The fourth edition of the newsletter summarizing important immigration- related cases decided by 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court decisions from Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. The summarized cases are for February and March 2016. There are not as many summaries in this issue because there were fewer decisions. Our next edition is scheduled for June 2016 and will feature another new addition, published and unpublished Board of Immigration Appeals decisions, and a new AILA Chapter contributing – South Florida.
This is a group effort of four attorneys – John Gihon, Marshall Cohen, Roberta Cooper & Bruce Buchanan.
District Court Decisions
Edwards v. Lynch, 4:14-cv-00876-MHH-JHE (N.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2016) – Mr. Edwards filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking his release from and challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After filing the Writ but before the District Court could rule on the merits, ICE released Mr. Edwards and removed him from the United States. The Court then dismissed the Writ as moot upon motion by the respondent. The Court recognized the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, 1) collateral consequences and 2) capable for repetition yet evading review, but found that neither applied in this case. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982).
United States v. Golding, 14-cv-80514 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2016) – The United States brought this civil denaturalization action against Mr. Golding under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The government sought to divest Mr. Golding of his citizenship arguing that he illegally procured his citizenship and procured it by means of concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. The government’s argument centered on how Mr. Golding originally entered the U.S. under a different name on a non-immigrant visa and then illegally adjusted status without fully disclosing his criminal history. The District Court found that Mr. Golding never misrepresented his identity during the non-immigrant admission, and even if he failed to fully disclose his criminal history, it was not material as his criminal history would not have been a bar to adjustment. Therefore, because he did not unlawfully enter in the first place or unlawfully adjust his status, his naturalization was not illegally procured or procured by concealment or material misrepresentation and the government failed to meet its burden of clear, unequivocal and convicting evidence that he should lose his citizenship.
Deshields v. Johnson et al., 3:14-cv-543-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2016) – The District Court held that a minor was not protected under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) from aging out for the purposes of being a beneficiary of an I-730 Petition for Refugee/Asylee Relative where the asylee did not put the beneficiary’s name on the original I-589 Application for Asylum. Ms. Deshields, an asylee, petitioned to have her adult daughter be considered a relative of an asylee based upon the premise that at the time Ms. Deshields’ I-589 was approved, her daughter was still a minor. However, because Ms. Deshield’s did not put the beneficiary’s name on the original I-589 Application as instructed, the Court held that her daughter was not protected under the CSPA and had aged out prior to the filing of the I-730 petition.
If you need an immigration attorney anywhere in the United States, but certainly if you live in Orlando or Jacksonville, please call Shorstein, Lasnetski & Gihon.
Visit our website for more information about SLG: http://www.slgattorneys.com