Thread: Immigrant case called precedent (9th Circus)

CRIME SCENE
SAN FRANCISCO
Immigrant case called precedent

San Francisco Sunday, February 27, 2011

Maria Lopez-Birrueta entered the United States illegally from Mexico in 1994, when she was 14, and soon became involved with a 36-year-old Southern California man who was a legal resident.

According to her testimony at a deportation hearing, during their five years together, he kept her isolated, insulted her, regularly beat their two young children with a stick and his bare hands, and threatened to report her to immigration authorities if she disobeyed him.

Lopez-Birrueta left for Yakima, Wash., in 1999, taking the children with her. Now her case is the subject of a federal appeals court ruling that could allow her to remain in the United States legally and could also help hundreds of other women and children who have been victims of domestic violence.

A 1994 federal law allows illegal immigrants to apply for legal residence if they have been subjected to battery or "extreme cruelty" by someone they live with - a spouse, cohabitant or parent - who is a U.S. citizen or a legal resident. The law was part of the Violence Against Women Act, sponsored by then-Sen. Joe Biden, and it applies to both men and women.

It was meant to discourage exploitation by abusers who threaten their victims with deportation if they speak up. To be eligible, an immigrant must have been in the country at least three years, without any criminal record, and must be able to show that deportation would cause extreme hardship to herself or her children.

In Lopez-Birrueta's case, immigration courts said she wasn't covered by the law because the beatings her partner administered to their two children several times a week when they were 2 and 3 years old didn't amount to battery. That's because the children didn't need medical treatment, the courts said, and because both testified nine years later that they loved their father and were no longer angry with him.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said recently that the immigration courts had misinterpreted the law by applying their own definition of battery, which was much narrower than the law Congress passed.

Battery is an act of violence but doesn't require proof of injury or medical treatment, the court said, and the children's reconciliation with their father doesn't change the fact that he battered them when they lived with him.

Lopez-Birrueta's lawyer, Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, said the ruling means she can qualify for legal residence if she meets the other requirements of the law, including proof of good moral character and extreme hardship to herself or her children. He said it was also a helpful precedent for hundreds of other women and children in similar cases.

- Bob Egelko

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ZEfkncisco Chronicle February 27, 2011

Battery is an act of violence but doesn't require proof of injury or medical treatment,

Wow, that must be a bonus for the lawyers!? No proof!

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said recently that the immigration courts had misinterpreted the law by applying their own definition of battery, which was much narrower than the law Congress passed.

Battery is an act of violence but doesn't require proof of injury or medical treatment, the court said, and the children's reconciliation with their father doesn't change the fact that he battered them when they lived with him.

I see…so the 9th circus held that the definition of battery applied by the immigration courts was much "narrower" than the law Congress passed. I guess they required some proof that in fact an abusive situation including a battery had occurred. Crazy, a court of law requiring proof that all elements of a crime had been satisfied in order to establish a cause of action!

So what does the 9th circus do? What they did is make the definition of battery so expansive, that you could drive a Mack truck through it, essentially removing the requirement of proof. Specifically, the word of the illegal invader is all that is needed to establish a prima facie case for battery, thus opening up the gates of immigration for the aggrieved illegal invader.

Battery syndrome will now be the cause de jour for illegal invaders looking for that golden goose.

The 9th strikes again!

Spanked anchor babies get mom a green-card!

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

Spanked anchor babies get mom a green-card!

Whats the deal? Is that a severed head being used to strike the
victims buttocks?

They do not have to have proof of who they are

They do not need proof of when they got here (for Defeated Dream Act)

They do not need proof of legal residence or visa for working

They do not have to follow our rule of law

They do not need proof of their battery, Why does this NOT SHOCK US?

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said recently that the immigration courts had misinterpreted the law by applying their own definition of battery, which was much narrower than the law Congress passed.

But they added their own version of it, I see..........