ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal

Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: "I find the result here to be absurd."

Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put the final nail in the deportation coffin for a father of five United States citizen children.  The father's application for cancellation of removal was denied, and he was ordered deported despite the fact that the immigration court found that his children would suffer an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if his wife, also in proceedings, was deported.  


This hardship finding for his wife was predicated on the fact that one of the couple's five children was born prematurely and suffers from developmental delays and neurological abnormalities.  A second child suffers from febrile seizures, high fevers, vomiting, and has difficulty breathing, which has required several emergency room visits.  Doctors are unable to diagnose the problem.  


Despite the fact that the father is the sole breadwinner of the family, has no criminal convictions, stable employment, and has paid his taxes every year since arriving in the United States, the immigration court found that he did not have good moral character due to the fact that he paid a smuggler to enter the United States.


Judge Harry Pregerson dissented, calling the decision "absurd," the reasoning behind the decision "misguided", and the result of the case "unconscionable." 


Keep fighting the good fight Judge Pregerson.


Click here to read the decision.

Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent: Submit "Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson’s Dissent:

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. A Guest's Avatar
    It's not clear why Judge Pregerson dissented rather than concurring. "Concurrence" doesn't mean "I'm happy with the result" just as "dissent" isn't the same as "I'm dissatisfied with the result." A dissent means the judge thinks the law calls for a different decision. And more than one judge has concurred, noting disagreement with controlling precedent. See, e.g., Mangum v. Action Collection Service, Inc., 575 F.3d 935, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2009) (O'Scannlain, J., specially concurring).

    But the dissent acknowledges that the case is controlled by Sanchez v. Holder, an en banc opinion of the Ninth Circuit. This three-judge panel can't overrule that decision. Even if all three judges on the panel thought Sanchez was wrongly decided, the most they could do was note their disagreement and call for a rehearing en banc. Only the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc, or the U.S. Supreme Court, could overrule or modify Sanchez. Until that time, the panel must follow Sanchez, and has no power to overrule it.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: