Search This Blog

Monday, December 15, 2008

To the Students of Immigration Policy (SOC370/INTS 398) Thank you all for being a part of Loyola University's only immigration policy course.

Your footprint will be remembered by me and your fellow students for many years to come and while you mostly likely will forget the precise details learned in class, I hope you will never forget the rudimentary principle that immigration law and policy in the United States is a creature not always of common sense or logic but a creature of _____ and _______. I do not need to fill in the blanks for you...

If you enjoyed the class and wish it to continue, please let us know.

The Final Exam is also posted below and individual grades have been emailed to you.

I would also like to acknowledge the follow students' performance this past semester:


I wish you all the best.

---Christopher W. Helt, Esq.

Loyola University of Chicago
Immigration Policy 370 (INTS 398)
December 9, 2008


N.B. Choose only one question to answer from Sets I, II, and III.


READ EACH ESSAY EXAM QUESTION CAREFULLY. When asked to provide examples, provide examples used in class lectures, our film, class blogsite, and/or the reading materials. USE INK PEN.




A. SET # 1:

A.) Who is Nasser Din and Ziaul Hassan? In what context did you learn about them and Why?

1.) who and what were they fighting and why?

2.) Who is Fred Koramatusu and why is he similar to Naseer Din and Ziaul Hassan? What two media sources did we watch in class that were germaine (i.e, associated with or related to) to each?

3.) What law affected each individual? Were the laws affecting each individual upheld (i.e., lawful or “constitutional”)? How so?
(please cite two (2) laws for full credit or more if you like).

4.) Why is the adage, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” apropos here? If not, why not? Please include a discussion of Chapter 3, We are All Suspects Now, in your analysis.

B. SET # 2:

(1) (a) Who is Fred Koramatsu, (b) who are/were the NISEI and what immigration policy/law affected Koramatsu (name the exact law)?
(2) What happened to him? Why?
(3) What event in our nation’s past affected him?
(4) What did Fred Koramatsu and the Guantanamo Detainees have in common, if anything?
(5) Why did he have the final say in laws/policies affecting similar persons like him?


YOU MAY USE THE “IRAC” METHOD TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU LIKE. Full Credit will be given either way for a complete answer, but you must identify the issues and note comparisons with material covered in class.


Somewhere in the Gulf of Aden. Tuesday morning, December 9, 2008. The SS Namor, a 656 passenger luxury cruise liner (owned by the Norwegian Government) and considered one of the world's most luxurious cruise liners, is headed for its eventual destination, port-of-Miami, capping its three continent, six country port-of-call.
Passengers on board the Namor range in social class and status, but include Oscar-nominated actress Brangelina Polie, her six adopted children from Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam and India, (all United States Citizens by Brangelina's adoptive immigrant petitions (IVs) derivative US citizen status) and her heartthrob husband, Aad Jitt, also a conditional lawful permanent resident (a temporary “green card” holder).

Four-months earlier, August 26, 2008. Hollywood, California. Jitt immigrated to the U.S on a P-1 (entertainer's visa) for his first major motion film in 1991
(Thelma & Louise). He later married actress Anniffer Jiniston, (the couple was
known affectionately in Hollywood as “JJ” who filed for a change of status to a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) for him. Because of the widespread
media attention given to the wedding (the wedding photographs were sold to People
Magazine for a whopping 1.2 million dollars), United States Immigration &
Citizen Services (USCIS) processed Brangelina's I-130 visa petition a little
faster than it normally does: It approved the petition in one day (and absent
an interview). The marriage, unfortunately, later resulted in a divorce (having
been consummated) lasting less than the requisite 2 years to consider it to
be a “bona fide” marriage for immigration purposes. As such, Jitt recently received a knock on his door at his Malibu residence from ICE agents, personally handing him a notice from USCIS revoking his conditionally approved residency status (his “green card”) and issuing him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) before an immigration judge as he now was placed in removal (“deportation”) proceedings awaiting a hearing before immigration judge Judy Rothchild, chief immigration judge at the Hollywood , CA. immigration court.

