The conference, “SOGIESC in Asylum: Evidence-Based and Cross-Cultural Perspectives,” was hosted by the Psych-AID research network at Åbo Akademi University. It convened scholars, researchers and practitioners from multiple countries to examine the legal, psychological and institutional challenges associated with adjudicating asylum claims involving sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).

Scavone’s research examines the intersection of administrative law, emerging surveillance technologies and immigration policy, with particular attention to the legal limits of government authority to collect and use sensitive personal information. Her presentation, “From Credibility to Genetic Verification: Biometric Governance in SOGIESC Asylum,” explored the implications of expanding biometric collection and identity verification practices within the U.S. immigration system.

Scavone’s presentation considered how emerging biometric technologies and administrative policies in a forthcoming federal regulation could affect asylum applicants, particularly those whose claims involve sexual orientation or gender identity. She highlighted the legal and practical challenges associated with using biological and behavioral characteristics in immigration adjudications, as well as broader questions concerning privacy, administrative authority and the government’s role in evaluating individual identity.

The presentation drew upon Scavone’s experience as a former senior attorney with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, where she advised agency leadership on federal administrative law, regulatory development and immigration policy.

The conference also featured interdisciplinary discussions of credibility assessment, investigative practices, psychological evidence and institutional decision-making in asylum proceedings, with an emphasis on international collaboration and evidence-based approaches to asylum adjudication.

Scavone, who co-founded �鶹��Ƶ Law’s Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic in 2010, returned to the law school this fall as an assistant professor. She currently teaches constitutional law and professional responsibility.

“Freedom and Responsibility: What We Owe Each Other,” held Oct. 29 at the Carolina Theatre at Belk Place, brought together John Hood, president of the John William Pope Foundation, and Melissa Murray, the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.

Carol Quillen, former president of Davidson College and former CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, moderated the conversation.

“This is not a debate. It’s a conversation,” Quillen told the audience at the outset. “Our hope is that as John Hood and Melissa Murray share their ideas, their knowledge, and their points of view, each of us will find insights that can enrich our own understanding and also provide tools that we can use to be more effective at engaging others with whom we might disagree.”

Public Square is a civic conversation series produced by to encourage thoughtful engagement across ideological differences and strengthen civic life. The library foundation is producing the series with programming partners including the , �����Ի� �鶹��Ƶ Law. The Durham and Morton families are supporting partners.

Hood emphasized individual liberty, limited government and the responsibility of citizens and civic organizations to address community needs. Murray explored the Constitution’s evolving protections and how historical injustices and structural barriers influence opportunities for meaningful participation in American society.

Hood described the Constitution as a framework designed to accommodate disagreement among people with different beliefs, political views and priorities.

“We can disagree about religion. We can disagree about faith of any kind. We can disagree about political issues. We can disagree about how we want to live, what we want to eat, what team we’re going to root for, whatever it is,” Hood said.

The nation’s founders anticipated those disagreements, he explained, and established a constitutional system intended to prevent them from escalating into threats to individual liberty or violence.

The challenge, Hood said, is to view people who hold opposing beliefs “not as bigots, not as villains and not as liars” — but as individuals with inherent worth and people whose perspectives may have merit, Hood said.

Murray approached the Constitution from a different perspective, emphasizing how the nation’s founding principles evolved through struggles over citizenship, equality and individual rights.

She pointed to the Civil War and Reconstruction-era amendments as transformative moments in American constitutional history, arguing that understanding the nation’s founding requires acknowledging both its ideals and its failures.

“If we aren’t attentive to it, and we don’t try to reckon with it, and see what the residue of it means for us today, we could still make the same mistakes over and over and over again,” Murray said.

She also emphasized the importance of constitutional literacy and the responsibility to consider perspectives that challenge one’s own beliefs. Drawing on her experience in law and teaching law students, she described the value of examining opposing arguments rather than dismissing them.

In law, “we also literally have to do justice to another side, to make the argument as sharp as possible, because that’s the only way to make your argument better,” she said.

Four �鶹��Ƶ Law students served as content navigators, helping explain constitutional principles, collect audience questions and facilitate discussion.

Stellarose Emery L’27 and Ashley Holmes L’26 represented �鶹��Ƶ Law’s Greensboro program, while Mandy Mead LF’29 and Jeremy Yagoda LF’29 represented the Charlotte Flex Program.

