Professor Birdsong’s student, Shellie Ponce, who was enrolled in my comparative Immigration Law class and my Refugee Law Seminar wrote an interesting and timely paper that compares rates of domestic violence and asylum claims in immigrant welcoming countries.  Read and learn more about it.  Ms. Ponce gave her permission to put her piece on my blog.

Michael Severe graduated from Barry Law in December 2011.  He was one of Professor Birdsong’s favorite students.  During Michael’s last semester he wrote a very interesting and well researched paper in the Refugee Law Seminar arguing that U.S. Immigration Judges have much too much discretionary powers.  I agree with him. Michael has given me permission to publish his paper on my blog.  Read it and learn…

Discretionary Powers of the Immigration Court

And the Board of Immigration Appeals

and Issues Surrounding Particular Social Groups

By: Michael Severe

 I.                  Introduction

 Immigration is a vital part of any nation’s legal framework for many different reasons. It allows for new blood and new ideas to be integrated into a society. The United States has long been a destination for potential immigrants, seeking to benefit from the historical abundance of opportunities in this country, and the safety of political and ideological freedoms. As a result, the United States has developed a large body of both case law, and statutory law designed to address the issues of immigration.

One of the most important forms of immigration in the United States is refugee protection, gained generally through asylum. Asylum has a long and rich history, dating back as far as ancient Greece where criminals could find sanctuary in certain “temples, altars, sacred groves, and statues of the gods”[1]. In Rome, a more modern form of asylum began to take shape when Romulus opened the city to asylum seekers who were seeking a “place of refuge”[2]. Asylum law has taken many forms, and most societies with codified laws have offered some form of protection for people seeking sanctuary.

In the United States, there are numerous codifications of the issues revolving around

One of my Refugee Law students, Minoru Ohye, has written an interesting  and timely paper wherein he argues that the U.S. should end what has been come to be called the “Wet Foot Dry Foot” policy toward accepting Cuban refugees.  Mr. Ohye was born in Cuba and escaped from there with his family as a boy.  He writes from a unique perspective. Read and learn…

Stopping Once and for All the Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy for Cuban refugees: a Student’s reasons

By Minoru Ohye

1. INTRODUCTION

“Yo soy un hombre sincero De donde crece la palma, Y antes de morirme quiero Echar mis versos del alma”[1]. This is the first stanza of the famous poem by Jose Marti, the apostle of Cuban independence. Loosely translated, I am an honest man, and before I die, I wish to speak of what is in my soul^[2]. In my soul, I carry the weight of centuries of injustice suffered by the people of Cuba. Much like Jose Marti, whose life ended in an ill-fated two-man suicide charge against the Spanish troops ^[3], with this article I seek to “charge” against what I see as the latest injustice to be suffered by the Cuban people… the wet foot dry foot policy of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. The Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act has been the subject of much debate. Some seek to preserve it while others seek to repeal it. This article will propose the use of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act as it was originally intended… to offer protection to those seeking to flee the Castro regime, but also used as a cohesive part of the overall United States policy toward Cuba

         There have been numerous newspaper articles, books, magazines, and indeed even Law review articles written both in support and in opposition of the CCA[4]. The one thing that sets me apart from a vast majority of those authors is that today I am a naturalized Citizen of the United States because of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act.  I am a Gusano, a worm. That is a term, intended to be

Most of us know little about North Korea.  However over the recent holiday period we learned that  North Korea’s leader,  Kim Jong Il, died after seventeen years of ruling over his impoverished country. His youngest son, Kim Jong Un has now taken over power.

My refugee seminar student, Jessica Smith, has written and interesting and timely study about North Korea and it’s refugee problem.  Read it and learn.

Escaping the Scariest Place on Earth: How the United States Has Helped and Hindered the North Korean Refugee Situation

By: Jessica M. Smith[1]

1. I.                   Introduction:

It seems odd that a Communist country, which has its fair share of asylum seekers to the United States, would be seeing an influx of refugees but that is the current case for China. Geographically speaking, North Korea is an isolated nation, which makes migration to countries other than China and South Korea a virtual impossibility. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has used this isolation to his benefit in order to enslave his people in work camps and has been able to censor the media to such an extreme that many North Koreans are unaware that a man has walked on the moon.[1] North and South Korea have been separated by a heavily guarded DMZ line where those who attempt to defect from North Korea will be shot on sight. Logically speaking, the “easiest” way for North Korean defectors is to escape into China. However, as China is bursting at the seams with over a billion citizens and has implemented a one child per family policy, coupled with the added pressure of not upsetting fellow comrade Kim Jong Il, those lucky North Korean defectors who make their way into China have a strong possibility of being sent back to North Korea.

China labels these North Korean defectors as “economic migrants” so they are not

Amrita Lamba is one of Professor Birdsong’s favorite students.  She graduated from Barry Law with her J.D. degree last Saturday.  Before her graduation she did a directed research project under my supervision.   Her research resulted in a  well written and informative article about the Padilla v. Kentucky case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and how it may change the immigrant’s world. Ms. Lamba has given me permission to share her article with the world.

Read it and learn.

MR. PADILLA CHANGES THE IMMIGRANT’S WORLD 

How Criminal Convictions Are Impacting Immigration Cases and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

 by: Amrita K. Lamba

MR. PADILLA CHANGES THE IMMIGRANT’S WORLD

HOW CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS ARE IMPACTING IMMIGRATION CASES AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS

I.      Introduction

There are over 12.8 million legal permanent residents in the United States.[1]  Their backgrounds, cultures, physical characteristics, and country of origins may all vary, but they come to American to establish their home and roots in the community.[2]  They contribute to the general economy “…as members of the workforce or as small business owners, raise families, and join the military…”[3]  Just like citizens of the United States, sometimes immigrants can “…run afoul of the law.”[4]  However, when they face the criminal justice system they are subject to more disadvantages than citizens because of cultural differences and language barriers.[5]  This “problem [has] compounded…under current immigration law[s because], convictions of many types of relatively minor crimes result in mandatory detention and deportation.”[6]