At the first court hearing (known as “master calendar”), Jitt appeared before Judge Rothchild, with his attorney, Hollywood Holt. Holt denied all allegations and demanded a speedy trial (though he knows that Jitt needs as much time as possible to support his deportation defense).

At immigration court, the government insisted that the supposed relationship and subsequent marriage of the “JJs” was a sham marriage solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits (and done only so Aad could continue his film career in the United States). As evidence of this, the government argued that no children resulted from the marriage and the couple rarely lived together. The ICE attorney stated mater of factly, “this is a textbook case of a paper marriage—the respondent [Jitt] was in it [the marriage] for a green card, your honor.”

The most damming evidence produced by the government were phone records and text messages of Jitt and Brangelina during the filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Hold vehemently objected to their admission, but with a packed courtroom of reporters inside, Judge Judy sustained all of Hollywood's objections admonishing him: “You've been practicing long enough counselor to know this is ALL relevant evidence against your client!”

The government also brought in shocking paparazzi photographs of Brangelina and Jitt taken at a remote Caribbean nude beach [depicting both committing unspeakable –and unprintable-- adultered acts]. There was no doubt that Brangelia and Jitt were carnally involved while Jitt was still married! Jitt's official green card
had not even arrived in the mail. One could hear a pin drop as the enlarged
photographs of Brangelina and Jitt were tendered to the judge. There was no
denying the affair now, but does that make Jitt guilty of immigration fraud?
Should he be deported on that basis as the government now contends? He was
clearly out of status (thus an “illegal alien”), as USCIS revoked his I-130, and
he could not file another one. Or could he?

This evidence above was admitted against Jitt, and it was now clear that there was some serious hanky panky going on between Brangelina and Jitt, all while he was still married to Annifer. The judge then found Jitt removable (“deportable”) as charged, as the marriage was less than two years old and under the law Jitt needed to show the marriage wasn’t a sham. Jitt could be deported simply because the marriage did not last two years and thus the conditions to remove his temporary residency were not meet. Attorney Holt knew of the affair, and knew there were only
four ways Jitt could stay here permanently [absent some limited exceptions]: (1)
the visa lottery; (2) an asylum claim; (3) a job sponsor; and/or (3) a family
(visa) petition.

“Hollywood” Holt had a novel idea, however. He would plead that Jitt certainly was removable (deportable) as the two-year requirement was not met, knowing he would lose that argument, but if he avoided the fraud charges, a later marriage
between Brangelia and Jitt would allow him stay here, obtain his permanent greed card (lawful permanent residency) and Jitt would not be deported to his native country, Missouropa (a former soviet bloc country). Missouropa has no political strife, civil war or any other political turmoil and is considered a peaceful, Thespian society (90% of its population are actors). Due to the recent worldwide economic spiral and Missouropa being denied EU status, however, its chief currency, the Guild, is virtually worthless.

If Brangelina, however, could file another family-based visa petition (an I-130
petition) for Jitt once they are married, the Judge could grant him a
continuance while the visa peititon was pending with USCIS. Jitt then would not
be deported. That was the plan of attack or defense for this case, Holt

This time, Holt also knew USCIS wouldn't approve a subsequent visa petitioner between the two in a timely fashion (as the first one), especially
since the government now was alleging fraud. But he nevertheless needed to buy time for his client. The case was ultimately continued until 2012 for status.

With the court hearing now more than 3 years away, Brangelina and Jitt enjoy taking a break from acting, having both worked on the recent US Presidential Campaign ,
and donating much money and time to causes they believe in: World hunger,
continued Katrina relief, and immigration reform. They both decide to take a cruise on the SS Namor. The children come with them.

Time on the cruise ship also allows Brangelina and Jitt quality time with their
family and a welcomed respite from the paparazzi, as the luxury cruise liner
screens its travelers very carefully. Every passenger on board in accounted
for and a thorough background check is made to ensure no guests are
photographers or anyone else from the media for that matter.


(A) (1) Can Jitt stay in the United States legally? (2) How so? (3) identify all the issues present in this fact pattern; (4) What procedure must he pursue, as we have learned in Class? (4) what are some of the problems he faces? (5) what audiovisual segment did we watch in class which parallels Jitt’s story and what are the similarities in that piece with Jitt’s predicament?