Audience questions addressed respectful disagreement, civic education, constitutional interpretation and the responsibilities of citizens in maintaining democratic institutions.

Two additional Public Square conversations are scheduled for spring and fall 2027, exploring “The Art of Compromise” and “Truth and Trust,” respectively.

In Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr warned broadcasters against airing or amplifying fake polls, citing agency rules against news distortion and broadcast hoaxes.

“As a federal judge just said … in rejecting President Trump’s claim against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, there is no such thing as a ‘fake poll,’” Armijo told the newspaper. “And even if there was, the FCC’s long-dormant news distortion and anti-hoax rules would do nothing to empower the FCC to take action against broadcasters who report on them.”

Armijo also criticized Carr’s warning as an attempt to intimidate journalists over unfavorable news coverage.

Armijo teaches and researches First Amendment and constitutional law, media and internet law, online disinformation, and international freedom of expression. His scholarship examines the intersection of new technologies, free speech and government regulation. He recently joined a coalition of First Amendment scholars urging the FCC to preserve broadcasters’ editorial independence.

The annual poetry slams, organized by �鶹��Ƶ School of Law’s Legal Method and Communication Program, brought students together on Oct. 20 in celebration of the National Day on Writing, an annual observance established by the National Council of Teachers of English.

Through original poems that ranged from deeply personal reflections to witty observations about law school and life, students revealed parts of themselves that classmates and professors might not always see in the classroom.

In Greensboro, students competed in the Eighth Annual High Rhymes and Misdemeanors Poetry Slam. Charlotte students in the Flex Program held their third annual Poetry Slam, continuing a tradition that encourages creative expression and builds community among future lawyers.

Greensboro: ‘High Rhymes and Misdemeanors’

Marlaisha Vereen L’27 earned first place and the People’s Choice Award for her poem, “We Once Shared the Same Sky,” an emotional reflection inspired by a summer internship in criminal law in her hometown of Gainesville, Florida.

During the internship, Vereen encountered familiar faces from her childhood, prompting her to reflect on how differently life had unfolded for people who once shared similar dreams.

“Reconnecting with familiar faces after being away for so long caused me to reflect on how differently life unfolds for people who once shared the same dreams,” Vereen said. “As future attorneys, we must never become so consumed with learning the law that we forget the humanity behind it.”

“My hope is that my vulnerability reminds others of the importance of compassion and never forgetting where we come from.”

The Greensboro competition featured a panel of judges that included James Daniels, Greensboro’s poet laureate and an assistant professor in North Carolina A&T State University’s Department of English; Krista Contino-Saumby, director of career services at �鶹��Ƶ Law; and Sue Liemer, professor of law. Trey McClenny served as emcee.

Daniels also performed an original poem, “Pushout: Ode to the Black of the City,” for the audience.

Flex Program flexes lyrical prowess

In Charlotte, Nadia Mazza LF’28 held first place for the third year with her poem, “1 & Done.” It is her third win

Nadia Mazza LF’28 captured first place in Charlotte with “1 & Done,” a lighthearted celebration of �鶹��Ƶ Law’s recent bar examination success and the culture of achievement fostered by Dean Zak Kramer and the school’s “One and Done” slogan.

The poem drew inspiration from the Class of 2025’s record performance on spring bar examinations in North Carolina and 11 other jurisdictions, when 90.9% of �鶹��Ƶ Law’s first-time test-takers passed. Kramer had promised to get a tattoo if the class reached an 85% passage rate.

“I thought Dean Kramer’s promise to get a tattoo was a compelling — and fun — way to show the power of shared motivation and commitment to a goal,” Mazza said. “I love how traditions bring a community together and give us meaningful ways to celebrate milestones like this!”

The Charlotte judging panel included Louis A. Trosch Jr., a retired Superior Court judge in North Carolina’s 26th Judicial District and an attorney at Conrad, Trosch & Kenny; Karen Neff, director of �鶹��Ƶ Charlotte; and Gabrielle Kelly, senior assistant city attorney in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Police Attorney’s Office. Adjunct Professor Bob Minarcin served as emcee.

