Qualified undocumented immigrant students and graduates are permitted to work under a new DHSpolicy 2 a. Sergio Garcia should be admitted to the bar because denying his application would set an absurd precedent for the myriad qualified, undocumented law students in California who will be eligible to work under the new DHSpolicy 4 b. Granting Sergio Garcia’s application allows California to benefit from the success of the youth eligible under the new policy 6 CONCLUSION 8 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE 9 PROOF OF SERVICE 10 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITES Page EXECUTIVE MEMOS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES Janet Napolitano, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cameto the United States as Children (June 15, 2012) 2,3,4,5 Johnson, El Salvador Reclaiming Its Past, L.A. Times (October 23, 2009) 7 Preston and Cushman, Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S., N.Y. Times (June 15, 2012) 2 Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012) . [as of July 17, 2012] 3 Schmitt, SalvadoransIllegally in U.S. Are Given Protected Status, N.Y. Times (March3, 2001) 6 INTRODUCTION Sergio Garcia is an undocumented law school graduate who wishes to be admitted to the State Bar of California. The Court has requested amici curiae briefs answering five questions pertaining to Mr.Garcia’s application. The fourth of these questionsis, “If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, onan undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law?” That is the question which amici addressin thisbrief. While Mr. Garcia is one ofmany undocumented immigrant law school students and graduates, his caseis the first of its kind in the state of California. Because ofthis, it sets important precedentfor the many undocumented immigrant law students whowill comeafter him. As such,it is vital to think of these future law students, and how this decision will impact them. It is on these youth which amici focus in this brief, and which amici implore the Court to consider.' SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Department ofHomeland Security has issued a new policy, halting the deportation of many undocumented students and ‘Amici recognize that while their main focus is on helping what are commonly known as DREAM Acteligible youth, Sergio is not himself DREAM Acteligible. Amici believe that Sergio’s case is similar enough to that ofDREAM Acteligible youth, specifically those youth affected by the new policy outlined below,that it prompts discussion of the broader public policy concerns addressedin this brief. f graduates. This policy allows these students to work legally, despite their undocumented status. Ifthe Court were to deny Mr. Garcia’s application to the bar, it would set an absurd precedent for these undocumented students and would prevent California from taking full advantage of their success. For these reasons, the Court should grant Mr. Garcia’s application. ARGUMENT I. Qualified undocumented immigrant students and graduates are permitted to work under a new DHS policy | On June 15, 2012, President Obamaissued a statement outlining a new policy in the Department ofHomeland Security. This new policy provides deferred action for qualified, undocumented immigrants in good moral standing who cameto the United States as children. The policy is estimated to affect over 800,000 people. (Preston and Cushman, Obama.to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S., N.Y. Times (June 15, 2012) p. Al.) This policy is outlined in greater detail in a June 15, 2012 memo from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, directed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (See Janet Napolitano, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cameto the United States as Children (June 15, 2012) (hereinafter Napolitano Memo)p. 1.) In this memo, Secretary Napolitano expresses the concern that the students in question have contributed so muchto our country and often have noties to the countries where deportation would send them. (/bid.) As President Obamaso succinctly put it in his June 15 speech, “they are Americansin their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.” (Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012) [as of July 17, 2012].) These students are, by definition, upstanding and productive members of society. In order to qualify for deferred action underthis new policy, a student must have entered the United States beforethe age of sixteen; have lived continuously in the United States for the five years priorto the date ofthe memo; be enrolled in school, hold a high school diploma or GED,or have received an honorable discharge from the United States Armed Forces; have not been convicted of any felony or significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors; pose no threat to the peace and safety of the United States, and be thirty years old or younger. (Napolitano Memo,p. 1.) USCISis directed to implement this policy within 60 days from the date of the memo. (Jd. at p. 3.) The youth who qualify for this program are educated and productive. They are law-abiding membersoftheir communities. They havethe desire to give back to their communities, and one way that they can dothat is by working, This program of deferred action allowsall those who are granted administrative relief to apply for work permits. (Napolitano Memo,p. 3.) This meansthat over the course of the next several months, many of the estimated 800,000 undocumented immigrants will be granted permission to work legally in the United States. a. Sergio Garcia should be admitted to the bar because denying his application would set an absurd precedent for the myriad qualified, undocumented law students in California whowill be eligible to work under the new DHSpolicy Someofthe 800,000 undocumented immigrants affected by the new policy will be recent law school graduates. In order to work in their chosen profession, which will be otherwise legal for them to do, these undocumented law school graduates will need to be admitted to the bar in the state where they wish to practice. The Court has asked _ whatlegal and public policy limitations would preventan undocumented immigrant from practicing law. Ifthe Court were to deny Mr. Garcia’s application on the groundsthat he was an undocumented immigrant, that would set a devastating precedent for those law school graduates who qualify for this new policy. While these graduates will have work permits, deferred action will grant them no legal status. (Napolitano Memo,p. 3.) This will mean that they arestill undocumented immigrants in the same way that Mr. Garcia is an undocumented immigrant. By not admitting Mr. Garcia to the State Bar, the Court would be impliedly prohibiting those undocumented immigrants with work permits under the new DHS policy from being admitted, despite the fact that they would be legally able to practice law in the United States. This would be an absurd result, due to the fact that the agency in charge of immigration and deportation will have said that not only are they allowed to remain in the U.S., but they are also allowed to work freely while they are here. Recent law school graduates who receive a work permit under the new policy would be in no dangerofbeing deported, having ‘ received a grant of deferred action. There would be no legal reasons to prevent them from practicing law, because they would have been granted permission to do so freely by the federal government. Because there would be no impedimentto these undocumented graduates obtaining work as lawyers, it makes no sense to prevent them from practicing law in California. The Court should grant Mr. Garcia’s application to the bar in order to avoid setting a devastating and absurd precedentfor the thousandsofpotential applicants who are also undocumented immigrants but who will have permission from the federal government to work. b. Granting Sergio Garcia’s application allows California to benefit from the success of the youth eligible under the new policy The United States has always been a country madeup ofpeople from other places. Sometimes our lawsdo not immediately recognize the legitimacy of certain groups ofthese people. In times like these, the executive branch hastaken up the slack by helping these groups to function as a part of our country until the other branches of government can provide more permanent recognition for them. These groups invariably go on to becomefully-contributing members of American society. A prime exampleofthis is the Salvadorans who were granted temporary protected status by President Bush in 2001, allowing them to legally work in the country. (Schmitt, SalvadoransIllegally in U.S. Are Given Protected Status, N.Y. Times (March 3, 2001) p. 1.) The temporary protected status had been created 11 years prior, in order to help Salvadoran refugees who cameto the U.S. to escape their war- torn country. (Id. at p. 2.) While the wars and natural disasters drove many Salvadoransout of El Salvador, in the United States they were able to become productive membersofsociety and build new lives for. themselves. It was here in California specifically that they were able — to salvage their threatened culture, even while assimilating into American society. (Johnson, E/ Salvador Reclaiming Its Past, L.A. Times (October 23, 2009) p. 1.) Because of the help they received from the administration, Salvadorans were able to become valuable, contributing membersofthe United States and California. Like Salvadorans and other similar groups, the undocumented youth eligible for the new policy are being helped by the president. The Salvadorans were a tragedy-stricken people, fleeing war and disaster when they came to America, but they managed to become true Americansafter receiving help from the administration. It is evident that the youth eligible for the new policy, whoare in a position of strength having been raised and educated right here in the US., are even more likely to become indispensable members of the society to which they belong. Mr. Garcia himself is a prime example, having donehis best to contribute to his adopted country in every way possible. While granting his application is clearly the right thing to do, it is even more vital that the Court grant it because of the message that doing so will send. By granting his application, the Court will betelling these undocumented youth that when they are granted more permanent recognition in this country they are welcome in California, and that California wants them to become the valuable membersof society which they are sure to be. This message will go out moststrongly to future lawyers in this group, but will also serve to make California a more inviting place for all of these future citizens, encouraging them to come and contribute to our great state. It is for this reason that the Court should grant Mr. Garcia’s application. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully ask that the Court. grant Sergio C. Garcia’s application for admission to the State Bar of California. Dated: July 24, 2012 Respectfully submitted, yefL~—_ Tia Koonse (SBN 281790) Counsel for Amici Curiae DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY DREAM TEAM, CALIFORNIA DREAM NETWORK, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY DREAM TEAM, UNITED WE DREAM NETWORK CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rules 8.204(c) and 8.520(c) ofthe California Rules of Court, I certify that this APPLICATION BY DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES,ET AL. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT SERGIO C. GARCIAcontains 1,597 words, not including the tables of contents and authorities, the caption page, signature blocks,or this certification page. Date: July 24, 2012 fA —-~ Tia Koonsd PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am employed in the Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am nota party to the within case. My business address is 675 South Park View Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057. On July 17, 2012, I served the following document: APPLICATION BY DREAM TEAM LOS ANGELES,ET AL. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT SERGIO C. GARCIA | on the following interested parties in this action: See attached Service List by placing it in an envelope designated Priority Mail by the United States Postal Service, payingall applicable delivery fees, and giving it to an agent of the United States Postal Service for delivery. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe lawsofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ofif— Tia Koonse Date: July 24, 2012 10 Service List Jerome Fishkin (SBN 47798) Lindsay K. Slatter (SBN 72692) Samuel C. Bellicini (SBN 152191) Fishkin & Slatter LLP 1575 Treat Blvd., Suite 215 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Attomeys for Sergio C. Garcia Applicant for Admission Starr Babcock (SBN 63473) Lawrence C. Yee (SBN 84208) Richard J. Zanassi (SBN 105044) Rachel S. Grunberg (SBN 197080) State Bar of California 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Robert E. Palmer (SBN 116892) Joshua A. Jessen (SBN 222831) Drew A. Harbur (SBN 279511) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 MarkA.Perry (SBN 212532) 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5306 Donald K. Tamaki (SBN 72884) Minette A. Kwok (SBN 152337) Phillip M. Zackler (SBN 266408) Minami Tamaki LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-4903 Kevin R. Johnson* (SBN 117535)U.C. Davis School of Law400 Mrak Hall DriveDavis, CA 95616*acting in an individual capacity,and not on behalf of the listeduniversity Attorneys for The Committee of Bar Examinersofthe State Bar of California 11 Bill Ong Hing* (SBN 61513) University of San Francisco School ofLaw 2199 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117 *acting in an individual capacity, and not on behalf of the listed university Attorneys for The Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California (cont.) Bryan Springmeyer (SBN 272597)275 Battery Street, Suite 1170San Francisco, CA 94111 12