SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Immigration and Naturalization Professor David Thronson

Final Examination Spring 1999

A, a national of Costa Rica, was admitted to the United States with a tourist visa in January 1998 and his authorized period of stay expired in July 1998. A was formerly married but his wife died several years ago. He has two children from this previous marriage. A's youngest child, B, is twelve years old and she lives in Costa Rica with a relative. A's eldest child, C, is 17 years old and she joined A in New Jersey five months ago after entering the United States without inspection. Yesterday A married D, a Mexican national who has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since 1993. D directs a computer research program at a local college.

C just made the surprise announcement that she is engaged to marry E, an Indian national with a valid student visa who is studying in the United States. E will complete his doctorate in computer science later this month. D was in the process of selecting between several candidates for a job in her program, but now she would like to offer the position to E. The position involves some teaching in addition to research and D believes that E is better qualified than the other candidates for this aspect of the job. E has no other job offers and would accept an offer from D.

With the exception of E, none of these people have ever committed any crimes. E has been convicted twice in the last three years of driving while intoxicated. The maximum possible sentence for each conviction was six months imprisonment, but E was sentenced to only fines and license suspensions.

Develop and describe a strategy to obtain permanent legal immigration status in the United States for A, B, C and E, assuming full cooperation from D and the college. If you need information which is not provided, state what information you need and describe how that information factors into your analysis. You may wish to refer to the May 1999 Visa Bulletin provided on the next page of this examination.

All Charge-

ability Areas CHINA-

Except Those mainland

PREFERENCES Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

1st 01JAN98 01JAN98 01JAN98 01AUG93 01AUG87

2A 01NOV94 01NOV94 01NOV94 01OCT93 01NOV94

2B 15JUN92 15JUN92 15JUN92 22JUL91 15JUN92

3rd 22JUL95 22JUL95 22JUL95 01OCT90 08JUN87

4th 08JUL88 08JUL88 01AUG86 08MAR88 08DEC78

All Charge-

ability Areas CHINA-

Except Those mainland

PREFERENCES Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

1st C 15APR98 C C C

2nd C 01FEB97 22NOV97 C C

3rd C 15APR95 01APR96 C C

Other 15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92 15SEP92

Workers

4th C C C C C

Certain C C C C C

Religious

Workers

5th C 01SEP98 C C C

Targeted Employ- C 01SEP98 C C C

ment Areas/

Regional Centers

Aysha, age 19 and unmarried, lived in a village on the outskirts of Kabul, Afghanistan with her parents until last year. Since 1996, her village has been under the control of the Taliban, an ultraconservative Islamic movement which has imposed its own strict interpretation of Islam. Edicts governing social behavior are enforced by the Ministry for the Enforcement of Virtue and Suppression of Vice through "vigilance squads" of Taliban militia. The Taliban's ad hoc Islamic courts impose their interpretation of Islamic punishments, such as public execution by decapitation for murder, 100 lashes or public execution by stoning for adultery, and amputations of one hand and one foot for theft. For other infractions, Taliban militia often decide right or wrong and impose punishments such as beatings on the spot. Procedural protections in trials before the ad hoc Islamic courts are few, if any, and trials often last no more than a few minutes. The vigilance squads particularly target women, who are not allowed to move outside their homes unless completely covered in a head-to-toe garment called a burqa and accompanied by a male relative. Those caught violating these requirements are beaten.

Aysha is a devout follower of Islam and made every attempt to conform her life to the strict rules enforced by the Taliban. Aysha has never been politically active, has never joined any groups, and has never committed any crimes. Last year, an uncle raped Aysha while her parents were away. Aysha did not tell anyone what had happened because of the strong stigma attached to rape and her fear that she would be ostracized by her family. Aysha became pregnant. As her pregnancy began to show, villagers spread rumors that Aysha had been in an adulterous affair. After a warning from a neighbor that a vigilance squad was coming to arrest her for adultery, Aysha fled her home and eventually made her way to a refugee camp in Pakistan, where she gave birth to a son. Aysha then obtained false documents for herself and her son and they traveled to the United States.

Upon arrival at Newark Airport, Aysha immediately identified herself and requested asylum. Aysha is now detained at the Elizabeth Detention Facility awaiting a hearing. She conceded removability under INA § 212(a)(7), but she requested asylum, withholding of removal and protection under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.

Develop and analyze Aysha's arguments for asylum and withholding of removal. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of her case. Please limit your answer to asylum and withholding of removal. Do not discuss protection under the Convention Against Torture.

• What do you say in response to her concerns about violations of her constitutional rights? Briefly explain.

• (a) Briefly describe Alien B's constitutional and statutory arguments if a lawyer had asserted them; then (b) write a short summary explaining your recommendations to the judge on how she should rule as to each argument.

Assume that Alien A from Part A had attempted to enter the United States with false documentation. Alien A was then arrested and charged with fraudulent entry pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Thereafter, Alien A was charged with making a false statement to an INS official in violation of INA § 275(a)(3). Alien A eventually pled guilty to the section 275(a) charge in a federal court and waived her right to appeal as part of a plea agreement. Alien A was sentenced to six months in prison. After serving her sentence, Alien A was returned to INS custody. Following her return, an immigration officer interviewed her and then had her sign an order of expedited removal issued pursuant to INA § 235(b)(1). Before signing the removal form, she argued that she wanted to withdraw her guilty plea; the officer merely shrugged his shoulders sympathetically. Prior to her deportation, Alien A encountered you at the detention center while engaged in pro bono activities and asked if she was being railroaded. Specifically, she said that no judge or jury had convicted her of anything; that she had served her sentence and felt that her deportation was tantamount to double jeopardy, i.e., that she was charged and punished twice for the same offense.

• (a) What is your response to the official's reaction to her attempt to withdraw her guilty plea? Explain. (b) What is your response to her claim of no conviction? Explain. (c) What is your response to her claim of double jeopardy? Explain.

Assume that Alien B from Part A is arrested after the INS raid and finds himself placed in regular (not expedited) removal proceedings then released on bond. He comes to you for advice on how to beat deportation. He tells you about his girlfriend. He also tells you she is pregnant; that he is her sole support and that he is willing to marry her if it will help him avoid deportation. What's your advice?

• (a) Should you have concerns about representing Alien B in this matter? Explain. (b) Assuming your concerns are somehow satisfied and that INA § 245(i) has not yet lapsed, is Alien B precluded from benefitting from an "eleventh hour" marriage or can Alien B regularize his status in the context of the removal proceedings? Explain.

Assume that Alien B obtained lawful permanent resident status, but ran afoul of the law. Specifically, the government charged Alien B in a two-count indictment with importation and possession of marijuana. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Alien B pleaded guilty to the possession count, and the government dismissed the importation count. The federal court that took the guilty plea, sentenced Alien B to two years probation. The government subsequently instituted deportation proceedings against Alien B on the sole ground that he had pleaded guilty to the drug charge. Alien B then moved the federal court to vacate, set aside, or withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Alien B stated in support of this motion that the federal prosecutor had promised that the government would not bring deportation proceedings; and that his public defender did not know that the prosecutor lacked the requisite authority to make such a promise. Assume you are the federal judge hearing this motion.

• How will your honor rule on this motion? Explain.

Assume that shortly after the above plea agreement and sentencing, Alien B received permission from his probation officer to leave the country for two weeks to visit his sick mother. But upon his return, he is stopped and detained then placed in removal proceedings and charged under INA § 212(a)(2)(C). He contacted you about representing him in this matter and asked if he was properly (a) charged, (b) detained, and (c) whether he could benefit from the Fleuti doctrine.

• What's your response to his questions? Explain.