Greensboro ‘High Rhymes and Misdemeanors’ Poetry Slam winners

First place and People’s Choice Award: Marlaisha Vereen L’27 — “We Once Shared the Same Sky”

Second place: Elaijah Lapay L’28 — “Call”

Third place: Rachel Dale Walker L’28 — “American Will”

Charlotte Poetry Slam winners

First place: Nadia Mazza LF’28 — “1 & Done”

Second place: Somer Dice LF’29 — “The Holdout”

Third place: Auston Johnson LF’30 — “Icarus”

People’s Choice Award: Hanny Echeverria Navarro LF’30 — “You Don’t Own Me”

Those questions helped propel a team from Liberty University School of Law to victory in the 17th annual Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition at �鶹��Ƶ School of Law on Oct. 24, 2026.

Liberty’s Team 25, represented by advocates Nawel Noore and Randall Shirey, captured Chief Justices’ Cup — the championship prize — after facing fellow finalist team from Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in the final round. Noor, a third-year law student, also earned Best Oral Advocate in the Final Round, while Shirey placed second among oral advocates across the competition.

Forty teams from 25 universities nationwide competed in this year’s event, which challenged students to analyze a fictional constitutional dispute involving two issues with real-world implications: government surveillance and freedom of speech. The competition honors three former chief justices of the Supreme Court of North Carolina — Rhoda Billings, James G. Exum Jr. and Henry E. Frye — who also served as advisers to �鶹��Ƶ Law during the school’s formative years.

In the fictional state of North Greene, police used a network of 300 automated license plate readers to track Malcolm Merriweather, a university professor who had protested federal immigration enforcement, during an investigation into vandalism. Authorities arrested Merriweather but later dropped the charges after confirming his alibi.

When the state also revoked Merriweather’s personalized license plate criticizing immigration enforcement, he sued, raising two constitutional questions: Did the warrantless surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches? And did revoking his license plate violate his First Amendment right to free speech?

Students prepared written appellate briefs and presented oral arguments before panels of volunteer attorneys and judges, responding to questions about constitutional precedents and how they apply to emerging legal controversies.

Alan Woodlief, vice dean, professor of law and director of �鶹��Ƶ Law’s Moot Court Program, praised the preparation of competitors and the volunteers who helped make the event possible.

“We were honored to welcome so many excellent teams from across the country, along with so many attorneys and judges, including �鶹��Ƶ Law alumni, who volunteered for the competition,” Woodlief said. “I’m especially proud of the exceptional leadership our Moot Court Board displayed in coordinating this year’s competition, and I’m grateful to the students, alumni, faculty and staff who contributed to its success.”

Reflections from the winning team

For Noor, the competition marked her first experience competing in an external moot court tournament. She appreciated the opportunity to explore a constitutional question that federal courts have recently confronted.

“I enjoyed the currentness of the problem’s First Amendment issue. The Fourth Circuit decided this question just a few months ago, and it was the first circuit court to do so,” Noor said. “The problem also clearly cabined the arguments to one specific doctrine — government speech — allowing competitors to dig deep and master the key precedents.”

To prepare, Noor repeatedly reviewed U.S. Supreme Court decisions and listened to oral arguments in several of those cases during the weeks leading up to the competition.

“All in all, Liberty Law had a wonderful time at �鶹��Ƶ,” Noor said. “Thank you to the whole team for hosting us!”

Shirey, a third-year law student, previously won the 2021 American Moot Court Association National Championship while competing in Liberty’s undergraduate moot court program. He praised �鶹��Ƶ Law’s timely constitutional questions and the professionalism of opposing teams.

“The drafters of this year’s problem did a fantastic job of capturing current constitutional issues,” Shirey said. “This made preparing for the competition incredibly rewarding, because it felt like I was able to master areas of the law that are of great importance in our country today. Throughout all of our rounds, we faced teams that were exceptional, not only because of their skill, but because of the way they treated opposing counsel even when the stakes were high.”

Competition Awards

Championship

• First place: Team 25, Liberty University School of Law
• Second place: Team 21, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Semifinalists

• Team 15, Fordham University School of Law
• Team 19, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Quarterfinalists

• Team 1, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
• Team 22, University of Houston Law Center
• Team 29, Marquette University Law School
• Team 31, Mercer University School of Law

Oral Advocate Awards

• Top Oral Advocate: Andrea Subtirelu, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
• Second Place: Randall Shirey, Liberty University School of Law
• Third Place: Kaitlyn Ebright, University of Houston Law Center
• Fourth Place: Katy Walsh, William & Mary Law School
• Fifth Place: David Koster, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
• Best Oral Advocate in the Final Round: Nawel Noor, Liberty University School of Law

Best Brief Awards

• First Place, Petitioner (tie): William & Mary Law School and University of Richmond School of Law
• Second Place, Petitioner: Marquette University Law School
• First Place, Respondent: Mercer University School of Law
• Second Place, Respondent (tie): University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and Liberty University School of Law

Final Round Judges

• The Honorable L. Patrick Auld, U.S. magistrate judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
• The Honorable Allegra Collins, judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals
• The Honorable Richard Dietz, associate justice, Supreme Court of North Carolina
• The Honorable John M. Tyson, judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Semifinal Round Judges

• Enrique Armijo, professor of law, �鶹��Ƶ School of Law
• The Honorable Andrew “Andy” Hanford, resident superior court judge, North Carolina Superior Court District 17
• The Honorable Sarah N. Lanier L’10, judge, North Carolina District Court, District 37
• Gregg F. Schwitzgebel III, retired associate general counsel, North Carolina League of Municipalities
• The Honorable Barron Thompson L’09, judge, North Carolina District Court, District 37
• The Honorable William Craig Turner Jr., judge, North Carolina District Court, District 17

�鶹��Ƶ Law Moot Court Board Committee co-chairs for the 17th Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition

Overall Competition Chairs: Isabel Craig L’26, Elizabeth Gregory L’26 and Sierra Watkins L’26

Judge Committee Chairs: James Galipeau L’26, Cayla James L’26, Bailey Langford L’26, Renata Navarro L’26

Bailiff Committee Chairs: Madisyn Butler L’26, Sydney Daniel L’26, Megan Eldredge L’26, Addison Noe L’26, Tyler Sesker L’26

Scoring Committee Chairs:  Daulton Hadaway L’26, Yanila Noy L’26, Jackie Rullman L’26, Rebecca Vairin L’26

Hospitality Committee Chairs: Matt Cottrell L’26, Emma Farrell L’26, Courtney Maxwell L’26, Clare Rudolph L’26

a recurring feature in which senior reporter Bob Buckley profiles the lives and impact of North Carolinians. FOX8 WGHP, based in High Point, North Carolina, covers news across the Piedmont Triad and state.

“The students here today have seen a level of success that the founders of this law school dreamed of,” Kramer says in the piece, discussing a shift in mindset among students, faculty and staff at the law school.

The segment highlighted Kramer’s promise to get a tattoo if the Class of 2025 achieved an 85% first-time bar passage rate. The class exceeded that goal with a record 90.9% passage rate on spring bar exams in North Carolina and 11 other jurisdictions.

Kramer held up his end of the deal over Labor Day weekend.

Buckley connected �鶹��Ƶ Law’s success to the university’s broader culture of ambitious goals, citing former �鶹��Ƶ football coach Curt Cignetti’s success in raising the Phoenix’s profile before leading Indiana to a national championship earlier this year.

“Reach for something unreasonable. We can grab it if we do it together,” Kramer said.

An Oct. 14 article published by MLex, examines the bipartisan No Secrets for Data Centers Act Bill, which would restrict non-disclosure agreements between data center developers and public officials. MLex, a LexisNexis news service, covers legal and regulatory developments for attorneys, businesses and government agencies.

“The public expects transparency and accountability when it comes to allocation of taxpayer funds … NDAs piled on top of robust trade secret protection leaves the public largely blind. Given this compounded secrecy, the likelihood of corruption increases,” Levine told MLex.

Levine, who studies trade secrecy and information law, also discusses how existing trade secret protections could continue to limit public access to information even if non-disclosure agreements were prohibited, preventing access to information about environmental, health, and safety risks and where public money is going. An area of focus, Levine was consulted by then-Vice President Joe Biden’s staff regarding NDAs and trade secrecy during the second Obama administration.

. A subscription is required.

The law school is a programming partner for , a new civic conversation series produced by the . The inaugural event, “Freedom and Responsibility: What We Owe Each Other,” will take place Thursday, Oct. 29, at the Carolina Theatre at Belk Place in Charlotte.

Event details

“Freedom and Responsibility: What We Owe Each Other”

A moderated conversation featuring Carol Quillen, John Hood and Melissa Murray

Thursday, Oct. 29, 2026, at 7 p.m.

Carolina Theatre at Belk Place, 230 N Tryon, Charlotte, NC 28202

General admission is $35. Student admissions is $15.

“At �鶹��Ƶ Law, we prepare students to listen carefully, think critically and consider opposing views. Public Square brings people together to ask tough questions, debate ideas and learn from each other in pursuit of a stronger democracy,” said Dean Zak Kramer. “That makes this a natural partnership. As the law school grows in Charlotte, we’re excited to contribute even more to the civic life of this community.”

�鶹��Ƶ Law’s participation in Public Square comes as the university expands its presence in Charlotte through a merger with Queens University of Charlotte. The law school launched its part-time Flex Program there in 2024, and will welcome its first full-time Charlotte J.D. class in fall 2027. Beginning next fall, both programs will operate on the historic Myers Park campus.

A conversation about freedom and responsibility

The inaugural Public Square conversation will explore the relationship between individual liberty, shared responsibility and the obligations Americans have to one another.

Carol Quillen, former president of Davidson College and former CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, will moderate a discussion between John Hood, president of the John William Pope Foundation, and Melissa Murray, the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at New York University.

Hood will explore individual liberty and personal responsibility, while Murray will address collective investment and the conditions necessary for meaningful freedom.

Quillen recently discussed the series and the importance of respectful disagreement in , Charlotte’s public radio station and a partner of the event.

The series seeks to encourage conversations across differences, model respectful civic discourse and create opportunities for Charlotte residents to consider questions that shape their communities and the nation.

“I am so grateful to our donors and partners for joining CMLF on this journey to gather our diverse community for conversations that matter to our personal lives and collective well-being,” said Charlotte Mecklenburg Library Foundation Executive Director Jenni Gaisbauer. “This series aligns with the Library’s commitment to protecting the First Amendment’s guarantee of free and open access to information and ideas – a principle vital to our democracy and to each individual’s search for knowledge.”

�鶹��Ƶ Law students contribute to the conversation

�鶹��Ƶ Law students will play a distinctive role in bringing that civic engagement to life.

Four students from the law school’s Greensboro and Charlotte programs will serve as content navigators, contributing legal and constitutional context to the discussion, engaging with audience questions and making complex issues more accessible to participants.

The students are:

• Stellarose Emery L’27, Greensboro full-time J.D. program
• Ashley Holmes L’26, Greensboro full-time J.D. program
• Mandy Mead LF’29, Charlotte Flex Program
• Jeremy Yagoda LF’29, Charlotte Flex Program

“So much of how we talk about politics now happens on a screen, in short bursts, with people who already agree with us. That isn’t how self-government is supposed to work,” said Yagoda, whose full-time job is as board and grant specialist at the Foundation For The Carolinas — also a partner of Public Square. “Charlotte is growing and changing quickly, and a city like ours needs places where neighbors can sit in the same room, disagree, and still take each other seriously. The whole experiment only works if people keep arguing in good faith, and that doesn’t happen by accident. You have to practice it.”

For Holmes, the importance of participating in conversations across differences is also personal.

“Growing up, my family did not participate much in politics; however, my parents instilled in me the importance of doing my best to do the right thing and the courage to stand up for ideals I believe in,” Holmes said. “I’m excited to participate in this event because ‘doing the right thing’ in a modern democracy requires us to step out of our comfort zones. It means recognizing that our own ideals are tested, sharpened, and ultimately improved when they meet different perspectives.”

Building a community conversation

Public Square events will examine the ideas, disagreements and responsibilities that have shaped American democracy.

 is producing the series with programming partners including the , and �鶹��Ƶ Law. The Durham and Morton families are supporting partners.

The Oct. 29 discussion marks the beginning of a continuing series intended to bring Charlotte residents together around questions of civic life, democratic participation and the nation’s future.

Additional Public Square dialogues planned for 2027 include:

• Spring 2027: The Art of Compromise
• Fall 2027: Truth and Trust

As Mayar Elgeyoshi L’26 describes trying her first criminal cases, her eyes lock in — intense, focused and flashing with amusement at the contradiction in her words.

She’s serious, but she’s having fun.

Last summer, she prosecuted two cases in a Randolph County courtroom under a student practice certificate. The first involved a driver accused of traveling nearly 30 mph over the speed limit. The second was an assault case.

“In the beginning, you’re completely stiff,” she said. “Then after a while, you start to get comfortable. You realize, ‘Oh, hey. I can do this.’”

She found herself thinking “a step — or five — ahead.” The state won both cases.

“Haven’t lost a case yet,” she said wryly.

The experience confirmed what years of studying and working alongside prosecutors and public defenders made clear: She belongs in a courtroom.

“It’s just a rush that can’t be recreated.”

That rush draws Elgeyoshi to the courtroom. What first led her toward the law — an innate desire to first understand people, and then to help them — has much deeper roots.

Born in Alexandria, Egypt, Elgeyoshi came to the United States with her family at 5 years old. She grew up in Asheboro, North Carolina, the oldest of three children, watching her parents build a new life from scratch. Her mother had earned an accounting degree in Egypt. Her father’s relentless work ethic eventually led him to found Omar’s Italian Restaurant in nearby Biscoe, where Elgeyoshi has worked alongside him.

The restaurant bears her younger brother’s name. “I’m clearly not the favorite child,” she quipped.

Behind the humor is abiding respect for what her parents risked.

“It’s not easy to leave the home that you’ve owned, the only home that you’ve ever known, for a chance,” Elgeyoshi said. “It’s not even guaranteed. It’s just a chance.”

“She is incredibly good at seeing different sides of people and understanding different walks of life.”

— Barron Thompson L’09, �鶹��Ƶ Law Advisory Board member

Their determination imbued a kind of obligation: “I want to provide for my family in the way that they’ve sacrificed everything for us.”

At UNC Greensboro, Elgeyoshi studied political science and sociology, and met the Hon. Barron Thompson L’09, a North Carolina District Court judge in nearby Randolph County who taught her Introduction to Law course as an adjunct professor.

Thompson, a member of �鶹��Ƶ Law’s charter class and the school’s Advisory Board, remembers an inquisitive student whose curiosity made her memorable. They stayed in touch after she graduated, and he saw that curiosity paired with a drive to serve. Working as a state driver’s license examiner, Elgeyoshi saw a need among Spanish-speaking customers.

“So, she learned Spanish to better serve them,” Thompson said. “She is incredibly good at seeing different sides of people and understanding different walks of life.”

When Elgeyoshi was deciding on law school, Thompson encouraged her toward his alma mater.

Upholding the law as ‘the greatest honor’

Her first up-close experience with criminal law involved the kind of grisly reality and high stakes most law students only imagine.

After her first year at �鶹��Ƶ Law, she interned with the Randolph County District Attorney’s Office, helping prosecutors prepare for the capital murder trial of Joel Vilchis Valdez-Beltran, accused of killing his girlfriend’s 14-month-old child.

“It doesn’t get more complex than a capital case,” said Randolph County District Attorney Andrew “Andy” Gregson.

A jury convicted Valdez-Beltran of first-degree murder in August 2025 and sentenced him to death — the county’s first death sentence since 2006. Elgeyoshi reviewed evidence, researched legal questions and organized trial materials. She also produced a video from previously admitted evidence that Chief Assistant District Attorney Walt Jones used during closing arguments.

Elgeyoshi returned the following summer with a student practice certificate and tried cases herself. Her performance led Gregson to offer her a position contingent on passing the bar exam.

“She has a great attitude, a great work ethic,” Gregson said. “She just jumped right in and was a great teammate.”

Between those summers, Elgeyoshi crossed to the other side of the courtroom.

During her full-time Residency-in-Practice with the Guilford County Public Defender’s Office, she visited clients in jail and worked alongside attorneys representing people facing criminal charges. She now externs with Greensboro defense attorney Christon Halkiotis.

She refuses to view criminal law through a single lens.

“It gives you entirely different perspectives,” Elgeyoshi said. “To uphold justice on both sides, while ensuring the Constitution is upheld, is the greatest honor.”

The lawyer she aspires to be

Associate Professor Eric Fink, Elgeyoshi’s academic adviser, watched her adjust to the unfamiliar demands of law school and become a stronger student. What drives her, he said, isn’t law as an intellectual exercise.

“She sees the law as a way to address real people’s real problems in their real lives,” Fink said.

Bob Minarcin, an adjunct professor who helps oversee �鶹��Ƶ Law’s Mock Trial program, watched her progress from first-year witness to team member and trial advocate. Her final performance in his trial practice course, he said, was “years ahead of where most law students are at that stage.

