Fl Possession of Marihuana – immigrationcourtside.com

Professor Kate ShawCardozo Law PHOTO: Cardozo Law Website — Professor Kate Shaw
Cardozo Law
PHOTO: Cardozo Law Website

Professor Leah Litman
University of Michigan Law
PHOTO: Michigan Law Website

Kate and Leah were live from the University of Pennsylvania in Strict Scrutiny’s first live show of 2023! Penn Law Professor Jasmine E. Harris joined the hosts to recap arguments in a case that could impact disability rights. Kate and Leah recap two other arguments, in a case about immigration law and another about the ability to criminally prosecute corporations owned by foreign states. Plus, a major update about the Supreme Court’s “investigation” into who leaked the draft opinion of Dobbs last spring. And Temple University Law School Dean Rachel Rebouche joined the hosts to talk about some concerning updates in abortion access– an unfortunately commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
• Here’s the report summarizing the Supreme Court’s investigation into who leaked the Dobbs opinion. (TLDR: they still don’t know who did it, but they tried their best? Former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said so.)

To hear the comments on our amicus brief “tune in” at 14:00 (lots of other “interesting commentary” on other cases if you listen to the entire program):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/strict-scrutiny/id1469168641?i=1000596018641

Here’s a copy of our amicus brief drafted by our pro bono heroes at Perkins Coie LLC:

Round Table Amicus Santos Zacaria v. Garland

********************************

“With the highest possible human stakes,” amen, Kate! I get that, you get that, those stuck in the “purgatory of EOIR” get that! But, sadly, Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas, their too often bumbling bureaucrats, and a whole bunch of Federal Judges at all levels DON’T “get” the dire human consequences and the practical impact of many of their decisions. That’s particularly true of those that give EOIR a “pass” on bad interpretations, opaque procedures, and a “super-user-unfriendly” forum that all too often defies logic and common sense! If they did “get it,” EOIR wouldn’t be the dystopian, likely unconstitutional, and life-threatening mess that it is today!

All you have to do is imagine yourself to be an unrepresented individual, who doesn’t speak English, on trial for your life in this messed up and unaccountable “court” system that holds millions of lives in its fumbling hands! Seems like a “modest ask” for those who have risen to the Federal Bench. But, for many, it’s a “bridge too far!” Let’s just hope that the Court does the “right thing” here!

Thanks to Round Table Maven Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for spotting this!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-26-22

https://go.usa.gov/xmutz

Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Where an alien has been convicted of violating a State drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the Federal controlled substances schedules, he or she must establish a realistic probability that the State would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction. Matter of Ferreira, 26 I&N Dec. 415 (BIA 2014), reaffirmed.

PANEL: Appellate Immigration Judges MALPHRUS, MANN, and KELLY

OPINION BY: Judge Ana L. Mann

***************************************

Seems to me the BIA got this one all wrong. The Florida statute was amended specifically to broaden the definition of “marihuana” to include things that aren’t marihuana. How can the BIA say that there is no chance of prosecution? Since stalks, etc. are now “marihuana” it wouldn’t even be a defense to point out that you just possessed stalks.

The BIA has twisted item the concept of “far fetched” to include things that the legislature clearly contemplated when amending the statute.

The Supreme’s decision in Moncrieffe was clearly intended to be ameliorative. But the BIA has turned it into a “sword” for DHS. Moreover, since “stalks only” would no longer be a defense, why would any state case discuss it?

Generally the “Ferreira test” is impossible for any unrepresented respondent to meet. Indeed, I doubt that most detention center judges would have access to the necessary materials to research something so technical.

As my good friend and colleague in the Roundtable of Retired Judges, Judge Jeff Chase, added:

The Supreme Court and some of the circuits created case law that was designed to be clearer – i.e. it doesn’t matter what the respondent actually did, or what the actual sentence was, just look at the least culpable behavior covered by the statute.And the Supremes and some circuits obviously intended it to be ameliorative, given the harsh consequences of the immigration laws.

The BIA sees its mission as trying to render those higher court decisions meaningless.

How far we have come from an organization supposdly dedicated to using teamwork and best practices to “guarantee fairness and Due Process for all.”

PWS

06-16-19

Category: Fl Possession of Marihuana

⚖️🛡⚔️ROUND TABLE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPREMES’ SANTOS-ZACARIA V. GARLAND (EXHAUSTION BEFORE EOIR) GETS “PLAY” ON “STRICT SCRUTINY PODCAST” WITH PROFESSORS LEAH LITMAN (MICHIGAN LAW) & KATE SHAW (CARDOZO LAW)!

To hear the comments on our amicus brief “tune in” at 14:00 (lots of other “interesting commentary” on other cases if you listen to the entire program):

Here’s a copy of our amicus brief drafted by our pro bono heroes at Perkins Coie LLC:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

BAD LAW: BIA Evades Supremes Again To Aid DHS Enforcement — Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

To hear the comments on our amicus brief “tune in” at 14:00 (lots of other “interesting commentary” on other cases if you listen to the entire program):

Here’s a copy of our amicus brief drafted by our pro bono heroes at Perkins Coie LLC:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts: