Judges on the Immigration Laws
 

Hi:

Just in case you are thinking you are alone in feeling stupid when considering US immigration law, I offer four quotes from US courts of appeals in Florida, California, Texas and New York over a period of decades. Do note that the Courts of Appeals are just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court and actually issue most of the published Federal Case law.

Also, for those of you who think its simple and just filling out the right form, take these quotes to heart.

Enjoy.


"It would seem that should be a simple issue with a clear answer, but this is immigration law where the issues are seldom simple and the answers are far from clear." Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno 201 F.34d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)


"we are in the never-never land of the Immigration and Nationality Act, where plain words do not always mean what they say." Yuen Sang Low v. Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820 (9th Cir. 1973)


"We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress's ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges. In this instance, Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or deport natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can resolve any enigma that human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of provisions for the I.N.S. and courts to disentangle. The fate of the alien faced with imminent deportation often hinges upon narrow issues of statutory interpretation. The instant petition, which requires us to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for the discretionary relief afforded by Section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. s 1182(c), because he has not accumulated seven years of residence in this country since his admission to permanent resident alien status, is no exception. Emboldened by Thesean courage and fortified by a close examination of the statutory language, we believe that the Board of Immigration appeals erred in denying the petitioner relief on the ground that it did, and remand for consideration on a proper basis." Tim Lok v. INS, 548 F.2nd 37 (2nd Cir. 1977)


"In its brief the INS states "the public, of course, has a right to obtain guidance from the regulations for its dealings with the Service." We devoutly hope the INS and those who draft the regulations and Operations Instructions under which it operates will take this statement to heart. Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargon. There is nothing esoteric about the subject matter. The regulations concern simple matters of great concern to human beings, most of them of limited education. They should be so written as to be comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide." Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2nd 909 (5th Cir. 1981)

Re: Judges on the Immigration Laws
 

    :)

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
"Folinskyinla" wrote in message
news:430040.1033434509@britishexpats-
.com...
    > Hi:
    > Just in case you are thinking you are alone in feeling stupid when
    > considering US immigration law, I offer four quotes from US courts of
    > appeals in Florida, California, Texas and New York over a period of
    > decades. Do note that the Courts of Appeals are just one level below
    > the U.S. Supreme Court and actually issue most of the published
    > Federal Case law.
    > Also, for those of you who think its simple and just filling out the
    > right form, take these quotes to heart.
    > Enjoy.
    > "It would seem that should be a simple issue with a clear answer, but
    > this is immigration law where the issues are seldom simple and the
    > answers are far from clear." Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno 201 F.34d 1303
    > (11th Cir. 2000)
    > "we are in the never-never land of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
    > where plain words do not always mean what they say." Yuen Sang Low v.
    > Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820 (9th Cir. 1973)
    > "We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of
    > the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos's labyrinth in
    > ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts
    > are examples we have cited of Congress's ingenuity in passing statutes
    > certain to accelerate the aging process of judges. In this instance,
    > Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or
    > deport natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the
    > aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can resolve any enigma that
    > human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of
    > provisions for the I.N.S. and courts to disentangle. The fate of the
    > alien faced with imminent deportation often hinges upon narrow issues of
    > statutory interpretation. The instant petition, which requires us to
    > determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for the discretionary
    > relief afforded by Section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. s 1182(c),
    > because he has not accumulated seven years of residence in this country
    > since his admission to permanent resident alien status, is no exception.
    > Emboldened by Thesean courage and fortified by a close examination of
    > the statutory language, we believe that the Board of Immigration appeals
    > erred in denying the petitioner relief on the ground that it did, and
    > remand for consideration on a proper basis." Tim Lok v. INS, 548 F.2nd
    > 37 (2nd Cir. 1977)
    > "In its brief the INS states "the public, of course, has a right to
    > obtain guidance from the regulations for its dealings with the
    > Service." We devoutly hope the INS and those who draft the regulations
    > and Operations Instructions under which it operates will take this
    > statement to heart. Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those
    > cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many
    > years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only
    > grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from
    > mollusks of jargon. There is nothing esoteric about the subject
    > matter. The regulations concern simple matters of great concern to
    > human beings, most of them of limited education. They should be so
    > written as to be comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized
    > lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide." Kwon
    > v. INS, 646 F.2nd 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
    > --
    > Certified Specialist, Immigration & Nat. Law, Cal. Bar Board of Legal
Specialization
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com