You work as a Paralegal at Immigration Advocates, LLP located at 745 Freedom Parkway in the hypothetical state of Freedonia in the hypothetical city of Liberty, with a
zip code of 90078. The office email address is [email protected] and the telephone number is (555) 275-2897. The senior partner, Evelyn Merriweather,
asks you to draft a letter, for her signature, to Mr. Juan Rameriz who lives at 3764 American Trail in Liberty, Freedonia 90078.
Ms. Merriweather informs you that she needs to meet with Mr. Rameriz on July 21, 2008 at 10:00a.m. at Immigration Advocates. She advises you that although his
appointment is on July 21, 2008, she would like for him to mail all necessary documents to the office two weeks prior to his appointment so that she can review all of
his materials. She further tells you that Mr. Rameriz is not a U.S. citizen. However, his wife is a permanent resident. His wife would like to file a relative petition
on his behalf. She also tells you that Mr. Rameriz and his wife do not speak English very well.
Ms. Merriweather reminds you that her initial consultation fee is a flat rate of $1,000 and that she only accepts cash, cashier’s checks, or money orders. Ms.
Merriweather also instructs you to make sure that Mr. Rameriz brings all necessary parties with him to his interview, and mails all necessary documents prior to his
interview. She states that you need to specifically state who he needs to bring with him to his interview, and what he needs to mail prior to his interview in the
letter. She also wants to make sure that Mr. Rameriz knows how to contact her. Ms. Merriweather is rushing off to court and does not have time to tell you everything
that Mr. Rameriz needs to bring.
Based on the facts above, and what you have learned in class, draft a letter (in standard letter format) to Mr. Rameriz regarding his interview with Ms. Merriweather.
Assignment: Assignment 2
Christopher and Joseph were legally married in the fictitious U.S. state of Petoria in August of 2012. Petoria State Code O.C.P.A. § 9-2-37(b)(5) defines marriage as a
union between any two individuals, over the age of 18. Christopher is a U.S. citizen, and Joseph is from Beijing. They are both twenty-five (25) years old. Christopher
and Joseph are buying a home together, and they share in the household duties and expenses, and they have bills in each of their names. Christopher and Joseph were
college sweethearts and knew each other for six (6) years prior to their 2012 marriage.
Christopher has decided to file a family based petition on Joseph’s behalf as his spouse. Christopher and Joseph talk to the senior partner at your firm and ask if the
firm will handle the case. Before giving them an answer, the senior partner asks that you research whether Christopher and Joseph will face any challenges in
attempting to file their petition as this issue has never been addressed at your office.
There are no courts in Petoria that have previously ruled on this issue. However, the senior partner seems to think that the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on a similar
case out of California in the 1980s. The senior partner asks that you find the U.S. Court of Appeals case and draft her a memorandum based on that case stating
answering the following questions:
1) will Joseph be considered Christopher’s immediate relative spouse under the Immigration & Nationality Act for purposes of filing the petition; and
2) what effect will the fact that Petoria recognizes Christopher and Joseph’s marriage have upon USCIS’s decision?
Note: There is also a 2013 Supreme Court case that can and should be used in addition to the 1980 U.S. Court of Appeals case
Alberto Iglesia, who is currently awaiting receipt of his permanent residency card. He was granted conditional permanent residency in 2011 for a period of two years
and given a conditional permanent residency identification card. He is a legal alien. His conditional residency expired on January 12, 2013. He called USCIS two weeks
prior to his conditional residency expiring, and they told him to simply keep checking the mail for his permanent residency interview date. It is now April 12, 2013.
Alberto called USCIS and told them that he has not received anything in the mail. He was told to call a local field office of USCIS and schedule an appointment to have
his conditional residency extended as the caseload is now backlogged and it will take longer than expected for his permanent residency interview to be scheduled. After
attending his appointment, Alberto’s conditional residency was extended until December 31, 2013. However, the only proof of his extended conditional permanent
residency status is a stamped extension date of December 31, 2013 on his passport. His actual conditional permanent residency identification card still reflects the
expired date of January 12, 2013.
