Privacy Rights Protected
David v. Signal Int'l, L.L.C., 735 F. Supp. 2d 440, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88047 (E.D. La. 2010)
LEXIS HEADNOTES:
***8 U.S.C.S. § 1367 provides that the Attorney General, any official or employee of the Department of Justice, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or any employees or officials of those departments may not disclose any information relating to an alien who is the beneficiary of a T-or a U-visa. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1367(b)(3) provides that 8 U.S.C.S. § 1367 shall not be construed as preventing disclosure of information in connection with judicial review of a determination in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the information. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1367(b)(3).
***Credibility is always at issue. That, in and of itself, does not warrant an inquiry into the subject of current immigration status when such examination would impose an undue burden on private enforcement of employment discrimination laws, inter alia.
Access to Federal Courts
LEXIS HEADNOTES:
***The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has construed the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C.S. § 1350, not as granting new rights to aliens, but simply as opening the federal courts for adjudication of the rights already recognized by international law. The Second Circuit has also recognized that because ATS jurisdiction depends on a violation of a law of nations, a more searching preliminary review of the merits is required than the review conducted for asserting jurisdiction under the arising under grant of federal jurisdiction under28 U.S.C.S. § 1331. Filartiga spawned an expansion in ATS litigation, and courts have differed in their conclusions as to whether the ATS merely granted jurisdiction or whether it also created private causes of action for international law violations.
Motion to Reopen
Valencia v. Holder, 657 F.3d 745, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20395 (8th Cir. 2011)
LEXIS HEADNOTES:
***A motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the date an order of removal becomes administratively final. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
***When ineffective assistance of counsel is the basis for a motion to reopen, Matter of Lozada sets forth the standard. Lozada requires that the motion include an affidavit detailing the agreement entered with former counsel, state that former counsel was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond, indicate whether a complaint was filed with disciplinary authorities and give reasons if no complaint was filed, and demonstrate that counsel's performance prejudiced the outcome.
***If a motion to reopen removal proceedings is filed after the ninety day deadline, equitable tolling may be invoked to excuse lateness. When the motion to reopen is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, however, equitable tolling is sparingly invoked. It is not available to those who sleep on their rights. The movant must not only show that she meets the Lozada requirements, but must also establish that she exercised due diligence. Tolling has been found inappropriate where the movant did not file the motion to reopen promptly after discovering former counsel's ineffectiveness.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000.
This act was passed in 2000. Therfore, if a person was victimized prior to 2000, they may not be eligible for relief under this act. The Act was reauthorized in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2013.
DEFINITIONS
CRIMINAL ACTS COVERED UNDER THIS ACT
AGE-OUT PROTECTION FOR DERIVATIVE U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS HOLDERS