翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
・ Immigration and Checkpoints Authority
・ Immigration and crime
・ Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles
・ Immigration and Nationality
・ Immigration and Nationality Act
・ Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
・ Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
・ Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g)
・ Immigration and Nationality Directorate
・ Immigration and Nationality Law Review
・ Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act
・ Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Netherlands)
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr
・ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic
・ Immigration and Protection Tribunal
・ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
・ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
・ Immigration Appellate Authority
・ Immigration Bridge
・ Immigration by country
・ Immigration consultant


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre : ウィキペディア英語版
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre

''Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre'', 526 U.S. 415 (1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in ''Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca'', . In ''Aguirre-Aguirre'', the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
==Facts==
In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings against Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre, who conceded deportability but requested asylum and withholding of deportation. At a hearing before an immigration judge, Aguirre testified he had been politically active in his native Guatemala with the Sindicato Estudiante (Student Union) and with the National Central Union political party. With these groups, Aguirre protested bus fares and the Guatemalan government's failure to investigate the murders and disappearances of other students. These protests included burning buses, breaking windows, and attacking police cars. Aguirre estimated he had set fire to around ten buses. When the passengers on these buses refused to leave, they were stoned, beaten with sticks, or tied up. Aguirre testified that he left Guatemala because of threats he received on account of his having participated in these activities.
The immigration judge granted Aguirre's applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The INS appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which reversed the immigration judge, and ordered Aguirre deported. The BIA concluded that even if Aguirre had established the requisite level of persecution, see ''INS v. Stevic'', , he had committed a "serious nonpolitical crime" and was thus ineligible for withholding of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Under BIA precedent, the political aspect of the offense must outweigh its common-law character. As the activity Aguirre had participated in on behalf of the Estudeante Syndicado disproportionately affected civilians, the criminal aspect of his activities outweighed their political aspect. Aguirre asked the Ninth Circuit to review the BIA's decision.
From the Ninth Circuit's standpoint, the BIA's decision was deficient in three respects. First, the BIA should have balanced the persecution Aguirre might have suffered if he should return to Guatemala against the offenses he had committed there. Second, it should have considered whether the offenses were grossly disproportionate to their objective. Third, it "should have considered the political necessity and success of Aguirre's methods." As the BIA did not consider these things, the Ninth Circuit found that the BIA's legal analysis was wanting and remanded the case. The INS asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.