UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
|
|
- Florence Lilian Lester
- 6 years ago
- Views:
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)
Case 2:06-cv MJP Document 98-6 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-01411-MJP Document 98-6 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 5 Name#1 Counsel for Respondent(s Chief Counsel Law Firm (If Applicable Name #2 Address 1 Deputy Chief Counsel Address 2 Name #3 Assistant
More informationMOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT S RELEASE ON BOND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RELEASE ON HIS OWN RECOGNIZANCE
Law student intern appearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.1(a(2 Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition 1612 K Street NW, Suite 204 Washington, DC 20006 (202 331-3320 DETAINED Staff Attorney Capital Area
More informationOVERVIEW of Topics. Understanding a Notice to Appear. Pleadings to the Notice to Appear (or Other Charging Documents) and Contesting Removal
Pleadings to the Notice to Appear (or Other Charging Documents) and Contesting Removal Helen Parsonage (DL), Winston Salem, NC Dan Kesselbrenner, Boston, MA Francisco Ugarte, Immigration Specialist, San
More informationABA Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation Introduction to Immigration Court Proceedings
ABA Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation Introduction to Immigration Court Proceedings Dree Collopy Co-panelist: Christina Fiflis Presentation Overview Representation of
More information5 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 informationAFFIRMATION. 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 informationWHERE TO DRAW THE LINE: THE EGREGIOUSNESS STANDARD IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS.
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE: THE EGREGIOUSNESS STANDARD IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE RACIAL PROFILING EXCEPTION Stephanie Groff* INTRODUCTION In the early morning
More informationUnited States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court [Location] File No. A# NON-DETAINED
[Attorney] [Attorney EOIR ID #] [Attorney address] Attorney for Respondent United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court [Location] In the Matter of [Respondent
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano
PRACTICE ADVISORY April 21, 2011 Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081
More informationMEMORANDUM. Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators. Compliance with federal detainer warrants. Date February 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM To re Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators Compliance with federal detainer warrants Date February 14, 2017 From Thomas Mitchell, NYSSA Counsel Introduction At the 2017 Sheriffs Winter
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000567 Miguel Ayala, and Carlos Gonzales, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC95741 PER CURIAM. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. WILL PERKINS, Respondent. [April 27, 2000] We have for review the Fourth District s decision in Perkins v. State, 734
More informationImmigration Enforcement, Bond, and Removal
Immigration Enforcement, Bond, and Removal Immigration Policy Reforms On Nov. 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of reforms modifying immigration policy: 1. Expanding deferred action for certain
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bautista v. Sabol et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT A. BAUTISTA, : No. 3:11cv1611 Petitioner : : (Judge Munley) v. : : MARY E. SABOL, WARDEN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Agency No. A versus
Case: 15-11954 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-11954 Agency No. A079-061-829 KAP SUN BUTKA, Petitioner, versus U.S.
More informationNO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL. TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COURT MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes defendant TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)), by and through his undersigned counsel, and respectfully
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Deft saw
More informationAPPLYING 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 informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION Legal Action Center 918 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C (202)
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION Legal Action Center 918 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 742-5600 June 10, 2002 Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division Immigration and Naturalization
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL31997 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Authority to Enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the Wake of the Homeland Security Act: Legal Issues July 16, 2003
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
-PJK Cuello v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director of Doc. 10 Roberto Mendoza Cuello, Jr. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN
More informationIN 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 informationPolicy Memorandum. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. May 10,2018 PM Accrual of Unlawful Presence and F, J, and M Nonimmigrants
FOR PUBUC COMMENT Posted: 05-11-2018 Cornmentperiodends: 06-11-2018 U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ofice of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN ASHCROFT, as Attorney General of the ) United States; TOM RIDGE, as Secretary of the
More informationBackground on the Trump Administration Executive Orders on Immigration
Background on the Trump Administration Executive Orders on Immigration The following document provides background information on President Trump s Executive Orders, as well as subsequent directives regarding
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA. Plaintiff, Defendants. INTRODUCTION
Case 1:18-cv-00040-SPW Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 16 Shahid Haque BORDER CROSSING LAW FIRM 7 West 6th Avenue, Ste. 2A Helena, MT 59624 (406) 594-2004 Matt Adams (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
More informationOVERVIEW OF THE DEPORTATION PROCESS
OVERVIEW OF THE DEPORTATION PROCESS A Guide for Community Members & Advocates By Em Puhl The immigration system is very complex and opaque, containing many intricate moving parts. Most decisions that result
More informationStop, Frisk and Related Issues. Capt. Adam R. Austino Vineland Police Department
Stop, Frisk and Related Issues Capt. Adam R. Austino Vineland Police Department To Be Discussed When can police stop a vehicle? When can police stop a pedestrian? The difference between mere inquiries
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 21, 2004; 2:00 p.m. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-000584-MR EDWARD LAMONT HARDY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SHEILA R.