“She’s the real deal.”

“Regardless of where I end up, I want to be the type of criminal attorney who never forgets to be human.”

— Mayar Elgeyoshi L’26

Her classmates see the same commitment. Olivia Domowitz L’26 said Elgeyoshi shows people they matter by giving them her time despite an overcrowded schedule, while Lindsay Hetzel L’26 points to her 250-plus pro bono hours and public-service work as a reminder that “serving real people is the true prize of pursuing the legal profession.”

She hasn’t decided which side of the courtroom will be hers. But her experiences have clarified something more fundamental: The attorney she wants to become.

“Laws are written by people. Crimes are committed by people. And people are those who enforce, from law enforcement to the attorneys and judges. People make people mistakes, from all ends,” Elgeyoshi said.

“Regardless of where I end up, I want to be the type of criminal attorney who never forgets to be human.”

Speaking at a symposium focused on the topic of immigration law, noted immigration attorney Hillary Walsh examined the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which created or expanded penalties including bars preventing some undocumented immigrants from lawfully returning to the United States for years.

Walsh argued that three decades of experience raise questions about whether those measures have deterred unauthorized immigration. She cited estimates that the undocumented population increased from 5.7 million in the mid-1990s to about 14 million in 2023.

The founder and managing attorney of New Frontier Immigration Law illustrated the consequences through the story of “Gilbert,” a longtime client from Mexico whose efforts to visit an ailing parent ultimately subjected him to immigration penalties. After returning to the United States, Gilbert worked without authorization and experienced labor exploitation that the speaker described as human trafficking.

Rather than abandoning enforcement, Walsh proposed broadening access to unlawful presence waivers, potentially considering factors such as whether applicants paid taxes. She argued such changes could reward desired behavior while preserving consequences for immigration violations.

Her talk, “The Complexities of Immigration Policy,” was among the highlights of an annual �鶹��Ƶ Law Review symposium attended in downtown Greensboro, N.C., on Sept. 25, 2026, by dozens of attorneys, advocates, and �鶹��Ƶ Law students and faculty.

Walsh, who also serves as a law professor and is a nationally recognized TEDx speaker on immigration law and policy, called for immigration policy to respond more directly to U.S. workforce needs, including declining birth rates and the retirement of baby boomers. Immigration, she said, could help address labor shortages if policies relied more heavily on economic data.

Ultimately, she urged lawyers and policymakers to approach immigration reform with less judgment and greater empathy.

“If we can’t come to the table and remove the judgment of a stranger we have never met,” she asked, “how can we create immigration policy for the love of our country?”

The 2026 �鶹��Ƶ Law Review symposium was designed to analyze how borders, power, and the rule of law has led to various challenges within immigration law. Topics discussed by panelists included evolving borders, family law, policy changes, employment, seeking asylum, and humanitarianism throughout the United States.

Rose Peterson L’26, Abigail MacKnight L’26 and Lauren Collins L’26 led the development and management of the program as �鶹��Ƶ Law Review symposium co-editors, and �鶹��Ƶ Law Dean Zak Kramer welcomed attendees to the symposium.

“If this is your first time here at �鶹��Ƶ Law, welcome. If you’re returning to us, thank you for making �鶹��Ƶ Law part of your professional lives,” Kramer said. “It is very important to us, though a private school, that we be public-facing, and that we have lots of opportunities to educate the community about some of the most pressing issues in our society. Today’s conversation absolutely fits the bill.

“I hope you engage, I hope you ask hard questions, and I hope you push each other. Hopefully we can make the world a little bit better by the end of the day.”

Panels and Presentations at ‘A Changing Landscape: Immigration Law in the 21st Century’

Seeking Asylum – Hands-On Immigration Law

• Heather Scavone, Assistant Professor of Law and former Associate Counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.C.I.S.,
• Dara Arroyo-Longoria L’22, Attorney at McKinney Immigration Law

American Immigration

• Jordin Dickerson, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public
  Administration at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke
• Tolulope Falokun, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Detroit
  Mercy School of Law
• Allen Orr Jr., Founder and Principal Attorney of Orr Immigration Law Firm

The Family Immigration Landscape

• Kailey Houck, Judicial Law Clerk for Justice Melissa Hart and Justice Susan Blanco of the Colorado State Supreme Court
• Maria Rosales, Executive Director of FaithAction International