UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND"

Transcription

1 Rama M. Taib* Adam N. Crandell* Stephen Brown* Fariha Quasem* Maureen A. Sweeney, Supervising Attorney University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD NON-DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND ) In the Matters of: ) ) Elizabeth GALLEGOS-TORRES ) File No. : A and ) A Natalia PALAEZ-TORRES ) ) ) In removal proceedings ) ) ) Immigration Judge Phillip T. Williams Next Hearing: November 16, 2009 at 8:00am. RESPONDENTS MOTION IN LIMINE *Law student enrolled at the University of Maryland School of Law and participant in the Law School s clinical program, practicing under 8 C.F.R (a)(2) and Maryland Rule 16.

2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND IN THE MATTERS OF Elizabeth GALLEGOS-TORRES and Natalia PALAEZ-TORRES IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS CASE # A A RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS MOTION IN LIMINE Respondents, Elizabeth GALLEGOS-TORRES and Natalia PALAEZ-TORRES had their Master Calendar Hearings on October 29, 2008 at 9:00am. Each filed Motions to Suppress Evidence based upon their unlawful arrest which constituted an egregious violation of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in the privacy of their own home and bedroom, as well as their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. See INS v. Lopez Mendoza, 468 U.S (1984). DHS filed responses to Respondents motions on March 6, 2009 and March 20, On March 17, 2009, the Court granted Respondents Motion to Consolidate, Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to DHS's Brief, and Motion for Continuance. Respondents subsequently filed a Reply Brief and Supplement in Support of their consolidated Motion to Suppress on April 29, Respondents next hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2009 at 8:00am. In the absence of explicit direction from this Court, Respondents anticipate that the scope of inquiry at during the first phase of the November 16 hearing will be limited to the facts and circumstances surrounding their detention and arrest such that this Court will be able to rule on Respondents suppression motion.

3 COME NOW the Respondents, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby move this Court enter an Order in Limine, holding that: 1. Respondents may not be questioned, directly or indirectly, regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability during their suppression hearing on November 16, 2009; 2. Any testimony given in the course of adjudicating Respondents Motion to Suppress will not be admissible in the case-in-chief to establish allegations contained in the Notices to Appear, including those regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability; 3. Respondents bond applications and proceedings, including any and all statements related to alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability contained therein, will not be admissible in the case-in-chief to establish the allegations contained in the Notices to Appear; 4. Any information contained in any potential benefit applications for which Respondents may be eligible, the basis for which arose solely out of the events surrounding their detention and arrest by ICE agents, including any and all statements or information regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability, will not admissible in the case-in-chief to establish the allegations contained in the Notices to Appear. In support of their motion, Respondents submit the following arguments and legal authorities: I. Respondents should not be questioned, directly or indirectly, regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability in connection with the adjudication of their Motion to Suppress Evidence.

4 Information related to Respondents alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability is not relevant to the issues that this Court must initially consider in the course of adjudicating Respondents Motion to Suppress Evidence. The question raised by the suppression motion is whether ICE agents acted unlawfully when, lacking a valid warrant, reasonable suspicion or exigent circumstances, they entered Respondents bedroom, detained Respondents without reasonable suspicion, engaged in impermissible racial profiling, violated Respondents Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and contravened ICE s own regulations governing the arrest, detention, questioning and treatment of suspects. Respondents will testify as to the events of June 30, 2008, and the circumstances surrounding their illegal detention, arrest, and postarrest processing during the portion of the proceedings related to the issue of suppression. Inquiry into any other matter at this time, including Respondents alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability would be extraneous and irrelevant and therefore should not be allowed. Questioning Respondents regarding their alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability implicates Respondents Fifth Amendment privilege. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. In In re Gault, the Supreme Court held that this privilege is available to a witness in any proceeding, criminal, civil, or administrative, potentially involving a significant deprivation of liberty. 387 U.S. 1, 47 (1967). Consistent with Gault, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has long recognized that this privilege applies to witnesses who testify in immigration proceedings. Matter of Sandoval, 17 I & N Dec. 70, 72 (BIA 1979) (finding that the respondent s admission at the hearing concerning her alienage was elicited from her after she was improperly denied her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination ); Matter