(B) Using Ngai’s discussion of Just vs. Unjust Deportation, discuss (1) why AAD JITT SHOULD BE DEPORTED OR NOT? (2) Cite specific examples used in class similar to Jitt’s predicament in our discussion of just vs. unjust deportations in society. (3) why do court delays (or continuances) help immigrants like Jitt? (4) Who else did we see in class that was in need of a long court continuance and why? Please specify by name.


Gulf of Aden. December 9, 2009. Traveling the crystal clear, sea green waters of the Gulf of Aden, a body of water just South of the Red Sea, is the SS Namor.
The ocean waters touch the shores of both Somalia to the West and the Saudi
Arabian Peninsula to the North. The nautical course traveled by the SS Namor is
both majestic and biblical, but also efficient. Both industrial tankards,
fishing ships, scrap heaps and tourist vessels alike traverse this course.

The gulf’s treacherous waters are home to dangerous “man-eating” species, human and otherwise. Below the water’s surface live deadly man-eating piranhas; above the water live another life threatening creature: Pirates. Yes, just like Blackbeard and his crew from centuries past lurk the modern day equivalent, who cruise theses waters in search of defenseless prey.

These modern-day buccaneers, who seemingly have ported through a time warp, originate from the war-torn lawless country of Somalia. Somalia, a predominately Muslim country, once was a majestic and proud land, today is defined by severe civil strife, clan-based murders, genocide, and anarchy. These pirates, like the piranhas deep below, must feed on their prey to survive: Famine and fear of starvation motivate the pirates. They are both fearless and vicious and have nothing to lose.

Composed chiefly from scrap metal heaps and rope, the small rag-tag boats or “skiffs” are diminutive in comparison to large vessels like the Namor. As the skiff approaches the ship, its captain, believing it to be stranded refugees and seeing a white distress flag waving, navigates towards the boat. Thus today the Pirates have found their victim: the SS Namor. Once the Namor is alongside the skiff, a burlap bag is removed, revealing a grenade launcher, and an anti-tank missile launcher, all remnants of U.S. troop intervention in Mogadishu in the early 1990s. Five-men and one woman, brandishing aka-47 automatic machine guns, one with a shoulder-strapped grenade launcer, board the ship. The Namor is commandeered by the Pirates in less than 10 minutes.

At least 50 passengers then are murdered on the deck of the Namor, when one of the Pirates’ shoulder rocket launchers accidentally fires. One of the passengers killed instantly from the blast is the famous actor, AAD JITT. His wife Brangelina Polie and their USC children are floors below and are not injured. The captain is also murdered and with no knowledge of the ships navigational system, the attempted hijackers are forced to surrender to German and U.S. maritime military vessels.

The Namor eventually arrives to the U.S., docking at the port-of-Miami in flames. With smoke billowing throughout the morning Miami sky, passengers are carried off of the ship, many on med-vac stretchers.

One of the individuals carried off the ship is Idel Hussain (pronounced EE-DEL), the only female accompanied with the Pirates.

After it is discovered that she was not an official passenger she is detained, placed in the Miami Detention Center, and interrogated by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

After a “credible fear interview” by ICE, it was learned that Idel was 16-years-old and forced to sail on the skiff with the other pirates, one of whom she claimed to be her husband. She also stated that in Somalia, it is common for young woman to undergo a horrendous procedure. She also told ICE officers something horribly shocking—a story that not one ICE officer believed at the time: Idel claim that she (as well as most all woman in Somalia) were subjected to a form of genital mutilation which only females were subjected. Idel was forced to undergo this horrific procedure, she claims, when she was about 11 years old.

She went on to discuss this in detail: commonly referred to as infibulation and in Somalia, called "Pharaonic circumcision"), she claimed Eighty percent (80%) of all genital procedures for women and girls consist of this form which is the most harmful form. Of the remainder, the less radical or Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy and in called "sunna" by Idel) is practiced mainly in the coastal towns of Mogadishu and Kismayu. The procedures leave a lifetime of physical suffering for the women. She described many Somalis mistakenly view this procedure as a religious obligation. The concept of family honor is also involved. It is carried out to ensure virginity. Because virginity of daughters and family honor are related, it is believed that the family’s honor will also remain intact if the daughters are subjected to this procedure. Women who have not undergone this procedure, Idel described, may be thought of as having “loose morals”. A girl who has not undergone it will result in less bridewealth for her father and brothers. Either way, Idel claims she had no choice in the matter. She also claimed she had to accompany her husband aboard the skiff or she would be killed by her husband.
Felling sympathy for Idel, she was further asked by ICE officers if she feared the government upon returning to Somalia. She stated that there is no government in Somalia and thus there is no government to fear.



A.) The Pirates survive and are taken into custody by ICE. Once fingerprinted, it is learned that two of the men had been admitted to the Untied States previously with visitor visas. One admitted to successfully commandeering a cargo ship in between his visits to the U.S. If biometrics had been used, (ie if the Somalia government had agreed to share its fingerprints to U.S. intelligence) clearly, one of the pirates would have not been on board resulting in the death of at least one American (and Aad Jitt). (1) Make a case, for or against why biometrics should be used for immigration enforcement. Include in your analysis a definition of biometrics. What did our guest speaker from the FBI believe and why? (2) Do we need to be more vigilant as to who enters the United States on a temporary basis or not? (3) should we fingerprint all visitors (non-immigrants or NIV visa holders) who come to the United States? Why or why not? (4) What liberties/privacy interests are involved, if any?


B.) (1) Is there a basis for asylum here? By whom? (2) Provide the definition of political asylum as discussed in class, in Ngai or both. (3) What are the five (5) bases of asylum--what must it be on account of? Please name the five. (4) What asylum case did we see from class (which guest speaker?) similar here? (5) What would the asylum case here be “on account of” (i.e, which one of the five (5) above would it fall under? and why? (6) What policy issues may be present which may serve as a hurdle to obtaining safe haven here in the United States? (7) Finally, what are Idel’s chances and what conditions would she be subject to if she pursues an asylum case in the U.S., based on what we discussed in class and the 60 Minutes piece we watched on detention of immigrants?

1B) Fred Koramatsu was a naturalized citizen of Japanese decent. Mr. Koramatsu was detained under Executive Order 9066, which was enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Basically, Koramatsu was detained for occupying a Military Zone, by the Secretary of War, and he was placed in a Japanese Interment Camp. Mr. Koramatsu was/is referred to as an NISEI, which is in Nagai and our class discussions an A2 or a second generation American Born citizen of Japanese decent. As stated earlier, Mr. Koramatsu (Now will be referred to as Mr. K.) was detained under executive or 9066, which gave the Secretary of War, absolute power to detain persons of Japanese decent in Interment Camps because of the beginning of WWII. Mr. K fought his detainment, in the Internment Camp, all the way to the Supreme Court. The case can be found in any law research database for reference. Furthermore, Mr. K. challenged his detainment as being unconstitutional. While Mr. K. lost his case before the high court, the court cited that his detention in violation of 9066 was lawful because he was being detained for the criminal violation of occupying a military zone; however, the court never fully addressed the constitutionality of native born Americans of Japanese decent being detained in these camps, but they articulated, in their opinion, that the detainment of American citizens was, at the very least, was Constitutionally Suspect, but this was not the issue before the court at the time. However, in my opinion, in our day and age, and with the evolution of our jurisprudence, had Mr. K challenged his detainment in our current society and before this court, he may win, but that is only a brief opinion. Mr. K was detained because of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. At this point in time, all people of Japanese decent were considered to be suspect as a result of the attack. The government did not know what Japanese Americans would sympathize with the Empire of Japan. So, every member of Japanese decent was detained and relocated to Internment Camps. The commonalities of Mr. K. and the detainees at Gitmo are similar in a sense. While was able to use the appellate process, Mr. K did not receive due process of law in his exclusion and relocation to an internment camp. The same can be said for the detainees at Gitmo. Some are American citizens, but yet, because they have been labeled as Enemy Combatants, in the War on Terror, they have been denied Due Process of Law, one of our fundamental foundations in this country. Thus, Mr. K. had the final say, when he filed an Amicus Brief * (A Friend of the Court Brief), on the behalf of the detainees in Gitmo. I may be paraphrasing, but, he did not want the government to make the same mistakes it made during WWII by denying Due Process of Law to American Citizens, once again. However, as a matter of fact, I believe Mr. K held that as long as people were detained on US Soil, which Gitmo technically is US soil because it is a Military Installation; all persons detained here were entitled to some Due Process of Law.


Issue: Whether or not Jitt can remain in the United States lawfully as a permanent US resident?

Rule: Marriages lasting less than two years do not constitute a bona fide marriage; therefore the petition for permanent status is denied.

Analysis: The general Rule, in this case, is stated very clearly. In order for a marriage to be valid, in the eyes of immigration, it must last a period of at lest two years. This is not the case. The Petitioner entered the US on an entertainer’s visa, which was converted to an application for Permanent Status following a marriage. The marriage resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of the two year minimum. Moreover, the Petitioner contends his marriage was not a sham; however, clearly, the evidence points to that fact. The couple rarely resided together, the relationship bore no children, and the Petitioner carried on an affair, while married, with another woman. As we proceed, do we think that adultery amounts to Moral Turpitude? I think so, because the Petitioner was married at the time of his affair. However, it is the year of 2008 and the case has been continued until 2012, and his current relationship can result in another marriage. The conclusion will support my finding.

Conclusion: The facts here are very clear. Jitt was married to woman while carrying on an affair during his marriage. His first marriage has resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of a 2 year minimum to obtain a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Status for a family sponsorship. Thus, the Petitioner, Mr. Jitt is eligible for deportation, and the deportation is just under the law. He rarely lived with his spouse, bore no children during his marriage, and carried on an affair with another woman. Adultery is certainly an offense of Moral Turpitude in our society. While we can entertain the issue of a job sponsor, there are certainly an ample amount of actors, certainly capable, of playing in roles that Jitt would be sponsored for. Therefore, the deportation against Jitt remains just. His native homeland is a peaceful nation with no political strife, civil war, or other political turmoil; however, the country and its currency are worthless. We will concede that Jitt is certainly well off financially due to his blockbuster roles, and his economic financial viability does not only reside in Missouropa. Thus, his deportation does not meet the threshold of persecution under financial distress because his wealth is global. Also, an asylum claim is out of the question because there are no relevant facts that point to a well founded fear of persecution. Therefore, under the objective factual analysis, the deportation would be approved; however, and this is a hypothetical, if Jitt was to marry again, and file another petition for permanent status, and meet the threshold of the two year requirement, his petition may be approved. But we do not deal in hypothetical, and given the fact that, currently, there is no change in marriage status, Jitt will be deported for the aforementioned reasons.

3B) Yes, there is a basis for a claim of Asylum. Idel could wage a claim of Asylum. Asylum must be based in a well founded fear of persecution due to the association of political Ideology, membership in a social group, race, gender, and nationality. While there is no government to fear because of the current status in Somalia, there is a state of lawlessness, which any state of nation has an obligation to preserve the right of law. Idel has been basically castrated by her parents against her will, which rises to a level of persecution. Meaning, she would be a member of a social group, which is uncircumcised and therefore persecuted in this country. Not to mention, this procedure seems to be a bit barbaric in a Westernized Ideology, thus resulting in a level of persecution because of the membership in a social group. Further, it appears, while customary, she was forced into a sense of indentured servitude because her refusal to board the vessel without her husband was met with severe consequence, death. In my opinion, this also rises to the level of persecution because there is no government to protect her from this way of life. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned facts, Idel would be granted Asylum because of her well founded fear of persecution due to the government of Somalia, which theoretically is non-existent but there is a government structure of some sort, inability to protect her. Also, she was not given any choices as to her membership in any social group; this also appears to meet the threshold of persecution because the government cannot control the group

No comments: