You are a staff lawyer for the Immigrants' Rights Center. You represent Joseph Barragabi, an applicant for political asylum. You met him two months ago when he was referred to your office by a human rights organization. You have accepted his case and have interviewed him five times. He seems terrified that he might lose his case and be forcibly returned to Sudan, which he had fled. In fact, he seems to be one of the most frightened clients you have ever met. You suspect that if he loses and his appeals fail, he might commit suicide rather than return home. Sudan is ruled by a brutal dictator. Political opponents of the regime are tortured and killed. Barragabi says that six or seven years ago, he was a staff member for a year for the underground opposition newspaper, Democracy. While he did not write articles in Democracy under his own name, he and other staff members wrote articles that were published under fictitious names so that they would be less at risk of government reprisal. Six years ago, the government raided and closed the newspaper and arrested several of the editors. Barragabi says he escaped, left his family, and went into hiding with a friend in a small village. Some of the editors who were arrested are in prison or have "disappeared." Eventually, Barragabi made it out of the country into Ethiopia, where he worked under a false name and earned enough money to buy a counterfeit passport and an airline ticket to New York City. When he got to the airport in the United States, he admitted having a false passport and he requested asylum. As a result, he was automatically placed in deportation proceedings. If a person in such proceedings persuades a judge that he qualifies for asylum, the person can remain in the United States. To qualify, the person must show a "well-founded fear" of political or religious persecution in his home country. If the person fails to persuade the judge (either because his story doesn't seem true or because his fear of returning is based on a nonpolitical reason, such as fear of reprisals from a creditor), then he will be deported. Only about one-third of asylum applicants are successful. A major barrier to victory is a federal statute requiring corroborating evidence (documents or the testimony of other witnesses) unless it cannot reasonably be obtained. In your first interview with Barragabi, you told him about the corroboration requirement and asked him whether it was all right with him if you searched for corroboration. He said that it was. It is easy to corroborate some of the facts of Barragabi's case through newspaper accounts and respected human rights reports. You find published accounts of the crackdown on the opposition press in Sudan, the closing of Democracy, and the incarceration of some of the editors. You have documents showing Barragabi's travel through Ethiopia to the United States. However, Barragabi has been unable to document that he ever worked for Democracy. He has no employment card, payroll stub, or other such documents. This is not surprising, however. Refugees often leave most of their documents behind when they are fleeing their home countries. During the last month, you have done two things. First, you have prepared the detailed affidavit (sworn statement) that Barragabi will sign and file in court, telling his whole story. Under court rules, the affidavit must be filed the day after tomorrow. In a hearing in two weeks, he will be expected to testify consistently with the affidavit. Second, you have been searching for some corroboration of his employment with the newspaper. The other editors and writers seemed to be either in jail or in hiding. This morning, you had a major breakthrough. You discovered that the editor in chief of Democracy, Hamid Al-Parah, escaped from jail and from Sudan, and he is now living in Canada. You called him right away and told him that you were representing Barragabi, who was seeking asylum. You asked him to supply an affidavit and perhaps to come to the United States to testify regarding Barragabi's former employment. Much to your surprise, Al-Parah told you that he had never heard of Barragabi. You described your client's appearance. Al-Parah insists that he knew all of his employees and that Barragabi never worked for him, either under the name Barragabi or any other name.

1. Should you tell Barragabi about your conversation with Al-Parah?

2. Suppose that you talk to Barragabi and he says that he has no idea why AlParah would deny knowing him. But as a result, you now have reason to believe that Barragabi isn't being completely truthful, though you can't be certain of that. Will you file the affidavit that you drafted, or will you inform Barragabi that you intend to ask the judge for permission to withdraw from representing him?

3. Before you called Al-Parah, was it sufficient to rely on Barragabi's permission to let you seek corroboration?

4. After learning that Al-Parah was in Canada, should you have said to Barragabi, "I've found a number for Al-Parah in Canada. Of course, I want to call him only if he will corroborate your story. Should I call Al-Parah?" Is it OK to avoid learning all the facts?

Al-Parah, the former editor in chief of Democracy, told you that Barragabi, your asylum client, never worked for him. After some reflection, you decide that you have no basis to believe him over your client. You decide to continue to represent Barragabi in his deportation proceeding. Barragabi said that during the months while his asylum application was pending, he participated in three demonstrations against the government of Sudan outside its embassy. This tends to support his claim that he is an opponent of the government. You have evidence that embassy officials photograph demonstrators so that the government can punish them if they ever return to Sudan. Therefore, if you can prove that he participated in the demonstrations, this would help to demonstrate that he would be at risk if he were deported. The only person who can corroborate Barragabi's participation in the demonstration is his roommate, Farik Massariah, another Sudanese refugee whom Barragabi met after he came to the United States. You interviewed Massariah and learned that he, too, had applied for asylum. He had been a dissident leader in Sudan. The government's interviewer provisionally recommended that he be granted asylum, subject to the results of an FBI fingerprint check. The FBI report stated that there was an outstanding arrest warrant from Pennsylvania for Massariah. The government directed 611 Massariah to supply a certificate from the Pennsylvania state police showing that he had not been convicted of any crimes in that state. He did so, but the government nevertheless withdrew the provisional recommendation and initiated deportation proceedings against Massariah. His hearing is scheduled in six months. At Barragabi's asylum hearing, you put Massariah on the stand. He testifies that Barragabi and he participated in three demonstrations outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. The government lawyer crossexamined Massariah as follows: What is your own immigration status, Mr. Massariah? I was provisionally recommended for asylum. But there was something wrong with my fingerprints, and I had to get some records from the police in Pennsylvania showing that I had not been convicted of any crimes there. I got Q: d. those records and I supplied them to the immigration officials. How many people attended the first demonstration in which you and Mr. Barragabi participated? The government lawyer asked more questions about the demonstrations but never returned to the subject of Massariah's immigration status. Massariah never stated that he himself was still a respondent in deportation proceedings. Should you take steps (including your own disclosure, if necessary) to inform the government or the court that immigration officials withdrew the provisional recommendation that Massariah be given asylum and instead had put Massariah into deportation proceedings?