5 of King and Yang, 16 I & N Dec. 502, 503 (BIA 1978) ( [I]t is beyond the power of an immigration judge to reject a valid Fifth Amendment claim. ) Moreover, it is a well-settled principle that one should not have to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, (1968). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has expressly explained that when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection. Id. The BIA has consistently recognized that the principle of Simmons, that testimony elicited during a suppression hearing should not be admissible as evidence of guilt, should extend to immigration proceedings. See, e.g., Matter of Wong, 13 I&N Dec. 820, 821 at n.1 (BIA 1971) (citing to Simmons as illustrative of the principle that defendant s testimony in support of motion to suppress [is] not usable against him at trial on issue of guilt ); Matter of Tang, 13 I&N Dec. 691, 692 (BIA 1971) (describing use of the suppression rule in immigration court as similar to that which prevails in criminal matters ). Additionally, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies in removal hearings where the alien's testimony could expose him to future criminal prosecution. Garcia- Quitero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Wall v. INS, 722 F.2d 1442, 1443 (9th Cir. 1984). Recent estimates for fiscal year 2009, based upon data compiled from the first nine months of the fiscal year, suggest that criminal prosecutions for immigration-related offenses will be up nearly 139% from levels reported only five years ago and 459% from levels reported 10 years ago. 1 Specifically, prosecutions involving first-time entrants represent over 40,000 of the near 68,000 total new immigration prosecutions during the first nine months of this See Immigration Prosecutions at Record Levels in FY 2009, published by TRAC Immigration, available online at

6 fiscal year. Id. Thus, the 5 th Amendment s protection against self-incrimination is necessary in Immigration Court when there is a possibility that a respondent could potentially face criminal charges arising from any admission of alienage, entry without inspection, or other factual matters alleged in a Notice to Appear. In conformity with 5 th Amendment constitutional principles and the Simmons, Wong, and Tang line of cases, this Court should disallow questions intended to directly or indirectly elicit testimony regarding Respondents alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability. II. Any testimony given in the course of adjudicating Respondents Motions to Suppress Evidence should be inadmissible in the case-in-chief Respondents should not be questioned, directly or indirectly, regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability in connection with the adjudication of their suppression motions. If, however, for any unforeseeable reason, testimony is given or elicited related to such issues, it should not be admissible as part of the case-in-chief to establish allegations contained in the Notices to Appear. See, e.g., Matter of Wong, 13 I&N Dec. 820, 821 at n.1 (BIA 1971) (citing to Simmons as illustrative of the principle that defendant s testimony in support of motion to suppress [is] not usable against him at trial on issue of guilt ); Matter of Tang, 13 I&N Dec. 691, 692 (BIA 1971) (describing use of the suppression rule in immigration court as similar to that which prevails in criminal matters ). Following this Constitutional principle would be analogous to the regulation governing bond hearings, see 8 C.F.R (d), which provides that custody or bond proceedings shall be separate and apart from, and shall form no part of, any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding. Maintaining preliminary suppression hearings separate and apart from individual merits hearings is as important to the judicial process as keeping custody and bond hearings

7 separate from individual merits hearings; both instances require separation as a way of protecting individual rights. See supra Part III. This Court should therefore disallow the introduction in the case-in-chief of any testimony given or elicited during proceedings related to Respondents suppression motion. III. Respondents bond applications and proceedings, including statements regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability contained therein, should not be admissible as evidence in the case-in-chief. Evidence of alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability contained in Respondents bond applications or proceedings should not be admissible in the case-in-chief. The regulations state that bond hearings are "separate and apart from, and shall form no part of, any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding." 8 C.F.R (d). The BIA and at least one Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that this regulation prohibits the consideration of evidence submitted in a removal proceeding from bond hearings. In re Adeniji, 22 I & N Dec. 1102, 1115 (BIA 1991) (stating that Information adduced during a removal hearing, however, may be considered during a custody hearing so long as it is made part of the bond record ); see also Al-Siddiqi v. Achim, 531 F.3d 490, (7th Cir. 2008); Matter of R-S- H- et al., 23 I. & N. Dec. 629, 630 n.7 (BIA 2003); Matter of Balderas, 20 I. & N. Dec. 389, 393 (BIA 1991). The Immigration Court Practice Manual 9.3(e)(v) further supports this position, stating that [s]ince the Record of Proceedings in a bond proceeding is kept separate and apart from other Records of Proceedings, documents already filed in removal proceedings must be resubmitted if the filing party wishes them to be considered in the bond proceeding. The same interest in justice and fairness counsels the application of this regulation in the opposite; any evidence obtained during bond proceedings should be excluded from these removal proceedings. The effect of admitting such evidence would be to require a Respondent to relieve the

