Holder (2009), the petitioner, Abou Kane, who was a Senegalese native and with regard to the United States immigration laws, was deemed to be illegally in America, sought the Board of Immigration Appeals order to reverse the immigration judge’s (IJ) order. The…
Download file to see previous pages...
In agreement with the board, the judge denied Kane’s application as the petitioner’s derivative claim, lacked stance when rallied alongside the existing and cognizable immigration laws.
Prior to analyzing and as such, satisfactorily asserting a conclusion to Kane’s petition for review what needs to be addressed first, is the jurisdictional issues that arise as a result. In the petitioner’s briefs to the court as well as the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioner claimed that the Immigration Judge (IJ) was obligated as spelt out under 8 C.F.R § 1240.11 (c) to bring to his knowledge the fact that he met the qualification requirements for asylum application. As such, as Kane observed, by virtue of the fact that the Immigration Officer failed to notify him of his eligibility with regard to asylum seeking, it followed that at the time of the case appearing before court, he qualified to apply for asylum. In responding to this the department of Homeland security, established by former President Bush, exemplified that under the existing United States laws, the judge lacked lawful precedence to provide guidance on Kane’s assertion. This was because the concern raised by Kane, had not been raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals. It therefore followed that only matters that had been raised when the board convened were admissible for the courts ruling.
The court was empowered to review Kane’s final removal order (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), 8(b). The United States judicial system with regard to reviewing such an order only permits the said reviewing in the event that the applicant had gone through all available administrative remedies of right. A petitioner’s failure of exhausting his concern through the established administrative structure, which is ideally set to resolve arising cases, creates a bar for the court (Wang v. Ashcroft, 2001). This is because the court is only mandated to step into
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Case Brief: Asylum Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1562198-case-brief-asylum
(Case Brief: Asylum Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words)
“Case Brief: Asylum Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1562198-case-brief-asylum.
Article 3 states that both mental and physical ill-treatment are prohibited (Harris et al., 1995). Both private and public treatment are considered under this Article as well (Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978). In Greek Case (1969) 12 YB 1, the court asserted that the three prohibitions of Article 3 are related to one another - torture is inhuman and degrading, degrading behavior is torture, and so forth.
se of demographic and population changes in the country since 1998 has been immigration, whether in the form of refugees or asylum seekers, this is a serious problem. It is serious insofar as the increasing marginalisation of the identified group lends to the creation of
Can they be relied on?? Are they valid???
The research study has been conducted to determine the health problems experienced by child and youth asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, with particular focus being on
Region V., Inc.(Century 22 or respondent herein), is a California corporation engaged in franchising real estate brokerage offices throughout California.
Respondent and Appellant Corporation entered into a franchise agreement under which appellant operated a real estate
Karen claimed that Dean Witter had been issuing false information regarding the performance of the investments. When still a customer to Dean Witter, Howsam and Dean Witter had entered into an agreement
The appeal is based on previous decision on matters of law.
An appellate court dismissed an appeal by Long Island Railroad in a case that Palsgraf had won against it. Long Island Railroad brought the case to the court of appeal against upheld
Mrs. Crane, afterwards, got into a contract with the mortgagee in which she was to continue operating the property. Therefore, she was to collect the rents, pay for any repairs that were necessary as well as cater for any other running the business
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Case Brief: Asylum for FREE!