The Critical Importance of Legal Representation in Removal Proceeding

A potential client recently approached me regarding his individual hearing in three months. He provided a personal statement and affidavits from friends as evidence of persecution. When I quoted my regular fee for removal defense, I noticed a major issue—he had crossed the border twice in less than two years, voluntarily returning to his home country.

Legal Consequences of Returning to the Home Country

One of the biggest legal challenges in this case is the presumption of no well-founded fear of persecution under U.S. asylum law. A key argument in asylum and withholding of removal cases is that the applicant has a genuine, ongoing fear of returning to their home country due to persecution. However, if an applicant voluntarily returns multiple times, the government and the immigration judge will likely assume that they did not actually fear persecution.

Case law and regulations support this presumption:

• 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i) states that an applicant for asylum must show a well-founded fear of future persecution, and voluntary return to the home country strongly undermines this claim.
• Matter of N-M-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 312 (BIA 1998) emphasizes that an applicant’s return to their home country can be used as evidence against a claim of future persecution.
• Matter of A-E-M-, 21 I&N Dec. 1157 (BIA 1998) similarly ruled that voluntary return, especially multiple times, suggests that the applicant does not genuinely fear harm.

In other words, returning to the alleged place of persecution severely damages credibility and makes it much harder to obtain relief from removal. This client’s case will require substantial legal work to overcome this presumption.

The Reality: People Who Represent Themselves Are Three Times Less Likely to Win

Despite this serious legal challenge, the potential client believed he “already had everything” and only needed an attorney to “appear in court.” However, immigration court is not just about showing up—it is about legal strategy and evidence presentation. Research consistently shows that individuals who go to court without an attorney are significantly less likely to succeed.

A study analyzing over 1.2 million deportation cases found that:

• With an attorney: 44% of asylum seekers and applicants for other forms of relief were granted protection.
• Without an attorney: Only 15% succeeded.

This means that those without legal representation are nearly three times less likely to win their case. The odds are stacked against individuals who try to represent themselves, especially when facing complex legal issues like overcoming the presumption of no persecution due to multiple voluntary returns.

What an Attorney Actually Does in Removal Defense

In reality, preparing for an individual hearing involves much more than just being physically present. An attorney:

• Prepares a legal brief addressing key legal issues, responding to government arguments, and presenting case law that supports the client’s claim.
• Develops a strategy to overcome weaknesses, such as multiple voluntary returns to the home country.
• Prepares the client for direct examination, ensuring they can testify clearly about their claim while addressing weaknesses.
• Prepares for cross-examination, equipping the client to handle government challenges and avoid contradictions that could undermine credibility.
• Presents evidence and legal arguments that meet the burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or other forms of relief.

A Strong Legal Defense Requires Preparation, Not Just Presence

This case is a reminder that removal defense is not just about showing up in court—it requires strategic legal work, preparation, and advocacy. A weakly presented case can result in removal from the U.S., so it’s essential for individuals facing deportation to understand the real value of competent legal representation. Simply having “some documents” is not enough—having an attorney who knows how to fight for you can make all the difference.