8 government of its burden to prove its case so that the alien may secure bond. Such a result would be fundamentally unfair. Moreover, any statements submitted during Respondents bond applications and proceedings regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability, should be excluded from these proceedings as fruit of the poisonous tree stemming from the egregious 4 th Amendment violations that resulted in Respondents arrest and detention. Respondents detention occurred as a direct result of their arrest on June 30, Their detention occasioned the bond determination hearings, where Respondents submitted argumentation and statements in order to secure their release during removal proceedings. The evidence submitted during these hearings, then, should be excluded from the case-in-chief as evidence tainted by the initial 4 th Amendment violations; the bond hearings were necessitated as a direct result of the unlawful search and seizure that occurred on June 30, 2008 and any submissions made during the bond proceedings were made only in order to defend against the seizure. Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488, 505 n.27 (9th Cir. 1994). IV. Information contained in any potential immigration benefit application, eligibility for which arises solely out of the events surrounding Respondents detention and arrest by ICE agents, including statements regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability contained therein, should not be admissible in the case-in-chief. Any statements or admissions regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status or removability contained in a benefit application, the basis for which arose solely out of the events which are at issue at Respondents suppression hearing, should not be used as evidence to establish alienage in the case-in-chief. Allowing DHS to produce evidence of alienage contained in such an application in this case would be fundamentally unfair and run counter to the very purpose served by the form of relief for which Respondents may be eligible.

9 First, it is granted that in Matter of Cervantes-Torres, 21 I&N Dec. 351, 353 (BIA 1996) the BIA held that DHS could rely upon evidence of alienage contained in an immigration benefit application which the respondent willingly and independently provided. In Cervantes-Torres the BIA addressed the admissibility of a Form I-688A employment authorization card to establish the respondent s alienage where the respondent had filed a motion to suppress based upon an illegal arrest. Id. The BIA began its analysis by stating that [i]irrespective of the applicability of the exclusionary rule, we do not agree that the respondent s own voluntary submission of his Form I-688A is a product of his illegal arrest. Id. (emphasis added). From this premise, the BIA concluded that respondent s application was admissible to establish his alienage notwithstanding his suppression motion. However, the BIA s conclusion in Matter of Cervantes-Torres is not determinative of the outcome of Respondents immediate request. The critical premise upon which the BIA rests its conclusion - that the respondent s submission of an employment authorization card was not a product of his illegal arrest - implies that where a benefit application is a product of an illegal arrest, evidence contained in such an application should not be admissible to establish alienage. It must then follow that where eligibility for a benefit application arises out of the circumstances surrounding an illegal arrest - such as eligibility for a U-Visa arising out of an assault that occurred during the arrest - submission of such an application by a Respondent is necessarily a product of [the] arrest, and any evidence of alienage contained therein should be suppressed. Respondents, therefore, should be able to submit any benefit application for which they may be eligible, the basis of which arose during the course of, and as a result of, their arrest at issue before this court, without jeopardizing the outcome of their pending suppression motion.

10 Moreover, a finding by this Court that any statements or admissions made concerning alienage, country of origin, immigration status or removability in a potential benefit application will not be admissible as evidence in the case-in-chief could serve to expedite the final resolution of Respondents situation. Free from the fear that their statements could be used against them, Respondents would be able to pursue such applications, as may be available to them, while the current litigation in this Court is still pending, rather than waiting for final adjudication of the present case before filing applications with U.S.C.I.S. Given, the government s interest in expediency in resolving matters such as those in this case, it would be in the interests of all parties involved for this Court to rule favorably on this motion, so that Respondents may be free to pursue potential benefits for which they may qualify and which arose solely out of the circumstances of their illegal detention and arrest. WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order in Limine, holding that: 1. Respondents will not be questioned, directly or indirectly, regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability during their suppression hearing on November 16, 2009; 2. Any testimony given in the course of adjudicating Respondents Motion to Suppress will not be admissible in the case-in-chief to establish allegations contained in the Notices to Appear, including those regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability; 3. Respondents bond applications and proceedings, including any and all statements related to alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability contained therein, will

11 not be admissible in the case-in-chief to establish the allegations contained in the Notices to Appear; 4. Any potential benefit applications for which Respondents may be eligible, the basis for which arose out of the events surrounding their detention and arrest by ICE agents, including any and all statements regarding alleged alienage, country of origin, immigration status, or removability, will not admissible in the case-in-chief to establish the allegations contained in the Notices to Appear. Elizabeth Gallegos-Torres and Natalia Palaez-Torres, Respondents By counsel for Respondents Respectfully Submitted, Rama M. Taib* University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD Adam N. Crandell* University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD

12 Stephen Brown* University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD Fariha Quasem* University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD Maureen A. Sweeney, Supervising Attorney University of Maryland School of Law Immigration Clinic 500 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 360 Baltimore, MD *Law student enrolled at the University of Maryland School of Law and participant in the Law School s clinical program, practicing under 8 C.F.R (a)(2) and Maryland Rule 16.

