GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATIONS OF IMMIGRATION LAW LAW 235 SPRING 2012

Similar documents
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATIONS OF IMMIGRATION LAW LAW 235 SPRING 2013

Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA

GEORGE MASON SCHOOL OF LAW Immigration Law Law 235 Fall Syllabus

GEORGE MASON SCHOOL OF LAW Immigration Law Law 235 Fall Syllabus

GEORGE MASON SCHOOL OF LAW Immigration Law Law 235 Fall Syllabus

n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240

IMMIGRATION LAW COURSE NUMBER 5297 FALL 2015 PROFESSOR MAURICE HEW, JR.

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL

New York University School of Law Fall Adam B. Cox Vanderbilt Hall 509

Matter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents

WINTER 2011 IMMIGRATION LAW LAW A577 Tuesday/Thursday 3:30-5:20 Room 207

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Agency No. A versus

Federico Flores v. Atty Gen USA

SYLLABUS Immigration Law (5389) University of Houston Law Center Professor: Geoffrey Hoffman Spring 2018 Jan. 17th-Apr. 25th

Phone# & UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW SPRING 2015 COURSE OUTLINE

SYLLABUS Immigration Law (5389) University of Houston Law Center Professor: Geoffrey Hoffman Fall 2018 Aug. 20-Nov. 26

UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW SPRING 2016 COURSE OUTLINE

AFTER TPS: OPTIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Follow this and additional works at:

ABA Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation Introduction to Immigration Court Proceedings

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A

United States Court of Appeals

Asylum and Refugee Provisions

Interoffice Memorandum

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Grounds of Inadmissibility, INA 212(a) Adjustment in Removal; Re-Adjustment of LPR. Aggravated Felonies and Admissibility

OVERVIEW OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER INA 240

Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA

Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number: Issue Date: 06/05/2003 DELEGATION TO THE BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. In the Matter of: ) Brief in Support of N-336 Request

Jiang v. Atty Gen USA

Hacer Cakmakci v. Atty Gen USA

DACA LEGAL SERVICES TOOLKIT Practice Advisory 6 of 7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Raquel Castillo-Torres petitions for review of an order by the Board of

Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO HARDSHIP AND THE MANUAL. This chapter includes:

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Matter of Z. VALDEZ, Respondent

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent

Interoffice Memorandum

Matter of Khanh Hoang VO, Respondent

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

Immigrant Defense Project

Voluntary Departure: When the Consequences of Failing to Depart Should and Should Not Apply

Alpha Jalloh v. Atty Gen USA

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 U VISA INADMISSIBILITY WAIVERS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. By the National Immigrant Justice Center December 2017 INTRODUCTION

Screening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief. By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1

Syllabus: Immigration Law and Business Spring University of Houston Law Center Prof. Janet B. Beck

IMMIGRATION LAW. Professor Cinthia I. Rivera University of La Verne College of Law Summer 2018 CLASS SYLLABUS

Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States

Okado v. Atty Gen USA

FALSE CLAIMS TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP: CONSEQUENCES AND POSSIBLE DEFENSES 1 (July 2014) by Jessica Chicco and Zahava Stern 2

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

Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510)

Astrit Zhuleku v. Atty Gen USA

Termination of the Central American Minors Parole Program

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. January Term, Anita Kurzban. Petitioner, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

5 Motions before the Immigration Court

United States Court of Appeals

Ting Ying Tang v. Attorney General United States

PRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano

Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity

Follow this and additional works at:

Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 REMEDIES AND STRATEGIES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT CLIENTS. This chapter includes:

NW AILA CLE Seattle, WA. Identifying Relief for Clients in Removal Proceedings

Immigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences

Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States

F I L E D August 26, 2013

Fnu Evah v. Attorney General United States

Carrera-Garrido v. Atty Gen USA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

ARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES.

Some Key Relevant Cites on Particular Social Group, Gender & Related Issues 1. By Deborah E. Anker*

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A

A "Fundamentally Unfair" Removal Proceeding: Denial of Due Process and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Contreras v.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, 4TH ED.