On his way home from work one day, Alberto was pulled over by the police for having an expired vehicle tag. After reviewing Alberto’s identification, the police learn
that his conditional permanent residency expired 3 months ago. Alberto tries to tell the police that his conditional residency was extended until December 31, 2013,
but they do not believe him as he has no proof of his extension because he does not travel to work with his passport on hand. Alberto is taken into custody. Shortly
thereafter, he gets a Notice to Appear stating that he will be deported for remaining in the country illegally after his conditional permanent residency has expired.
Alberto hires an attorney to assist him with his claim. At the individual merits hearing, the judge did not allow Alberto to call witnesses or present evidence. The
judge made his ruling to have Alberto deported after seeing that his permanent residency card was expired. The judge stated that no further proof was needed, and that
the expired card “speaks for itself.”
Alberto’s attorney is filing an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals based on the fact that Alberto was denied his due process rights by not being able to call
witnesses or present evidence at the hearing. She believes that Alberto should never have been arrested, but is not as concerned about this issue as the police likely
have a good probable cause argument for the arrest. The attorney asks for your help in drafting the brief. She tells you that there is a 1978 case from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that discusses the due process issue that she would like for you to incorporate into the argument
portion of the brief.
Your assignment is to draft this brief for the attorney using the facts as stated and based on her due process concern outlined above. The brief should contain a short
summation of the facts, an argument section regarding due process, and a conclusion. There is an exhibit that should be attached (only by reference, not physically
attached) that would be very helpful in making the argument on Alberto’s behalf. You may refer to pages 289-299 in your book for guidance on the format.
Juan Doe was born on May 15, 1960 in Bogota, Colombia. He is currently seeking asylum in the U.S. based on his fear of persecution in Colombia. His asylum application
can be found on pages 259-276 of your textbook. His written declaration/story of why he should be granted asylum can be found in your textbook on pages 271-276.
You are a paralegal working at the law firm of Langley, Copeland & Best, LLP located at 519 Eastern Parkway in Weston, Florida 33751. Mr. Doe has contacted your firm
for representation. Because one of the associate attorneys, Alana Harper, knows that you are taking an immigration course at National Paralegal College, she asks that
you review the asylum application and the written declaration and write her an opinion letter (for review by an attorney before it is finalized, of course) stating
whether Mr. Doe’s asylum application will likely be granted based on what you have learned thus far in your class about the requirements for a grant of asylum.
Based on what your opinion letter states, Alana will present the contents of the letter to the partners to see if this case is worth taking
The Sweldon family are nationals of the United Kingdom (UK). Jeff, the father, has a Bachelor of Science Degree in engineering and is presently employed a as a
manager at Proctor and Gamble in the UK. He has worked at the UK location for 5 years. Proctor and Gamble has U.S. headquarters in Atlanta, Miami, and Manhattan. Judy,
the wife, is a doctor. She got a job offer at Genoa City Memorial Hospital in New Jersey. She recently inherited $500,000 when her rich uncle passed away.
Their son Donald, 22-years-old, was studying engineering in the U.S. on a F-1 Visa and recently graduated from Tulane University. He just received his first post-
graduate job offer in the engineering field. Their 25-year-old daughter Camille would like to study phlebotomy. Unfortunately, she cannot find anyone in the UK to work
with her. Jeff has contacts with Lab Tech Medical Corporation and they specialize in phlebotomy. The president is willing to give Camille a trainee position. Camille
however does not wish to stay in the U.S. Their daughter Tiffany was born in the U.S. She has a U.S. passport, but has been away from the U.S. for the last six months.
Tiffany is dating Kirk who was born in the UK like the rest of her family. Since Kirk’s dad is rich, he has never worked. He is not sure that he truly wants to live in
the U.S. However, he’s always wanted to go to Maui.
The entire Sweldon family, including Kirk, would like to come to live in the U.S. to make better lives for themselves. Since everyone’s circumstance seems to be
different, they are confused as to how they can all live together in the U.S.
In a memorandum, please explain which visa category or categories you would assign to each family member.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