13 United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court Baltimore, Maryland In the Matters of: Elizabeth GALLEGOS-TORRES, Natalia PALAEZ-TORRES A Numbers: , ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Upon consideration of Respondents Motion in Limine, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be GRANTED DENIED because: DHS does not oppose the motion. The respondent does not oppose the motion. A response to the motion has not been filed with the court. Good cause has been established for the motion. The court agrees with the reasons stated in the opposition to the motion. The motion is untimely per. Other: Deadlines: The application(s) for relief must be filed by. The respondent must comply with DHS biometrics instructions by. Date Certificate of Service This document was served by: [ ] Mail [ ] Personal Service Phillip T. Williams Immigration Judge To: [ ] Alien [ ] Alien c/o Custodial Officer [ ] Alien s Atty/Rep [ ] DHS Date: By: Court Staff

14 In the Matters of: Elizabeth GALLEGOS-TORRES, Natalia PALAEZ-TORRES A Numbers: , PROOF OF SERVICE On, I,, served a copy of this Motion in Limine and any attached pages to Office of the Chief Counsel at the following address: 31 Hopkins Plaza, 7 th floor, Baltimore, Maryland, by first class mail. (signature) (date)

5 Motions before the Immigration Court

5 Motions before the Immigration Court Immigration Court Chapter 5 Practice Manual Motions before the Immigration Court 5 Motions before the Immigration Court 5.1 Who May File (a) Parties. Only an alien who is in proceedings before the Immigration

More information

AFFIRMATION. Sample. 1. I am a member of the law firm,, attorneys for the accused herein. I make this affirmation in support of the within motion.

AFFIRMATION. Sample. 1. I am a member of the law firm,, attorneys for the accused herein. I make this affirmation in support of the within motion. COURT OF COUNTY OF -------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AFFIRMATION -against- Index No. [NAME], Accused. -------------------------------------------------------------------X,

More information

APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005

APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005 The American Immigration Law Foundation 515 28th Street Des Moines, IA 50312 www.asistaonline.org PRACTICE ADVISORY APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED:

More information

ALI-ABA Training Materials. from ALI-ABA s. Immigration Court Hearing by the American Law Institute. All rights reserved.

ALI-ABA Training Materials. from ALI-ABA s. Immigration Court Hearing by the American Law Institute. All rights reserved. ALI-ABA Training Materials from ALI-ABA s BEST PRACTICES IN REPRESENTING ASYLUM-SEEKERS A VIDEO RESOURCE FOR PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Immigration Court Hearing 2004 by the American Law Institute. All rights

More information

Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project

Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project 810 Third Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 360-732-0611 Fax: 206-623-5420 Email: defendimmigrants@aol.com Practice Advisory on the Vienna Convention

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division PLEA AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division PLEA AGREEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 02-37A ) JOHN LINDH, ) ) Defendant. ) PLEA AGREEMENT Paul J.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cr-00-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 AnnaLou Tirol Acting Chief Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice JOHN D. KELLER Illinois State Bar No. 0 Deputy Chief VICTOR

More information

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 Updated August 1, MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS: A GENERAL OVERVIEW By the American Immigration Council 2

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 Updated August 1, MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS: A GENERAL OVERVIEW By the American Immigration Council 2 PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 Updated August 1, 2017 MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS: A GENERAL OVERVIEW By the American Immigration Council 2 Every INS agent knows, therefore, that it is highly unlikely

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL

More information

Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States

Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-16-2014 Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.

More information

Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent

Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent Decided October 28, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an alien has the right

More information

Copyright American Immigration Council, Reprinted with permission

Copyright American Immigration Council, Reprinted with permission Copyright American Immigration Council, Reprinted with permission PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 August 28, 2013 ADVANCE PAROLE FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS (DACA) RECIPIENTS By the Legal Action Center

More information

REOPENING A CASE FOR THE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT IN LIGHT OF FRANCO- GONZALEZ V. HOLDER 1 (November 2015)

REOPENING A CASE FOR THE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT IN LIGHT OF FRANCO- GONZALEZ V. HOLDER 1 (November 2015) CENTER for HUMAN RIGHTS and INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE at BOSTON COLLEGE POST-DEPORTATION HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT Boston College Law School, 885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02459 Tel 617.552.9261 Fax 617.552.9295

More information

USCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant.

USCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant. ==================================================================== IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT USCA No. 14-3890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SANTANA DRAPEAU,

More information

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 2:9. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 2:9. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 2:9. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL Rule 2:9-1. Control by Appellate Court of Proceedings Pending Appeal or Certification (a) Control

More information

April 16, The Deputy Secretary

April 16, The Deputy Secretary Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Homeland Security April 16,201 2 MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM: SUBJECT: Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Commissioner,

More information

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE I & II

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE I & II THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE I & II Jack Wade Nowlin Jessie D. Puckett, Jr., Lecturer in Law Associate Professor of Law University of Mississippi School of Law University, MS 38677 (662) 915-6855 jnowlin@olemiss.edu

More information

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 Date of Assent: 17 December 2004 Operative Date: 1 May 2005 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Application of the Act 4 Office of Ombudsman 5 Functions and jurisdiction

More information

Mahesh Julka v. Attorney General United States

Mahesh Julka v. Attorney General United States 2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-2016 Mahesh Julka v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016

More information

Deportations and Detentions

Deportations and Detentions Deportations and Detentions PROVIDED BY SAN FRANCISCO IMMIGRANT LEGAL AND EDUCATION NETWORK NOTE: This brochure is intended as general information. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.

More information

Presenters 10/13/2015. Effective Use of Evidence and Expert Witnesses in Immigration Court

Presenters 10/13/2015. Effective Use of Evidence and Expert Witnesses in Immigration Court Effective Use of Evidence and Expert Witnesses in Immigration Court Presenters Michelle Mendez, CLINIC Staff Attorney Martin Gauto, CLINIC Staff Attorney 1 Next Webinar Effective Trial Advocacy Wed, 11/18/15,

More information

Barbados International Extradition Treaty with the United States

Barbados International Extradition Treaty with the United States Barbados International Extradition Treaty with the United States February 28, 1996, Date-Signed March 3, 2000, Date-In-Force STATUS: July 31, 1997. Treaty was read the first time and, together with the

More information

USCIS PUBLISHES NEW RULE FOR NONIMMIGRANT VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

USCIS PUBLISHES NEW RULE FOR NONIMMIGRANT VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Communications News Release September 5, 2007 Contact: USCIS Communications 202-272-1200 USCIS PUBLISHES NEW RULE FOR NONIMMIGRANT VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY U-Visas Will Provide Temporary Immigration

More information

Know your rights. as an immigrant

Know your rights. as an immigrant Know your rights as an immigrant This booklet was originally produced by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in North Carolina with thanks to the following people and organizations: North Carolina

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Lo, Ousseynou v. Gonzales, Alberto Doc. 20 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 No. 06-3336 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago,

More information

Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein

Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 created two new immigration benefits, T and U nonimmigrant status, in an effort

More information

BIA and Circuit Court Appeals Pro Bono Immigration Training San Francisco, CA August 8, 2013

BIA and Circuit Court Appeals Pro Bono Immigration Training San Francisco, CA August 8, 2013 BIA and Circuit Court Appeals Pro Bono Immigration Training San Francisco, CA August 8, 2013 Holly S. Cooper University of California, Davis Davis, CA Karen T. Grisez Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson

More information

Foreigners on U.S. Soil: To Know Your Rights Is to Know Very Little

Foreigners on U.S. Soil: To Know Your Rights Is to Know Very Little Foreigners on U.S. Soil: To Know Your Rights Is to Know Very Little By Angelo A. Paparelli, Ted J. Chiappari and Olivia M. Sanson* For a nation that proclaims equal justice under law a founding principle,

More information

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES ZIMBABWE EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ZIMBABWE TREATY DOC. 105-33 1997 U.S.T. LEXIS 99 July 25, 1997, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING

More information

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 November 30, 2012

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 November 30, 2012 PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 November 30, 2012 Understanding Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General and the Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule in Immigration Proceedings SUMMARY In Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General,

More information

In re Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-ZAPATA, Respondent

In re Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-ZAPATA, Respondent In re Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-ZAPATA, Respondent File A94 791 455 - Los Fresnos Decided December 19, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1)

More information

CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal

CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. Chief Justice Earl Warren OVERVIEW The power to determine who

More information

Maryland Laws on Bail Page D-1. Maryland Declaration of Rights

Maryland Laws on Bail Page D-1. Maryland Declaration of Rights Maryland Laws on Bail Page D- 0 0 Maryland Declaration of Rights Article. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted, by the Courts

More information

Immigration Issues in Child Welfare Proceedings

Immigration Issues in Child Welfare Proceedings Immigration Issues in Child Welfare Proceedings National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges June 2014 Steven Weller and John A. Martin Center for Public Policy Studies Immigration and the State

More information

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES SRI LANKA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH SRI LANKA TREATY DOC. 106-34 1999 U.S.T. LEXIS 171 September 30, 1999, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING

More information

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID AND INDIGENT DEFENDANTS

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID AND INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID AND INDIGENT DEFENDANTS REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RESOLVED,

More information

Poland International Extradition Treaty with the United States MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Poland International Extradition Treaty with the United States MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Poland International Extradition Treaty with the United States July 10, 1996, Date-Signed September 17, 1999, Date-In-Force MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION TREATY

More information

MOTIONS TO REOPEN GUIDE

MOTIONS TO REOPEN GUIDE MOTIONS TO REOPEN GUIDE ****************************************************** Overview A Motion to Reopen (MTR) is a legal filing that asks the court to undo a deportation order and open your case back

More information

(b) Hearing at First Appearance Conditions of Release.

(b) Hearing at First Appearance Conditions of Release. RULE 3.131. PRETRIAL RELEASE (a) Right to Pretrial Release. Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great,

More information

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES SOUTH AFRICA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH SOUTH AFRICA TREATY DOC. 106-24 1999 U.S.T. LEXIS 158 September 16, 1999, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

More information

Re: Request for Prosecutorial Discretion; Joint Motion to Reopen and Terminate Requestor: (A )

Re: Request for Prosecutorial Discretion; Joint Motion to Reopen and Terminate Requestor: (A ) , Deputy Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel, Baltimore Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fallon Federal Building 31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600 Baltimore MD 21201

More information

Evidence - Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Pre- Trial Motion To Suppress

Evidence - Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Pre- Trial Motion To Suppress Louisiana Law Review Volume 22 Number 4 Symposium: Louisiana and the Civil Law June 1962 Evidence - Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Pre- Trial Motion To Suppress James L. Dennis Repository Citation James

More information

STRATEGIES FOR SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS FOR CHILD CLIENTS

STRATEGIES FOR SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS FOR CHILD CLIENTS PRACTICE ADVISORY STRATEGIES FOR SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS FOR CHILD CLIENTS Produced for the Vera Institute of Justice s Unaccompanied Children Program By Helen Lawrence,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: February 18, 2016 Decided: July 29, 2016) Docket No.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: February 18, 2016 Decided: July 29, 2016) Docket No. 0 cv Guerra v. Shanahan et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Argued: February 1, 01 Decided: July, 01) Docket No. 1 0 cv DEYLI NOE GUERRA, AKA DEYLI NOE GUERRA

More information

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO EXTRADITION TREATY WITH TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TREATY DOC. 105-21 1996 U.S.T. LEXIS 59 March 4, 1996, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-19-2008 USA v. Booker Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3725 Follow this and additional

More information

Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA

Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA 2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2009 Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4105 Follow this and

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCOTT ROBINSON. Argued: November 9, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 2, 2017

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCOTT ROBINSON. Argued: November 9, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 2, 2017 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY ADVOCATE TRAINING

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY ADVOCATE TRAINING WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY ADVOCATE TRAINING Enforcement History Prior to 1994 Notice of Violation Criminal citation Long form criminal filing Civil unfair business practice/unfair

More information

ALL ABOUT BONDS Q. ICE SET A BOND AMOUNT THAT IS TOO HIGH FOR ME TO PAY (OR ICE DID NOT SET A BOND AMOUNT IN MY CASE). CAN I GET THE AMOUNT LOWERED?

ALL ABOUT BONDS Q. ICE SET A BOND AMOUNT THAT IS TOO HIGH FOR ME TO PAY (OR ICE DID NOT SET A BOND AMOUNT IN MY CASE). CAN I GET THE AMOUNT LOWERED? ALL ABOUT BONDS Q. WHAT IS A BOND? A bond is not a fine. It is a guarantee to the government that, if you are let out of detention, you will go to all of your hearings and will obey the judge's order at

More information

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment Français Español Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988 Scope of the Body of Principles

More information

Criminal Procedure Code No. 301/2005 Coll.

Criminal Procedure Code No. 301/2005 Coll. Criminal Procedure Code No. 301/2005 Coll. P A R T F I V E L E G A L R E L A T I O N S W I T H A B R O A D CHAPTER ONE BASIC PROVISIONS Section 477 Definitions For the purposes of this Chapter: a) an international

More information

Upon entry into force, it will terminate and supersede the existing Extradition Treaty between the United States and Thailand.

