Drafting a Legal Brief

Cristy Kirwin
Professor Linda Ashar
February 17, 2013
Unit 3 Assignment
Drafting a Brief

Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F. 3rd 1338 (11th Cir), Cert. denied 530 U.S. 1270(2000)

Facts: Plaintiff is a minor alien, the sole survivor of a tragedy at sea, was rescued and placed in the care of his great uncle, Plaintiff temporary legal custodian, who filed asylum application on the minor’s behalf against the fathers wishes. This application was rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization Services as legally void. Plaintiff appealed to the District court, which was dismissed because the plaintiff’s father was the solely authorized to apply for the Plaintiffs asylum. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal as vocative of 1158 of the Immigration and Nationally Act of 1996 (INA), 8 U.S.C.S. 1101 et seq. whether the Plaintiff minor applied for asylum within the meaning of the INA when he or a non- parental relative submitted an application for asylum against the parental father’s wishes. Because there was no clear guidelines set on these kinds of asylums this fell to the INA, as an executive agency, to make decision. The court upheld the District court’s judgment, stating that the INS did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily when making the decision of the Plaintiffs asylum application.

History: Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No.00-002606 -CV-KMM). Judge Michael Moore. Plaintiffs a minor alien and his temporary legal custodian appealed a decision from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida, dismissing the suit that sought ground to compel the Immigration and Nationalization Services. To reconsider their application for asylum based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C.S. 1101 et Seq.

Issue: Was the Plaintiff’s uncle able to file an asylum on behalf of the minor Plaintiff?
Due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s father had sole custody of the Plaintiff then it would have been the duty of the Plaintiffs father to file the asylum. Since the father did not file and the Plaintiff did not meet the statue requirements thus why the application for asylum was denied by the U.S. District Court. If the law was clear on the asylum issue then the INS wouldn’t of had to make the decision, it would have been left up to the District court.

Judgment: The Judgment was denied because of the preexisting law that compelled no policy for the Plaintiff’s situation INS was allowed to make the policy decision. If the Plaintiff’s father was the proper person to apply for the Plaintiffs asylum, then the asylum would have been awarded. The policy did not meet the relevant statue for asylum, therefore it was denied.

Conclusion: When the INS was confronted with the minor Plaintiffs asylum application, it was unclear what the immigration laws in the United States provide the INS to do. With no clear answer to how to react to cases like this the INS developed a policy to deal with these circumstances of asylum applications filed on behalf of minor children against their parental parents. Because the preexisting law compelled no particular policy the INS was entitled to make a policy decision. The INS made a decision within its rights and choices. There was no abuse on the INS or act discriminating on making its decision. The court never agreed or disagreed with the decision of that from the INS.

Reference: United States Court Of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 212 F. 3d 1388; 2000 U.S. APP LEXIS 11994; 200 Daily Journal DAR 5737;13 Fla/ L/ weekly Fed. C 713 June 1, 200, decided, June 1, 2000, Filed.