From almost making history by almost being naturlaized without need for oath to near deporation

WBH

Registered Users (C)
I understand the reason that she will be deported, but I don't understand the opening remark. Do you have a specific reference or link?

Thanks,

She was in the citizenship aplication process before. There was a time a bill was drafted in both
senate and house to make her a US citizen without taking the oath. The reason is that she was
in prision in China. If she became a citizen, the The Dept of state would have the right to represent
her inetrests to press Chines to release her. The bill became unnecessary later because China
released her on medical parole anyway. But if China had not released her and teh bill
bhad become law, then she would have been the first ADUULT person in history to be come a
US citizen without taking the oath.

After she was released by China and came back to USA. Her supporters in teh congress
wantted to hold a special oath ceremony for her to become a citizen. But USCIS
delayed the ceremony without giving a reason. Later of course the reason became known.
You could find the reason in http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/072070.P.pdf.

So her case took a 180 degree turn.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
then she would have been the first ADUULT person in history to be come a
US citizen without taking the oath.
Not entirely true. US citizenship is awarded posthumously in certain cases, obviously without taking an oath ceremony.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The plaintiff appealed the case to the US supreme court where it is currently under review.

http://www.freecourtdockets.com...

What kinds of deportations can appeal to supreme court? It does not seem everyone deported
went that far. Is it because they did not have the right to appeal to that level or the usually gave
up (hope is low, lawyers are two expensive, better off just going to home country after
balancing all options)
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
What kinds of deportations can appeal to supreme court?)
The appeal is based on 2 questions:

Issue: 1) Whether the category of “particularly serious crimes” is limited to “aggravated felonies” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) with the sole exception that – with respect to asylum – the Attorney General may “designate” additional offenses “by regulation”; and 2) whether the government must make an individualized determination that an individual poses “a danger to the community” before denying her withholding of removal or asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) (for withholding) or 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) (for asylum).

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gao-v-holder/


It's just buying the plaintiff more time to remain in the US.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The appeal is based on 2 questions:

Issue: 1) Whether the category of “particularly serious crimes” is limited to “aggravated felonies” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) with the sole exception that – with respect to asylum – the Attorney General may “designate” additional offenses “by regulation”; and 2) whether the government must make an individualized determination that an individual poses “a danger to the community” before denying her withholding of removal or asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) (for withholding) or 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) (for asylum).

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gao-v-holder/


It's just buying the plaintiff more time to remain in the US.

If deportation is inevitable, sometimes one is better off leaving the USA sooner.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
If deportation is inevitable, sometimes one is better off leaving the USA sooner.

She'd likely face renewed persecution in her own country if she were to return. The appeal is buying her time to investigate all avenues.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The appeal is based on 2 questions:

.

My question is not about this particular case. Rather I want to know who can appeal to the supreme court. Is it a priviledge resevred fro important people or anyone can do it. If anyone can do it,
how come many people did not appeal to supreme court
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
She'd likely face renewed persecution in her own country if she were to return. The appeal is buying her time to investigate all avenues.

Her issue is that her husband is a citizen and has 3 kids. She would depart them if deported.
As for persecution, her 10 year setence in China is almost up. She was accused of spying in both China and USA but everyone nows know she is no spy for anyone but just want to make some money. I doubt China cares about "persecuting" her in anyway.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
My question is not about this particular case. Rather I want to know who can appeal to the supreme court. Is it a priviledge resevred fro important people or anyone can do it. If anyone can do it,
how come many people did not appeal to supreme court
Anyone can appeal to supreme court if they have exhausted their legal battle via lower courts . You'd be surprised how many do appeal to supreme court but get denied (ie case never heard). Just look at the court order schedule for November and see how many people have been denied.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110110zor.pdf
 

BigJoe5

Registered Users (C)
She merely filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari. When that gets denied, it's basically the Supreme Court upholding the Circuit Court Decision without actually committing itself one way or the other. The case would then be cited with the added parenthetical of (cert. denied, DATE). That designation would only change if the case were later joined to a conflicting interpretation from another circuit in which the Supreme Court agreed to hear the opposing case and the previously cert. denied (or deferred) case in order to settled the conflict. It doesn't have to settle the Circuit Split and on some issues, it refuses for years or decades.

Segregation in schools, abortion, race based denial of citizenship, and other controversial topics have lingered for long periods before being settled or re-addressed, or muddled further.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
I agree with howdy_howdy. She certainly seems like a threat to national security.

She brought too much embarassment to those congressmen and congresswomen who
supported her in early stage of this farce.
 
Top