Robledo Response to Motion to Dismiss - Surviving Spouses ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................4 Pierno v. INS, 397 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1968)...............................................................................................37, 38 Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2005)...................................................................................................1, 6 Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105 (1988).................................................................................................................18 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Department of Transportation., 479 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................36 Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999)...................................................................................................................2 Robinson v. Chertoff, No. Civ. A. 06-5702 (SRC), 2007 WL 1412284 (D.N.J. May 14, 2007)................1, 23, 24, 25 Rosell v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 95 P.2d 726 (Or. 1939) ............................................................................................................26 Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enters Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................35 Rotimi v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................35 Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 595 (2008) ....................................................33 Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2004)...............................................................................................35, 36 Solid Waste Mgmt. Agency of N. Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001).................................................................................................................30 Stellas v. Esperdy, 388 U.S. 462, 87 S.Ct. 2121, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1322 (1967) ....................................................37, 38 Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................10
Taing v. Chertoff, 526 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Mass. 2007) .............................................................................. passim TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001).............................................................................................................28, 29 Turek v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 450 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2006).............................................................................23, 24 United States v. Fraley, 538 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................................32 United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643 (1961).................................................................................................................32 Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti, 263 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................13, 14 Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 118 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................5, 6 William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................29 Wong v. INS, 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................11 AGENCY PROCEEDINGS Matter of Sano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 299 (B.I.A. 1985) ...................................................................................3, 5, 17 Matter of Sano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 299 (BIA 1985) ..............................................................................................35 Matter of Varela, 13 I&N Dec. 453 (BIA 1970) ...................................................................................... 17, 34-36 STATUTES 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(35)...................................................................................................................21
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)
Page 5: Kellici v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 416 (
Page 9 and 10: USA Patriot Act of 2001, Pub. L. No
Page 11 and 12: I. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION Acros
Page 13 and 14: Defendants’ contention that 8 C.F
Page 15 and 16: Accordingly, in each case the appel
Page 17 and 18: in removal proceedings. Instead, 8
Page 19 and 20: 67 (11th Cir. 2006); Nadarajah v. G
Page 21 and 22: (2000 & Supp. V 2005) to the discre
Page 23 and 24: eview of what he contends is legal
Page 25 and 26: ev’d, 230 Fed. Appx. 278 (4th Cir
Page 27 and 28: As to the patchwork concern, Defend
Page 29 and 30: over the “immediate relative” c
Page 31 and 32: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(35) (2000). Not
Page 33 and 34: Nevertheless, Defendants contend th
Page 35 and 36: U.S. at 842-43). The Court finds th
Page 37 and 38: Taing, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 184. Acco
Page 39 and 40: statute ought, upon the whole, to b
Page 41 and 42: each Act merely created a separate
Page 43 and 44: D. Chevron Deference Is Not Appropr
Page 45 and 46: citizen. His death had stripped her
Page 47 and 48: Moreover, Defendants gloss over the
Page 49 and 50: 23, 2009. By law, however, deportat
Page 51: DATED this 26 th day of January, 20

Robledo Response to Motion to Dismiss - Surviving Spouses ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?