More informationThese materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017.
Linda Kenepaske Law Offices of Linda Kenepaske, PLLC 17 Battery Place, Suite 1226 These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 16, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 16, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KENNETH HAYES Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 97-C-1735 Steve
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DISTRICT COURT, TELLER COUNTY, COLORADO 101 W. Bennett Avenue, Cripple Creek, Colorado 80813 Plaintiff: LEONARDO CANSECO SALINAS, v. Defendant: JASON MIKESELL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Teller
More informationFlor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510)
Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box 70976 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 380-8229 DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMGRATION APPEALS
More informationTHE WEAPON: ADMISSIONS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT WITHOUT A CONVICTION - INADMISSABILITY UNDER 212(a)(2)(A)(i)
THE WEAPON: ADMISSIONS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT WITHOUT A CONVICTION - INADMISSABILITY UNDER 212(a)(2)(A)(i) It is no surprise to anyone in or out of the practice of law that a criminal conviction can be the
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS LITIGATING IMMIGRATION CASES IN FEDERAL COURT
LITIGATING IMMIGRATION CASES IN FEDERAL COURT 4th Edition Dedication... v About the Author... xi Preface... xxxi Acknowledgments... xxxii Table of Decisions... 915 Subject-Matter Index... 977 Chapter 1:
More informationCase 5:16-cv DMG-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-00-dmg-sp Document Filed // Page of Page ID #: 0 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP John V. Berlinski, Esq. (SBN 0) jberlinski@kasowitz.com 0 Century Park East Suite 000 Los Angeles, California
More informationJONES & MAYER Attorneys at Law CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
Vol. 30 No. 19 July 21, 2015 JONES & MAYER Attorneys at Law 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 ** Fax: (714) 446-1448 ** Website: www.jones-mayer.com CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
More informationPRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 Summary of major provisions: South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 forces all South Carolinians to carry specific forms of identification at all times
More informationIn the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Civil Action No. LUIS QUEZADA, Plaintiff, v. TED MINK, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, Colorado Defendant.
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. D ANGELO BROOKS v. Record No. 091047 OPINION BY JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS June 9, 2011 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
More informationChapter 1 CHAPTER 1 REMEDIES AND STRATEGIES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT CLIENTS. This chapter includes:
Remedies and Strategies for Permanent Resident Clients CHAPTER 1 REMEDIES AND STRATEGIES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT CLIENTS Chapter 1 This chapter includes: 1.1 Introduction... 1-1 1.2 How to Use This Manual...
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to State of New Hampshire. James B. Hobbs. Opinion and Order
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to 2401 State of New Hampshire v. James B. Hobbs Opinion and Order Lynn, C.J. The defendant, James B. Hobbs, is charged
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No Civ (Altonaga/Simonton)
Case 1:14-cv-20308-CMA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2014 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 14-20308 Civ (Altonaga/Simonton) John Doe I, and John
More informationv. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:
County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse, Room 160 520 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80204 Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: *****
More informationInteroffice Memorandum
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington. DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Interoffice Memorandum To: Field Leadership From: Donald Neufeld Is! Acting
More informationIN 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 informationDACA LEGAL SERVICES TOOLKIT Practice Advisory 6 of 7
DACA LEGAL SERVICES TOOLKIT Practice Advisory 6 of 7 DEFENSES FOR DACA RECIPIENTS FACING ENFORCEMENT OR REMOVAL (DEPORTATION) PROCEEDINGS Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental
More informationLaws of Arrest, Search, & Seizure. Instructor: Judge Mark Arnold (310) Fall, Course Outline
Laws of Arrest, Search, & Seizure Instructor: Judge Mark Arnold (310) 787-3837 Fall, 2015 Course Outline I. Course Description Complete Title: Administration of Justice #170 - "Laws of Arrest, Search,
More informationNo 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 informationCase: 1:11-cv Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172
Case: 1:11-cv-05452 Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSE JIMENEZ MORENO and MARIA )
More informationQuestion & Answer May 27, 2008
Question & Answer May 27, 2008 USCIS NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING Answers to National Stakeholder Questions Note: The next stakeholder meeting will be held on June 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm. 1. Question: Have
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. v. No. XX-XX-XXX PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Petitioner, v. No. XX-XX-XXX MICHAEL J. PITTS, Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, U.S.
