DOCSLIB.ORG

Reunion 2017 Class Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reunion 2017 Class Ii Continuing Legal Education Written Materials REUNION 2017 CLASS II Immigration Policy and Enforcement in the Trump Administration 1.5 CLE Credits Lectured by Nancy Morawetz ’81 Professor of Clinical Law, Co-director of Immigrant Rights Clinic NYU School of Law Vanderbilt Hall 40 Washington Square South Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:30 – 11:00 a.m. CLE materials can be downloaded at: www.law.nyu.edu/alumni/reunion2017/clematerials PRACTICE ADVISORY1 February 20, 2017 EXPEDITED REMOVAL: WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13767, BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (ISSUED ON JANUARY 25, 2017) Expedited Removal Prior to Executive Order 13767 ..................................................................... 2 1. What is expedited removal, and who does it apply to now? ............................................... 2 2. How does expedited removal differ from removal proceedings before an immigration judge? .................................................................................................................................. 2 3. What happens if a person subject to expedited removal has a fear of return? .................... 3 4. In what situations, and how, can someone directly challenge an expedited removal order in federal court? .................................................................................................................. 4 5. In what situations, and how, can someone indirectly challenge an expedited removal order in federal court? ......................................................................................................... 6 6. Is there a way to ask the issuing agency to reconsider or reopen an expedited removal order? .................................................................................................................................. 6 Expanded Expedited Removal ........................................................................................................ 8 7. What does Section 11(c) of Executive Order 13767 say? .................................................. 8 8. Has the Executive Order changed who is eligible for expedited removal? How? .............. 8 9. Who is at risk of being subjected to expanded expedited removal? ................................... 8 10. Is expanded expedited removal likely to violate noncitizens’ due process rights? ............ 9 11. After someone is arrested by DHS, how can she show that she must receive an immigration court hearing, rather than be subject to expedited removal? ........................ 10 1 Copyright (c) 2017, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. This practice advisory is intended for lawyers and is not a substitute for independent legal advice provided by a lawyer familiar with a client’s case. The authors of this practice advisory Kristin Macleod-Ball, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Trina Realmuto, Mary Kenney, and Jennifer Chang Newell. 12. Once expedited removal is expanded, should people who have lived in the United States for sufficient time such that they should not be subject to expedited removal carry proof of presence? ...................................................................................................................... 10 13. If a person chooses to carry documents establishing proof of presence in the United States, what types of documents should they carry? ......................................................... 11 14. In what situations, and how, can someone challenge an expanded expedited removal order? ................................................................................................................................ 11 Expedited Removal Prior to Executive Order 13767 1. What is expedited removal, and who does it apply to now? Expedited removal is a procedure that allows a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official to summarily remove a noncitizen without a hearing before an immigration judge or review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any individual who arrives at a port of entry in the United States and who is inadmissible under either 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (misrepresentations and false claims to U.S. citizenship) or § 1182(a)(7) (lack of valid entry documents), is subject to expedited removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).2 Additionally, the Secretary of DHS has the authority to apply expedited removal to any individual apprehended at a place other than a port of entry, who is inadmissible under either of those grounds, has not been admitted or paroled, and cannot show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii). To date, DHS has limited its application of expedited removal to noncitizens inadmissible for one of the above-stated grounds who either arrive at a port of entry or are apprehended within 14 days of their arrival and within 100 miles of an international land border. See Designating Aliens For Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877, 48880 (2004). 2. How does expedited removal differ from removal proceedings before an immigration judge? Expedited removal is substantially different from removal proceedings in immigration court conducted under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge hears the case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). Noncitizens may have an attorney represent them (at their own expense), may apply for relief from removal, and are entitled to substantial due process protections. See, e.g., Pangilinan v. Holder, 568 F.3d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[I]mmigration proceedings must conform to the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement.”). Finally, even if an immigration 2 DHS may not charge an individual with any other ground of inadmissibility in expedited removal proceedings; if an officer chooses to include an additional charge, the individual must be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(3). 