DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office Services In Re: 10924462 Date: FEB. 4, 2021 Appeal of National Benefits Center Decision Form 1-360, Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile The Petitioner seeks classification as a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) under sections 101(a)(27)(J) and 204(a)(l)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §§ 110l(a)(27)(J) and 1154(a)(l)(G). The Director of the National Benefits Center denied the Form 1-360, Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ petition), and the matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, resubmits evidence previously in the record, and argues that he has established his eligibility for the benefit sought. The Administrative Appeals Office reviews the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. I. LAW A petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). To establish eligibility for SIJ classification, juveniles must show that they are unmarried, under 21 years of age, and have been subject to a state juvenile court order determining that they cannot reunify with one or both of their parents due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law. Section 101(a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ( c ). Juveniles must have been declared dependent upon a juvenile court, or a juvenile court must have placed them in the custody of a state agency or department, or an individual or entity appointed by the state or juvenile court. Section 101 ( a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act. The record must also contain a judicial or administrative determination "that it would not be in the uuvenile's] best interest to be returned to the uuvenile's] or uuvenile's] parent's previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence[.]" Section 101 ( a )(2 7)(J)(ii) of the Act. SIJ classification may only be granted upon the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, through USCIS, when a juvenile meets all other eligibility requirements and establishes that the juvenile court order was sought to obtain relief from parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law. Section 101(a)(27)(J)(i)-(iii) of the Act. See Matter of D-Y-S-C-, Adopted Decision 2019-02, at 2, 6-7 (AAO Oct. 11, 2019) (providing guidance on USCIS' consent authority as rooted in the legislative history of the SIJ classification and longstanding agency policy). II. ANALYSIS A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection, admission, or parole in September 2013, when he was 15 years of age. InC] 2017, when he was 19 years of age, the District Court for th~I IDistrict of Iowa ( district court) issued an ORDER ADJUDICATING CHILD TO BE DEPENDENT AND APPOINTING GUARDIAN (SIJ order). In the SIJ order, and "after having examined the Petition and the other documents on file, and having heard the evidence and statements of counsel," the district court determined the Petitioner to be dependent and that it retained "jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of making such further other orders herein for the welfare of the child ... as may be found necessary." The district court further determined that reunification with the Petitioner's father is not viable because the Petitioner's father is deceased and has "abandoned the [Petitioner]." The district court also determined that it is not in the Petitioner's best interest "to return to or his parents' home country of nationality or country of last habitual residence as his father has abandoned him." The district court appointed the Petitioner's mother as his guardian and custodian, ordering that the Petitioner "remain under the care of [his mother] pending further order ...." The Petitioner submitted the SIJ order in support of his SIJ petition. The Director denied the SIJ petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not met his burden of demonstrating that the Iowa district court, when issuing its SIJ order, acted as a juvenile court in making the SIJ determinations because the Petitioner was 19 years of age at the time of the issuance of the order and no longer a "child" or "minor" under Iowa law. B. The Petitioner Has Not Established that the District Court Acted as a Juvenile Court for SIJ Purposes For SIJ classification, a petitioner must have been subject to an order containing the requisite dependency or custody, parental reunification, and best interest determinations issued by a 'juvenile court," which is defined as a court "in the United States having jurisdiction under state law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles." Section 10l(a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.ll(a). While the specific title and type of court may vary, petitioners must establish that the court had competent jurisdiction to make judicial determinations about their dependency and/or care and custody as juveniles under state law. See section 101 ( a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act (requiring that petitioners have been "declared dependent on a juvenile court ... or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody ot: an agency or department ... , or an individual ..."); 8 C.F.R § 204.ll(a), (d)(2)(i) (stating that required, initial evidence includes a juvenile court order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction); 6 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(C),https://www.uscis.gov/ policy-manual (citing to Matter ofA-O-C-, Adopted Decision 2019-03, at 4 (AAO Oct. 11, 2019) and providing, as guidance, that "the court must have the authority to make determinations about the dependency and/or custody and care of the petitioner as a juvenile under state law at the time the order was issued"). Iowa law defines "minor" for purposes of guardianship as "a person who is not of full age" and "full age" as "the state of legal majority attained through arriving at the age of eighteen years." Iowa Code 2 Annotated (Iowa Code Ann.) § 633.3(18), (28) (West 2020). The guardianship provisions of section 633 of the Iowa Code Ann., under which the district court made its SU-related findings in this case, pertain to minors as well as individuals over the age of 18 years. Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he was under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court when his order was issued, the district court did not cite to or discuss in the SIJ order any statutory or legal authority under Iowa law as the basis for assuming jurisdiction over the Petitioner as a juvenile, because he was over 18 years old when the guardianship proceedings commenced. The Petitioner likewise did not submit into the record any additional evidence submitted to the district court otherwise establishing the same. Without such, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the district court exercised its jurisdiction over him as a juvenile under Iowa law or that the guardianship provisions under the Iowa Code Ann. otherwise alter the age of majority in the state. Because the Petitioner was 19 years of age when the order was issued and was accordingly no longer a juvenile as contemplated by Iowa law, the district court was not acting as a juvenile court for SIJ purposes when it issued the guardianship and clarifying orders. The Petitioner asserts that Iowa district courts exercise jurisdiction over juveniles generally and that the fact that he was over the state age of majority is irrelevant for SIJ purposes, as long as he meets the definition of child pursuant to the Act. As a preliminary matter, we recognize that, as indicated by the Petitioner, Iowa district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction over various matters. See Iowa Code Ann. § 602.6101 (West 2020) (stating that the district court exercises jurisdiction over "all actions, proceedings, and remedies, civil, criminal, probate, and juvenile ...."). However, to be eligible for SIJ classification, the Petitioner must show that the district court acted as a 'juvenile court" in his particular case; that is, it had jurisdiction to determine his dependency and/or custody and care as a juvenile under Iowa law. See section 101(a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act (requiring individualized determinations by a 'juvenile court"); 8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ( d)(2)(i), (iii) (requiring, as initial required evidence, a 'juvenile court order" making various judicial determinations specific to the petitioner). See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.2(C) (explaining that the definition of juvenile court at 8 C.F.R. § 204.1 l(a) "means the court must have the authority to make determinations about dependency and/or custody and care of the petitioner as a juvenile under state law at the time the order was issued"). Moreover, the Petitioner's argument conflates federal filing requirements for SIJ classification with the requisite validity of a juvenile court order under the applicable state law. Petitioners must apply for SIJ classification with USCIS while unmarried and under the age of 21, as mandated by federal immigration law. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.ll(c)(l)-(2) (requiring SIJ petitioners to be under 21 years of age and unmarried); see also William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, section 235(d)(6), Pub.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Courts at a Glance
    Courts at a Glance For Everyone From Students to Seniors Published by Iowa Judicial Branch Branches of American Government Separation of Powers The governmental system of the United States uses separation of powers. This means that the government has separate branches that deal with different as- pects of governing. These three branches are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This system is in place for both the federal (national) and state governments. The legislative branch, which on the national level is the U.S. Congress, passes new laws. The executive branch, headed by the president, enforces laws. The judicial branch, headed by the U.S. Supreme Court, inter- prets laws. While each branch has its own duties, the other branches of govern- ment have some control over its actions. These interactions are called checks and balances. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being much stronger than the others. See the diagram below for U.S. checks and balances. U.S. Checks & Balances Confirms or rejects appointments by executive (including judges) Can veto legislation Apppoints judges È È È È Legislative Executive Judicial Writes laws Enforces laws Interprets laws Ç Ç Can declare acts of the legislative or executive branch to be unconstitutional Role of the Judicial Branch Every state and the federal government have an independent judicial branch to interpret and apply state and federal laws to specific cases. By providing a place where people can go to resolve disputes according to law, through a fair process, and before a knowledgeable and neutral judge or jury, the judicial branch helps to maintain peace and order in society.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Iowa District Court for Polk County Aiden Vasquez
