IMMIGRATION LAW
PROFESSOR CRUZ
FINAL EXAMINATION
FALL 2002

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This is a partially open-book examination. You may refer to your text, statute, written outline, hand-outs and any other written course material and hand-outs you have been provided throughout the course. You can use your personal notes for this exam. You may not use commercially produced textbooks, hornbooks, etc.

2. This examination consists of two parts. Part I requires you to provide a thorough analysis of your client's removal case. Part II requires you to provide brief case consultations on four out of the six hypothetical scenarios.

3. The applicable law is confined to what was discussed in the assigned reading and in the lectures. You may not use outside knowledge obtained through personal or professional experiences to assert your arguments.

4. Your answers to both parts must be on blue books or typed. Any information on scrap paper will not be factored into your grade. Each subsection has further directions, please read them carefully.

5. You have 3 hours to complete this exam.

6. There are 100 points available. Part I is worth 60 points, Part II is worth 40 points. I estimate that it should take you an hour and a half to complete each part, but you may divide your time as you see fit.

7. Write your exam number on your exam envelope, all used blue books, and at the top of this exam packet. Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security Number on any exam materials.


PART I
(60 points. Recommended time: 1 hour and 30 minutes)

In 1974, when Alexander was a baby, he immigrated from England with his parents Charles and Caroline. All three entered the country with Lawful Permanent status thanks to Charles who had been petitioned by his sister Grace. In 1993, Alexander got into trouble when the underage girl he was dating became pregnant. When Alexander refused to marry her, the girl's father pressed charges against Alexander. Alexander was convicted of Statutory Rape and sentenced to ninety days in jail. The girl kept the baby and demanded child support payments from Alexander. For several years, he avoided child support by going to college and later by running his own business. He only accepted cash payments for his services and under reported his profits in order to avoid the child support payments.

One day, he saw an opening for a great job at a bank he could not resist. He successfully got the job and was making a really good living until his past caught up with him. The ex-girlfriend got a civil court order to garnish his wages. In need of cash flow, Alexander devised a way to tap into the bank's checking accounts and "borrow" money from account holders. The individuals never knew that the money was missing because Alexander would pay it back before they would need to access it. Unfortunately, his monetary needs were far greater than his ability to replenish the "borrowed" money, so he had to devise a new scheme. To help cover his cash flow problems, he forged his father's signature and opened a line of credit. Unfortunately, Alexander failed to realize that upon doing this the central computer would generate a "thank you letter" to his father Charles. When Charles received the letter he called the bank about the line of credit. The bank discovered Alexander's scam, terminated Alexander and turned over evidence to the district attorney's office. Alexander was subsequently convicted of grand theft in 1998. As there were no monetary losses to his victims, Alexander was fined five thousand dollars, sentenced to nine months in jail and ordered to perform community service. The story about the extremes to which Alexander had gone to avoid child support ran in the local newspaper.

When a local IRS agent read the story, she decided to look into possible tax violations. Sure enough, the audit showed that Alexander had defrauded Uncle Sam of over seven thousand dollars in taxes. And so Alexander was convicted in 1999 of misdemeanor tax evasion and ordered to pay his back taxes. Although it all happened three years ago, the consequences are still being felt. Alexander has been blacklisted and is therefore unable to find a good job. This is very unfortunate because the events did give rise to some good things. Alexander learned that he cannot always manipulate the system and is paying back everything he owes. He is paying his child support but he is not yet ready to pursue a relationship with his child. These events have been devastating to Charles who naturalized in 1990. Caroline, Alexander's mother, died of breast cancer when Alexander was 13. Charles raised Alexander alone as best as he could but feels that somehow he failed. Now, INS has placed Alexander in Removal Proceedings and Charles may lose the only reminder of his wife he has left.

Please provide a legal opinion addressing the following questions:

1 ) What deportability problems are raised by each of the crimes Alexander has committed?
2) What immigration remedies is Alexander prima facie eligible for?
3) In your legal opinion, could Alexander establish that he merits a discretionary grant of any remedy? and
4) Does Alexander have a U.S. citizenship claim?


PART II
(40 Points. Recommended time: 1 hour 30 minutes)

DIRECTIONS: Please answer any four of the six fact patterns presented below. Your response should specifically address the question(s) presented immediately following the fact pattern. No credit will be given for superfluous information. A maximum of ten points can be earned by your response to a fact pattern.

