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

 Raymond Hornstein, one of Professor Birdsong’s brightest students, has written an interesting and provocative paper concerning the Fourteenth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution.  Does it provide equal protection for all — or just for some?  Mr. Hornstein has given me permission to post his work on my blog. Read and enjoy.

The Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection for Some:

In regards to the rights of Homosexuals in the United States

Raymond H. Hornstein

I. Introduction

            Section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Emphasis added).[1]

            The Fourteenth Amendment came as one of the Reconstruction Amendments and was adopted in June of 1868 in an attempt to guarantee certain protections for the recently emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War. The Amendment went on to be the justification for the repeal of American segregation in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka[2] , as well as guaranteeing equal rights to women under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.[3]

            The Fourteenth Amendment has gone on to become the one of the most cited

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]

Virginia Ponder, a student in Professor Birdsong’s spring Refugee Law seminar, has written an excellent paper that examines whether a parent who opposes female genital mutilation, and fears the mutilation of her child, raises a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse.  Ms. Ponder has given permission to post her paper on the blog.  Read it and see what you think.

THE DILEMMA OF PARENT-CHILD

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION JURISPRUDENCE

Virginia L. Ponder

 God has blessed me.  He made me suffer but He also blessed me. 

I am safe and free in America, surrounded by people who love me. 

Others are not so fortunate.  They are being held in prisons, being

denied asylum, and being sent back to terrible forms of suffering. 

My friends, all the friends I made in prison, cried for joy for me

the day I walked into freedom.  [1]                                                                                                                                                       I.            Introduction

Almost fourteen years ago in the landmark decision In re Kasinga[2], the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative authority interpreting asylum law, found Female Genital Mutilation[3] (FGM) to be a form of persecution warranting a finding of asylum.  Kasinga’s claim was based on the risk she would be subjected to FGM if returned to her home country and the decision established basic doctrine favorable to such a claim.[4]  It was a milestone in the consideration of gender related asylum cases and advanced protection for women who fear FGM.  Currently a new question regarding FGM is circulating in our immigration courts.  Does a parent who opposes FGM, and fears the mutilation of her child, raise a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse. 

The “parent-child FGM issue” most commonly presents itself when a non-US citizen parent asserts asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under Convention Against Torture [5](CAT) because she fears her US citizen or resident daughter will