법률사무소 세금과 법률 taxnlaw.co.kr
ID PW
TAX & LAW <세금과 법률> 당신과 당신의 소중한 가족을 지켜드립니다. Attorney LEE protects your family, not only you
[한국변호사, 미국변호사(연방법원, 일리노이주), 세무사 이재욱]
조세소송, 조세불복심판, 세무자문, 민,형사,행정,국제소송, 한국이민, 미국이민, 한국투자, 미국투자, 국제거래, 국제중재, 미술품거래 서비스
[ENGLISH LANGUAGE SERVICE FOR FOREIGNERS]
ATTORNEY LEE, JAE WOOK'S OFFICE [ LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ]
TAX, LAW, IMMIGRATION & INVESTMENT INTO KOREA AND U.S.A. SERVICES, ART DEALING SERVICES
[INVESTMENT, TAX, INCORPORATION, TRADE, CONTRACT, DISPUTE IN CORPORATION, LITIGATION & TRIAL IN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, CRIMINAL TRIAL, GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, REFUGEE, VISA, RESIDENCE, CITIZENSHIP]
국제거래,국제계약, 영문계약서, 중재,조정,ADR, Arbitration Court representation. Singapore, HK, LONDON, NY. BEIJing, LA -> BLOG[국제중재,국제재판,국제중재재판,국제거래,국제계약,국제조정, Korea Arbitrator LEE, jae wook Attorney at law(KOREA, U.S.A.)]
학교폭력,학생폭력, 학생 성폭행, 학교성폭력, 학교폭력대책자치위원회 전문서비스 -> BLOG[학교폭력, 학생폭력,학교 성폭력, 학생 성폭행, 학교폭력대책자치위원회 서비스]
세무신고,불복심판,조세소송 전문서비스 -> BLOG[세무소송,조세소송]
고품격 이혼,상속분쟁, 재산권분쟁 소송 -> BLOG[ 이혼소송, 재산분할, 상속분쟁, 양육권, 친권, 위자료]
성희롱, 성폭력, 성범죄, 성매매, 학교폭력 가해자, 피해자를 위한 전문서비스 -> BLOG[ 성희롱, 성폭력, 성범죄, 성매매, 학교폭력 가해자, 피해자를 위한 전문변호사]
병역면제,국외여행허가,이중국적,병역법위반 사건 대리 -> BLOG[ 병역법, 병역면제, 해외유학 병역연기 전문소송 변호사 이재욱(한국변호사, 미국변호사, IL, FEDERAL)]
KOREA IMMIGRATION & INVESTMENT SERVICES IN KOREA FOR FOREIGNERS -> BLOG[ Korea Visa & Immigration, Investment, Sojourn for Foreigners]
한국인을 위한 미국이민 대리서비스 -> BLOG[ Immigration to U.S.A. for KOREANS (한국인을 위한 미국 이민 대리 서비스)]
변호사 이재욱 저서 구매 사이트(TAX & LAW PRESS) -> 예스24 온라인판매

TAXNLAW.CO.KR

About Attorney| 민사
행정
| 세무
조세
| 부동산| 병역법위반소송
기소중지
병역면제
국외여행허가
| KOREA
INVESTMENT
VISA
Immigration
| 이혼
성희롱
성폭력
전문강사
| 예술과
법률
| U.S.A.
VISA
IMMIGRATION
| 파산
회생
| OFFICE| U.S.A.
VISA
APPLICATION
| Refuge
Asylum
| 미국법|
미국 이민,비자,영주권
미국이민뉴스
PRACTITION TIP
USCIS AFM(DHS)
9 FAM VISAS(DOS)
PERM (Labor Certification)
Consular Process(DOS)
DACA, DAPA
VAWA
legal english
AAO불복
연방법원항소
Immigration Court 항소
BIA항소
ICE 이민집행
CBP 세관 및 입출국관리
Removal 추방
PT
DACA, DAPA


Introduction prosecutorial discretion
jae wook LEE  (Homepage)
2016-07-05 19:49:48, 조회 : 411, 추천 : 102

Introduction

The term prosecutorial discretion is commonly used
        a) to describe the “wide latitude”
                i) that prosecutors have
                ii) in determining
                        A) when, whom, how, and even whether
                                I) to prosecute apparent violations
                                        (a) of the law.1

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and,
        a) later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
        b) its components

1) have historically described themselves
        a) as exercising prosecutorial discretion
                i) in the enforcement of federal immigration law,
                        A) which is largely contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA),
                                I) as amended.2


Some commentators have recently challenged this characterization

1) on the grounds that
        a) DHS enforces primarily civil violations, and
        b) some of its components cannot be said
                i) to engage in “law enforcement,”
                        A) as that term is conventionally understood.3

However,

even agencies
        a) that do not prosecute or engage
                i) in law enforcement

1) have been recognized
        a) as having discretion
                i) (sometimes referred to as enforcement discretion)
                ii) in determining
                        A) whether to enforce particular violations,4 and
2) immigration officers appear
        a) to have exercised such discretion
                i) in individual cases and
                ii) on a categorical basis
                iii) for decades.

