Surjit Singh-Tersem Kaurr v. INS 

This opinion was filed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 17, 1998.  The court reversed rulings by both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) which denied the appellant, Singh, asylum based on political persecution.  The lower courts determined that Singh was the target of a legitimate government investigation and that his testimony of abuse was not credible.  The appeals court disagreed and found that Singh established a clear probability of persecution based on his political opinion.  This decision was reached because the abused inflicted on Singh by the Indian police was disproportionate to the police's goal of obtaining information about terrorist activity.  Further, the court held that since the Indian police is a national police force, Singh's fear of persecution was indeed nationwide.

Vindell-Reyes v. INS and Romani v. INS

Both of these decisions were filed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and involve foreign nationals who filed asylum applications in the US based on political opinion.  Both applicants were ordered to appear before the Immigration Judge (IJ) on a certain date and time to argue their cases.  In both situations, the applicants' attorneys were late and the applicants were either told not to enter the courtroom without counsel or were confused and afraid to do so.  The IJ then entered orders of deportation in absentia and denied the applicant's motions to reopen when their attorneys did arrive.  In both cases, the Ninth Circuit granted the motions to reopen, because the applicants' tardiness was caused by "exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the alien" as required by section 242B(c)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A).

US v. Hernandez-Guerrero

This decision was filed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 25, 1998.  The court upheld Congress' authority to make criminal laws that enforce its immigration policies and laws.  The case was brought in response to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), which provides that any alien who reenters the US after having been excluded, deported, or removed, will be subject to criminal prosecution.  The court held that Congress has the power to enact such a law, because it was created specifically to enforce the immigration laws and is therefore in keeping with Congress' well-established authority to regulate and/or control immigration.

Vang v. INS

In this Ninth Circuit decision filed on June 24, 1998, the court upheld the deportation of a twenty-two year-old ethnic Hmong man and denied his application for asylum.  Since Vang's parents had firmly resettled in France and Vang was then a minor, the court determined that he had also firmly resettled in France before coming to the US. The court made this decision despite the fact that Vang never became a French national.  The Court ordered Vang deported to Thailand, France or Laos, in that order despite Vang's fears that Thailand would send him to Laos where he feared persecution.  However, the US government had experts testify that many Hmong who returned to Laos were free from any form of persecution resulting from their aid to the CIA during the Vietnam War. 

Robison Fruit Ranch, Inc. v. US

In this Ninth Circuit case, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(6) as it existed between 1990 and 1993 included a requirement that any document abuse have a discriminatory effect to warrant the statute's remedy and penalty provisions.  The confusion came about, because the 1996 revision of the statue expressly states the discrimination requirement, but the 1990-1993 version does not.  The petitioner, Robison Fruit Ranch, Inc., specifically requested certain forms of identification from its workers when filling out the Form I-9.  The US government invoked the penalty provisions of the statute event though Robison's practice was not discriminatory and was actually very convenient for the workers.

US v. Viramontes-Alvarado

In this Ninth Circuit case, the court held that the California law that requires a father of an illegitimate child to bring the child into his home to legitimize the child for purposes of derivative citizenship is not a violation of the Constitution.  The court stated that such requirements for establishing the legitimacy of a child as a prerequisite to finding derivative citizenship based on the citizenship of the child's father are rationally related to the legitimate interest of regulating the conferral of derivative citizenship.

Matter of Soffici

The Administrative Appeals Office handed down this five-part precedent decision on June 30, 1998.  First, a petitioner for an EB-5 visa cannot establish the required investment of capital if he lends the money to his new commercial enterprise.  Second, loans obtained by a corporation, secured by assets of the corporation, do not constitute capital invested by a petitioner.  Such a loan is prohibited by 8 C.F.R. 204.6(e).  Third, a petitioner's personal guarantee on a business' debt does not transform that debt into the petitioner's personal debt.  Fourth, a petitioner must show clear documentary evidence that the funds that he invests are his own and were obtained through lawful means.  Finally, a petitioner who acquires an already existing business must show that the investment has created or has the potential of creating 10 full-time positions in addition to those that existed before the acquisition.  Therefore, the petitioner must present evidence of the pre-acquisition employment levels and must add to that level, unless the pre-existing business qualifies as a "troubled business."

IN RE Kwun Yu Ma

In this case, the BIA held that a person who qualifies as an adopted child under section 101(b)(1)(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified 8 U.S.C. s 1101(b)(1)(e) (1994), cannot confer immigration benefits on a natural sibling.  This decision reaffirmed an earlier BIA holding in Matter of Li, 20 I&N Dec. 700 (BIA 1993).

Gailius v. INS

In this First Circuit opinion handed down on June 23, 1998, the court remanded this asylum case to the BIA, because both the BIA and the IJ initially failed to adequately address the petitioner's evidence of threats and failed to give legally sufficient reasons for their decision.

US v. Balsys
The Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 25, 1998 in which it held that fear of foreign prosecution was beyond the scope of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  However, the Court did not rule out the possibility that a future case might show how the relationship between the US and a foreign country could lead to a genuine fear of foreign prosecution sufficient to invoke the Clause.  Justice Souter wrote the opinion for the Court.  Justice Stevens concurred and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissented.

Vera-Valera v. INS

On July 7, 1998, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the deportation of Ernesto Vera-Valera to Peru.  Vera-Valera fled to the US after guerillas in his home country threatened his life in connection with the activities of the street vendor cooperative of which Vera-Valera was president.  Vera-Valera wanted to construct a building in which the vendors could sell their wares in one place.  The guerilla group, Sendero Luminoso, wanted the vendors to stay on the streets to aid their efforts. Originally, the IJ and BIA ordered Vera-Valera deported because his claims of persecution were not based on political opinion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed stating that Vera-Valera's claims of persecution were based on political opinion.