Room 432 (in clinic suite; entrance is through the second floor clinic reception area)

Course Syllabus Family Immigration Law University of Houston Law Center Spring Clinical Prof. Janet Beck

United States Court of Appeals

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Foreword...v Acknowledgments...ix Table of Decisions Index...367

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRS Report for Congress

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0076n.06 Filed: February 1, No

Developments in Immigration Law CLE James H. Binger Center for New Americans University of Minnesota Law School February 13, 2018

Hidayat v. Atty Gen USA

Alija Jadadic v. Atty Gen USA

PRACTICE ADVISORY 1. February 20, 2017

Aggravated Felonies: An Overview

Follow this and additional works at:

Juan Carlos Flores-Zavala v. Atty Gen USA

Administrative Removal Proceedings Manual (M-430, Rev. June 4, 1999)

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Matter of Siegfred Ara SIERRA, Respondent

Sadiku v. Atty Gen USA

Transcription:

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATIONS OF IMMIGRATION LAW LAW 235 SPRING 2012 Adjunct Professors: Board Member Anne J. Greer Telephone: (703) 605-1390 Office Hours: By appointment Temporary Board Member Teresa L. Donovan tldonovan@earthlink.net Telephone: (703) 605-5239 Office Hours: By appointment Required Texts: Anne J. Greer and Teresa L. Donovan Foundations of Immigration Law. 2012 Bender s Immigration and Nationality Act Pamphlet. 2012 Grading Method: Grading will be based on the following: Class participation 15% Application Exercise 15% (Topic assigned March 20 and due on April 19) Final exam 70% 1

Case Preparation Guidelines: The text, Foundations of Immigration Law, consists of a series of topic narratives and administrative and judicial cases that cover the fundamentals of immigration law. Please be able to outline the case according to the following format. In addition, there are specific questions contained in the text that accompany each case. 1. Identify the type of immigration proceeding We will study several different forms of immigration proceeding, e.g., visa petition proceedings and removal proceedings. You will need to understand the type of proceeding involved. 2. Procedural posture Explain the procedural posture of the case, including identifying the forum in which the case began and tracing its progress to different levels of administrative and judicial review, as applicable. 3. Relevant charges in cases that involve removal, exclusion or deportation proceedings Identify the grounds of inadmissibility or deportability charged. Be able to specify the statutory sections. 4. Forms of relief from removal Identify any forms of relief that the alien requested. Be able to specify the statutory sections. 5. Facts Summarize the relevant facts. 6. Issue identification Identify the issues on appeal, and the parties legal arguments for each issue. 7. Legal Analysis Evaluate the Board or court s analysis of the legal arguments raised. 8. Outcome Identify the holding(s) of the Board or the court on each issue. 2

Class Assignments: Date Topic Statutory Cites Materials to be Read Before Class 1-10-12 History 212(a) 237(a) Text: Chapter 1 Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889). Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893). Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903). 1-12-12 Foundation Cases United States Ex. Rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950). Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953). Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 1-17-12 Foundation Cases Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). 1-19-12 Nonimmigrants: Visa Classification & Admission Procedures 101(a)(15)(B), (E), 217 1-24-12 Nonimmigrants: Visa Classification & Admission Procedures continued 101(a)(15)(H), (L), (O) & (P) 101(a)(44) 212(n) 214(b), (c)(2) (g), (h) and (i) Text: Chapter 2 Matter of Hira, 11 I&N Dec. 824 (BIA 1965). Lauvik v. INS, 910 F.2d 658 (9th Cir. 1990). EG Enterprises, Inc. v. DHS, 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (2006). Matter of Chartier, 16 I&N Dec. 284 (BIA 1977). 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o), (p) 3

1-26-12 Nonimmigrants: Visa Classification & Admission Procedures continued 221, 222, 235, 248 1-31-12 Family-based (FB) immigrant visas 201(b)(2)(A)(i) 101(b)(1) 203(a ) and (d) 216(b) and Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1979). Problem. Text: Chapter 3 Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977). Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983). Matter of Torres, 22 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 1998). Matter of Anderson, 20 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 1998). 2-2-12 Continuation of FB visas Employment-based (EB) immigrant visas 203(b) 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) and (II) Chart: Acquiring LPR Status via Employment Based Visa Petition. Chart: A Comparison of Several Employment Based Immigrant Visas 8 C.F.R. 204.5. 2-7-12 Continuation of EB visas EB-1; EB-2; national interest waiver Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. 2006). 2-9-12 Continuation of EB visas EB-3; Labor certification process; visa petition process Hoosier Care, Inc. v Chertoff, 482 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2007). 4