2 judge orders an individual removed, that person may appeal the decision, first to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and then to a federal court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(5), 1252. Expedited removal, as applied by DHS, does not have any of those procedural protections. The DHS officer who is authorized to issue an order of expedited removal operates as prosecutor and judge and often arrests an individual and orders him or her deported on the same day. With limited exceptions, discussed below, the government takes the position that noncitizens subject to expedited removal have no right to an appeal. At least one court has held that certain immigrants in expedited removal proceedings have no right to counsel. United States v. Peralta- Sanchez, Nos. 14-50393, 14-50394, _ F.3d_, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2165 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2017). 3. What happens if a person subject to expedited removal has a fear of return? Congress included safeguards in the expedited removal statute to ensure that individuals fleeing persecution are not returned to their countries of origin. If, during the expedited removal process before a DHS officer, an individual indicates either an intention to apply for asylum or any fear of return to his or her home country, the officer must refer the individual for an interview with an asylum officer. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4). Significantly, DHS officers are required to read individuals subject to expedited removal a script that informs them of their right to speak to an asylum officer if they express a fear of return. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i) (requiring reading of Form I-867A); DHS Form I-867A (including an advisal that individuals who express “fear or . concern about being removed from the United States or about being sent home . will have the opportunity to speak privately and confidentially to another officer about [their] fear or concern”). Upon referral, the asylum officer will conduct a “credible fear interview,” which is designed “to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). An individual will be determined to have a credible fear of persecution if there is a “significant possibility,” taking into account the credibility of his or her statements and any other facts known to the asylum officer, that the individual can establish eligibility for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 or for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(2). If the asylum officer determines that the individual satisfies the credible fear standard, the applicant is taken out of the expedited removal process, is served with a Notice to Appear, and is placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a where he or she can pursue an asylum application and any other form of relief for which he or she is eligible. 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(f); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). If the asylum officer makes a negative credible fear determination, the officer must provide a written record of the determination. Upon request, the individual must be provided with prompt review of the determination by an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II)-(III); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(g)(1), 1003.42, 1208.30. If the immigration judge determines that the individual has a credible fear of persecution, the expedited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007
    SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2007 HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2128 SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 Serial No. 110–160 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37–979 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\FULL\092707\37979.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37979 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio ADAM B.
    [Show full text]
  • VALL Newsletter Archive, 2003-2008
    VALL Newsletter VALL Newsletter Published since 1983, the VALL Newsletter is a quarterly publication distributed to all VALL members. Starting with Volume 19, the Newsletter is available online in Adobe PDF format. Volume 19, No. 1 (Summer, 2003) Volume 19, No. 2 (Fall, 2003) Volume 19, No. 3 (Winter, 2003) Volume 19, No. 4 (Spring, 2004) Volume 20, No. 1 (Summer, 2004) Volume 20, No. 2 (Fall, 2004) Volume 20, No. 3 (Winter, 2005) Volume 20, No. 4 (Spring, 2005) Volume 21, No. 1 (Summer, 2005) Volume 21, No. 2 (Fall, 2005) Volume 21, No. 3 (Winter, 2006) Volume 21, No. 4 (Spring, 2006) Volume 22, No. 1 (Summer, 2006) Volume 22, No. 2 (Fall, 2006) Volume 22, No. 3 & 4 (Winter/Spring, 2007) Volume 23, No. 1 & 2 (Summer/Fall, 2007) Volume 23, No. 3 (Winter, 2008) Volume 23, No. 4 (Spring, 2008) Volume 24, No 1 (Fall, 2008) Return to VALL Homepage VALL is a chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries Copyright (c) 1997-2008, Virginia Association of Law Librarys http://www.aallnet.org/chapter/vall/newsletter.htm[6/5/2009 2:51:21 PM] Newsletter Virginia Association of Law Libraries Volume 19, Number 1 Summer 2003 2003 – 2004 VALL Officers In This Issue President’s Message .............. 1 Project Management Basics .......... 12 President Officers/Committee Chairs .... 3 Bridging the Gap .......................... 14 Bobbie Denny Fairfax Public Library Job Listings ............................ 4 VALL Members at SEAALL ....... 17 Fairfax, VA In & Around VALL ............... 5 Homestead Memories ................... 18 Donna Bausch/SEAALL ........ 6 Minutes—May 2, 2003 ................. 20 Immediate Past President Preservation Junction ............
