legalasice.com

In the Bosede case, the original immigration judge considered Bosede’s potential to bribe his persecutors before deciding to send him back to them. But Judge Ilana Rover’s opinion, which corrected the immigration judge, exhibited disgust over the suggestion that the opportunity for bribery in foreign nations should ever be taken into account at immigration hearings.  Many people will find their consciences agreeing with her.  There is recent case law to back her up too.

After calling the prospect of “bribery…an irrational and altogether improper consideration in deciding a claim for asylum or other relief,” Rovner cites two 7th Circuit Cases from the past two years: Oyekunle v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2007) and Giday v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2006).

Curiously both the cited decisions serve to correct immigration judges’ rulings to deport African nationals seeking to remain in the U.S.  And in all three cases, the subjects of the proceedings sought refuge in the U.S. to avoid serious threats—including imprisonment and female castration—in their birth countries.

This collection of improperly adjudicated African immigration cases is a small but disturbing trend within the greater Chicago community.  Immigration judges in these cases underestimate the severity of the circumstances in places like Ethiopian, Eritrea and, particularly, Nigeria.  These underestimations lead, in part, to the erroneous rulings.

Until these African immigrant cases become more common or word of the difficulties faced in certain African countries reaches more ears, it looks like the risk of insensitive and incorrect rulings of this sort may continue into the future.  The good news is that at least some of the judges at the 7th Circuit are on the lookout to protect the victims.

There are also community groups to provide legal and other services to African immigrants.  One such Illinois-wide association is the United African Organization.  Its website has an excellent resource center where immigrants can find the legal assistance they need.

An aggravated Judge Ilana Rovner delivered a sharp rebuke on Jan. 14 to Immigration Judge Robert D. Vinikoor.  Rovner’s opinion rejected a flawed Vinikoor decision to deport Stephen Bosede, a Nigerian citizen.

“Our reading of the administrative record leaves us convinced that the [Vinikoor] cared little about the evidence and instead applied whatever rationale he could muster to justify a predetermined outcome,” Rovner wrote.

Vinikoor was unswayed by evidence on record that deportation could mean arrest, hardship and possibly death for Bosede.  For instance a State Department finding that under Nigerian law Bosede would be subject to incarceration if he returned was insufficient to convince Vinikoor of the threat.

But Vinikoor’s most objectionable implication was that Bosede might be able to bribe his way out of any trouble he encountered from Nigerian authorities.

“We are appalled that [Vinikoor] would rest his decision on the absurd proposition that Bosede could evade imprisonment, mistreatment, and possibly death by…trying to buy his way out,” Rovner fumed.

This is the second time the 7th Circuit has sent this case back down with instructions on how to handle it properly.

After finding that Bosebe’s right to due process had been violated, Rovner remanded the case with some a harsh directive.

The flaws in [Vinikoor’s] opinion call into question the fairness of the proceedings…Bosede is entitled to a new [hearing],” wrote Rovner.  “And to avoid repetition of the same mistakes the third time around, we urge the agency to refer this case to a different immigration judge.”

Bosede’s status remains in legal flux as it has since 2000.

The case is Stephen Bosede v. Michael B. Mukasey, 06-1625.

Apparently in the 7th Circuit an unsubstantiated claim of gambling addiction will not do much to excuse stealing more than $300,000, conducting wire fraud and failing to pay income taxes on the monies obtained.  Still Nassim Tahzib’s initiative is almost admirable.

Tahzib, a luxury car salesman, had argued that the 30-month sentence resulting from his crimes should be reduced.  He cited a supposed gambling addiction and a variety of other reasons to explain his actions. 

Judge Evans wrote the opinion, released Jan. 17, 2008, upholding the original sentence.

“This is the kind of case that could give car salesmen a bad name,” Judge Evans wrote.

Tahzib offered another bizarre excuse for his crimes.  He claimed to suffer from bipolar disorder or depression (neither of which had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist) resulting from his father’s death.

It’s unclear why these conditions, if they exist, should be considered mitigating circumstances.

In addition Tahzib’s father died twenty-five years before the crimes took place.  If these ailments are strong enough to drive him uncontrollably to crime, why would it take decades for him to succumb?

No matter.  It remains illegal for depressed, bipolar or other types of individuals to help themselves to hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to others.

What has this country come to when an embezzling tax evader can’t rely on his father’s mortality to get out of a mild sentence—the lowest available within the sentencing guidelines?

This is a tough way for Tahzib to learn that there are only two certainties in this life: death and taxes.

(Note: Depression, Bipolar Disorder and pathological gambling are all serious conditions, and those genuinely suffering from them should seek professional help.  Those not suffering from them shouldn’t exploit them to excuse reprehensible behavior.)

The legacy of Attorneys General during the G. W. Bush years took another beating Tuesday.  A panel of 7th Circuit judges ruled against officials—including erstwhile-Attorney General John Ashcroft—defending a Bureau of Prisons rule denying federal death row inmates all but the most restricted access to members of the media.

The court was not persuaded by official contentions that the restrictions, which included a ban on face-to-face interviews, were justified by prison security concerns.  Instead Ilana Rovner, a judge on the panel, found “a general issue of material fact as to whether [the rule’s creation] was motivated by a desire to prohibit a disagreeable viewpoint.” 

The prisoner challenging the rule, David Hammer, had been subjected to milder restrictive policies regarding his contact with reporters since Dec. 2000.  But on April 12, 2001, then-Attorney General Ashcroft voiced his disapproval of the controversial 60 Minutes interview of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber.  “As an American who cares about our culture, I want to restrict a mass murderer’s access to the public podium,” Ashcroft said.

Three days later, the BOP adopted a set of severe restrictions curtailing first amendment rights of death row inmates.  This change was supposedly aimed at “maintain[ing] safety, security and the good order of the [federal prison facility].”

While the ruling in Hammer v. Ashcroft et al. does not decide whether the restrictions were specifically aimed at silencing prisoners instead of bolstering security for the correction facility, it does characterize Hammer’s position as being backed by “admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that an illegitimate reason lies behind the interview ban.”

The ruling is also a victory for the Society of Professional Journalists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Hoosier State Press Association, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the all of whom filed a friend of the court brief in the case. 

The case is David Paul Hammer v. John Ashcroft et al., 06-1750.

Hot Topics:

Since I have not been able to locate a schedule of cases to be heard by the court aside from the weekly listing published on the court’s website, I have compiled a brief list of interesting subjects from this week’s cases.  I cannot say whether or not these general topics will remain a focus of the court’s work this term.

1)      Education – The case Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 140, et al v. United States Department of Education, to be argued this week, will engage the legality of certain demands made under the No Child Left Behind Act.  Specifically it will touch upon whether a school district has the right to sue the Department of Education over the controversial legislation and to what extent No Child Left Behind as implemented in Illinois conflicts with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  The outcome of this case could have serious implications for special education in this area.2)      Religion – The case Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., et al v. R. James Nicholson, et al. touches on the legality of using taxpayer money to fund non-secular or “pastoral” care at VA hospitals.  Since the beginning of the Bush administration, public funding of religious-based initiatives has become a controversial topic, and this case will only deepen that debate.3)      Immigration – In Khan v. Mukasey a man from Pakistan who was subjected to threats, intimidation and torture in his native land is appealing the immigration decision denying him asylum.  He has been living in this country since 1998 but now faces deportation.  Khan claims to be seeking protection from a violent political group inside Pakistan.  Given the fractious state of Pakistan and popular concern about radical groups in the country, this case could draw significant attention.

A few website sources:

1)      http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/

2)      www.scotusblog.com

3)      http://blogs.enotes.com/decision-blog/

4)      http://blogs.wsj.com/law/

5)      http://www.topix.com/us/federal-court-7th/2008/01

6)      http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=7th+circuit&sortby=display_time+descending&target=article

7)      http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

Online Communities Interested in this topic:

Since the Federal Appeals Courts are the second highest courts in the United States, their decisions should be of interest to many well informed people.  Other circuit courts have blogs that follow their activities and so does the Supreme Court.  Cases either in the Seventh Circuit or originating there have cause quite a stir on various websites.  Here are two sample comments sections relating to Seventh Circuit cases: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/T17NJO3AK80OK80DP and http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TIC0I3RVT5D2Q4TA3. 

My mission is to keep readers abreast of interesting cases and decisions in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!