2-14-12 Acquiring & Losing LPR Status 221, 222 235 245 246 Text: Chapter 4 Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). Matter of Jara Riero, 24 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2007). 2-16-12 Acquiring & Losing LPR Status continued Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 230 (BIA 1988). Problems, pages 218-19. 2-21-12 Admission & Admissibility 101(a)(13)(A), (B), and 212(a)(1), (2), (3)(B) 212(d)(3)(A), (B) 212(g) 212(h) Text: Chapter 5 Chart: Selected Grounds of Inadmissibility & Corresponding Waivers, pages 256-58. Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 1957). Matter of Michel, 21 I&N Dec. 1101(BIA 1998). Matter of Hranka, 16 I&N Dec. 491 (BIA 1976). Problems, pages 244-45. 2-23-12 Admission & Admissibility continued 212(a)(6) 212(d)(11) 212(i) Aguilar Gonzales v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2008). Matter of Cervantes, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999). Problems, pages 249-50. 2-28-12 Admission & Admissibility continued 212(a)(5) 212(a)(7) 212(a)(9) 212(k) 217 Problems, pages 254-55. 5

3-1-12 Grounds of Deportability 237(a) 101(a)(13)(A), (B) and 101(a)(43)(A) - (U) Text: Chapter 6 Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2007). Flores-Arellano v. INS, 5 F.3d 360 (9th Cir. 1993). Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008). 3-6-12 Continuation of deportability: Matter of Garcia-Madruga, 24 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 2008). Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2002). 3-8-12 Conviction 101(a)(48)(A) and (B) Text: Chapter 7 Matter of Punu, 22 I&N Dec. 224 (BIA 1998). Matter of Roldan, 22 I&N Dec. 512 (BIA 1999). 3-13-12 3-15-12 Spring Break 3-20-12 Relief from Removal: cancellation of removal 240(A) Text: Chapter 8 Matter of Koloamantangi, 23 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 2003). Matter of Blancas-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 458 (BIA 2002). Matter of Campos-Torres, 22 I&N Dec. 1289 (BIA 2000). Matter of C-V-T, 22 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 1998). Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001). 6

3-22-12 Relief from Removal: voluntary departure 240B Text: Chapter 9 8 C.F.R. 1240.26 Matter of Arguelles, 22 I&N Dec. 811 (BIA 1999). Matter of Cordova, 22 I&N Dec. 966 (BIA 1999). Matter of Ocampo, 22 I&N Dec. 1301 (BIA 2000). 3-27-12 Relief from Removal: adjustment of status 245(a), and (e) Text: Chapter 10 Matter of Mendez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996). Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002). Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). 3-29-12 Asylum, Withholding of Removal & the Convention Against Torture Part One: Asylum 101(a)(42) 208 241(b)(3) 4-3-12 Asylum, Withholding of Removal & the Convention Against Torture continued Part Two: Withholding of Removal 4-5-12 Asylum, Withholding of Removal & the Convention Against Torture continued Parts Three & Four Text: Chapter 11 Chart: Compare asylum with withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R. 208.13 Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992). Matter of J-B- & S-, 24 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007). Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att y Gen., 2011 WL 5345436 (3rd Cir. 2011). Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2010). Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2002). Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2009). 7

4-10-12 Removal Procedure 239 240 Text: Chapter 12 Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008). Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Kiareldeen v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 542 (3rd Cir. 2001). INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). 4-12-12 Motions & Administrative Appellate Review 240(a)(6)(A),(B) & Text: Chapter 13 8 C.F.R. 1003.23, Reopening or reconsideration before the Immigration Court INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988). Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006). 8 C.F.R. 1003.1, General authorities. 4-17-12 Judicial Review Section of the Act: 242 4-19-12 United States Citizenship 101 301; 309 312, 316, 318, and 334(b)(1) 320 340 349 Max-George v. INS, 205 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 2000). Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 1991) (appendix) Text: Chapter 14 Zheng v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 4899342 (E.D. Pa). Matter of Baires, 24 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2008). Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, 24 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2007). 8

Application Exercise: Once an alien s inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act or deportability under section 237(a) of the Act has been established, the issue arises of whether the alien is eligible for a form of relief from (or an exception to) removability. You will be assigned to report on a specific section of the Immigration and Nationality Act waiving or excepting removability as listed below. Your assignment will be to prepare a short paper (4-8 typed pages, double spacing, with appropriate headings) analyzing this section of the statute. The purpose of this exercise is for you to be able to explain how your statutory waiver/exception provision operates and for what purpose. Your paper should address the following, as applicable: Purpose of the waiver Statutory bars to eligibility Statutory eligibility requirements Discretionary requirements, including how discretion is exercised Application process, including identifying the forum in which to apply and whether a form (with accompanying documentation) is required A hypothetical fact scenario in which an alien would qualify to apply for the waiver or exception You will need to examine and cite the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as pertinent case law, from the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal courts. 9