Civil RICO suit says lawyers took fees from immigration clients who couldn't legally stay in US
A Kentucky lawyer and his associate have been named as defendants in a civil racketeering suit. It accuses them of exploiting an apparent loophole in federal immigration law and obtaining fees from clients living here illegally who didn’t qualify for the U.S. employment authorization they obtained.
Brought last month in federal court in Lexington, the suit alleges that attorneys Wael “Wally” Ahmad and Anna Garcia violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by filing forms on behalf of at least two clients—and perhaps as many as hundreds of clients—to cancel removal proceedings without an adequate factual and legal basis. A copy of the complaint (PDF), which seeks class action status, is provided by Jury Verdict Publications.
To qualify for cancellation of removal, individuals must have been in the U.S. at least 10 years continuously and have a close family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The plaintiffs did not meet these criteria, as the defendants knew, the suit says.
However, the lawyers accepted substantial fees and filed documents anyway with the Department of Homeland Security, it says. By doing so, they obtained employment authorization documents for their clients that allowed them to obtain social security numbers and driver’s licenses. But the lawyers allegedly did not complete the second step of the application process, which requires notifying the U.S. Immigration Court so that the matter can be put on a master calendar.
“[T]he class members have common rights not to be subject to predatory, false, and criminal immigration practices by the defendant attorneys,” the suit says, and have suffered damages “by paying fees for services that should not have been provided and which constitute criminal acts, and will have to suffer professional fees incurred to rectify said problems.”
The complaint also asserts causes of action for alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. It seeks treble damages and attorney’s fees and costs.
Ahmad told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he filed documents to protect clients who might subsequently become eligible through marriage or having a child with a legal U.S. resident. He said doing so preserved the rights of immigrants who are now eligible to stay under immigration policy changes announced last year and helped legal U.S. residents by allowing undocumented immigrants to drive and to work within the bounds of law.
“I don’t think I did anything unethical or illegal,” Ahmad told the newspaper.
See also:
ABAJournal.com: “Obama executive order to OK temporary stay by parents of US citizens and legal permanent residents”
ABAJournal.com: “Obama’s executive action on immigration blocked for now by federal judge”
CNN: “Appeals court drops Joe Arpaio immigration case”