Assume that Alien B did not obtain lawful permanent resident status. Nonetheless, Alien B is an ambitious employee at the restaurant where he has worked for several years. He and his boss, the owner, are good friends; both desire that Alien B become the manager and a full partner in a new business venture. Alien B proposed that the restaurant be changed to a culturally authentic establishment under his management. Given his ethnic background, familiarity with the cultural customs and preferred cuisine of those customers who are most likely to frequent such an establishment along with his knowledge of their language, Alien B considered himself an ideal candidate for the job if the published job description fits his qualifications. His employer is willing to sponsor his immigration application if it will lead to a successful outcome. The employer contacted you and asked you to advise Alien B on how to proceed. What's your advice?

• What's the most likely avenue you will pursue for immigration benefits? What are the steps and how long will it take? [See attached Visa Office Bulletin.] And are there any obstacles or risks for Alien B, his employer, or you in carrying out their wishes? Explain.

Assume that Alien B obtained lawful permanent resident status three years ago. Assume that he wants to bring Alien A, his sister, to the United States. In your interview, you learn that Alien A is not his biological sister. You also learn that Alien B is the legitimate son of C and D. Alien B's mother (C) and father (D) divorced shortly after Alien B's birth. E is the mother of Alien A, who was born out of wedlock. At a time when Alien B was 22 and Alien A was 14, D and E married. Alien A is now 24 and would like to immigrate to the United States if she can do so lawfully. She would also like to visit her brother in the United States from time to time and, if possible, attend law school. Alien B contacts you for advice.

• Is Alien A eligible for immigrant status? If not, why not? If so, how so and how long before she can come here as an immigrant? [See attached Visa Office Bulletin.] Explain. Can she enter as a visitor or student in the meantime without risking her chances at permanent U.S. residency? Explain.

You are a staffer for a maverick Congresswoman (of an unspecified political party) who is pro-immigration. She wants to introduce a bill to amend INA § 240A(b), introduced by the 1996 Act to place greater restrictions on the requirements for permanent relief from deportation applicable to nonpermanent residents and to place a numerical cap on the number of applications that can be granted in any given fiscal year. The Congresswoman would like to see the statutory provisions returned to the more lenient provisions in place prior to the 1996 amendments. Given the recent congressional tendency towards restrictive legislation to discourage illegal immigration and concerns legislators expressed about the Board of Immigration Appeals' recent decision in Matter of O-J-O, [I.D. 3280 (BIA, June 14, 1996)], she knows passage of such a bill is a long-shot. Nonetheless, she thinks it is important enough to at least get this issue on the congressional table, and to start a new public policy debate about the appropriate criteria for obtaining permanent relief from deportation.

Write a short memorandum on (1) the validity of the Congresswoman's proposal, taking into account how the agency is implementing the current relief provisions, (2) the opposing viewpoints she is likely to encounter in shepherding this measure through the House of Representatives, and (3) any suggestions you may have for improving upon her proposal given the factors which led to the more restrictive treatment enacted in 1996.

Alien A left his homeland as a refugee at the age of six and has resided in the United States as a permanent resident since he was eight years old. At age nineteen he was involved in a gang-related shooting and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. After completing his prison sentence some two years later, he was taken into INS custody and the INS initiated removal proceedings against him. An immigration judge ordered him removed, and furthermore found him ineligible for asylum or non-return because of that conviction. Alien A appealed this ruling but the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed it. The INS has been unable to remove Alien A because, like hundreds of others, A's homeland does not have a repatriation agreement with the United States and, therefore, will not permit his return. During the pendency of the administrative proceedings, Alien A filed two motions to be released on bond. In both instances an immigration judge denied his requests, finding, based solely on the manslaughter conviction that although he was not a flight risk, he was a danger to the community.

Alien A's family is very supportive and, if released, he would be able to assist his handicapped 71-year old father in everyday activities. Alien A also communicates constantly with his younger brother to assure that his brother "does not follow in his footsteps." Also, Alien A's older brother runs his own business and would employ Alien A if released from INS custody. Alien A challenged his continued detention by filing a petition for habeas corpus in the appropriate federal district court. The district court ruled that Alien A's continued detention violated his constitutional rights and released Alien A from INS custody. INS appealed that decision to the court of appeals which affirmed, but on statutory grounds instead.

