Wnukem

But, if litigation were brought against you, would you be able to plead
'ignorance' to the INA because of guidance provided by a governmental
department (documentary written evidence)?

Wes

SecretGarden

My understanding is that ignorance of the law is never a good legal defense.

~SecretGarden

MightBe

But then litigation would be brought by the USCIS ... You would have ample defence ...it ain't gonna happen anyway!

J Moreno

SecretGarden <member4024@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > But, if litigation were brought against you, would you be able to
    > > plead
    > > 'ignorance' to the INA because of guidance provided by a governmental
    > > department (documentary written evidence)?
    > >
    > > Wes
    >
    > My understanding is that ignorance of the law is never a good
    > legal defense.

Well, you're wrong -- sometimes your understanding is a critical issue
(witnesses F's recent Hawaiian case).

--
J. Moreno

Jonathan McNeil Wong

Brazilian26 wrote:
    >>I actually asked my adjudicating officer if I need to carry my
    >>passport with the I-551 and she said that I did not. There seems to be
    >>not a little inconsistency here, or perhaps even the USCIS people
    >>themselves are confused.
    >>Nettie
    >
    >
    > As everything with USCIS, you should always do things by the book. To
    > prevent any "misunderstanding".
    >
    > Section 264(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states:
    >
    > "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry
    > with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien
    > registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him..."
    >
    > Note that it says "...any certificate of alien registration..."
    >
    > Section 264.1(b) of the Title 8 of Code of Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R)
    > establishes the forms (documents) that "constitute evidence of
    > registration".
    >
    > The list includes form I-551 (GC) and I-766 (EAD) among others.
    >
    > Since, upon approval of the GC most are required to surrender their EAD,
    > the I-551 is the only "evidence of registration" for LPRs (or CPRs).
    >
    > Based on that, not carrying your I-551 with you at all times would
    > constitute a misdemeanor.
    >
    > If you want to read the law here are the links:
    > Section 264(e) of INA
    > http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/ins...-1/slb-21/slb-
    > 7146?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act264
    >
    > Section 264.1(b) of 8 C.F.R.
    > http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/ins.../slb-9985/slb-
    > 26125/slb-26141?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-8cfrsec2641
    >

I knew that if I drilled down far enough, someone would finally quote
the law.

In response to some other posts:

The Fourth Amendment applies to all persons within the U.S., not just
citizens. However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unresaonable"
searches and seizures. I do not believe that the constitutionality of
section 264 has ever been tested, but given other cases upholding, for
example, the right of the police to request that someone identify
him/herself, I suspect that it is constitutional to require that an LPR
carry the GC and produce it upon request.

As to the other comment: it is not the case that someone apprehended
without a GC can be immediately removed. Assuming the apprehension
occurred within the U.S. interior (as opposed to right at the border),
the person would have the right to a removal hearing.

--
Above intended as general commentary, not specific legal
advice. Your mileage may vary.

================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============

Folinskyinla

<sigh> In the discussions of McDonald v Gonzles, the one criticism I've seen over and over again is "whatever happened to 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'?"

That general principle was not disturbed at all -- in McDonald, the Hawaii statute in question made knowledge of the law a specific element of the offense. Hence, an exception to the general rule. Most crimes don't involve knowledge of the law as an element of the offense.

The panel of three judges in McDonald included a very "conservative" jurist appointed by Ronald Reagan. He did not question me at oral argument. And the "liberal" judge asked me if the case could be decided on the narrow issue of Hawaii law -- which is a judicially conservative position. The governments attorney had to suffer a judicial browbeating by the "conservative" judge on why they were even pursuing the case and "why are you breaking up an American family over what is obviously an innocent mistake?" My father likes coming to oral argument as a rooting section and he was shocked at the judicial outburst of anger from the bench.

SecretGarden

Hi Mr. Folinsky,
I'm not wanting to appear dense, but I have no idea if what you're saying here supports what I said or not.

In a nutshell, according the the INA, you must carry your PR card with you at all times, and not carrying it and being asked for it may result in a misdemeanor. Also, if you were to say, "well, the website says I have to know where it is but I don't have to have it on me" this would not be a valid defense, correct? And further, if you were to say, "well, I didn't know I had to carry it on me", that would also not be an advisable legal defense?

For some reason I'm not getting the main points from this discussion---could just be exhaustion, or I could always be "wrong".

~SecretGarden