Should Immigration Service Employees Be “Looking for a Way to Approve” Petitions and Applications?

The answer is a resounding yes, according to this refreshingly outdated 1980 memo from INS Regional Director Durward E. Powell, Jr., regarding “Dispensing of Information and Adjudications Decision Making.”   

Powell admonishes employees that they should not consider themselves “guardians of the treasury of information on Immigration benefits, whose function is to dispense reluctantly that narrow portion of the treasury which relates to a specific inquiry.  Rather, all of us are, or should be, dispensers of total information, tailored to the entirety of each applicant’s situation. Tell them freely and openly not only what they are not eligible for but what they may be eligible for.”  

What an efficient and productive attitude for any agency employee toward her work. Some of the immigration agency employees I have encountered did seem to take this helpful stance, but others did not.  In fact, the same could be said about my encounters with DMV employees.

What are your thoughts? 

Thanks to Benders Immigration Bulletin Daily for the delightful link.

(Edit at 10:42 a.m.) As indicated in the comments below, Benders found this memo on the Nation of Immigrators blog.  The post, “New Year Resolutions for Immigration Officials,” is thoughtful and probably would interest anyone who is interested enough to be reading what I’ve written here.

Continue ReadingShould Immigration Service Employees Be “Looking for a Way to Approve” Petitions and Applications?

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Limiting the Reach of the Adam Walsh Act (a Little)

The Seventh Circuit had two new opinions in criminal cases this week.  The first, United States v. Sims (No. 07-3798), presented a routine Fourth Amendment issue, with the court upholding a challenged search warrant over the defendant’s objection that police officers failed to disclose important information when they obtained the warrant.

The more notable case of the two was United States v. Dixon (No. 08-1438), which considered the sex offender registration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act.  Passed in 2006, the Walsh Act did not invent sex offender registration (which was first done at the state level), but it did substantially increase federal regulation in the area.  Among the most controversial (and heavily litigated) features of the Walsh Act has been its creation of a new federal crime for sex offenders who cross state lines and fail to register in the new state.  Concerns focus on the retroactive reach of the new law, with some cases indicating that offenders can be punished on the basis of interstate travel that occurred prior to the statute’s enactment.

In Dixon, the Seventh Circuit took its turn grappling with the retroactivity issues.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review: Limiting the Reach of the Adam Walsh Act (a Little)

Seventh Circuit Week in Review, Part II: Attempted Enticement of a Minor

As I mentioned in the first installment of “Week in Review,” the Seventh Circuit decided two cases this past week arising from convictions for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity.  As a general matter, one is not guilty of a criminal attempt unless one takes a “substantial step” towards the completion of the intended crime.  This is a rather vague standard, and courts have struggled to delineate exactly how far a person must travel down the criminal path in order to become liable for an attempt. 

Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit addressed the question in another enticement case, United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008).  Gladish was caught in an Internet sting.  A government agent posing as a fourteen-year-old girl encountered Gladish in an Internet chat room.  After engaging in sexually graphic communications, the two “agreed” to have sex, resulting in Gladish’s arrest.  However, the Seventh Circuit determined that Gladish’s plan did not proceed far enough to support an attempt conviction: despite the agreement to have sex, there was never any specific time or place determined for the tryst.  Without something more than graphic Internet communications and a vague agreement, there was no “substantial step” and, hence, no attempt liability.

The two new opinions, both authored by Judge Wood, elaborate on the meaning of Gladish, but still leave the “substantial step” line more gray than black and white.

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review, Part II: Attempted Enticement of a Minor