The court of appeals held that the INS lacked authority under Section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), to detain a deportable alien for more than a reasonable time beyond the normal ninety day statutory period authorized for removal. According to the INS, after an alien is found removable, the Attorney General is required to remove that alien within ninety days after the removal order becomes administratively final. See INA § 241(a)(1)(A)-[B]. Under the statute, aliens who cannot be removed at the end of ninety days fall into two groups.

Those in the first group must be released subject to supervisory regulations that require them, among other things, to appear regularly before an immigration officer. INA § 241(a)(3). Those in the second group "may be detained beyond the removal period" and, if released, shall be subject to the same supervisory provisions applicable to aliens in the first group. INA § 241(a)(6). INS argued that its authority to "detain beyond the removal period" gives it the authority to detain indefinitely aliens who fall in the second group and who cannot be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Legislative history materials tend to support the INS's position. Alien A's conviction placed him in the second group. Alien A argued the opposite that the INS's authority to detain aliens beyond the removal period does not extend to cases in which removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court of appeals agreed with Alien A and concluded that the pertinent statutory provisions on their face do not authorize INS's indefinite detention policy under the circumstances of this case.

• [a] Briefly describe Alien A's likely constitutional arguments asserted in the district court; then [b] briefly describe the court of appeals likely reason(s) for deciding on statutory grounds.

• If the Supreme Court were to grant certiorari review, how would the Court likely rule in this case; and if you conclude that the Court's ruling would be contrary to the government's likely positions, explain why? Be sure to consider both constitutional and statutory issues.

Alien A, as described in Part A above, was convicted of a crime that triggered his removal and ineligibility for asylum or non-return under INA § 208 and INA § 241(b)(3) respectively.

• [a] On what basis was Alien A most likely found deportable and thus removable and ineligibility for other relief? Explain.

Assume that Alien A had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter instead of voluntary manslaughter and received a one-year suspended sentence.

• [b] Would he still be facing removal proceedings? Explain.

Assume that in addition to the above charge of involuntary manslaughter which contained a finding of reckless conduct, Alien A was also charged with a count of aggravated assault. At the criminal trial on both counts, evidence presented indicated that Alien A had committed the aggravated assault during gang-related activities; the event triggering the involuntary manslaughter charge had occurred the next day in retaliation for the earlier gang-related activities. Alien A was subsequently convicted on both counts and received two suspended one-year sentences for each count.

• [c] May INS initiate removal proceedings against him? Explain.

Assume [for the purpose of this subpart only] that removal proceedings against Alien A were commenced as a result of Alien A's pleading guilty to the aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter charges (described above) obtained pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. At the immigration hearing, Alien A asked for appointed counsel at government expense because he was indigent and any relief for which he is eligible. The immigration judge denied his request for appointed counsel but entertained the following testimony:

Alien A testified in similar detail about his entry as a refugee and later adjusting to lawful permanent resident as set forth in Part A above. He also testified about helping his elderly father, his younger brother, and his older brother offering him employment as set forth in Part A above. Alien A stated that he does not speak the language of his home country fluently, that no immediate family members remain there and that he has never visited there as well. The government countered that although relations with the government of Alien A's country of birth have not been formalized, the circumstances prompting his family's original flight have changed significantly. The country conditions have stabilized politically and economically although it remains a relatively poor country; no evidence of any serious human rights violations have been reported.

• [a] Is Alien A entitled to be represented at his hearing by appointed counsel at government expense? Explain. [b] Is he deportable? And if so, is he eligible for any relief? Explain.

Assume that the plea bargain agreement was made because a federal prosecutor promised Alien A, through his attorney, that the government would not initiate removal proceedings against him. Unfortunately for Alien A, his attorney was unaware of the federal regulation requiring government prosecutors who make such promises to obtain written authorization from the INS. Alien A insists that he would not have entered such an agreement otherwise.

