Posted: January 28th, 2022

PLAW 1100 MOD 4 essay

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

Insights from court cases
7/08/21 Indiana Tech
Insights from court cases
Question 1: What was the nature of the case? The issue concerns the deportation of eight appellants, who will be appearing before an immigration judge soon. The appellants are 10 to 17-year-old youngsters. The lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advocates for the kids’ extradition. (Courts in the United States (2016). However, no attorney represents the children, and each child is required to plead to the claims leveled against him or her, and is given the opportunity to make legal arguments and present evidence on their own behalf. This is because each child has tried to find lawyers through pro bono agencies but has been unable to find someone to represent them in their lawsuits. The appellants respectfully request that the court grant them relief.
Question 2: Did your expectations for the trial come true? Yes. “Though a complaint contesting a Rule 12(b) (6) petition to dismiss does not have to provide comprehensive factual accusations, it must provide more than labels and conclusions and encompass more than a formulaic recital of the elements of a cause of action,” according to (Reyes, N. (2019). As a result, the appellants must establish more than mere speculation about a right to relief. As a result, when deciding on a motion to terminate, the court presumed the veracity of the appellants’ factual arguments and drew all reasonable inferences in their favor. The court had to decide if the operative pleading’s truths were sufficient to provide a “plausible” reason for relief.
“The respondents asserted that as ‘arriving’ or ‘non-admitted immigrants, the plaintiffs had no ‘procedural due-process privileges in the Fifth Amendment,” according to (Braaten, D. (2021). The respondents’ claim contradicts the authorities they cite. This is because, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), an immigrant is “removable” if (a) he or she was not permitted to enter the United States and is “inadmissible” under 8 U.S.C. 1182a, or (b) he or she was permitted to enter the United States but is “deportable” under 8 U.S.C.
Question 3: What stage of the trial did you witness? I was there for the Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief’s opening hearings and evidence examination.
Question 4: How did things turn out? In the current matter, communication to each class affiliate was neither practical nor required, contrary to the appellant’s recommendation. The plaintiffs were not immediately impacted by the certification at the time since the court lacked authority to grant class-wide injunctive relief and the plaintiffs could not opt out of the trial. As a result, the court agreed with the respondents that the issue of what notification, if any, the plaintiffs should receive must be postponed until the plaintiffs’ legal right-to-counsel allegations are resolved.
Question 5: What did you learn about the legal system during the trial? During the trial, I learned that the respondents did not debate the class representatives’ capacity or number to adequately and equitably protect the plaintiffs’ interests. (Reyes, N.) (2019). Furthermore, the respondents did not appear to believe that children under the age of a certain age are unable to execute pre-se exclusion trials. These youngsters appear to be financially unable to eat, house, or clothe themselves, and they will be living with a guardian or parent in the majority of cases. As a result, the respondents’ standing in this case appeared to encompass the role that a guardian or parent can and must play in the exclusion trials, rather than the minor’s personal skills.

References
D. Braaten and C. N. Braaten (2021). Unaccompanied youngsters seeking refuge in the United States: Determinants of asylum requests from 2013 to 2017. 97-125 in Law & Policy, 43(2).
N. Reyes (2019). The Psychology of Legal Competency and Representation for Children in Immigration Court in the United States.
Courts in the United States (2016). Lynch et al. v. F.L.B. et al. The Western District Court is a federal court in the United States. Civil Rights is a term used to describe a set of Preliminary Injunctive Relief Motion https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/flb-et-al-v-lynch-et-al

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Custom essay writing service, Do my homework, Health Care and Life Sciences paper writers, Healthcare Essay Writing Services, Healthcare homework help