    E-FILED 2021 APR 22 9:53 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY ) AIDEN VASQUEZ, an individual, ) ) Petitioner, ) Case No. ) v. ) ) PETITION FOR JUDICIAL IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION SERVICES, an independent executive-branch ) UNDER IOWA CODE § 17A.19 agency of the State of Iowa, ) ) Respondent. ) ) COMES NOW Petitioner Aiden Vasquez (“Mr. Vasquez”), by his undersigned counsel, and respectfully submits the following petition for judicial review of agency action: STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. This action arises from Section 441.78.1(4) of the Iowa Administrative Code’s (“IAC 441.78.1(4)” or the “Regulation”) ban on Medicaid coverage for surgical treatment of “transsexualism,” “gender identity disorder,” and “sex reassignment.” 2. The State of Iowa’s Medicaid program (“Iowa Medicaid”) provides coverage for medically necessary care for a broad range of medical conditions. The Regulation, however, bars Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery to treat gender dysphoria, a medical condition only experienced by transgender individuals, even though Medicaid coverage is provided for the same surgical procedures for other medical conditions. 3. The Regulation “specifically exclude[s]” coverage for “[p]rocedures related to transsexualism . [or] gender identity disorders.” See Iowa Admin. Code r. 441.78.1(4)(b)(2). It also states that “[s]urgeries for the purpose of sex reassignment are not considered as restoring bodily function and are excluded from coverage.” See Iowa Admin. Code r. 441.78.1(4). E-FILED 2021 APR 22 9:53 AM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT 4. The Regulation’s discriminatory exclusion for gender-affirming surgery has no basis in medical science and reflects views on gender dysphoria that have been uniformly condemned by leading medical organizations for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of IOWA No. 16-0435 Filed February
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 16-0435 Filed February 22, 2017 CEDAR RAPIDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARLA MARIE LEAF, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge. Marla Leaf appeals from the assessment of a civil fine imposed under Cedar Rapids’ automated traffic enforcement (ATE) ordinance. AFFIRMED. James C. Larew of Larew Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant. Patricia G. Kropf of the Cedar Rapids City Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 DOYLE, Judge. Marla Leaf appeals from the assessment of a civil fine for violating section 61.138 of the Cedar Rapids Municipal Code, the City’s automated traffic enforcement (ATE) ordinance. She asserts the City failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that her car exceeded the speed limit, and she argues the ATE ordinance and its implementation by the City violates her constitutional rights and violates state law. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Procedural History. Marla Leaf received an ATE Notice of Violation alleging a speed camera captured her car traveling at a speed above the posted limit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at 1:59 p.m. on February 5, 2015, an automated speed camera clocked Leaf’s Ford Mustang traveling sixty-eight miles per hour in a fifty- five mile-per-hour zone on Interstate 380 (I-380) southbound at J Avenue in the city of Cedar Rapids. The Notice informed Leaf that: Under Ordinance 61.138.C.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the owner of the motor vehicle is liable for payment of a civil penalty if the owner’s vehicle enters an intersection or other location within the city against a speed enforcement system traveling at a speed above the posted limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Court Clerk and Court Support Staff Workload Assessment Study, 2016
    Iowa Court Clerk and Court Support Staff Workload Assessment Study, 2016 Final Report May 2017 THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS Iowa Court Clerk and Court Support Staff Workload Assessment Study, 2016 Final Report May 2017 Court Consulting Division National Center for State Courts Iowa Court Clerk and Court Support Staff Workload Assessment Study, 2016 Final Report May 18, 2017 Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable Project Staff contributions of the clerks and court support staff who contributed to this weighted caseload study. Suzanne Tallarico John Douglas Over the course of this study, we were fortunate to work with a distinguished Court Clerk and Support Staff Workload Formula Committee, which included experienced clerks of district court and other clerk office National Center for State Courts and district court administration staff from across the state. Court Consulting Division Daniel J. Hall, Vice President We also extend a special note of thanks to John Goerdt, Deputy State Court Administrator, for his ongoing availability and behind-the-scenes assistance throughout this project. Clerk & Court Staff Workload Formula Committee Damian Baltes, Clerk of Court, Chickasaw & Howard Counties Julie Kneip, Clerk of Court, Bremer & Floyd Counties Laurie Janssen, Clerk of Court, Clay & O’Brien Counties Ruth Godfrey, Clerk of Court, Pottawattamie County Josh Miller, Supervisor, Polk County Kelly Ruhnke, Clerk of Court, Marion & Jasper Counties Roxann Repstein, Clerk of Court, Linn & Jones Counties Kim Hess, Clerk of Court, Clinton & Jackson Counties Julie Johnson, Clerk of Court, Washington County Amanda Collins, Judicial Specialist, Woodbury County Lori Johannes, Case Coordinator, Pottawattamie County Paula Martinez, Judicial Specialist, Polk County Leesa McNeil, District Court Administrator, District 3 Carroll Edmondson, District Court Administrator, District 6 Committee Staff John Goerdt, Deputy State Court Administrator Scott Ruhnke, Court Liaison, State Court Administration Table of Contents Executive Summary i I.
    [Show full text]
  • State Judicial Nomination Commission And
    STATE JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION AND OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR JOINT JUDICIAL APPLICATION Please complete this application by placing your responses in normal type, immediately beneath each request for information. Requested documents should be attached at the end of the application or in separate PDF files, clearly identifying the numbered request to which each document is responsive. Completed applications are public records. If you cannot fully respond to a question without disclosing information that is confidential under state or federal law, please submit that portion of your answer separately, along with your legal basis for considering the information confidential. Do not submit opinions or other writing samples containing confidential information unless you are able to appropriately redact the document to avoid disclosing the identity of the parties or other confidential information. PERSONAL INFORMATION 1. State your full name. Mary Elizabeth Chicchelly 2. State your current occupation or title. (Lawyers: identify name of firm, organization, or government agency; judicial officers: identify title and judicial election district.) Iowa District Court Judge – Sixth Judicial District 3. State your date of birth (to determine statutory eligibility). December 1, 1967 4. State your current city and county of residence. Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa 1 (Adopted June 17, 2019) PROFESSIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL HISTORY 5. List in reverse chronological order each college and law school you attended including the dates of attendance, the degree awarded, and your reason for leaving each school if no degree from that institution was awarded. College(s) and Law School(s) Dates Degree(s) Month/Yr – and reason for leaving, if applicable Attended Received (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr) National Judicial College, General Jurisdiction, 04/14-05/14 Course May 2014 Reno, NV Completed University of Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, Iowa 08/89-05/92 J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Expedited Civil Actions in Iowa – a Defense Perspective by Stephen E
    Dedicated to improving our civil justice system DEFENSE UPDATE SPRING 2016 VOL. XVIII, No. 2 Find us on Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn How Did We Get Here? Where Are We Going? Expedited Civil Actions In Iowa – A Defense Perspective by Stephen E. Doohen and Siobhan Briley, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, Des Moines, IA Renowned guitarist Joe Satriani asks the above questions in the lyrics of his 1989 song, “I Believe.” Pop-culture references aside, those same questions perhaps come to mind when Iowa defense practitioners contemplate a new docket in the Iowa district courts. On January 1, 2015, Iowa joined a handful of other states1 in enacting a rule providing for expedited civil actions. With the adoption of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.281, a plaintiff bringing a civil action (except small claims and domestic relations) may elect to proceed on an expedited basis, where the only relief sought is monetary, and all claims for damages total $75,000 or less.2 Two months ago, in February 2016, the author defended an expedited action that was tried to a jury in the Iowa Stephen E. Doohen District Court for Polk County. Trying an expedited jury trial, at least for this practitioner, was a new experience, although not altogether unfamiliar. In many respects, it was just like any other jury trial. Likewise, the author took part in a panel discussion on the subject at the recent annual seminar sponsored by the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers, held in Des Moines in late February. Questions and comments from the audience during this panel discussion (from both the plaintiff and defense bar) were probing and thought provoking.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Legal Estate Planning: Protecting Your Loved Ones and Your Assets Why Having Just a Will Is Not Enough
    DAVID E. SYKES, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW DAVID E. SYKES GOLDEN GATE BUILDING PHONE: (641) 472-5141 2094 185th STREET- SUITE 17 CELL: (641) 919-0955 FAIRFIELD, IOWA 52556 EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.davidsykeslaw.com Revised June 10, 2020 Modern Legal Estate Planning: Protecting Your Loved Ones and Your Assets Why Having Just a Will Is Not Enough By David E. Sykes, Esq. NOTE: This article and Estate Seminar is for general information purposes only and is not intended to replace the need for an attorney or other tax or investment professionals. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any attorney being considered. This disclosure is required by rule of the Iowa Supreme Court. Introduction: One of life’s many responsibilities is to plan for your legal estate assets to easily pass on to your loved ones when the time inevitably comes. Most people think a validly executed Will is all that is needed to ensure this takes place. But a Will alone under Iowa law (and most states) is not enough to avoid the potentially stressful and time-consuming Iowa Probate Court proceeding. A properly executed Trust that accompanies the Will, however, avoids probate and allows your assets to immediately pass on to your Beneficiaries without the need for an attorney or the Probate court process. What Is a Will and What Problems Does It Present Without An Accompanying Trust: A Will is a formal legal document that specifies whom you wish to leave your assets and personal property to when your time comes.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report & Recommendations
    Final Report & Recommendations IOWA SUPREME COURT’S LIMITED JURISDICTION TASK FORCE DECEMBER 15, 2008 [Page intentionally left blank] Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, December 15, 2008 Justices of the Supreme Court, and Members of the Judicial Council: We hereby submit the report of the Limited Jurisdiction Task Force appointed by the Supreme Court pursuant to its order of January 14, 2008. We met as a group on six separate occasions over the past year, and heard presentations from a wide variety of individuals and groups. We have had numerous exchanges by e-mail and phone to identify and discuss possible findings and recommendations for the task force. Individual members and groups of members of the task force have not only made presentations, but have done their own research and investigation and have reported the results to the entire task force. For example, the four magistrate members prepared and distributed a magistrate survey to the 152 magistrates. Not only did 117 of the magistrates send written responses to the survey, a number of them wrote out detailed comments. Over the past year, we have developed an appreciation of the complexity and magnitude of the task assigned to us. Accordingly, we approach the issuance of this report with caution and modesty having developed an understanding that the system we have reviewed, examined, and are reporting on has evolved over generations and in many respects functions very well. We have all gained a keen appreciation of the jobs being performed by magistrates and other judicial officers throughout the state that support the system. However, we have concluded there are significant problems with the existing system which, if unaddressed, could jeopardize the quality of magistrate services.
    [Show full text]
  • January 4, 2021 Sent Via Email City of Bloomfield Attn: Tomi Jo Day 111 West Franklin Street Bloomfield, Iowa 52537 RE: Respons
    ICHAEL EILMAN M H ATTORNEY T: 515-274-1450 F: 515-274-1488 [email protected] January 4, 2021 Sent via Email City of Bloomfield Attn: Tomi Jo Day 111 West Franklin Street Bloomfield, Iowa 52537 RE: Response to Request for Proposals for Legal Services Dear Ms. Day: This letter of interest from Brick Gentry, P.C. is in response to the City of Bloomfield’s request for a proposal to provide legal services to the City. Included in these materials are the qualifications of the firm's municipal attorneys and an overview of the legal services the firm provides to other Iowa municipalities. I. Firm Background Brick Gentry P.C. is one of Iowa’s premier municipal law firms, providing services to cities, counties, and municipal corporations for nearly fifty years. The firm appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to represent the City of Bloomfield and would suggest that Michael Heilman serve as the contact with the City—while allowing the City to draw upon the expertise of the other attorneys within the firm. Currently, Brick Gentry P.C. provides full-service City Attorney services for the following cities: Ankeny, Bondurant, Colfax, Huxley, Mitchellville, Muscatine, Newton, Nevada, Polk City, Waukee, and Windsor Heights. In addition, Brick Gentry P.C. handles municipal prosecutions for Altoona, Denison, Newton, Colfax, Prairie City, Hartford, Ankeny, Polk City, Pleasant Hill, Windsor Heights, Waukee, and others. Over the past few years, Brick Gentry P.C. has represented the following cities in employment matters and litigation: Adel, Atlantic, Council Bluffs, Hubbard, Iowa Falls, Jamaica, Johnston, Nevada, Newton, Radcliffe and West Des Moines.
    [Show full text]
  • IOWA LAWYER April 2007 the IOWA LAWYER CONTENTS Volume 68 Number 4 April 2007 Ames High School Wins Attorney Disciplinary Actions
    IOWAIOWATHE LAWYER LAWYERVolume 68 Number 4 April 2007 Board of Governors meet in old capitol ALSO IN THIS ISSUE – Foundation board approves grants – Disciplinary actions return – Iowa Legal Aid honors six volunteers – Annual pro bono honorees – Ames High School 2007 state mock trial champion Krishna Prabhu of Ames High School makes the case for the defense during his final arguments in the High School Mock Trial state tournament finals. At right, he visits with co-counsel (from left) Supraja Rajagopalan, Katie Orazem and Mythili Prabhu before the competition begins. Ames High School wins Mock Trial state championship A team from Ames High School took man. The Dowling Catholic team took the also helped coach the team. home the championship in the 2007 High plaintiff’s side. Ames advanced to the final round after School Mock Trial state tournament finals Jen Chase, president of the ISBA’s Young defeating Carroll High School in the held Saturday afternoon, March 17, at the Lawyers Division, was the presiding judge semi-finals Saturday morning. Dowling Iowa Judicial Building. for the championship round. She was Catholic defeated a team from Valley High The team, most of whom are seniors, assisted by ISBA Vice President, Dan School to earn a shot at the championship. narrowly defeated a team from Dowling Moore, Sioux City; Assistant County A total of 32 teams out of the 140 teams Catholic High School in West Des Moines Attorney Patrick McAvan, Fairfield; and in this year’s mock trial program to take the honors. Jennifer Zahradnik, Belle Plaine, who is participated in the 2007 state tournament, As the state winner, the team will chair of the YLD’s Mock Trial Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Legislation Enacted in the Year 2005 by the First Regular Session of the Eighty-First General Assembly and Signed by the Governor
    IOWA GENERAl SSEMBlY lEGISlATIVE SERVICES AGENCY REGUlAR SESSION SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION ENACTED IN THE YEAR 2005 BY THE FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR Prepared by the Legislative Services Agency PURPOSE This summary of legislation enacted by the 2005 General Assembly has been prepared for the use of legislators and other interested parties. The summary of each legislative enactment has been assigned to a major subject category. This compilation pruvides interested persons with quick reference to legislation enacted in specific ar­ eas and generally informs persons of the contents and effective date of the legislation. HOW TO FIND A SUMMARY If you know the original file number of a particular bill, you may refer to the chart on pages v and vii to locate the category in which the summary will be found. Otherwise, each subject category begins with a table of con­ tents listing the file number and the chapter title frum the 2005 Iowa Acts and a listing of related legislation di­ recting the reader to the category in which the summary is located and briefly explaining how the category at hand is related. EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of the legislative enactments is July 1,2005, unless otherwise specified in an individual sum­ mary. FISCAL YEAR For purposes of this summary of legislation, "fiscal year 2005-2006/, and "FY 2005-2006/, for example, both de­ scribe the fiscal year beginning July 1,2005, and ending June 30, 2006. VETOED BILLS Bills vetoed by the Govemor are included and noted in this summary.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Regarding Courthouse Security
    IN THE IOWA SUPREME COURT ) In the Matter of ) Courthouse Security ) Supervisory Order ) Each county in Iowa maintains a courthouse where Iowans go to resolve their legal disputes in an open, fair, impartial, and civil manner. This entry point into Iowa’s justice system is designated as the Iowa district court. The justice system is an important pillar of democracy, and each courthouse holds a profound and dignified stature in each community. Many Iowa courthouses were built more than a century ago in the center of the community, and all have been integrated into the community as an expression of the importance of justice. As observed by the Newton Daily News in 1911, courthouses are the “silent witness to the adjudication of the rights and the correction of wrongs.” Today, Iowa’s court facilities have grown to include many law enforcement and justice centers in partnership with county and city government, and together, these centers of justice make up the brick and mortar of the Iowa district court. While Iowa’s courthouses and justice centers are maintained by counties and cities with immense pride and are treated by the public with unwavering respect, increasing concern over the security of these facilities has emerged in Iowa, as it has with court facilities across the nation. See The Iowa State Bar Association 2005 Courthouse Security Task Force Report. Courtroom proceedings can at times become adversarial, and the subject matter of court proceedings can be emotional and controversial. All of this, and more, has historically given rise to the fear of violence, even violence itself.
    [Show full text]