• [a] Is Alien A without any remedies here and if any available, what is the likelihood of success? Explain. [b.] And if available, may he seek such relief in the immigration court? Explain.

Alien B (a foreign national still living abroad) is interested in attending college and later pursue graduate studies in the United States. She has applied for and been accepted at several colleges and universities but desires to visit some of them first before making her final choice. A few offers of acceptance come with full scholarships and grant funding for the duration of her U.S. stay. She would also like to be able to make her choice then register and attend school without having to return to her residence abroad to obtain a new visa. She calls you (assume you are a newly-admitted member of the Maryland bar) in advance of her U.S. trip and before visiting the U.S. consulate abroad to apply for an appropriate temporary visa. She also indicates that if at all possible, she would like to remain in the United States permanently.

• What will you advise her about entering the United States as she plans (and in which category), and remaining in the United States permanently? How should she proceed? Explain.

Assume that Alien B enters the U.S. on a temporary educational visa. Subsequently, Alien B obtains part-time work as a one of the wait-staff at a restaurant near the school where she is enrolled. She and her boss, the owner, become good friends; both desire that Alien B be promoted to manager and become a full partner in a new business venture that could expand the restaurant's operations substantially. Alien B proposes that the restaurant be changed to a culturally authentic establishment under her management consistent with the increased numbers of immigrants in the area which the restaurant serves. Given her ethnic background, familiarity with the cultural customs and preferred cuisine of those customers who are most likely to frequent such an establishment, along with her knowledge of their language, Alien B considers herself an ideal candidate if the published job description can be made to fit her unique qualifications. Alien B contacts you (once again) and asks for advice on how to proceed. She informs you that her employer is willing to sponsor her immigration application and will to pay the bill for your services, if it will lead to a successful outcome. What's your advice?

5. What's the most likely avenue(s) you will pursue for immigration benefits? What are the steps and how long will it take? [See attached Visa Office Bulletin.] And are there any obstacles or risks for Alien B, her employer, or you in carrying out their wishes? Explain.

Assume that Alien B obtained lawful permanent resident status three years ago. Assume that she wants to bring Alien C, her sister, to the United States. In your interview, you learn that Alien C is not her biological sister. You also learn that Alien B is the legitimate daughter of D and E. Alien B's mother [D) and father [E] divorced shortly after Alien B's birth. F is the mother of Alien C, who was born out of wedlock. At a time when Alien B was 22 and Alien C was 14, E and F married. Alien C is now 24 and would like to immigrate to the United States if she can do so lawfully. She would also like to visit her sister in the United States from time to time and, if possible, attend law school. Alien B contacts you for advice.

• Is Alien C eligible for immigrant status? If not, why not? If so,

how so? And how long before she can come here as an immigrant? [See attached Visa Office Bulletin.] Explain. Can she enter as a visitor or student in the meantime without risking her chances at permanent U.S. residency? Explain.

You are a staffer for a maverick Congresswoman [of an unspecified political party) who is pro-alien. She has served on the hill all throughout a series of congressional directives that have strengthened the laws against criminal aliens, expanding the crimes for which an alien can be deported and severely limiting eligibility for relief if convicted of certain crimes. She believes that many injustices have resulted from this "take-no-prisoners" approach to dealing with criminal aliens. Also, until 1990, a sentencing judge could stop the INS from using a criminal conviction as a basis for deportation by the issuance of a Judicial Recommendation Against Deportation ("JRAD"). Now she wants to introduce a bill to reinstate the former JRAD provision although she knows passage of such a bill is a long-shot. But for her, it is an issue which is important enough to get on the congressional table and start a new public policy debate about the appropriate criteria for affording criminal aliens relief from deportation.

Write a short memorandum on (1) the validity of the Congresswoman's proposal, taking into account how it should be implemented if reinstated, (2) the opposing viewpoints she is likely to encounter in shepherding this measure through the House of Representatives, and (3) any suggestions you may have for improving upon her proposal given congressional concerns about investing unlimited power in the judiciary in this particular area of immigration law.

Law 292-Immigration Law and Procedure Wednesday,

Professor James F. Smith December 15, 1999

Mr. David Singh is a national of India. He comes to your law office and explains that he wants to know his immigration options. Mr. Singh has a bachelors degree in computer science from an Indian university. He graduated in 1993. He and two other software engineers founded Indian Software Design (ISD) in June, 1994. He is one of the managers for ISD which now has 25 employees. His responsibility is to supervise software design, the major function of ISD. ISD's major customers are Silicon Valley firms who contract with ISD to design software programs.

In August, 1997, ISD sent Mr. Singh to the United States to earn a Masters Degree in Computer Science. He entered on an F-1 visa. In May, 1999, Mr. Singh obtained his masters in Computer Science from the University of California at Davis (UCD). In March, 1998, he published a synopsis of his masters thesis, "Contracting Computer Design in India" in a well known trade journal. The article has won international acclaim. He has several job offers from Silicon Valley firms. The problem is that there are no H-1B visas available now. In any case ISD expects him to return. Mr. Singh tells you that he needs a job. His savings are almost gone. He was able to extend his F-1 visa a few months for practical training. But it expires January 15, 2000.

Also to complicate matters further, his personal life has dramatically changed. He is engaged to Sara Malina, who is also a national of India. She is also on an F-1 student visa. They met at UCD. She will earn her bachelors in computer science engineering in May, 2000. Over the last year they have carefully negotiated with the respective families in India over their plans to have a "love marriage". The families have agreed to bless their marriage if they have a traditional wedding ceremony in India. Sara's family is wealthy. Her father told Sara that he is willing to make a substantial investment in the United States if it will help the young couple.

David explains that he and Sara are patient. They would rather take their time to do things right than to make a move that may cause them problems. Their long term goal is to permanently reside in the United States. Their short term goal is to be together as much as possible.

Identify their immigration options and potential problems.

Mr. Howard Chan has been referred to you by his criminal defense lawyer, Joe Brown. Mr. Brown sends you the following memorandum before you meet with Mr. Chan.

Re: Howard Chan

December 15, 1999

"Dear Immigration Counsel: This case is now pending in the Immigration Court. On January 5, 1993, Mr. Chan, a Chinese national, came here from China on an L-1 visa. In late 1997 he lost his employment. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) notified him that he was out of status and should depart the United States. He did not do so. On January 10, 1998, he applied for his driver's license and falsely claimed that he was still is status. He was prosecuted for perjury. The sentencing judge wanted to use Mr. Chan as an example to demonstrate that perjury is a serious offense (this was during the Clinton impeachment saga). The judge clearly indicated that Chan should go to jail. Fortunately, I plea bargained for only six months in county jail with 5 years probation. The judge sentenced him to 5 years state prison but suspended execution of sentence. I did not file an appeal. Under the circumstances I got him a good deal.

I understand that only the jail time counts, right?

Chan was released from jail, with good time, on April 15, 1999. But he was detained on an immigration hold. I got him released on an immigration bond. But now Mr. Chan has brought me a "Notice to Appear", that he received, which states:

"There is hereby lodged against you the charge that you are subject to being deported or removed from the United States pursuant to INA Section 237(a)(2)(iii), in that you have been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in Section 101(a)(43)(S), in that you were on January 15, 1999, convicted in the Superior Court, County of Yolo, of the offense of Perjury, in violation of Section 118 of the California Penal Code. For that offense you were sentenced to serve five years in prison."

"Chan is supposed to appear in immigration court on January 6, 2000. Good luck!"

Joe Brown

Attorney at Law

Mr. Chan meets with you. He says that he knows he is facing deportation for the perjury conviction but that he is afraid to go back to China at least for now. He states that he has never considered asking for political asylum but now he feels that he may qualify. He says that he can sell his share of a company in China to pay your fees but only if it is worth it. When you ask him what his immigration plans are he replied that some day he would like to be able to return to China and to continue to visit the United States to do business here. He asks you to explain his options to him. He is particularly interested in how long he can stay here legally if he hires you to defend him. He tells you that his father is a lawful permanent resident who health is poor. Chan is married but separated from his wife who is in China.

Mr. Chan explains that he has been a devout follower of Falun Gong since 1992. For that reason he is afraid that he will be jailed or worse if he is deported to China. In your research you learn that Falun Gong, in China, blends Buddhist school teachings with Tai Chi-like movements and yoga-like meditation. Its members prefer collective exercises because they believe in the "stronger" energy field that results from group activity. He tells you that the movement's Chinese founder and leader, Li Hongzhi, began teaching Falun Gong in 1992.

China outlawed Falun Gong on July 22, 1999. Your research confirms that since the crackdown began, Falun Gong followers have been detained, including 200 people who have been identified as the group's leaders or core members. Mr. Chan states that his belief in Falun Gong is the essence of who he is as person and that if he is returned to China he would practice Falun Gong and would protest the government's brutal campaign of repression against the Falun Gong's so-called leaders.

The US State Department said in a recent report on religious freedom that during Beijing's grand inquisition of the past few months, "tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were reportedly detained" and required to write statements disavowing the Falun Gong. Chan says that he has heard that Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to recant have already been sent to prison camps, without trial, for terms of up to three years in a process called "reeducation through labor."

The party-directed People's Daily newspaper has said that the new regulations, on "The Crime of Organizing or Using Evil Religions", defines evil religions as "illegal organizations that use religion or other labels to deify their founders, spread superstition and heresy to misguide others, or lead members to endanger society." The Chinese government has studied the role of the churches in bringing down Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe 10 years ago. There are reports that membership in the spiritual group may now outstrip membership in the Communist Party. Its ranks include influential people in the party, the government and the military.

In order to properly counsel Mr. Chan prepare a memorandum to the file that sets forth the possible immigration defenses or other legal strategies available to Mr. Chan. In your memorandum describe the statutory grounds, if any, for relief, the strength of his claim and which, if any, of his defenses would be subject to judicial review. You have just read that the Board of Immigration Appeals have changed their procedures to provide for summary affirmation, by one BIA member, of removal orders. This means that if the Immigration Judge denies all your claims the BIA may affirm within a few short months. Although you might be able to challenge a removal order by habeas corpus the more important question is whether the Ninth Circuit would exercise jurisdiction. (For the purposes of your answer assume that perjury is only a "particularly serious crime", within the meaning of INA § 241(b)(3) if it is an "aggravated felony".)

On July 4, 1997, Pablo, a national of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection. On November 15, 1998, Jane, a United States Citizen, married Pablo. On November 16, 1998, Jane filed an immediate relative petition (I-130) on behalf of Pablo. On March 15, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) interviewed Pablo at his place of employment. As a result of that interview, the Service mailed a Notice to Appear to Pablo which alleged that he was removable as a national and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without a visa and without inspection. Pablo has consulted you for advice. What are Pablo's options? Please describe the consequences of exercising those options and whether he can lawfully return.

On April 1, 1998, Carla Arnold, a Canadian national, became a lawful permanent resident. This was pursuant to her citizen brother's petition who has since died. On August 15, 1999, she returned to Canada for a short trip to visit her ailing mother.

She had made such visits dozens of times before. Her "green card" was all she needed. While in Canada her mother had a stroke and required constant care. Carla decided to stay with her. It was several months before her mother died. When Carla attempted to return to the United States she was inspected. The Service agent asked her what her means of livelihood were. She explained that she had lost her secretarial position as a result of her lengthy absence to care for her dying mother. The Service agent suggested that she withdraw her application for admission because she was inadmissible as a person "likely ... to become a public charge" within the meaning of INA § 212(a)(4). Carla is now in detention awaiting her removal hearing. A friend of Carla's has retained you to represent her. Her only relative that is living in the United States is one adult niece who is unemployed. What are Carla's options and what are the consequences of exercising those options?

State what arguments or strategies may be available to Carla to demonstrate that she is admissible.