Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/37201085/21/The-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act
Timestamp: 2016-02-07 18:02:23
Document Index: 592287205

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 1101', '§ 1101', '§\n1151', 'art. 3', '§ 1157', '§ 1182', '§ 1225', '§\n1227', '§ 1225', '§ 1228', '§\n1229', '§ 1229', '§ 1229', '§\n1229', '§ 1324', '§ 1324']

1. The Immigration and Nationality Act for Lozano v. Hazleton (Third Circuit Decision, Sept 9, 2010)
UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicScribd Selects BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsTop Shelf ProductionsValiant Comics ZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsP. 1Lozano v. Hazleton (Third Circuit Decision, Sept 9, 2010)Lozano v. Hazleton (Third Circuit Decision, Sept 9, 2010)|Views: 659|Likes: 2Published by skuhagenMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: skuhagen on Sep 10, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/37201085/Lozano-v-Hazleton-Third-Circuit-Decision-Sept-9-201010/31/2011pdftextoriginal
The primary body of federal immigration law is
contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101-537, enacted in 1952, and amended many times
thereafter. The INA sets forth the criteria by which “aliens,”
defined as “any person not a citizen or a national of the United
States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3), may enter, visit, and reside in
Under the INA, there are three primary categories of
aliens who may lawfully enter and/or spend time within the
United States: (1) “nonimmigrants,” who are persons admitted
for a limited purpose and for a limited amount of time, such as
visitors for pleasure, students, diplomats, and temporary
workers, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15); (2) “immigrants,” who are
persons admitted as (or after admission, become) lawful
permanent residents of the United States based on, inter alia,
family, employment, or diversity characteristics, see 8 U.S.C. §
1151; and (3) “refugees” and “asylees,” who are persons
Congress has also ratified treaties pursuant to which
persons may be admitted on humanitarian grounds even if they do
not satisfy the statutory definition of “refugee” set forth in the INA.
See United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Apr. 18,
1988, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
admitted to and permitted to stay for some time in the United
States because of humanitarian concerns, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1157-
58. Aliens wishing to be legally admitted into the United
States must satisfy specific eligibility criteria in one of these
categories, and also not be barred by other provisions of federal
law that determine inadmissibility. Congress has determined
that non-citizens who, inter alia, have certain health conditions,
have been convicted of certain crimes, present security concerns,
or have been recently removed from the United States, are
inadmissible, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182, and if detained when
attempting to enter or reenter the country, may be subject to
expedited removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
Despite the carefully designed system for lawful entry
described above, persons lacking lawful immigration status are
obviously still present in the United States. As the Supreme
Court explained almost thirty years ago: “[s]heer incapability or
lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country . . .
Prior to 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”), which operated under the Department of Justice,
administrated both immigration services and immigration
enforcement. On March 1, 2003, Congress abolished the INS.
Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2135, that agency’s functions were transferred to
three separate agencies within the newly created Department of
Homeland Security: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”), which performs immigration and naturalization
services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”),
which enforces federal immigration and customs laws, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), which monitors and
secures the country’s borders. Older documents may continue to
refer to the pre-2003 administrative structure, and citations to them
should be understood in that context.
has resulted in the creation of a substantial ‘shadow population’
. . . within our borders.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 218. Such persons
may lack lawful status because they entered the United States
illegally, either by failing to register with immigration
authorities or by failing to disclose information that would have
rendered them inadmissible when they entered. See 8 U.S.C. §
1227. In addition, aliens who entered legally may thereafter lose
lawful status, either by failing to adhere to a condition of
admission, or by committing prohibited acts (such as certain
criminal offenses) after being admitted. See id.
Persons here unlawfully are subject to removal from the
country. Removal proceedings are initiated at the discretion of
the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). See Juarez v.
As noted above, inadmissible aliens detained at the
borders of the United States, or others deemed not to have been
“admitted” to the country, may be subject to expedited removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1225. In addition, expedited removal procedures
apply to certain aliens already within the country who have been
convicted of congressionally-defined crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1228.
Holder, 599 F.3d 560, 566 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he decision
when to initiate removal proceedings is committed to the
discretion of immigration authorities.” (citing Reno v. Am.-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 489 (1999))).
Although certain aliens are subject to more expedited removal
proceedings, for all others, section 240 of the INA sets forth
the “sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an
alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has
been so admitted, removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(a)(3).