    [Show full text]
  • 1:01-Cr-00455-LMB)
    Filed: February 9, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4494 (1:01-cr-00455-LMB) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, a/k/a Shaqil, a/k/a Abu Khalid al Sahrawi, Defendant - Appellant. ------------------------------------- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, Amicus Supporting Appellant. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed January 4, 2010, as follows: On page 2, attorney information section, the name “Barbara Lynn Hartung, Richmond, Virginia” is deleted from line 1 following “ARGUED” and added at lines 7 and 8 following “ON BRIEF” as counsel for Appellant; the name “Justin S. Antonipillai” is deleted from line 4 following “ON BRIEF” and added with “ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP, Washington, D.C.” at lines l and 2 following “ARGUED” as counsel for Appellant. For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk 2 Volume 1 of 2 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, a/k/a Shaqil, a/k/a Abu Khalid al Sahrawi, No. 06-4494 Defendant-Appellant. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00455-LMB) Argued: September 25, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Traxler wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Shedd joined. 2 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI COUNSEL ARGUED: Justin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibits Attached to Arguments on Admissibility, Declaration of Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad, and Declaration of Zahra Ahmed Mohamed
    BEFORE THE AFRICAN COMMISSION FOR HUMAN & PEOPLES’ RIGHTS 49th ORDINARY SESSION: APRIL-MAY 2011 COMMUNICATION NO. 383/2010 In the matter between: MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SALEH AL-ASAD and DJIBOUTI EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ARGUMENTS ON ADMISSIBILITY, DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SALEH AL-ASAD, AND DECLARATION OF ZAHRA AHMED MOHAMED EXHIBITS The United Republic of Tanzania Departure Declaration Card, 27 December 2003…….A Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, On the Record: U.S. Disclosures on Rendition, Secret Detention, and Coercive Interrogation (New York: NYU School of Law, 2008)………………………………………………………………………………..B Letter to the Attorney General of Djibouti, 31 March 2009…….….…..…….…….….…C United Nations Human Rights Council, 13th Session, Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/42 (19 February 2010)………………………………………………………. D Republic v. Director of Immigration Services, ex parte Mohammed al-Asad (Habeas Corpus petition), High Court of Tanzania, 17 June 2004………………………………...E Amnesty International, United States of America: Below the radar- Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance,’ 5 April 2006……………………………………………….F Prepared Remarks of Treasury Secretary John Snow to Announce Joint U.S. and Saudi Action Against Four Branches of Al-Haramain in the Financial War on Terror, JS-1107, 22 January 2004…………………………………………………………………………..G Henry Lyimo, Guardian (Dar es Salaam), Yemenis, Italians Expelled, 30 December 2003…………………………………………………………………………………...….H Roderick Ndomba, Daily News (Dar es Salaam), Dar Deports 2,367 Aliens, 30 December 2003……...……………………………..………………………………………………….I International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody, 2007…………………………..……….……...J International Seismological Centre Earthquake Data…………………………………….K U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Lift
    Case 12-11085-BFK Doc 4 Filed 02/21/12 Entered 02/21/12 04:50:16 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ____________________________________ : IN RE: : : MOHAMED ALI SAMANTAR : Case No. 12-11085 (BFK) : Chapter 7 Debtor. : ____________________________________: : BASHE ABDI YOUSUF, ET AL., : : Movants, : : v. : : MOHAMED ALI SAMANTAR : : Respondent. : ____________________________________: EMERGENCY MOTION OF BASHE ABDI YOUSUF, ET AL. FOR (A) RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND (B) THE SCHEDULING OF AN EXPEDITED HEARING This Motion (defined below) is filed to allow a trial in an international human rights case pending for more than seven years against Mohamed Ali Samantar (the “Debtor”), the former Defense Minister of Somalia, to proceed to trial before District Court (defined below) Judge Leonie Brinkema (EDVA). The trial in this matter was scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday, February 21, 2012. The Debtor has unsuccessfully tried to stay the trial at least four times in the past year through other measures, including two such efforts in just the past week that were summarily rejected by both the District Court and the Fourth Circuit (defined below). This Sunday-night bankruptcy filing is just the latest effort for the Debtor to avoid facing his victims in court. As explained below, allowing the automatic stay to remain in place will greatly Case 12-11085-BFK Doc 4 Filed 02/21/12 Entered 02/21/12 04:50:16 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 24 prejudice the administration of justice and the Plaintiffs in that case, who have long awaited their day in court and are now present in this jurisdiction, each having traveled long distances.
