Pa205 Unit 9 Assignment
To: Attorney Carla Pruitt From: Paralegal Precious Shephard Re: Jane’s Asylum Date: September 1, 2014 Facts Jane, a fourteen-year-old Canadian citizen, lives with her father, John, in Quebec during the school year and with her mother, Anne, in New York on school breaks and holidays. After having some difficulty with her parents, Jane decided to go to California to live with her uncle, Billy. Since Jane left her parents each a message explaining her plans then immediately left for the airport, her mother went after her. However, her mother was killed in an automobile accident on the way to the airport. Now that her mother has passed away, Jane does not want to return to Canada to live with her father, as she claims that he is physically abusive and that in conjunction with his employment with an independent French-Canadian state, Jane will be used as a propaganda tool for the separatist movement. Issues 1. Under U.S. Immigration Law, can Billy a non-custodial relative, file a petition for asylum for his 14 year old niece Jane? 2. Can Jane whom is a 14-year old minor, file her own petition for asylum under U.S. Immigration Law? 3. Can a claim of physical abuse and for the possibility of a minor child being used as political or governmental propaganda, constitute grounds for filing a petition of asylum under the same law? Brief Answer 1. Short Answer No. Under relevant case law, the proper person to file for asylum is Jane’s father. Applicable Statute Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338 (2000). Because preexisting law compelled no particular policy for plaintiffs' situation, Immigration and Naturalization Service was entitled to make policy decision: that plaintiff's father was proper person to apply for plaintiff's asylum.
Unit 9 Assignment 2Legal Research:Secondary Sources1.Anna Sortun, Rebutting the Parental Presumption in Oregon: Substantiating Emotional Bonds After Troxel v. Granville, 82 Or L. Rev.1191 (2003). This article discusses the changes in Oregon law concerning third party visitation rights in light of the Supreme Court decision in Troxel v. Granville, which held that Washington State’s third party visitation statute was unconstitutional because it infringed upon a mother’s right to make decisions regarding the care, control and custody of her daughters. The author argues that third parties should not have to prove that a parent is unfit in order to get visitation, but that they must prove that disallowing visitation will somehow harm the child. 2.59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent and Child § 38(2015)Some jurisdictions allow that grandparents and other relatives may have a legal right to visitation. Under common law, other jurisdictions may declare that third parties have no legal right to visitation. In jurisdictions that do recognize such right, visitation rights may be awarded to third parties if the visitation is in the best interest of the child. In the majority of cases, custodial parents generally have veto power over visitation. However, some jurisdictions may apply a common law right of visitation to persons who have stood in loco parentis for a period oftime.3.George L. Blum, Granparents’ Visitation Rights Where Child’s Parents Are Deceased, or Where Status of Parents is Unspecified, 69 A.L.R.5th1 (1999).Some statutes create a presumption that the best interests of children are served by maintaining contact with their grandparents. Under common law principles, grandparents had nolegal right to visit and to communicate with their grandchildren if the visitation or communication was forbidden by the parent(s). Courts have increasingly begun to recognize thatgrandparents may have a legal right of visitation if such visitation is found to be in the best interests of the particular child involved. The issue arises in many cases as to whether grandparents may be awarded visitation rights with grandchildren in cases where the parent(s) of the child are deceased.Cases1.Troxel v. Graanville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (U.S. Wash. 2000)Facts: Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel had two daughters out of wedlock. After the couple separated, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his daughters to their home for weekend visitations. After Brad committed suicide, his parents continued to see their granddaughters on a regular basis. After several months, Granville informed the Troxels that shewanted to limit the visitations to one visit per month. The Troxels sued Granville for the right to visit their grandchildren under section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington. Under