Under section 240, an alien facing removal is entitled to
a hearing before an immigration judge and is provided numerous
procedural protections during that hearing, including notice, the
opportunity to present and examine evidence, and the
opportunity to be represented by counsel (at the alien’s
expense). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. At the conclusion of a removal
hearing, the presiding immigration judge must decide, based on
In Zadvydas, the Court addressed the cases of two aliens
who had been ordered removed from the United States, but who,
for various reasons, no other country would accept. The
government sought to continue detaining them nonetheless. The
the evidence produced during the hearing, whether the alien is
removable, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1)(A), and if so, whether
s/he should be ordered removed, or should be afforded relief
from removal. Such relief can include postponement of
removal, cancellation of removal, or even adjustment of status
to that of lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1229a(c)(4), 1229b.
In sum, while any alien who is in the United States
unlawfully faces the prospect of removal proceedings being
initiated against her/him, whether s/he will actually be ordered
removed is never a certainty until all legal proceedings have
concluded. Moreover, even after an order of removal issues, the
possibility remains that no country will accept the alien. Under
such circumstances, the Constitution limits the government’s
authority to detain someone in anticipation of removal if there
is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699
Court held that the Due Process Clause imposed reasonableness
limits on post-removal-period detention, and thus that the
government could not continue the aliens’ detention indefinitely if
there was “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” 533 U.S. at 701.
The INA, as amended, also prohibits the “harboring” of
aliens lacking lawful immigration status. It provides that any
person who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an
violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection .
. . such alien in any place, including any building or any means
or transportation” shall be subject to criminal penalties. 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
For decades, the INA contained no specific prohibition
against the employment of aliens lacking legal status. Rather,
regulation of the employment of aliens not lawfully present was
at most a “peripheral concern.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351,
360 (1976). This changed in 1986, when Congress amended the
INA through enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (“IRCA”), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (codified at
8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a-1324b). IRCA “forcefully made combating
the employment of illegal aliens central to the policy of
immigration law.” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002)
More From This UserAlabama Immigration Law OpinionskuhagenAlabama Immigration Law OpinionAZ Petition on SB 2070skuhagenAZ Petition on SB 2070Justice Dept. Lawsuit Against Alabama's Immigration lawskuhagenJustice Dept. Lawsuit Against Alabama's Immigration lawPennsylvania Adult Basic ComplaintskuhagenPennsylvania Adult Basic Complaint20110303 Vinson Health Orderskuhagen20110303 Vinson Health OrderCivil immigration enforcement prioritiesskuhagenCivil immigration enforcement prioritiesBrewer CounterclaimskuhagenBrewer CounterclaimPublic Service Loan Forgivness Q&As Final 02 12 10skuhagenPublic Service Loan Forgivness Q&As Final 02 12 10Virginia v. SebeliusskuhagenVirginia v. Sebelius111510 Letter From 9th Circuitskuhagen111510 Letter From 9th CircuitEastern District of Michigan ruling on HCRskuhagenEastern District of Michigan ruling on HCRNew Mann CIDskuhagenNew Mann CIDAmicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff filed by W. Spencer Connerat, III - Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. SebeliusskuhagenAmicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff filed by W. Spencer Connerat, III - Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. SebeliusMohamed v. Jeppesen DataplanskuhagenMohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan2010-08-30 Opinion Granting UVA Petitionskuhagen2010-08-30 Opinion Granting UVA PetitionCuccinelli Opinion on Religious Holiday displaysskuhagenCuccinelli Opinion on Religious Holiday displaysPerry 9th Circuit StayskuhagenPerry 9th Circuit Stay Al-Adahi v. Obama, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 2756551 (D.C. Cir. 2010)skuhagen Al-Adahi v. Obama, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 2756551 (D.C. Cir. 2010)Commonwealth of Va. ex rel Cuccinelli v. SebeliusskuhagenCommonwealth of Va. ex rel Cuccinelli v. SebeliusSTATEMENT OF GERALD L. BALILES, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIAskuhagenSTATEMENT OF GERALD L. BALILES, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIAU.S. v. Arizona 10-16645 Federal Govt's Reponse to AZ MotionskuhagenU.S. v. Arizona 10-16645 Federal Govt's Reponse to AZ MotionU.S. v. Arizona -- AZ Motion for Expedited Appeal 10-16645skuhagenU.S. v. Arizona -- AZ Motion for Expedited Appeal 10-16645U.S. v. Arizona -- 9th Circuit Order 10-16645skuhagenU.S. v. Arizona -- 9th Circuit Order 10-16645Almerfedi v. Obama [habeas corpus]skuhagenAlmerfedi v. Obama [habeas corpus]