    [Show full text]
  • CQR Cameras in the Courtroom
    Res earc her Published by CQ Press, a Division of SAGE CQ www.cqresearcher.com Cameras in the Courtroom Should TV be allowed in federal courts? elevision cameras have been allowed in state courts for more than 30 years, but the Supreme Court and federal judiciary have been staunchly opposed to T video coverage of trials or appeals. Media groups and others say that video coverage of courts helps educate the public about the legal process while strengthening public account - Print and TV cameramen photograph former Ku Klux ability over the judicial system. Some, but not all, criminal defense Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen during his 2005 trial in Mississippi for the murders of three civil rights workers lawyers worry that televised trials can jeopardize defendants’ rights. in 1964. Mississippi began permitting audio and video coverage of trials in 2003. The most significant resistance to cameras in the courtroom comes from judges and some private lawyers who discount the claimed benefits and warn that cameras could invite grandstanding by lawyers I N or risk intimidating jurors and witnesses. The Supreme Court recently THIS REPORT S made audio tapes of arguments more readily available, but the THE ISSUES ......................27 I justices show no sign of welcoming cameras into their hallowed BACKGROUND ..................34 D courtroom in the foreseeable future. CHRONOLOGY ..................35 E CURRENT SITUATION ..........40 CQ Researcher • Jan. 14, 2011 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ..........................41 Volume 21, Number 2 • Pages 25-48 OUTLOOK ........................43 RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE N AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................46 THE NEXT STEP ................47 CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM CQ Re search er Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Trying Cases Related to Allegations of Terrorism: Judges' Roundtable
    Fordham Law Review Volume 77 Issue 1 Article 1 2008 Trying Cases Related to Allegations of Terrorism: Judges' Roundtable Hon. Marcia G. Cooke Hon. Gerald Ellis Rosen Hon. Leonard Burke Sand Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hon. Marcia G. Cooke, Hon. Gerald Ellis Rosen, Hon. Leonard Burke Sand, and Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Trying Cases Related to Allegations of Terrorism: Judges' Roundtable, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (2008). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trying Cases Related to Allegations of Terrorism: Judges' Roundtable Cover Page Footnote This Panel Discussion was held on February 7, 2008 at Fordham University School of Law. The text of the Panel Discussion transcript has been lightly edited. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss1/1 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW Vol. 77 October 2008 No. 1 CONTENTS THE PHILIP D. REED LECTURE SERIES Panel Discussion TRYING CASES RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS OF TERRORISM: JUDGES' ROUNDTABLE ................ Hon. Marcia G. Cooke, Hon. Gerald Ellis Rosen, Hon. Leonard Burke Sand & Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin ARTICLES THE EMERGING FIRST AMENDMENT LAW OF MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVE .......... Lawrence Rosenthal 33 PROPOSING A UNIFORM REMEDIAL APPROACH FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS UNDER FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW .......
