James Pittman: Welcome to Immigration Uncovered, the docketwise video podcast, where we dive deep into the dynamic world of immigration law. I'm James Pittman, cofounder of docketwise. This is episode 39, and I'm very pleased to be joined today by Jeff Joseph. He is the AILA president-elect, who will begin his term, in June 2025, as president of AILA. He's also a partner at Barry Pittman and Leiden, law firm.

James Pittman: Jeff, welcome.

Jeff Joseph: Thanks, James. I'm happy to be here, and I appreciate the invitation.

James Pittman: Yeah. So today, we're gonna be talking about what it means to be a great immigration lawyer in terms of achieving outstanding outcomes for your clients. So it's been a theme that I've, been exploring in a couple of episodes, and today, we're gonna be talking about achieving outstanding outcomes. So, Jeff, before we get into that, can you, share what initially inspired you to get involved in immigration law, and what keeps you motivated to practice in this field?

Jeff Joseph: Sure. So, I mean, it was it was a bit of happenstance. I, I wanted to be a human rights lawyer, and my grades were not good enough to get into Georgetown or Columbia or the schools that have amazing human rights programs. But I I did, find my way at University of Denver and took a lot of human rights courses and ended up in a clerkship that was, at the Center For Human Rights Advocacy. And it ended up being exclusively refugee and asylum cases and almost exclusively from the former Soviet Union. So a lot of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, a lot of gay cases, and it was great. I loved it. I loved the work. It was super interesting, but it was a lot of the same thing over and over again. It's a lot of the same stories. So I pivoted and, was going to work for the public defender's office. I was clerking for the public defender's office my last 2 years of law school. And then shortly before graduation in March, a good friend of mine, his mother is an immigration lawyer and he, you know, he said she's hiring and I know you've done a little bit, you should you should apply for a job. And so I did, I applied for a job doing corporate immigration, but I brought, you know, a trial skill set with me and Spanish fluency. So I asked her if I could build a little removal defense practice within her practice, and and she said, of course. And so I did that. And in December of 1998, after working for her for about a year and a half, I, took those removal practice clients and family clients and started my own firm in December of 1998. That's kind of how I got started, and I've been doing it ever since. I ran my own practice with my wife, Kirby Joseph, who's also an immigration lawyer for 25 years. And then 4 years ago, I got recruited by Barry Apple Midlaiten to start a Denver office. Barry Apple Midlaiten is a global corporate immigration firm. And so I'm doing mostly large scale corporate immigration.

James Pittman: Well, very interesting. It's an interesting path, and it shows you it just it goes to show you, you know, that the paths are are many. Right? You you're someone who started with interest in human rights and asylum and and and it evolved into a general expertise in immigration law that you're now applying in a business immigration context. So the the paths are many. So, you know, let's talk a little bit about, achieving outstanding outcomes for clients, which is today's topic. So in your opinion, what does it mean to be a great immigration lawyer as opposed to just an immigration lawyer?

Jeff Joseph: I think that's a fantastic question. And, you know, I think, there are certain things that we all do. Right? So we all fill out forms. We all gather supporting documents for our clients. We submit those to the government. And so there's certain things that are sort of standard across from lawyer to lawyer. And so I always think about, you know, what distinguishes me from the person right down the hall who's doing the same job that I am. And I to me, it's the customer service component of it. It's the empathy component because, you know, the forms to me is the easy part. And, frankly, in in in this environment and and where we're going to the future, that's likely to be replaced by robots and automated. And so that part of what we do is really, to me, the least valuable part of what we do. The most valuable part of what we do is holding someone's hand through that process because for the foreign nationals going through this process, whether it's a business process or a family process or removal defense, it is one of the most significant events of their life. And and so being there with them, not just as a forms processor, but as a human being with empathy and guiding them through that process, to me, is what establishes a great lawyer from an average lawyer. And and I have found that, you know, when you do that, when you approach those cases with empathy, those clients stay with you forever.

James Pittman: Yeah. I I agree with you very much, Jeff. And and the thing is with immigration law and there's a lot of aspects of it where, one's own sort of fund of knowledge above and apart from just the immigration statutes and regulations. For example, if you're if you're doing asylum cases, your your own fund of knowledge about a particular area of the world or your own innate curiosity about country conditions, your your your drive to learn about the country conditions, that that plays a a huge role in, you know, magnifying your effectiveness. Likewise, if you're doing business immigration above and apart from knowing the the regulations for an l or an h one b or an o, you know, your drive to help a business achieve a certain outcome to, optimize its ability to move its staff around, you know, from abroad to the United States and and strategizing the strategizing driven by your own curiosity and drive to achieve an outcome, I think that that goes a huge way to to magnify your effectiveness as an attorney. That's what I would add to it. What do you think about that?

Jeff Joseph: I 100% agree. I think, you know, we're not we're not in a field that's governed by decades of precedent or, you know, established law. In fact, immigration reinvests itself on a daily basis. And so, you know, for that reason, I think oftentimes, practitioners who are entering the field are on equal footing with people that have been doing this for decades because they have that natural curiosity. They have that drive to learn. They they understand that they're in a field that's constantly evolving, and so they're not hindered by decades of precedent and people, institutional knowledge. I think people entering this field can compete equally with with practitioners like me who've been doing it since 1900.

James Pittman: Right. And and and the the policies, change and the country conditions change. So in in some of these areas, the the rate of change of of circumstances and and and policies can be quick, and it requires a continuous interest in the subject matter to be motivated to get up to speed and stay on top of these changes.

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. Not only an interest, but an obligation, I think. I mean, I think, you know, it's it's really you can't really practice in the field of immigration law unless you are daily keeping up with what's happening, you know, on the ground anecdotally in your service centers, in your field offices, you know, with your clients. And so, you know, that constant information channel and and and and adapting to changes in what's happening in processing is is is really important. And I think that's where AILA comes in. I think that's where AILA as an association does a very good job keeping members prepared and ready to to best represent clients.

James Pittman: Let's talk about what it what outstanding outcomes would be. So, you know, there can be out there can be outcomes. There can be good outcomes. There can be outstanding outcomes. So when you try to think about various aspects of immigration law, and and and certainly in the business immigration context where you are now, but also in your past work in asylum, how would you differentiate what's a good outcome versus what's an outstanding outcome?

Jeff Joseph: Outcomes to me, especially in the field of immigration law, are are somewhat unpredictable, especially if you're doing removal defense. Right? Because you can prepare the best case, the best legally argued case, you know, the best evidentially prepared case. But if you have a judge that's not a good judge, then, you know, it is what it is. And so to me, it's the outcome is one thing. And, you know, obviously, you wanna strive to get as much success, as many successes for your clients as possible, but also communicating the realest the realistic situation to them. You know, the processing times, how long it's gonna take, what kind of hurdles they're gonna face, you know, what likely the government is gonna argue if they fight back. That communication channel all through the case from the beginning to the end is is to me is what really helps you achieve the the best outcome. Because even if you don't win, at the end of the day, if you have held your client's hand and communicated effectively with them and really kinda walk them through the process, then even an unsuccessful successful outcome is still gonna be a good outcome for that client because they're gonna feel like you were a partner in the in the whole process. So I think for me, communication and responsiveness to clients is really what drives positive outcomes with clients. I can tell you that here at, BAL, we actually send out an NPS survey to our clients every time we file a case. And so, you know, we're asking them to rate us under an industry standard that, you know, other industries use. And so we're able to track our customer service scores using NPS and and kind of compare ourselves to other other industry leaders. And so, you know, we we can take outcomes very, very seriously and and report back to our clients, in a tangible way so they can see.

James Pittman: Well, that's, you know, that's, a really interesting approach to it. I mean, certainly, setting client expectations is so so critical. I mean, you can have for example, in the removal context, you can have someone who's out of status, you know, and they're in removal proceedings. And, you know, getting getting proceedings closed administratively or getting them deferred action or something like that, while it's not a permanent solution, is, for a person in those circumstances, is a huge leg up. Right? It's it's it's much preferable to where they were. So, yeah, so, I mean, setting expectations and then achieving the maximum possible within the context of the expectations that you're setting, possible within the context of the expectations that you're setting, I think that's that's part of framing what would be outstanding. Would you agree with that? Absolutely. Yeah. It's it's that

Jeff Joseph: communication and,

James Pittman: you know, the

Jeff Joseph: feedback loop to the clients that they're aware of what's happening. They're aware of what the government is doing with their case. And, you know, when there's a decision, they're aware of what what that decision means and what the next steps are.

James Pittman: Let's talk about best practices, and I'm sure you have a lot of them. So can you share some of your best practices with regard to immigration law practice and and how those best practices flow into achieving successful outcomes for your clients, especially in more complex cases?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. So, I mean, I again, I think for me, it's really understanding the strategy of the case from the beginning to the end. And sometimes that strategy, you know, is gonna pivot. Right? You you know this is what's gonna happen here, and then this is what we're gonna do if that happens. So let me give you an example. Case that I'm reviewing right now on my desk today, started out as a very straightforward one step, parents of a US citizen, case. And we found out about halfway through the case that the parents are actually active members of the Chinese Communist Party. And so, obviously, that creates a problem for their case because that's, that's something that makes them inadmissible as permanent residents. And so we had to pivot, you know, and we had to sit down with the client and say, this is an issue in your case. And we had to really kind of delve into the details of what that means. And so, you know, what we found out from these clients is that they grew up very, very poor, and that the only way to really gain meaningful employment is through education and through James. And that is really managed by the government, by the Chinese Communist Party. And so, you know, you kinda have to commit to the Chinese Communist Party to get into school. You have to commit to the Chinese Communist Party to get the best paying jobs and to stay in those jobs and to avoid harassment. And so, you know, the first exception to that ground of ineligibility is if you can show that the membership in the Communist Party was neither voluntary nor meaningful. And, you know, so we're we're submitting evidence to show that this is required for their job, that they only went to the mandatory meetings. They never participated in party activities. In fact, they espoused democracy. They tried to go come to the United States to go to school and were just simply not able to afford it. The great part of this case is they set their daughter. They raised enough money to send their daughter to the United States, who's educated in the US, joined the US military, and then got her citizenship through the military, through the MAVNI program. So it's a really compelling case of even though these parents have this wrinkle, they're they have raised their daughter to be the ultimate demonstration of patriotism, democracy, and commitment to the United States. So we're going into this arguing that their their membership was neither meaningful nor voluntary. But the truth is they just gave it up before they came to the United States. So we we have some negative factors. And so I have been very communicative with the clients that this argument that this was made not voluntary and meaningful may not survive, may not may not carry the day. And if it doesn't, then the next move is we have to file a waiver. In order to get that waiver, we have to show that, you know, in in its interest of the family unity and humanitarian reasons to get this waiver. And then even if we don't win that waiver, they're gonna be put in removal proceedings. But after 5 years, if you haven't been a member of the party for 5 years, then it's no longer grounded in eligibility. So I have basically walked the clients through, you know, step by step. If this, then this. If this, then this. And so that's an example of, like, really sitting down with the clients at the very beginning and saying, you know, here's how we could win. And if we don't win, here's the next step.

James Pittman: If we don't win

Jeff Joseph: that, here's the next step. So that they really truly understand the trajectory and the timeline for how this is gonna take the case forward.

James Pittman: Jeff, I used to do almost the exact same thing. I used to game it out really visually for the clients, the the various road maps, the road map the road map of the case and what the twists and turns could be. And I actually used to portray that visually, you know, either on a piece of paper or on a on a dry erase board. You know? Here here we are, and we're trying to get here, and could go this way. It could go this way. If it goes this way, then this could happen, that could happen, and so forth. So I think that that's, you know, that's it it it strikes it strikes home, what what you're saying, and it's an interesting very interesting story. So, yeah, best practice, definitely outline the road map of the case, in detail and what all of the twists and turns could be, so that clients know what to expect. Now how about client relationships? In terms of, you know, greatness and outstanding outcomes, how important is building strong relationships with the clients? You've you've already talked about the importance of the communication. So are there any other strategies that you use to increase the the trust? I mean, maybe some practical things, or or just an angle that you you take or a philosophical approach to trust and communication with the view toward building strong relationships.

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. I would say a couple of things. I mean, especially in the corporate side, you're building relationships at different levels. So you've got relationships with the foreign nationals who are, you know, moving to the United States or relocating globally. But you also have your relationships to your global mobility managers, the people that are actually managing the immigration programs within these companies.

Jeff Joseph: And so, you know, you're having regular calls with global mobility professionals to kinda talk about their program, to talk about what's happening with the cases, to talk about how to move the program forward or elevate Pittman, make it better. And so, you know, if you're doing regularly calls regular calls with these people every other week or once a month, you you do create a relationship. You create a friendship with, with these these professionals that you work with. And so, you know, that's that relationship, that friendship creates the trust so that, a, you know, you're not being micromanaged at every level and you're not micromanaging the client at every level. There's a there's a level of trust that we know what we're doing and we've kind of given each other space to do our roles. But also if there's a mess up, which isn't ultimately gonna happen. If there's a mistake, there's a level of trust and honesty where you can go back and be vulnerable and admit it and talk about how you're gonna fix it and talk about how you're how you're gonna prevent it from happening in the future. That also requires, communication and trust. And, you know, if you don't have that, if you don't have that relationship and trust and you make a mistake, the client is more likely to move on and go to the next person, the next lawyer. So that trust and that relationship and that honesty and vulnerability, I think, helps cement, the relationship going forward.

James Pittman: Alright. Well, let's, segue segue just bit and talk about technology technological advances. This is it's huge it's huge for for me because of my, role as a cofounder of DocuWise. But in in in in the practice of immigration law, I mean, how do you see legal tech changing the practice from your vantage point, and what tools or innovations do you believe are important for immigration lawyers to use to become successful? So what are your what are your, greatest hits in terms of things you really shouldn't be doing without these days?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. I mean, I will tell you that I have you know, I've been doing this now since 1997, and I have never seen a more rapid pace of technological changes we have right now. And my son starts law school next week, and I told him, I was like, you need to make sure that you're entering fields of law where human beings are relevant and necessary and can't be replaced by robots. And, you know, I think there I think the truth is that a lot of work that we do, the realistic situation is that it's going to be replaced by technology. Filling out forms, a lot of transactional stuff that we do can be done very easily, by technology. And I think your company is doing that. I know my law firm is doing that with our own patented internal technology. You know, the truth is robots are the way of the future, in in the legal field. So the question is, where what is the role of the lawyer and paralegal, in a universe where a lot of our work is gonna be done by, you know, robots? And I think that's, again, where relationship and communication and strategy and knowledge and empathy. You know, those are the things that can't be replaced by a robot. And so I don't think that lawyers or paralegals are going away, but I do think our rules are gonna change significantly. Definitely, we're we're gonna be, you know, the source of expertise, the the source of truth, the source of strategy, the source of empathy and emotion. And so customer service is gonna be much, much more important in what we do and it's going to be much more of a market differentiator than it is now. So, you know, the importance of technology, it's absolutely critical. You know, and I think immigration lawyers especially get really comfortable using, you know, one product. Right? They'll they'll stick with one product forever, and it's it's there's this fear of advancing or moving or changing technology. And in my opinion, that's a that's a significant weakness. You have to be willing to adapt and grow and change and, you know, you know more than I do, I'm sure, about what's next on the horizon.

Jeff Joseph: But, you know, I can tell you that even, you know, even communications right now are being done by robots. You know, if we have enough information in our database, 90% of communication can be done and filtered by a chatbot. So

James Pittman: Yeah. The AI I mean, the the having the AI, in terms of the research, its ability to do research on the statutes, the case law, you know, having to worry about jeopardizing cases be a thing of the past. I mean, these you know, it, it is a thing of the past, but, I mean, your entire research process and then taking your research findings, synthesizing them and, you know, analogizing them to the fact pattern at hand and then your document creation, you know, all of that's gonna be be done with AI.

Jeff Joseph: I do think there's a huge ethical,

James Pittman: you

Jeff Joseph: know, discussion that sort of surrounds and envelops this issue too because, you know, it's gonna be really easy in the future to put something in the computer and say, please draft me a motion on, you know, x, y, or z and for AI to pump out the motion. But it is your license on the line when you submit it to court, not the computer's license. And so the ethical issues of making sure that, you know, you're doing an argument that is actually legally valid, that it's been properly researched and vetted, and that you're not just submitting something that's popped out from a computer is gonna be a huge ethical challenge for lawyers going forward.

James Pittman: Yeah. Jeff, it's it's, it's something which I've been delving into quite a bit, and I've actually, been active in encouraging practitioners to get involved in the, evolving ethical discussion, because there are various state bars that have come out with, guidelines and best practices, on the use of AI. There's there are, some projects underway. Like, for example, Duke Law School has a James initiative, which is responsible is Rails standing for responsible AI usage and legal services, and they have a kind of a tracking database where they are monitoring court by court, you know, standing orders that are coming out. Standing orders are coming out from federal and state courts. They're coming out from federal and state agencies. They're coming out from courts in other countries, and those are compiled in the James database. So getting involved in the committees and the task forces that have been set up by the various bar associations and having, one's voice heard because now is the time when the contours of these rules are being hashed out, and we want, you know, as many practitioners as possible to add your voice. Don't leave it just to a few people who are passionate. You know? Get get involved in it. But, certainly, that yeah. What you said, I mean, it implicates a number of existing ethical rules. Right? The the the duty of competence, and among many others to be competent in using the technology, candor, to the tribunal. Right? I mean, all of these things are implicated when you're you're talking about creating a brief, creating a motion, or other document, that you're gonna file with with the court or with the government, and making sure that that has been thoroughly checked for its accuracy. Yeah. Well, all of that's implicated. So it's something we can you know, I hope that you when you when you are installed as president of AILA, I hope that that's something that you're also gonna have a chance to lean into. Certainly, AILA's already involved in the debate, but, hopefully, you will lean into that as well. And, you know, I welcome the chance to get to get more involved in any initiatives that that, you know, you might, advance during your time, as president of Aylo.

Jeff Joseph: We would love to have you. You're certainly an expert in the field, and so that's definitely something that I would love to rely on you for.

James Pittman: Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm looking I'm looking forward to it. Absolutely. Let's talk a little bit about, the, let's say, the let's extend our discussion of the ethics. And so, Jeff, for you as a practitioner, how would you describe your ethical mindset as it pertains to law practice, and how does that contribute to your ability to be a great immigration lawyer and achieve outstanding outcomes? You know, how how do you go about keeping the ethical principles in mind?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. I mean, I think the good news about the law profession is that ethics is not optional. Right? I mean, it is it is something that we all in order to keep our licenses, we have to keep up with the rules of professional conduct. We are under every state has specific rules that you have to follow regarding, professional conduct. And if you don't follow those rules, anyone, client, other lawyers, the courts, the judges, can sanction you for not following those rules, and you can use your license. So in the field of immigration, especially, I think, when you're dealing with really super vulnerable populations that a lot of them don't understand the US legal system. They're they're used to operating in legal systems that are very, very different than ours that often involve bribery, corruption, etcetera, etcetera. It is super important that you stay above above the board with everything you do, that you make honest representations to the court, that you make sure that your clients are constantly telling the truth. There's there's a lot of fraud in immigration applications, and, you know, I have found it in my own cases. And it's important that you understand, a, what happens if you discover fraud, b, what to do about it, you know, what your obligations are if you discover it, and and c, how to handle it with the client. You know, and so things like that, things like, dual representation, a lot of cases in immigration require you to represent 2 different parties. You know, a a husband and a wife petitioner and beneficiary, or a company and a foreign national employee. And oftentimes those can create very tricky ethical situations. You know, if you are representing a couple that is going for on a marriage petition, and suddenly that marriage becomes abusive, you have a conflict of interest. You can no longer effectively represent 1 party, because doing so may implicate at the expense of the other. And so those are the kind of situations you constantly have to be attuned to and aware of, and know what to do if that comes up in the practice. Same thing on the employment side. You know, I have all the time, I have employees that call me and say, I got a job offer from another employer. What do I do? Well, you know, I don't just represent you. I also represent the employer that you're thinking about jumping ship from. And so, you know, those kind of discussions become very, very tricky ethically, and how you handle them are governed by principles of professional conduct you kinda have to follow. So it's not optional. It's, something we all need to be aware of, and it's something that's also constantly evolving. You know, we mentioned AI and the the world of AI that that that really turns the rules of ethics upside down when it comes to what we file in court and the representations we make because it's no longer our product. It's a product that's being produced by, you know, computers. So you're still responsible for it from a professional context.

James Pittman: You know, it's what elevates the profession above any other purely transactional business, is is the ethical canon. You know, you can't just, I mean, certainly, you can be aggressive in your marketing, but you can't just be a salesman. The ethical guidelines have to be kept in mind from, from all of your with regard to your advertising, with regard to all of your contacts with the clients, all the way through, even after representation of the client in terms of maintaining confidentiality. So embrace it as what I what I'm driving at. I mean, I'm saying embrace it. Embrace the fact that there's an ethical canon and that it is something that makes the profession more noble. It elevates it above just a purely business activity, and it is, it it it underlines, and it is an integral aspect of why the legal profession and the legal system is is fundamental to a democratic society, a healthy society, a society governed by the rule of law, right, not not whims of of particular leaders or or powerful or influential people. So embrace that because you, as an individual lawyer, embracing the ethical canon strengthens the profession, which in turn strengthens the legal system and makes the quality of life in the society better. That's what I said.

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. And the other thing I would say is, you know, we are we're about to hit 18,000 members in AILA, immigration lawyers around the country, which sounds like a lot of people, but it's actually not. It's actually a very, very small bar association compared to, you know, the criminal defense bar, the trial lawyers bar. And so, you know, the size of our bar makes ethics very, very important because if you, if you establish yourself as a distrustful lawyer or dishonest lawyer, that reputation is gonna follow you very, very quickly. And the same if you establish yourself as an ethical principled lawyer, that is also gonna establish a reputation very, very quickly. And so, in a bar like ours, it's it's really easy to establish yourself as one of the best because it's a small bar, and it's also really easy to ruin your reputation. So it's not optional. Ethics, like you said, is is it elevates the practice. It's something we should aspire to, and it makes us all better. It James the profession better.

James Pittman: It it it does indeed. Well, Jeff, you have to be persistent to be a great lawyer. That's sure. So let's talk about handling adversity and and or how how do you handle situations where you have a case that's perhaps high stakes or where the the potential negative consequence to the client is, very impactful, potentially devastating even in some cases, and, you know, you get an adverse decision. You know, how do you how do you approach dealing with that, with the client?

Jeff Joseph: Well, I mean, they happen. Right? I mean, we we all get adverse decisions. The hope is that when you get an adverse decision that there's some remedy. And so, you know, one of the things that I've made a part of my portfolio for my clients is federal court. So, you know, oftentimes when you're dealing with the agency, you get adverse decisions because those adjudicators are, not lawyers. They're often contract adjudicators. They're may or may not be highly sophisticated in the petition. So you're gonna get decisions, but most often there's a remedy. There's an appellate remedy, either in the agency or if it, if there's not an appellate remedy with the agency, there's often the opportunity to go outside of the agency and go to federal court. And the federal court is independent of, immigration, right? There are, judges that are appointed to do all kinds of cases, one of which may be a civil immigration case. And so we, when we get adverse decisions, we're pretty aggressive about going to federal court to challenge them if we think that the agency, you know, ignored evidence in the record or, you know, their decision is contrary to previous decisions that we've received. We will aggressively go to court. And, I would say we've had a very, very good success rate getting agency decisions overturned when they, you know, make a decision that's arbitrary capricious. So, you know, we're pretty aggressive about fighting denials, and have had good success in federal court with that.

James Pittman: Well, certainly, you have to be persistent. And do you believe that having a very high degree of persistence is a prerequisite to being a great immigration lawyer?

Jeff Joseph: I do. Because, you know, if you don't if you can't handle adversity and you're not resilient to, you know, backlogs and timelines and client disappointment and adverse decisions, this is definitely the wrong field for you. And and, you know, oftentimes that's politically driven. Right? So depending on the administration and power, things get more difficult or easier to do. So right now, we see, you know, in this administration, we we see, you know, things like deference to prior decisions. So if you've received a prior approval of a case, there's deference to that case. In previous administrations, that the deference didn't exist. So it didn't matter if you had a previous approval. There was no deference to that approval in a subsequent application. And so even the policy of the administration can, in in in many ways determine the outcomes and and the ways that we have to fight the case. So, you know, depending on what happens with our upcoming elections, I think immigration could get much more challenging.

James Pittman: I'm of the opinion that the the best the best immigration lawyers and the best lawyers in general are those who are willing to pursue all available remedies to their end. I mean, even if it's a a glimmer of of hope, you know, the one never knows, really, until the decision is rendered, you know, whether whether one, is gonna succeed or not. So, you know, sometimes there might be glimmer of hope. You you you may get an adverse decision. There may be a a basis for a a non if it's a non frivolous, genuine basis for an appeal, even if the chance of success is is low, if there's an argument to be made, if there's, some argument or evidence to be put forward, and there's no practical, you know, countervailing consideration. In other words, the client the costs or whatever the client can meet the costs of of of going ahead and and filing an appeal, filing a motion to reopen, you know, you you have to be willing to fight for those glimmers of hope. That that distinguishes being great from being just ordinary, in my opinion.

Jeff Joseph: Absolutely. And I think if it's a civil rights issue, which, you know, oftentimes we see in immigration is is things that actually become a civil rights issue. You know, the example now is the enormous backlog of Afghan parole cases. There's 40,000 cases in the backlog, and it takes several years to get approved. At that point, that becomes a civil rights issue. And even if you don't have a really strong case to take to court, there's a compelling civil rights reason to do it, because it forces awareness and visibility over something that should not be happening. And some of the best cases in history have come out not because there was an amazing legal theory or it was a slam dunk case, but because it was something that needed to be fought. And I think we definitely see that in immigration, and and I am happy to take cases, you know, to court that even if I don't think there's a strong chance to win, it's the right thing to do because it's a civil rights affair.

James Pittman: Well, let me ask you this question. And, what are your thoughts on the current state of the federal judiciary in terms of its receptiveness to immigration cases, maybe both at the supreme court level and at the other levels of the federal court system. I mean, do you do you think that, the general, let's say, right word drift of the courts in recent years, especially at the Supreme Court, But, you know, we've had, we let's say the Trump admin 1st Trump administration had quite an opportunity to install a large number of federal judges. Yeah. Do you what's your overall appraisal of the climate in the courts regarding immigration?

Jeff Joseph: That's a really interesting question. So here here's how I would answer it on several levels. I would say, first, one of the things that we often do in immigration is what we call a writ of mandamus, which is to when the agency is significantly delaying cases, you can go to court and say this delay is unreasonable. I would say the courts are much more hesitant to grant those cases than they were in the past. The agency has given a lot of leeway, to to determine the pace of adjudication. And so we have seen the courts fight back on delays of even 3 4 years for cases. Have been pending. So, you know, that's the first thing I would say is that that that part of the practice has become much more challenging, the the ribbon mandate is. In terms of the Supreme Court, though, it's a mixed bag, because, the Supreme Court, the conservative Supreme Court justices, when we say that they're conservative, what they're conservative about is their own judicial power. They're conservative about their ability to maintain control over things. And so when Trump appointed conservative justices, the result was they fight back against his overreach. They fight back against government overreach because they wanna conserve judicial power to review administrative decisions. And so this Supreme Court, and I think the more conservative this court gets, the more we're going to see them pushing back on executive executive overreach and the agency doing things without legislation. On the other hand, a lot of immigration decisions are discretionary. Pittman of status, for example, getting a green card at the end of the day, even if you prove all the legal requirements, there's still a discretionary component to adjustment of status. We've seen the Supreme Court and other courts really push back on challenging discretionary decisions. There's almost no judicial review of discretionary decisions anymore, unless you can frame it as a legal legal decision, you're really not going to get judicial review. And it becomes a gateway issue. Right? If if adjustment is ultimately discretionary, then it becomes very hard to even get in the door to federal court to to get the court to assume jurisdiction over the case. So it's a mixed bag for me. I think, you know, in terms of fighting back at the agency at the supreme court level, I think that's gonna be easier to do because of the the the judges are gonna be pushing it back back against executive overreach. But when it comes to things like discretionary determinations, it's gonna be much harder, to go into court and saying this still is.

James Pittman: Now how about the demise of Chevron deference? I mean, what's your what's your appraisal at this point and where it's just happened recently? Your appraisal as to how that's likely to play out, and and what do you foresee as some of the major ramifications on immigration decisions?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. So the Loper Bright case, which finally overruled Chevron, is kind of exhibit a of what I'm talking about in terms of conservative, conserving judicial power because, essentially, the whole point of Loper Bright is the agencies know we're not we're not going to defer to the agency any longer if there's something that's confusing in the statute or unclear in the statute. The courts are going to make a determination on their own now and they're not going to defer to agency interpretation and that's conserving judicial power. So, I love it from an immigration standpoint because the cases that we ultimately end up having to fight in court are those cases where, ultimately, the the courts have deferred to agency interpretations.

James Pittman: Yeah. There's something to be said for agency expertise, though.

Jeff Joseph: That's what I was gonna say. That's where I was going with this is, you know, we like to see ourselves as the expert in immigration. But if we if we shifted agencies and made this about the EPA, for example, that's an area where we really want the EPA to be the agencies that it's referred to in in in matters of determining what's good for the environment. Right? So whether or not Chevron going away is good, I think depends on whether you like the agency and the work that they're doing at that moment. So it's sort of politically driven just like everything else.

James Pittman: You you've really captured it. You know, you've kind of you you know, you've captured, I think, the right framing of it is I I had such intense mixed feelings about the demise of Chevron deference. You know, on the one hand, right, there are issues. There are agencies and there are are are fields where the decisions that have to be be made are of such a technical nature. Like, you mentioned the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, some of these other areas that involve deep scientific and tech technical expertise that the judges simply don't have, and they can't, practically speaking, get up to a a a level of expertise necessary to really kind of take into consideration everything that should be taken into consideration when rendering a decision. That is my that is my view of it. And in those instances, I think that the deference to the agency, which has the in house PhDs, has the people with the PhDs in biology, pharmacology, all those things, are in a better position to to make the rules and and and and make the decisions, and the judges can can defer to that. On the other hand, like, immigration is not one of those areas. And immigration, it's it's oftentimes we're just rubber stamping what the agency did, and the agency, may not have given the issue that much thought really because of the exigencies of running the agency, or because of political considerations within the agency and and sort of subjective policy determinations that are, you know, sort of top down, here's how we're gonna handle this issue, may not have been, you know, may not have been a policy which was the most just policy, in the first place, and those were being rubber stamped by the courts. So, you know, a Chevron Chevron deference was maybe too broad of a framework or too a framework to which lacked nuance. A better framework that that incorporated more nuance would have said, you know, we'll defer to the agency when it's matters of particular types of technical expertise, and we won't defer to it when it's not. But that's not what we have right now. We have right now, we have we're back to a sort of maximalist. I don't know. Maybe that's not the right word, but more of a conservative, as you said, conserving judicial power rather than giving any other way to the executive branch agencies. My concern is that the conservative framework will become what I just started saying, which is a maximalist framework. That's, I think, where we get into problems. So, I wonder, and I don't know the answer, but I wonder if any thinkers, legal thinkers have give really come out with a framework that is more nuanced to to really look across the various agencies and say, well, in this instance, we should have deference. In this instance, we should not have deference. I wonder if there are any theoretical frameworks that have come out that, you know, one could advocate for advocate for maybe maybe you know But

Jeff Joseph: we still have Skidmore deference. Right? So Skidmore is still good law, and Skidmore is sort of like Chev Chevron once removed. And so, you know, the idea with Skidmore is we will defer to the agency if it's if it's a matter over which the agency has particular expertise as one of the factors in Skidmore, or it's an an issue on which the agency has a history of pronouncement where that is consistent. In other words, they've taken the same consistent position historically. They're more likely to get deference, or if it's a published opinion, relying on a published opinion from the agency, that it's more likely to get deference. So that framework where there are certain circumstances where we will defer to the agency still exists. So I think, you know, what's left open to see is whether, okay, Chevron goes away. We're not gonna automatically defer to agencies any longer. But in particular instances, we may defer to the agency, and here's those instances where we would do that. That that's the Skidmore framework.

James Pittman: So the foundation of what I'm talking about is there. I guess what has to be done now is really advocate when when trying James, really advocate, for particular interpretations of the Skidmore framework and whether an agency does have the expertise that's mentioned in Skidmore. So it's a question of building up the foundation in Skidmore by trying more and more cases where where precedents can be set and where doctrine can evolve in a way that creates a framework, a more developed framework out of Skidmore. Now that's, you know, that's that's that depends on people being willing to try those cases and make those strong arguments to help, you know, develop that framework and and make it evolve into doctrine. Also depends on who the judges are and whether they're going to, to allow that to happen. But, but, yeah, I'm I'm glad that you, sort of elucidated that about Skidmore. I mean, I have I have my concerns. I mean, I just you know, I wanna make sure we're talking about air and water and food, you know, air and water quality, food safety that we have Yes. Drug safety that we really do have actual science people

Jeff Joseph: Experts.

James Pittman: You know, make experts making those decisions. Yeah. Okay. Well, let's we've we've kinda beat that one a little bit. Let's talk about let's let's let's talk into, talk about mentorship and collaboration.

James Pittman: So mentorship is really important, in becoming an an outstanding lawyer, an outstanding immigration lawyer. So how important has mentorship both both early on receiving it and now later at the stage that you're at providing mentorship, been to you, as a great immigration lawyer?

Jeff Joseph: Well, I think it's a 100% critical. You know, I think, a, one of one of the things that I think is one of the most important parts of my job as an incoming AILA president is to identify and recognize and promote good talent in our organization. You know, I mentioned the size of our organization is 17,900. That being said, it it still very much feels small. You know, when you go to an AILA conference, you run into people in the halls everywhere that you know. And so one of the challenges, I think, is is continuing to to recognize and bring up new talent because I'm old and, you know, I'm I'm exiting my career at this point, and and we need new new a l o lawyers to come in and take in the reins and take the organization and the practice of law forward. And so mentorship to me is really critical to the future of what we do. And so, I, you know, I can say that, you know, personally, I had amazing mentors that recognized particular talents that I had and encouraged me to to speak at AILA conferences. You know, I I happen to be before I went into the practice of law, I clerked for the public defender's office. So I had some expertise in in criminal defense and trial. And, that, you know, shortly before I graduated in in 1996 is when president Clinton passed Ira Ira, which sort of exploded the criminal grounds of deportation and inadmissibility. And so I was immediately identified by my mentors as an expert in crimigration, the intersection of criminal immigration, and was asked to speak locally and and nationally on the criminal implications of immigration. And that recognition and that promotion of talent is really what elevated me to leadership in AVA. You know, from there, I was encouraged to run for my chapter, the Colorado chapter as an officer, and then ultimately for the board of governors, and and and now I'm obviously on the executive committee. But without that that identification of talent and that mentorship and that encouragement to actually do my you know, hone hone my skills and and promote them, I I wouldn't be where I would have done. So to me, it's, you know, looking back at those mentors and appreciating where how where they've gotten me, and then in turn, paying it forward, and mentoring other lawyers and and recognizing their talents is also really, really important. And I would say that, you know, in the world of the law, it's not just you're it's not you're not just a one trick pony. Right? There are some people that really love trial law. There are the others that really love government liaison. There are others that really like well-being. Whatever your passion is, whatever you have to contribute, do it. You know? Bring it to the table because our our association has a big enough tent to recognize all talents and promote all talents. So, I encourage people all the time to reach out to me and tell me, you know, here's here's what I here's what I bring to the table and how I'd love to get involved. And I I promise you that I will find a way to to get you involved in the organization.

James Pittman: Fantastic. And that's a great segue into what I wanted to ask you next. So if we can zoom out a little bit. And you're the president-elect of Aylen. As we said, you'll be installed in June. Can you give us a sneak peek as to what your primary goals and vision, for the organization will be once you are installed?

Jeff Joseph: Yes. With a caveat. I'm gonna put a big caveat on this because it depends entirely on what happens November 4th. -Sure. -Um, so, if we have a Trump administration, my, my entire presidency is going to be devoted to fighting back against that administration, opposing that administration, and all that they do to restrict legal immigration.

James Pittman: And how do you plan to do that?

Jeff Joseph: We're gonna go to court. You know, during the last administration, I'm proud to say that I filed 12 different class action law suits against the Trump administration. I was successful on every single one of them. We you know, it was it was the time when they were there were travel bans around the country, and the president was interpreting the statute to give him authority to shut down visa processing at consulates around the world. And we knew that that was wrong. That's not what the statute said, and we challenged it. And we went to court in DC and and filed a number of class action lawsuits that got those consulates reopened and processing pieces again. And that's exactly what I intend to do if Trump's elected again is we're not gonna sit by for 4 years and let him destroy the legal immigration system. We will go to court and we'll aggressively challenge every every restriction on the immigration that he puts in place. If Trump's not elected, then, you know, I I I would say that we're gonna do I I'm going to internal focus internally at AILA, because to me, it's an amazing organization, and we're kind of at a pivotal point where, you know, we've talked about technology, we've talked about membership, And I I think the future of AILA is is really, really bright. And so I would be focusing internally on our committee structure, our governance structure, the way that we're organized to try and move the organization forward and make it better. So it's either gonna be an external focus or an internal focus of an entirely it entirely depends on, Trump.

James Pittman: How would you plan to increase member engagement in AILA?

Jeff Joseph: Great question. I think part of it is, new talent. You know, we are blessed with really, really amazing, lawyers who are very, very dedicated to the practice of law and, and continue to be dedicated. But the problem is is that when you rely on the same pool of talent to speak and to be on committees and to do government liaison work, then you're not fostering new talent. And so for me, there's a lot of reasons from both the DEI perspective, but also just the future of our organization perspective to get new people in the pipeline on committees, doing liaison work, speaking at conferences. So, you know, for me, member engagement is, is first about recognizing, promoting, and bringing in new talent and then it's about creating community, a sense of community. You know, I think, people don't just want to come to AILA to learn, they want to feel, feel like they're part of a community of people that understand what they do. Immigration law is not easy to do every day and being about around people who understand the complexity of what we do and the emotions involved in what we do is really, really important. And so building that sense of community, allowing people to find friendships and partnerships and colleagues that share common interests is is really, really important. And so, you know, this may sound silly and trivial, but, we just, AILA just approved a special interest group for Bravo fans, people that love to watch Bravo reality TV. And that may sound trivial, but it was interesting at the annual conference, they had a happy hour, it was extremely well attended, and, you know, and there's a whole community around it. And so we're looking outside in in AILA and saying, you know, whatever you wanna do, whatever interests you, bring it to the table, and we'll we'll make it happen for you. So really just trying to create community and and engagement.

James Pittman: So how about with, legislative and policy advocacy? Now now not we talked about, you know, if Trump wins, you're gonna engage in litigation. We said that. But in terms of advocacy, so what are your thoughts on AILA's role in shaping immigration policy, and how would you strengthen that during your tenure as president? Maybe you wanna talk about, you know, what you would do differently if Trump got elected versus if Harris gets elected.

Jeff Joseph: Sure. So, the board of governors last year, authorized, AILA to get involved in political engagement. And so for the first time in history, we created a a committee on political engagement. Its primary job is to really get, local AILA members involved in local politics, either by running for office or by, promoting candidates locally. And, you know, our organization, the legal structure of our organization does allow us to sponsor and promote candidates. So we created a political engagement committee that's going to take a really active role next year in, promoting local races, races where candidates support comprehensive immigration reform and reform that makes sense. It's the first time we've done that because, you know, there's always been a hesitancy to support candidates on one issue when we may not support them on other issues, right? So, you know, Republicans, for example, may be really, really good on immigration, but not good on other issues that we're passionate about. And so we decided, to basically create a strategy where we make it about immigration. You know, we're gonna support a candidate. We're we're really just looking at their immigration record, and we're sort of, not paying attention to other issues that may be packed other members the members may be passionate about. And so, political engagement is gonna definitely be on the uptick. The other thing that we we have in AILA is we have immigrants list, which is, a partner organization that is basically, you know, a lobbying organization for pro immigrant candidates. And so, Immigrants List is is really formalizing the relationship with AILA, and we've done a lot of work to support pro immigrant candidates in in this year, in this election cycle, and in past elections.

James Pittman: And, Jeff, as you as you approach getting installed as the president of AILA, how will you balance your roles as a partner at Berry Pittman and Layton versus your work with AILA? I mean, will you continue to have a a full docket of cases at the firm, or if you don't mind my asking?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. I mean, I would say, you know, Barry Appleman Leiden has been incredibly supportive of the work that I'm doing in AILA. And, the the Leiden part of Barry Appleman Leiden is a former AILA president, and so the the firm has a history of leadership in AILA and, you know, they understand what it means to be president of AILA, and they've been unbelievably supportive. I also think that, you know, there's obvious collateral advantages to the law firm of having somebody in leadership. You know, I I I definitely have my pulse on what's happening in the government, and so there's definitely advantages to the firm as well. As far as time management, it it does get a little tricky, I'll be honest with you, because this year and next year become very, very busy for, for me as president-elect and president. And so, it's it's a it's a matter more of just really organizing my time. You know, I I I definitely have carve outs for my AILA time and carve outs for for work, and, I have to be really disciplined about making that happen. But so far, it hasn't been it hasn't been a problem. And I can say that, you know, there are there are a number of AILA presidents who didn't work for big firms, really sole practitioners, and they were able to make it happen. And so if the sole practitioner can make it happen, I know that I can make it happen with

James Pittman: Let's just talk about legacy. So when all is said and done, I mean, are you have you given any thoughts to, like, what is the legacy that you wanna leave in the field of immigration law? I guess probably an evolving question because I you're gonna be regardless of which candidate wins, it's going to be a very momentous tenure that you have because of the the importance of immigration as a as a political issue right now in the United States. Now if Trump gets elected, you're you're gonna be in you're gonna be in such a hot seat, that you have the the you're gonna have the opportunity to be so high profile and and have such such an impact, I believe. And and and you still could if if Harris gets elected, but in a in a different way.

James Pittman: But, anyway, it, have you given any thoughts to, like, what's the legacy that you see for you see yourself leading in the field of immigration law?

Jeff Joseph: Yeah. I mean, I would say if if I want to leave a legacy, it's gonna be in federal litigation. Something I've always been passionate about. It's something I've always done since the beginning of my career. And, you know, for me, it's it's a way to really change the law, to change the trajectory of of what's happening and and change the law. And so for me, if Trump gets elected, I want my legacy to be that when I people look back to say that, you know, Jeff Joseph really fought this administration as hard as he could on behalf of our organization and was victorious in in fighting back on, you know, illegal activities and in in restrictionist activities. So for me, it would be really, you know, that I represented members well and that they are, you know, that they they are appreciative of the work that I did to fight back against the administration. If Harris gets elected, then it's it's more about cementing the relationships that we've created the past 4 years. For the first time in in in really A list history, we have we have insiders at the White House. We have former A list staffers that work in the White House. We have former a list staffers that are in, you know, the highest levels of, committees in in in commerce. And so we really have cemented really good relationships and have been able to do a lot of really good work, in liaison over the past 4 years. And so, you know, if Harris gets elected, then I, you know, I would love my legacy to be that we really created relationships with the government that are that are turmoil and lasting.

James Pittman: Wonderful. Let's let's let's hope, that that happens for the the good of the immigration bar. And, we got we're gonna think positively, and we only have a few months left. And it things are things are looking up. Right? Things are looking up. But that is, all the time that we have today, and it's been really a fascinating discussion, with Jeff Joseph, who is a partner at Berry Pittman and Leyden based in Denver, Colorado. And Jeff is the, AILA president-elect. He'll be installed as the new president in June 2025. And this is James Pittman with Immigration Uncovered. So please join us again next time for our next episode. And, Jeff, thank you very, very much for joining us and for your time today.

Jeff Joseph: It was super fun. Thanks for doing it, James.

‍