Yasmeen Manjiyani v. John Ashcroft

This was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Manjiyani made a petition for rehearing after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied her petition to compel the BIA to reopen her deportation proceedings. Ms. Manjiyani contended that the INS failed to provide adequate notice. Ms. Manjiyani contended further that the court had erred in determining that she did not notify the INS in Los Angeles that she was in deportation proceedings in the forms that she filed with that office in her petition to adjust status and in which she informed the INS of her Upland, California, address. She argued that the INS was actually aware of her California address and failed to afford her due process when it sent notice of her deportation proceedings to her former addresses in Washington State.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a petition for review of a final agency order is a record review. The complete application was in the files of the INS. Therefore Ms. Manjiyani’s request to supplement in order to determine whether her petition should be granted for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was granted. The court concluded that Manjiyani’s supplemental evidence was adequate to reopen proceedings before the BIA to consider evidence and to determine, in the first instance, whether to grant her petition to reopen her underlying deportation proceedings in light of the complete record.

*****

Students Sue Officials of Several Public Colleges and Universities for Denying Admission Based on Perceived Immigration Status

On September 3, 2003, MALDEF’s Atlanta Regional Office, which is the nation’s premiere Latino civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit against several officials from various Virginia public colleges and universities on behalf of students who have been or will be denied the right to attend the schools based on their perceived immigration status. The plaintiffs are Virginia high school students and recent graduates who were brought to the U.S. as children and who desire to attend Virginia public colleges and universities, and the Equal Access Education (EAE), and unincorporated association comprised of Latino students and concerned citizens.

On September 5, 2002, the Office of Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore released a memorandum that strongly encouraged all Virginia public colleges and universities to deny enrollment to students they believe to have an undocumented immigration status. The plaintiffs are alleging that the colleges and universities are applying an admission policy that precludes otherwise qualified applicants from attending higher education institutions due to the student’s perceived immigration status.

The plaintiffs further allege that as a result of these admission policies the colleges and universities are engaging in an impermissible regulation of immigration, and/or occupying a field that Congress has the exclusive authority to occupy, and/or impermissibly implementing a policy that is in conflict with existing federal law, which would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

These plaintiff students were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children. They have attended Virginia schools, and are exceptional students with high GPAs and SAT and PSAT scores. Virginia’s future relies upon their contributions. At the same time, federal legislation such as the DREAM Act and the Student Adjustment Act, have been enacted to make it easier for undocumented students to obtain an affordable post-secondary education.

A recent study by The Rand Corporation, a leading conservative think tank, found that making higher education accessible and affordable for all Latinos benefits the nation, the states and the students. Rand quantified the benefits of doubling the number of bachelor’s degrees for Latinos as $13 billion. In addition, the disposable income of these students over their lifetime would be nearly $14 billion.