    [Show full text]
  • The Secrecy Problem in Terrorism Trials
    THE SECRECY PROBLEM IN TERRORISM TRIALS SERRIN TURNER & STEPHEN J. SCHULHOFER LIBERTY & NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW THE SECRECY PROBLEM IN TERRORISM TRIALS SERRIN TURNER & STEPHEN J. SCHULHOFER LIBERTY & NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW www.brennancenter.org We are on strange ground…. But it is the essence of our tradition for judges, when they stand at the end of the marked way, to go forward with caution keeping sight, so far as they are able, upon the great landmarks left behind and the direction they point ahead. If…we are now to enter upon a new era of law in the world, it becomes more important than ever before for the nations creating that system to observe their greatest traditions of administering justice, including this one, both in their own judging and in their new creation. Justice Wiley B. Rutledge dissenting opinion In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 43 (1946) The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Our mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The Brennan Center’s Liberty & National Security Project seeks to promote thoughtful and informed discussion of how to address the threat of terrorism within our constitutional framework. Our efforts are rooted in the belief that accountability, transparency, and checks and balances are vital not only to the protection of civil liberties, but also to developing effective and sustainable strategies for fighting terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Homefront Confidential
    September 2005 RCFP WHITE PAPER Homefront Confidential SIXTH EDITION How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know Prepared by RCFP WHITE PAPER Homefront Confidential SIXTH EDITION How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know Homefront Confidential: How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know Sixth Edition September 2005 A project of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Editors: Lucy A. Dalglish Gregg P. Leslie Contributors: Rebecca Daugherty, Monica Dias, Ashley Gauthier, Kimberley Keyes, Jennifer LaFleur, Jeff Lemberg, Ryan Lozar, James McLaughlin, Mimi Moon, Kirsten Mitchell, Kirsten Murphy, Grant Penrod, Gil Shochat, Wendy Tannenbaum, Phillip Taylor, Sara Thacker Paula Canning, Kevin Capp, Kathleen Dunphy, Jane Elizabeth, Victor Gaberman, James Getz, Maria Gowen, Amanda Groover, Lolita Guevarra, Kristin Gunderson, Emily Harwood, Katrina Hull, Lois Lloyd, Jennifer Myers, Tejal Shah, Thomas Sullivan, April Thorn, Alba Lucero Villa, Corinna Zarek Major funding for previous editions of this report was provided by: The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Scripps Howard Foundation St. Petersburg Times Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation © 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. No part of this booklet may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior, written permission of the publisher. Additional copies of this report may be obtained
    [Show full text]
  • Students Feel Connected to Iraq War
    Wednesday, April2, 2003 Womens THE softball team sweeps Purdue page 21 The Independent Newspaper Seroing Notre Dame and Saint Mary's VOL XXXVII NO. 122 HTTP://OBSERVER.ND.FDU Students feel connected to Iraq war • Community Although I'm glad that my cousin is serving his country, I + Students send comes to grips still hope that we stop the war care packages to with military loved and send our troops home," said U.S. troops ones in Iraq Olsen. Unfortunately, there are many By ANGELA SAOUD among us who have more cause News Writer to worry about the well being of By MIKE CHAMBLISS friends and relatives. Although News Wmcr troops are able to communicate Saint Mary's students in via e-mail, they arc frequently Susan Baxter's classes recently With hundreds of thousands of prohibited from disclosing their begun an effort to send letters and collect items on a wish list troops in Iraq. and U.S. ol1icials exact location and from dis­ for Michiana Marines. dc~claring that the United States cussing the activities in which is prepared to pay a "high they are currently engaged. Baxter, a professor in the price" in order to oust Iraqi Sophomore Michael communication studies depart­ president Saddam llussein, mil­ Poffenberger has a brother ment, first found out about the lions of Americans are anxiously serving as a lieutenant junior project through her daughter's wailing and pray- grade on a high school English class. ing for tlw safe N a v y Mothers of Marines from the rPturn of their minesweeper South Bend area are sponsor­ friPnds.
    [Show full text]
  • In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts
    In Pursuit of Justice Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts Richard B. Zabel James J. Benjamin, Jr. May 2008 gfhgfh In Pursuit of Justice Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts A White Paper Richard B. Zabel James J. Benjamin, Jr. May 2008 About Us Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence. Human Rights First protects people at risk: refugees who flee persecution, victims of crimes against humanity or other mass human rights violations, victims of discrimination, those whose rights are eroded in the name of national security, and human rights advocates who are targeted for defending the rights of others. These groups are often the first victims of societal instability and breakdown; their treatment is a harbinger of wider-scale repression. Human Rights First works to prevent violations against these groups and to seek justice and accountability for violations against them. Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding. This report is available for free online at www.humanrightsfirst.org © 2008 Human Rights First.
    [Show full text]