Bretz & Coven is committed to pro bono representation of the poor and indigent. We will consider pro bono representation on cases with both a compelling legal issue and sympathetic facts. We are very proud of our pro bono track record.

The following is a sample of some of our pro bono cases:

Recently, the Bretz & Coven Law Firm represented eleven (11) victims of forced amputations, mostly children from Sierra Leone in connection with their applications for asylum status in the United States.  These pro bono cases generated a lot of concern and interest in the community, in the media, and in Congress.
 
The seven (7) children and four (4) adults trip to the united States was initiated by Matthew Mirones, the owner of a Brooklyn prosthetic manufacturing company, ARIMED.  The Rotary Clubs of Staten Island and Brooklyn arranged the amputees' room, board and local transportation; and the doctors and therapists of Staten Island University Hospital volunteered their services.

A fund raiser for the asylees attracted almost a thousand people including Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, her husband the former President William Jefferson Clinton, Senator Charles Schumer, and the Staten Island Rotary Gift of Limbs Project.  In addition, the applicants have been written about in The new York Times, and the Washington Post, and they have been interviewed on CNN and they have spoken before the United States Congress and the United Nations.
 

We successfully represented a Cuban national, who had been detained without bond by the INS for over two years, even though he could not be deported to Cuba. We argued in federal court that mandatory detention is unconstitutional as a violation of both procedural and substantive due process. The Court ordered a bond hearing before an immigration judge and the client was ultimately released. Click here to see Puig v. McElroy, 97 Civ. 4411 (SHS) (LB) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1998).
 

We successfully represented a single mother from Sri Lanka who, while seeking political asylum in the United States, was detained by the INS and separated from her 13 year-old son, who was also detained. We challenged her detention in federal court and represented her in immigration court, where she was granted political asylum. Both mother and son were released. See Inconsistency at I.N.S Complicates Refugees' Asylum Quest, The New York Times June 22, 1998
 

We successfully represented another single mother who was detained by the INS because of her criminal history and separated from her 7 year-old daughter, who was also detained by the INS in another state. We successfully argued for her eligibility for withholding of removal. The case was granted and both were released from INS custody.
 

We successfully represented a long time lawful permanent resident who was detained by the INS for over seven months and charged with removability due to his 1974 misdemeanor conviction. We successfully argued that his conviction was not an inadmissible offense. The immigration judge terminated proceedings with prejudice, and the client's application for naturalization is currently pending. Immigrant Fights Off his Deportation, The New York Times September 4, 1998
 

The firm also successfully represented numerous lawful permanent residents who were seeking to challenge the retroactive application of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom., Reno v. Navas, 119 S. Ct. 1141 (1999) (reversing the decision of the Attorney General in Matter of Soriano).
 

We successfully represented a young lady from Jamaica, who was placed in exclusion proceedings because of her criminal history, and attempted suicide after being detained without bond by the INS. The case is fascinating and has many separate components: First, we challenged her detention in federal court, and the court found that mandatory detention of lawful permanent residents is unconstitutional. This case has become one of the most cited cases nationally for the proposition that mandatory detention is unconstitutional. St. John v. McElroy, 917 F.Supp. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("St. John III"). Second, during the course of the litigation, the Court admonished the INS to comply with the "spirt" of the Court's orders and issued a temporary injunction. St. John v. McElroy, Dkt. No. 95 Civ. 9810 (KMW), 1996 WL 49956 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1996) ("St. John II"). Third, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained our appeal of the exclusion order and found that because she was 17 when she was arrested, the conviction may not be used for immigration purposes. Hyperlink to St John-BIA (to be added to published cases). Finally, there is currently pending a claim under the Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA) for alleged abuses, mistreatment and medical malpractice, she sustained while detained in INS custody.