Dear President Obama,

On Tuesday, April 9, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck Bushehr, Iran, reportedly killing at least 37 people, injuring at least 850 more, and destroying over 700 homes. In the aftermath of this disaster, we write to urge that the White House, in coordination with the Department of Treasury and Department of State, take appropriate action to enable humanitarian and reconstruction assistance and ensure that U.S. sanctions on Iran do not in any way impede relief efforts.

We greatly appreciated your Administration’s efforts last year when two earthquakes struck northwest Iran. The White House, Treasury Department, and State Department took action to issue a General License temporarily authorizing charitable organizations to provide direct humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the Iranian people despite sanctions. Similarly, when an earthquake struck Bam, Iran, in 2003, the Bush Administration issued a General License to help enable relief organizations to work in Iran and support recovery efforts. We strongly supported these efforts and hope that you will once again take appropriate action to issue a General License and take any additional measures necessary to ensure relief efforts are not impeded by U.S. sanctions.

Enabling the American people to help the Iranian people will support relief efforts and demonstrate that disputes between governments should never interfere with humanitarian needs and goodwill among people. We strongly encourage that you take appropriate action and our organizations stand ready to help with any such effort.

Sincerely,

Child Foundation
Children of Persia
Keep Children in School Foundation
Havaar
The HAND Foundation
IMAN Foundation
Iranian Alliances Across Borders
Iranian American Bar Association
Moms Against Poverty
National Iranian American Council
Pars Equality Center
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans
United For Iran
West Asia Council

cc: Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew
Secretary of State John Kerry

Where: Maykadeh Restaurant; 470 Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133

When: Wednesday, March 27, 2013, from 6:30 to 9 pm

Please RSVP at northerncalifornia@iaba.us

Where: Maykadeh Restaurant, 470 Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133

When: Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 6:30-9:00 pm

Please RSVP at northerncalifornia@iaba.us

IABA is proud that Panteha Abdollahi, Robert Babayi, Hon. Susan Etezadi, and Nahal Iravani-Sani, have agreed to join the Board of Advisors.

To learn more about our new Board of Advisors members and other IABA Board of Advisors, please visit http://www.iaba.us/board-of-advisors

Panteha Abdollahi is a senior associate in the Litigation practice of Paul Hastings LLP.  Her practice focuses on complex business disputes and class actions, and she has significant experience in health care and antitrust litigation.  Ms. Abdollahi also has a background in appellate matters, having filed briefs and papers before the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California Court of Appeals.  In 2012, Ms. Abdollahi was selected for inclusion in the Southern California Super Lawyers list – Rising Stars Edition.

Prior to joining Paul Hastings LLP, Ms. Abdollahi served for two years as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Cormac J. Carney of the United States District Court, Central District of California.

Ms. Abdollahi received her Bachelor of Arts in History and Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (summa cum laude) in 2000. She graduated with both College Honors and Psychology Departmental Highest Honors, and was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa honorary society. Ms. Abdollahi received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2003, where she was a recipient of the UCLA School of Law David Simon Scholarship.

Ms. Abdollahi has been involved with IABA since 2004.  She was one of the founders of the Orange County Chapter, and previously served on the IABA National Board of Directors (2009-2011) and as president of the Orange County chapter (2011-2012).  In addition to IABA, she has been a member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Bar Association, Orange County since 2008 and currently serves as its Secretary.

Robert Babayi, a Co-Founder of IABA and a partner at the Washington, D.C., office of Venable, LLP, an AM Law 100 general practice firms with attorneys practicing in corporate and business law, complex litigation, intellectual property and regulatory and government affairs, among others

Robert Babayi’s primary practice focuses on client counseling, patent prosecution, licensing and litigation. More specifically, Robert Babayi counsels clients on the validity, enforceability and infringement of patents, and provides strategic advice on the relevance, strength and value of patents to commercial markets. He analyzes the risks associated with enforcing or defending patent portfolios, negotiates licensing terms and manages patent licensing programs.

Robert Babayi also helps startup companies in obtaining valuable patents for developed technologies and helps with venture funding at early stages.

Registered as an attorney before the US Patent and Trademark Office since 1989, Robert Babayi has prepared and prosecuted several hundred U.S. and foreign patents with emphasis on wired and wireless telecommunications, computing architecture, manufacturing processes and inventions related to the Internet and e-commerce. He has been involved in defensive and offensive aspects of complex patent litigations before the ITC and at the District Court level.

Robert Babayi previously served as in-house counsel at Motorola, Inc., and IBM Corp.  Currently, Robert Babayi serves as outside general counsel to a number of firm clients advising them on transactional and dispute resolution while managing their litigation needs.   Robert Babayi is admitted into the D.C. and Florida bars.

Robert Babayi is a co-founder of the Iranian American Bar Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to educate and address the legal needs of the Iranian American community and Nowruz Commission, a non-profit dedicated to preserving the tradition of Nowruz.

Hon. Susan Etezadi was elected to the San Mateo Superior Court bench on June 6, 2006, for a term commencing on January 8, 2007. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger subsequently appointed Judge Etezadi to the San Mateo Superior Court bench on August 11, 2006. Judge Etezadi was sworn in as a San Mateo Superior Court Judge on September 8, 2006. Judge Etezadi is the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge in San Mateo where she handles delinquency and dependency cases. Prior to this assignment she was the Criminal Presiding Judge in Redwood City from July 2009 through July 2010. Previous judicial assignments have also included Family Law and the Northern Court in South San Francisco. Judge Etezadi is a member of the Iranian-American Bar Association, the California Judges Association, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom.  Prior to being elected and appointed to the bench, Judge Etezadi was a Deputy District Attorney for San Mateo County from December 1984 to September 2006. In this capacity, Judge Etezadi prosecuted career criminal cases, sexual assault cases, homicide cases, insurance fraud cases and environmental law violations. As a prosecutor, Judge Etezadi taught Criminal Procedure courses at the San Mateo Community College, trial advocacy at the National College of District Attorneys in Columbia, South Carolina and also taught throughout California for the California District Attorney’s Association. As a prosecutor, Judge Etezadi served on the boards of the San Mateo Legal Aid Society, California Women Lawyers and the San Mateo Bar Association, Women Lawyers’ Section.  Judge Etezadi teaches Principles and Procedures of the Criminal Justice System at San Mateo Community College and teaches Criminal Procedure at the San Francisco Law School.  Judge Etezadi is a judicial volunteer for High School Mock Trial, Citizens’ School (mock trial for grade school students) and East Palo Alto Youth Court. Judge Etezadi is a graduate of the University of California, Davis and the University Of San Diego School Of Law.

Nahal Iravani-Sani is a Deputy District Attorney in Santa Clara County, California. She has been a criminal prosecutor with the office since 1995 having been the sole lead trial attorney on a variety of felonies through all phases of the criminal justice system. Her assignments have included serving on the Domestic Violence, Burglary/Assault/Theft, Juvenile Wards, Narcotics, Consumer Fraud and Environmental Protection units. Her current practice area focuses on prosecuting both individual and corporate violators of environmental crimes.

Iravani-Sani earned her B.A. in 1990 from the University of California, Irvine in Social Ecology, with an emphasis in Criminology and Legal Studies, and her J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law in 1993. Since 2006, she has also served as “Lecturer in Law” at Santa Clara University School of Law in Trial Techniques.

As an immigrant to the United States at a young age, Iravani-Sani is passionate about her role as an ambassador of the Iranian-American community, and giving back to her adopted country. She has served in leadership positions on key nonprofit and professional community organizations, including the boards of Pars Equality Center, the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) and the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA), including as its President in 2011-2012.

Iravani-Sani has been recognized by the San Francisco Minority Bar Coalition with a Unity Award for her work in promoting the cause of diversity in the legal profession. She is also the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award by the Iranian American Bar Association. Nahal lives in the Bay Area with her husband, attorney Barmak Sani, and their two sons.

Introduction

The debate over gun control and the scope and applicability of the Second Amendment has undergone periods of intense debate in recent years, in the wake of the mass murders at Columbine High School, and Virginia Tech University, along with other more recent mass shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and involving U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others, the Obama administration, Congress, lobbyists and the people have become re-engaged in the debate over U.S. gun control policy, with little changes.

The latest horrific shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, however, has reawakened the firearm debate to a near fevered pitch.  What follows is a brief primer on the Second Amendment, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the current state of gun control activities in the United States.

Legal Background and History

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right of people to keep and bear arms, was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights.  It reads:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The legal debate over the Second Amendment is based on whether the constitutional provision grants each American an individual right to own a gun. In 2008 and 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

District of Columbia v. Heller

In Heller, a divided Court ruled as unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s outright ban on private handgun possession, reasoning that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a firearm that is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554, 625 U.S. 570 (2008).  In Heller, a D.C. policeman applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the handgun licensing requirement insofar as it prohibited carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement of the D.C. law insofar as it prohibited the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, and that the city’s total ban on handguns—as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense—violated that right.  The Supreme Court affirmed.

McDonald v. Chicago

Heller was followed in 2010 by McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms to state governments.  In McDonald, the city of Chicago and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, had promulgated laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances were unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.  The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit.