More information(617) ext. 8 (tel) INSTANT MOTION TO REOPEN (617) (fax)
Trina Realmuto Kaitlin Konkel, Student Extern DETAINED National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 DEPORTATION STAYED BY THE BIA Boston, MA 02108 PENDING ADJUDICATION
More informationNUTS AND BOLTS OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT
NUTS AND BOLTS OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT February 21, 2018 Raha Jorjani Brad Banias Zachary Nightingale (moderator) Presented by: AILA Federal Court Litigation Section
More informationSupreme Court, Kings County, People v. Nunez
Touro Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2004 Compilation Article 14 December 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County, People v. Nunez Yale Pollack Follow this and additional
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Petitioner, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland
More informationCase 2:11-cr HH-FHS Document 133 Filed 08/16/12 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cr-00299-HH-FHS Document 133 Filed 08/16/12 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * CRIMINAL NO. 11-CR-299 v. * SECTION: HH AARON F.
More informationRESPONDENT S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF BOND APPEAL
Himedes V. Chicas EOIR ID No. CY###### Law Offices of Jezic & Moyse, LLC 2730 University Boulevard West, Suite 604 Silver Spring, MD 20902 (240) 292-7200 Fax: (240) 292-7725 hchicas@jezicfirm.com Counsel
More informationWhat Happens After I Get Out? A Guide for Immigrants Seeking Release From Prolonged Detention at a Bond Hearing Under Rodriguez v. Robbins March 2016
LEGAL DEPARTMENT IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT What Happens After I Get Out? A Guide for Immigrants Seeking Release From Prolonged Detention at a Bond Hearing Under Rodriguez v. Robbins March 2016 This guide
More informationMEMORANDUM FOR BASIC LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITING I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED. A. Will Mr. Smeek prevail on a motion to suppress the 300 grams of hail seized
MEMORANDUM FOR BASIC LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITING TO: MR. CONGIARDO FROM: AMANDA SCOTT SUBJECT: RE: PEOPLE V. JOSHUA SMEEK DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2015 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Will Mr. Smeek prevail on a motion
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 07-3666 For the Seventh Circuit ALI AIOUB, v. Petitioner-Appellant, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent-Appellee. Petition for
More informationWashington 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 informationThis Act may be cited as the Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Related Matters Act 2003.
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL AND RELATED MATTERS ACT 2003 Act 35 of 2003 15 November 2003 P 29/03; Amended 34/04 (P 40/04); 35/04 (P 39/04); 14/05 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I - PRELIMINARY 1. Short
More informationCase 1:09-mj JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 1:09-mj-00015-JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) V. ) ) DWAYNE F. CROSS, ) ) Defendant. ) Case
More informationCRS Report for Congress
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22413 March 29, 2006 Summary Criminalizing Unlawful Presence: Selected Issues Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division
More informationMutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2003
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2003 REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI (No. 6 of 2003) I assent (Signed): Anote Tong Beretitenti 19/12/2003 AN ACT RELATING TO THE PROVISION AND OBTAINING OF INTERNATIONAL
More informationCHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 What Is Parole?
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Parole in Immigration Law Chapter 1 This chapter includes: 1.1 What Is Parole?... 1-1 1.2 The Parole Power: One Little Statutory Provision, Lots of Parole... 1-2 1.3 Parole and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A
Liliana Marin v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 920070227 Dockets.Justia.com [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-13576 Non-Argument Calendar BIA Nos. A95-887-161
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2002 v No. 237738 Wayne Circuit Court LAMAR ROBINSON, LC No. 99-005187 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
RESTRICTED Case: 16-72269, 01/10/2017, ID: 10261504, DktEntry: 10-1, Page 1 of 40 Case No. 16-72269 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, v. LORETTA LYNCH,
More informationORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to define legal implications and procedures involved when a search is performed.
Page 1 of 5 YALE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS Serving with Integrity, Trust, Commitment and Courage Since 1894 ORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW 312 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW DATE: 19 MAR 2012 ANNUAL
More informationDePaul Law Review. DePaul College of Law. Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter Article 16
DePaul Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1960 Article 16 Constitutional Law - Statute Authorizing Search without Warrant Upheld by Reason of Equal Division of Supreme Court - Ohio ex rel. Eaton
More informationIMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
SOUTH TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 of 6 I. POLICY This agency recognizes and values the diversity of the community it serves. Therefore, this agency shall conduct all immigration enforcement activities
More informationImmigration and Customs Enforcement Worksite Raids and Inspections
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Worksite Raids and Inspections Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is an investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged with enforcing
More informationAustria International Extradition Treaty with the United States. Message from the President of the United States
Austria International Extradition Treaty with the United States January 8, 1998, Date-Signed January 1, 2000, Date-In-Force Message from the President of the United States 105TH CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION BRIAN McCANN, ) 013CH105:S3 ).CALE ND AC./Roo o a TIME. 0,):00 Plaintiff, ) Case Number: Decl3r tory Jd9 t ) -- vs. )
More informationCopyright 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 informationI. PURPOSE DEFINITIONS RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Page 1 of 8
Policy Title: Search, Apprehension and Arrest Accreditation Reference: Effective Date: February 25, 2015 Review Date: Supercedes: Policy Number: 6.05 Pages: 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.5.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.4
More informationALI-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 informationBERMUDA 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 informationICE. I.C.E. Under D.H.S. Customs and INS Investigations DRO
ICE What is I.C.E.? IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT I.& N.S. Under D.O.J Investigations / Inspections/ DRO/Exams/ Records; USBP I.C.E. Under D.H.S. Customs and INS Investigations DRO C.B.P. USBP / Inspections
More informationPRACTICE 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 informationSTRIKING AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE , VERSION. On page 1, beginning on line 15, strike everything through page 19, line 451, and insert:
1/5/18 V.1 cjc Sponsor: Gossett Proposed No.: 2017-0487 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STRIKING AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2017-0487, VERSION 1 On page 1, beginning on line 15, strike
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationExecutive Actions on Immigration
Page 1 of 6 Executive Actions on Immigration On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions to crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons
More informationNO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL. TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
NO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO SUPPRESS WRITTEN OR ORAL STATEMENTS OF
More informationTHE 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 informationJTIP Handout:Lesson 34 Immigration Consequences
KEY IMMIGRATION TERMS AND DEFINITIONS INS DHS USCIS ICE CBP ORR Immigration and Naturalization Services. On 03/01/03, the INS ceased to exist; the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) now handles immigration
More informationConstitutional Law - Search and Seizure - Hot Pursuit
Louisiana Law Review Volume 28 Number 3 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1966-1967 Term: A Symposium April 1968 Constitutional Law - Search and Seizure - Hot Pursuit Dan E. Melichar Repository
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 07-3396 & 08-1452 JESUS LAGUNAS-SALGADO, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petitions
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 97-CM Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Robert E. Morin, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationSarang Sekhavat Federal Policy Director Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
Sarang Sekhavat Federal Policy Director Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition US Department of Homeland Security US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) US Immigration and Customs
More informationNW AILA CLE Seattle, WA. Identifying Relief for Clients in Removal Proceedings
NW AILA CLE 3.16.2018 Seattle, WA Identifying Relief for Clients in Removal Proceedings This panel is about weighing the options for clients in removal proceedings, and in particular choosing between consular
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULLTEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0176p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT YOUNG HEE KWAK, Petitioner, X v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
More informationExcerpted from AILA's Immigration Litigation Toolbox, 5th Ed. ( 2016, American Immigration Lawyers Association), and distributed with permission.
Excerpted from AILA's Immigration Litigation Toolbox, 5th Ed. ( 2016, American Immigration Lawyers Association), and distributed with permission. THE CLINIC Genevra W. Alberti, #63682 Rekha Sharma-Crawford,
More informationImmigration Violations
Policy 428 Elk Grove Police Department 428.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines to members of the Elk Grove Police Department relating to immigration and interacting
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/29/15 In re Christian H. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More information