1. Renee entered the United States illegally in 1990. He has been living without permission in the U.S. since that date. In June 2000, he went to Canada briefly to visit his ailing mother. When he attempted to re-enter the U.S. at the border crossing point, he was not allowed to enter. He could not explain how a Canadian who was coming to visit the U.S. could own a car registered in California. Desperate to get back into the country, Renee crossed illegally the next day using a road that didn't have a border check point. Renee has been married to Alyssa since 1997. Alyssa became a U.S. citizen in 2001. Alyssa submitted a spousal petition for Renee in December 2000. They want to apply for adjustment.

Question(s): What grounds of inadmissibility apply to Renee & what waivers, if any, is he prima facie eligible for? (Do not discuss reinstatement of removal.)

2. Tomasa has lived in the United States illegally for ten years. She first came from Uruguay on a visitor's visa but she never left. Since then, she has been busy working hard at her job with the local food pantry and volunteering at her kids' school. Her kids are five and seven. She is the only means of support for her family since their father disappeared two years ago. The kids are doing remarkably well. They are involved in school plays, Sunday school programs and even Big Brothers. Tomasa wants to get a green card so that her kids can rest assured that mom would not be deported and so that she may pursue a better paying job. Therefore, she wants to apply for Cancellation.

Questions: Explain to Tomasa whether or not she can submit an application for Cancellation and meet the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard.

3. Xiao, who was born in Thailand, has been living in the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident since 1994. He runs an import/export business. He spends a lot of time flying back and forth between his various warehouses and his home in New York. Most of the trips have been strictly business except for his trip in April 1996 to Thailand following his father's death and his honeymoon in June 2000. During his 1996 trip, he ran his father's business as well as his own from his parents' home in Thailand. He kept his apartment in New York but sublet it to a college friend. In June of 2000, Xiao married Lee who is a U.S. citizen by birth. Xiao would like to apply for citizenship but he is concerned that his constant travel may prove a hindrance. Since becoming an LPR, Xiao has made the following trips:

Question: Do 2Ciao's multiple trips present any problems?

4. Shawn is fearful of returning to his country. Shawn believes that his government may persecute him or even worse kill him to silent him. He is an outspoken critic of the government. Although he does not belong to an organized group per say, he is part of a growing number of activists in his country who believe that the policies the government is implementing violate human rights. The government in many covert ways has targeted individuals who espouse opinions like his. Many activists have had their assets scrutinized and checked for "illegal" investments, their home phones tapped and some have been denied renewal of business licenses. On at least one occasion, an outspoken activist was denied access to a commercial flight because she was on a supposed government list that said that certain individuals were dangerous and should not be allowed on flights. The government is also engaging in what can be described as a smearing campaign to discredit the views of activists. But in doing so, some governmental officials have come very close to encouraging acts of violence against activists by publicly saying that anyone who opposes the government is dangerous and a risk to the stability of the country.

Question: Regardless of whether or not Shawn can establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of the enumerated grounds, does the treatment Shawn has described rise to the level of Persecution? Why or Why not?

5. Frank is a Lawful Permanent Resident. He got his green card in 1996. In 1998, he went on a two-week honeymoon to Spain. Frank lives in San Diego and has been very concerned about the many people who have been dying in the desert in botched smuggling attempts. He decided that he had to do something about it and has been volunteering with a church group that places water at different places along smuggling routes used by individuals attempting to enter the country illegally. Knowing how horrible the conditions for people trying to enter the country illegally are, he did not hesitate telling his cousin Marisa not to cross the border illegally from Mexico two weeks ago. Marisa, however, didn't listen to the advice and she crossed the border illegally. As luck would have it, after crossing the border she ran into Frank who was putting out water for people who had crossed through the mountains. Frank took Marisa to his home in San Diego and yelled at her for not listening to him.

Question: Did Frank smuggle Marisa, and if so, is he deportable for it?

6. In April 1999, Anmid, who is an LPR, petitioned for his daughter, Sidha, who entered the U.S. illegally in 1977. Since entering the U.S., Sidha has been living out of status. Sidha just married Mathew, who is a U.S. citizen by birth.

Questions: Can Sidha still immigrate through her father? Can she file for Adjustment under 245 (a) or under 245 (i) ?


END OF EXAM