Current Gun Control Laws and Proposed Measures

 Several federal gun control laws have been passed over the years. They include the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and the now expired Federal Assault Weapons ban (1994-2004).  Current federal law restricts individuals from possessing firearms in school zones (Gun Free School Zones Act).  Moreover, federal law also requires background checks before gun purchases (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act).  There are exceptions to the background check requirement, and state and local officials may choose to conduct or not conduct these background checks.  Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)  In the wake of the recent Newtown tragedy, the Obama administration has committed to proposing various regulations to address the issue of gun violence in the U.S.  On January 16, 2013, President Obama signed 23 executive orders to battle gun violence.  The President also called on Congress to pass legislation that will include universal background checks, limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines, and a renewed ban on assault weapons.

Conclusion

The history of gun control legislation in the U.S. is a long and complicated one.  But given the fact that January 22, 2013, marked the fifth school shooting in 2013, we may see some of the most comprehensive legislation on guns in over a decade.  Stay tuned.

Citing Federal Sanctions, TCF Bank in Minnesota Closes Accounts of Iranian Students

It has recently come to light that Iranian students have been receiving notifications from banks regarding the closure of their accounts, most recently those attending the University of Minnesota.  According to local news reports, as many as a dozen visiting Iranian students at the University of Minnesota have received such letters from TCF Bank.[1]  The closing of accounts was apparently the result of the Bank’s investigation into transactions that may have violated U.S. sanctions programs.  TCF Bank contends that other students, not just Iranian students, also received such the letters.

U.S. financial institutions have increased both the quantity and the scope of their sanctions compliance policies over the years, in an effort to comply with various U.S. sanctions programs—particularly sanctions imposed against Iran. However, the complexity of these various sanctions programs can lead to confusion and misapplication of the law, as may have happened in the TCF Bank case, or even a conscious decision to shut out account holders deemed to put the bank at risk of sanctions violations.

To that end, is important for banks such as TCF Bank to note that once Iranian students come to the United States they are no longer deemed to be Iranian by the definition contained in the ITSR.[2] Instead, they are considered to be U.S. persons, the definition of which includes an individual physically present in the United States.[3] As such, the maintenance of an account by a U.S. financial institution on behalf of an Iranian student residing in the United States on a student visa is not a prohibited exportation of services to Iran, but rather the provision of services to a U.S. person. Furthermore, although the ITSR does not expressly grant authorization to U.S. financial institutions to open and maintain accounts for Iranian students visiting the U.S. on a student visa, it does in fact authorize transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. It is not a stretch to consider that maintaining a bank account while attending school in the United States is ordinarily incident to fulfilling the requirements of a student visa. 

The undersigned have begun an investigation into this matter and have been in contact with both the University of Minnesota and TCF Bank.  TCF Bank has confirmed that the investigation into these accounts began because certain transactions were flagged by interdiction software that reviews the text of all incoming wire transfers and account information.  Based on the flagging of certain transactions or accounts by this interdiction software, investigations were initiated by TCF Bank and determinations were made to close some of the accounts at issue.  As a result of the efforts made by the University of Minnesota, TCF Bank is conducting a secondary review of that decision to ensure that their initial risk assessment and decision to close the accounts was correct.

The use of interdiction software to flag suspicious transactions and conduct internal risk assessment analyses are commonplace in the financial services industry. In line with representations made by TCF Bank to members of the undersigned group as well as to the University of Minnesota, the closing of the accounts appears to be the result of an internal risk analysis of its account holders, coupled with a review of those transactions that TCF Bank believed to be suspicious.  U.S. financial institutions are required by law to monitor and report suspicious activity, develop anti-money laundering programs, and implement other risk-based approaches in order to prevent transactions that may run afoul of U.S. banking and sanctions regulations. It is imperative that banks such as TCF conduct secondary high-level reviews subsequent to any initial (and often software-based) interdiction reviews of customer accounts, particularly before taking any drastic action(s) such as closing customer accounts.  This heightened internal scrutiny of these critical decisions will help ensure that the bank actions do not violate either the spirit or letters of any federal laws—ITSR or otherwise. The undersigned recognize that the use of interdiction software is commonplace and that banks have a need to monitor their accounts, however, we also urge banks to perform second-level reviews and careful screening of accounts that are closed as a result of the use of such software, in order to ensure that bank accounts are not improperly closed due to account holders otherwise legal activities—as the closing of bank accounts has serious ramifications. 

We applaud the University of Minnesota for taking a proactive approach in this matter, and will continue to monitor this story and keep the public aware of any new developments.

Sincerely,

Iranian American Bar Association

Pars Equality Center

Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans 

No legal advice, express or implied, is intended by this letter

Publications Seek to Help Lawmakers Understand the Unintended Effects the Sanctions are Having on the Iranian American Community, as well as Assist Iranian Americans and Other U.S. Persons in Understanding and Navigating the Sanctions’ Complex Requirements