Rollins v. State

2004 Ga. LEXIS 1

January 12, 2004

The Defendant Petitioner, Michele Yearwood Rollins, a native of Barbados, was convicted on a guilty plea of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act after a DUI arrest lead to a subsequent search that revealed trace amounts of cocaine in her purse. 

Pursuant to her counsel’s advice, the Petitioner entered a plea and was treated as a First Offender.  The Petitioner continued to live in the United States and attained an Associate degree, a double-major Bachelor degree, and a Juris Doctor degree.  After graduating from law school, she took and passed the Florida State bar exam.  After obtaining a copy of her First Offender guilty plea, however, the INS instituted deportation proceedings and the Florida State Bar holds its decision in abeyance of whether to admit her to the bar.

The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on grounds of ineffective assistance of plea counsel.  The Georgia Superior Court denied her petition.  The Petitioner then filed an application for certificate of probable cause with the Supreme Court of Georgia to appeal the denial of the petition. 

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that (1) her counsel's affirmative misrepresentations that she would suffer no negative consequences from pleading guilty was sufficient to warrant review of claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) her counsel's failure to conduct simple research regarding the consequences of pleading guilty fell below the reasonable person standard; and (3) but for her counsel's affirmative misrepresentations, the Petitioner would not have pleaded guilty, but would have demanded trial.

*****

Muhur v. Ashcroft

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

2004 US App. LEXIS 759

January 20, 2004

Yordanos Muhur appealed a removal order following the denial of her request for asylum.  The Seventh Circuit, with Circuit Judge Posner writing the opinion, reversed and remanded the decision.

Muhur, who was born in Eritrea, became a Jehovah’s Witness in 1992 after moving to Ethiopia.  She later married a Muslim Ethiopian who converted to the Jehovah’s Witness faith in order to marry her.  The couple then moved to Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law deems it a capital offense for a Muslim to convert to another religion.  Muhur’s husband returned to Islam and attempted to force his wife to do the same and “behave like a Muslim wife.”  At this point, Muhur got a visitor’s visa to go to the United States, where her family had already immigrated.  She then applied for asylum.

Judge Posner noted evidence that Eritrea persecutes Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Muhur, who has Ethiopian citizenship, could return to Ethiopia, which does not discriminate against Jehovah’s Witnesses.  But since a recent war between the two countries, Ethiopia discriminates against individuals of Eritrea ethnicity.  Due to these circumstances, Muhur was concerned that removal to Ethiopia would immediately put her back in Eritrea, where she would not be allowed to openly practice her religion.  While the immigration judge passed over this concern, the Court of Appeals thoroughly considered this possibility.

The immigration judge did not find that Muhur was a Jehovah’s Witness, but he also did not find that she is not.  He stated that she did not provide adequate details of her faith, nor did she provide evidence that she was persecuted while she was in Eritrea.  As Judge Posner points out, Muhur did not join the faith until she moved to Ethiopia.  Therefore, she did not have an opportunity to be persecuted in Eritrea.  Also, the Court of Appeals doubted the importance that the immigration judge and asylum officer placed on Muhur’s knowledge of specific details of her religion.  Judge Posner pointed to the fact that many religious people, even Roman Catholics, are not likely to know who founded their church or have an identification card from the church. 

However, the biggest problem that Judge Posner noted with the immigration judge’s decision was the IJ’s decision that one is not entitled to a claim of asylum on the basis of religious persecution if one can escape the notice of the persecutors by concealing one’s religion.  The Court of Appeals opinion detailed how this idea would mean that Christians were not prosecuted in the Roman Empire because if they could maintain their religious practices in secret, they would not be thrown to the lions.

The case was remanded to determine whether Muhur is a Jehovah’s Witness and where she would likely end up if she was removed to Ethiopia.  In addition, the opinion noted: “In view of the mishandling of Muhur’s claim by the immigration judge, we urge that the case be assigned to a different immigration judge.”