31 Dec Go to the United States Courts??website and?select a?video of a court case from the Cameras in Courts page. This page?allows you to select available videos by court, subject matter, or proc

COURT CASES INSIGHTS 2

Court cases insights

Indiana Tech

7/08/21

Court cases insights

Question 1. What was the case about? the case is about the deportation of eight appellants, who are soon called before an immigration judge. The appellants are children of 10-17 years. The DHS’s (Department of Homeland Security) lawyer argues for the children’s extradition. (US Courts. (2016). However, no attorney stances with the youngsters, and each child are thus needed to plead to the allegations against him/her and are given chance to make lawful contentions and exhibit proof on their own behalf. This is because each child has attempted to acquire lawyers via pro bono services but has not obtained anyone to take their lawsuits. The appellants deferentially appeal the court to accord them relief.

Question 2. Did the trial hold true to your expectations?  Yes. According to (Reyes, N. (2019), “Though a complaint contests by a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss require not to offer detailed factual allegations, it must provide more than labels and conclusions and encompass more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”. Thereby, the appellants must show more than just conjecture of a right to relief. True to this, in the judging on a request to terminate, the court assumed that the veracity of the appellants’ factual claims and drew all- rational implications in the appellant’s favor. The court had to answer whether the truths in the operative pleading adequately indicated a “plausible” justification of relief.

However, according to (Braaten, D. (2021), “the respondents contended that as ‘arriving’ or ‘non-admitted immigrants, the plaintiffs had no ‘procedural due-process liberties in the Fifth Amendment.” The respondents’ contention is not per the authorities they quote. This is because under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as revised by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), an immigrant is “removable” if (a) he/she was not permitted to the US and is “inadmissible” in the 8 U.S.C. § 1182a or (b) he/she was permitted to the US and is “de-portable”

Question 3, What stage of the trial process did you observe?  I observed the opening proceedings and the examination of evidence stages of the Motion for preliminary injunctive relief

Question 4. What was the outcome? In contrast to the appellant’s proposal, notification to each class affiliate in the current subject was neither practicable nor necessary. Since the court lacked authority to accord class-wide injunctive reprieve, and since the plaintiffs could not opt-out of the trial, the plaintiffs were thereby not directly impacted by the certification at that time. Due to this, the court coincided with the respondents that the issue of what notification, if any, must be offered to the plaintiffs must be deferred until the evidences of the plaintiff’s legal right-to-counsel allegations are settled.

Question 5. What did you learn about the trial process? In the trial, I have learned that the respondents did not debate the ability or numerosity of the class representatives to safeguard the interest of the plaintiffs sufficiently and fairly. (Reyes, N. (2019). Moreover, the respondents did not seem to contend that children under a particular age are unable of performing pre se in exclusion trials. These children are seemingly incapable, from the financial point of view, to feed, house, or cloth themselves, and in most circumstances, they will be living with a guardian or parent. Owing to this, the respondents’ standing in this matter appeared to include, instead of the minor’s personal skills, the part that a guardian or parent can and must serve in the exclusion trials.

References

Braaten, D., & Braaten, C. N. (2021). Children seeking asylum: Determinants of asylum claims by unaccompanied minors in the United States from 2013 to 2017. Law & Policy, 43(2), 97-125.

Reyes, N. (2019). The Psychology Surrounding Legal Standards of Competency and Representation for Children in US Immigration Court.

US Courts. (2016). F.L.B. et al v. Lynch et al. Western District Court. Civil Rights. Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/flb-et-al-v-lynch-et-al