Upon entry into force, it will terminate and supersede the existing Extradition Treaty between the United States and Thailand. BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES THAILAND EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THAILAND TREATY DOC. 98-16 1983 U.S.T. LEXIS 418 December 14, 1983, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING

More information

Chhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States

Chhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2014 Chhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket

More information

February 15, Via at:

February 15, Via  at: Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20529-2140 Via

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals No. 07-2397 For the Seventh Circuit JOSE M. VACA-TELLEZ, also known as JOSE VACA, also known as JOSE BACA, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 [Cite as State v. Kemper, 2004-Ohio-6055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 2002-CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 v. : T.C. Case Nos. 01-CR-495 And

More information

SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE

SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The

More information

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1 Case: 1:17-cv-02761 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION EMIL J. SANTOS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case

More information

: : Defendant. : Defendant Salomon Benzadon Boutin was indicted by a grand jury of the Eastern District

: : Defendant. : Defendant Salomon Benzadon Boutin was indicted by a grand jury of the Eastern District UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------ x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -against- SALOMON BENZADON BOUTIN, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------

More information

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 November 12, 2003 WHOM TO SUE AND WHOM TO SERVE IN IMMIGRATION-RELATED DISTRICT COURT LITIGATION INTRODUCTION By Trina A. Realmuto 2 This Practice

More information

November 20, Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. R. Gil Kerlikowske Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection

November 20, Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. R. Gil Kerlikowske Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Homeland Security November 20, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas S. Winkowski Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement R. Gil

More information

Bulgaria International Extradition Treaty with the United States

Bulgaria International Extradition Treaty with the United States Bulgaria International Extradition Treaty with the United States September 19, 2007, Date-Signed May 21, 2009, Date-In-Force Message from the President of the United States January 22, 2008.--Treaty was

More information

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF FXLED J:N Court of Appeals IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS JUN 1 4 2012 lisa Matz Clerk, 5th District MICAH JERRELL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO. 05-11-00859-CR

More information

5B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015

5B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015 5B1.1 GUIDELINES MANUAL November 1, 2015 PART B - PROBATION Introductory Commentary The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 makes probation a sentence in and of itself. 18 U.S.C. 3561. Probation may

More information

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR LAW

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR LAW DCTC Doc No. 33 4/4/14 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR LAW (Montréal, 26 March to 4 April 2014) CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF THE CONVENTION ON OFFENCES AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT (TOKYO,

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW vs. NO. of Defendant * EACH CASE WILL HAVE ITS OWN UNIQUE TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER. SUCH ORDERS WILL TYPICALLY BE IN THIS FORM. TRIAL

More information

Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2004 Session

Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2004 Session Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2004 Session HB 295 House Bill 295 Judiciary FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE Revised (The Speaker and the Minority Leader, et al.) (By Request Administration)

More information

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 25, 2017 Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - BORDER SECURITY

More information

PRACTICE ADVISORY: PROLONGED MANDATORY DETENTION AND BOND ELIGIBILITY IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Updated: June 2016

PRACTICE ADVISORY: PROLONGED MANDATORY DETENTION AND BOND ELIGIBILITY IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Updated: June 2016 PRACTICE ADVISORY: PROLONGED MANDATORY DETENTION AND BOND ELIGIBILITY IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Introduction Updated: June 2016 This practice advisory reviews the Eleventh Circuit s decision in Sopo v. Attorney

More information

Hidayat v. Atty Gen USA

Hidayat v. Atty Gen USA 2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-18-2005 Hidayat v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1349 Follow this and

More information

Case 6:13-cr JAJ-KRS Document 245 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1085 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 6:13-cr JAJ-KRS Document 245 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1085 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 6:13-cr-00099-JAJ-KRS Document 245 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JAMES FIDEL SOTOLONGO, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO

More information

I. Introduction. fact that most people carry a cell phone, there has been relatively little litigation deciding

I. Introduction. fact that most people carry a cell phone, there has been relatively little litigation deciding CELL PHONE SEARCHES IN SCHOOLS: THE NEW FRONTIER ANDREA KLIKA I. Introduction In the age of smart phones, what once was a simple device to make phone calls has become a personal computer that stores a

More information

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims

More information

FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69

FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69 U.S. Department of Justice THE LAW OF ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69 January 1993 Edition OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMMIGRATION AND NATDRAOZATION SERVICE THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY

More information

Bond Hearings for Immigrants Subject to Prolonged Immigration Detention in the Ninth Circuit

Bond Hearings for Immigrants Subject to Prolonged Immigration Detention in the Ninth Circuit Bond Hearings for Immigrants Subject to Prolonged Immigration Detention in the Ninth Circuit Michael Kaufman, ACLU of Southern California Michael Tan, ACLU Immigrants Rights Project December 2015 This

More information

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE In the Matter of: Jane SMITH, Appellant / Petitioner File No. A### ### ### U Nonimmigrant Petition

More information

THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE

THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE E DUCATION I NNOVATION A DVANCING J USTICE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, PARTS I & II DIVIDER 16 Professor Jack W. Nowlin OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1.

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-001017-MR WILLIE PALMER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE FRED A. STINE,

More information

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES BOLIVIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BOLIVIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 221. June 27, 1995, Date-Signed

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES BOLIVIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BOLIVIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 221. June 27, 1995, Date-Signed BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES BOLIVIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BOLIVIA TREATY DOC. 104-22 1995 U.S.T. LEXIS 221 June 27, 1995, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING THE

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:10-cv-00145-RMC Document 29 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES RYAN, DAVID ALLEN AND ) RONALD SHERMAN, on Behalf of ) Themselves and

More information

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH INDIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 97. June 25, 1997, Date-Signed

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH INDIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 97. June 25, 1997, Date-Signed BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH INDIA TREATY DOC. 105-30 1997 U.S.T. LEXIS 97 June 25, 1997, Date-Signed MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION

More information

TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, SIGNED AT LIMA ON JULY 26, 2001

TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, SIGNED AT LIMA ON JULY 26, 2001 Peru International Extradition Treaty with the United States July 26, 2001, Date-Signed August 25, 2003, Date-In-Force STATUS: MAY 8, 2002. Treaty was read the first time, and together with the accompanying

More information

Canada International Extradition Treaty-First Protocol with the United States

Canada International Extradition Treaty-First Protocol with the United States Canada International Extradition Treaty-First Protocol with the United States January 11, 1988, Date-Signed November 26, 1991, Date-In-Force Protocol was read the first time, and together with the accompanying

More information

COMMITMENT ISSUES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

COMMITMENT ISSUES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITMENT ISSUES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT This publication is only represented to be current as of the revision date on this cover page. Material in this publication may have been altered, added, or deleted

More information

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 105TH CONGRESS 1st Session " SENATE! TREATY DOC. 105 23 MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH BARBADOS MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT

More information

St. Lucia International Extradition Treaty with the United States

St. Lucia International Extradition Treaty with the United States St. Lucia International Extradition Treaty with the United States ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES EXTRADITION TREATIES WITH ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES April 18, 1996, Date-Signed

More information

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL Jesus M. Ruiz-Velasco IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, LLP 203 NORTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 1550 CHICAGO, IL 60601 PH:

More information

Compendium of U.S. Laws and Regulations Related to Refugee Resettlement Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Compendium of U.S. Laws and Regulations Related to Refugee Resettlement Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Compendium of U.S. Laws and Regulations Related to Refugee Resettlement Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Funded by the Howard and Abby Milstein Foundation HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Harvard Immigration

More information

Czech Republic - Constitution Adopted on: 16 Dec 1992

Czech Republic - Constitution Adopted on: 16 Dec 1992 Czech Republic - Constitution Adopted on: 16 Dec 1992 Preamble We, the citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, at the time of the renewal of an independent Czech state, being loyal

More information

Non-Immigrant Category Update

Non-Immigrant Category Update Pace International Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 Spring 2004 Article 2 April 2004 Non-Immigrant Category Update Jan H. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 28, 2013 v No. 308459 Wayne Circuit Court MARYANNE GODBOLDO, LC No. 11-009184-AR Defendant-Appellee.

More information

The Family Court Process for Children Charged with Criminal and Status Offenses

The Family Court Process for Children Charged with Criminal and Status Offenses The Family Court Process for Children Charged with Criminal and Status Offenses A Brief Overview of South Carolina s Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings 2017 CHILDREN S LAW CENTER UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 5. Case 5-CA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 5. Case 5-CA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 5 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and Case 5-CA-140896 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

More information

If 2nd Level review Required: List of additional documentation that may be required

If 2nd Level review Required: List of additional documentation that may be required EAD Category If 2nd Level review Required: List of additional documentation that may be required Conforming Eligible FHA Eligible VA (co-borrower) A1 Lawful Permanent Resident Permanent Resident Card Passport

More information

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1. February 20, 2017

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1. February 20, 2017 PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 February 20, 2017 EXPEDITED REMOVAL: WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13767, BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (ISSUED ON JANUARY 25, 2017) Expedited

More information

The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law

The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law January 16, 2015 Raha Jorjani, Office of the Alameda County Public Defender Agenda Overview of Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions. Post-Conviction

More information

Stages of a Case Glossary

Stages of a Case Glossary Stages of a Case Glossary Stages of a Case are the specific events in the life of an indigent defense case. Each type of case has its own events known by special names. Following are details about the

More information

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective October 1, 2010 JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution

More information