For example,

the Kennedy Administration granted extended voluntary departure
        a) to persons from Cuba in 1960,5
        b) allowing many otherwise deportable Cuban nationals
                i) to remain in the United States
                        A) for an extended period,

1) while the George W. Bush Administration temporarily suspended employer sanctions
        a) on entities
                i) that employed unauthorized aliens
                ii) in areas
                        A) affected by Hurricane Katrina.6

The scope of prosecutorial discretion
        a) in immigration enforcement

1) has recently been of interest to Congress and the public
        a) due to certain initiatives
                i) of the Obama Administration.7


1 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual, §9-27.110(B) (2002), available at http://www.justice.gov/
usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm#9-27.110.
2 See, e.g., Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Prosecutorial and Custody Detention, Nov. 7, 2007, available at http://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/reference/additional-materials/ immigration/enforcement-detention-and-criminal-justice/government-documents/Myers-Memo-Custody-Discretion-11-
7-07.pdf (“This memorandum serves to highlight the importance of exercising prosecutorial discretion when making administrative arrest and custody determinations for aliens who are nursing mothers.”); Doris Meissner, Commissioner,
INS, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion, Nov. 7, 2000, available at http://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/reference/ additional-materials/immigration/enforcement-detention-and-criminal-justice/government-documents/22092970-INS- Guidance-Memo-Prosecutorial-Discretion-Doris-Meissner-11-7-00.pdf [hereinafter “2002 INS Guidance”] (“This memorandum describes the principles with which the INS exercises prosecutorial discretion and the process to be
followed in making and monitoring discretionary decisions.”). INS was abolished in 2002, and most of its functions were transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
3 See, e.g., Crane v. Napolitano, No. 3:12-cv-03247-O, Amended Complaint (filed N.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2012), at ¶¶ 88-
89 (“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is not a law enforcement agency. A non-law-enforcement agency cannot exercise prosecutorial discretion.”): Robert J. Delahunty & John C. Yoo, The Obama Administration, the
DREAM Act, and the Take Care Clause, at 3, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144031
(noting that immigration laws are primarily enforced civilly).
4 See, e.g., Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (“[W]e recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict—a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”).
5 See, e.g., Lynda J. Oswald, Extended Voluntary Departure: Limiting the Attorney General’s Discretion in
Immigration Matters, 85 MICH. L. REV. 152, 158 n.40 (1986).
6 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Press Release, Notice Regarding I-9 Documentation Requirements for Hiring
Hurricane Victims, Sept. 6, 2005, available at http://v2011.nilc.org/disaster_assistance/FINAL_I-9_Press_Release.pdf.
7 The Obama Administration has also cited prosecutorial discretion in abstaining from prosecutions for contempt of Congress and violations of the Controlled Substances Act relating to the possession of marijuana. See Letter from (continued...)


In 2011,

John Morton,
        a) then Director
                i) of U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE),

1) issued two memoranda
        a) addressing prosecutorial discretion,
        b) one of which identified ICE’s priorities
                i) for
                        A) the apprehension,
                        B) detention, and
                        C) removal
                                I) of aliens,8 and
        c) the other of which discussed
                i) how ICE personnel may exercise prosecutorial discretion
                        A) consistent with ICE’s enforcement priorities.9

Subsequently,

in June 2012,

then Secretary of Homeland Security
        a) Janet Napolitano

1) issued a memorandum
        a) “setting forth
                i) how,
                        A) in the exercise of [its] prosecutorial discretion,        
                        B) the Department ... should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws
                                I) against certain young people
                                        (a) who
                                                (i) were brought to this country
                                                        (A) as children and
                                                (ii) know only this country
                                                        (A) as home.”10

As implemented,

this initiative has come to be known
        a) as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
                i) (DACA).

Most recently,

ICE has directed its personnel
        a) to exercise discretion
                i) in “ensur[ing] that
                        A) the agency’s immigration enforcement activities do not
                                I) unnecessarily
                                II) disrupt the parental rights
                                        (a) of both
                                                (i) alien parents or
                                                (ii) legal guardians
                                                        (A) of minor children.”11

These initiatives have been challenged
        a) by some
                i) Members of Congress and
                ii) commentators
        b) on the grounds that
                i) they
                        A) are tantamount to “amnesty”
                                I) for unauthorized aliens and
                        B) are contrary to the President’s constitutional responsibility
                                I) to “take Care” that
                                        (a) the laws be enforced.12

In particular,

some Members have suggested that
        a) DACA exceeds the President’s authority
        b) because “it was issued
                i) after Congress
                        A) specifically
                        B) rejected legislation”—
                                I) the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors
                                        (a) (DREAM)
                                        (b) Act—
                                II)“embodying that policy.”13

In addition,

        a) several ICE agents and
        b) the State of Mississippi

1) filed suit
        a) in federal district court
                i) for the Northern District of Texas
        b) alleging that
                i) the DACA initiative
                        A) violates certain statutory requirements and
                        B) impinges upon Congress’s legislative powers,
                ii) among other things.14






(...continued)
James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, to John Boehner, Speaker of the House, June 28, 2012; Memorandum for Selected U.S. Attorneys from David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana, Oct. 19, 2009; CRS Legal Sidebar, Obama Administration Will Not Challenge State Marijuana Laws That Do Not Undermine Federal Enforcement Priorities, by Brian T. Yeh and Todd Garvey, available at http://www.crs.gov/LegalSidebar/details.aspx?ID=664&Source=search.
8 John Morton, Director, ICE, Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and
Removal of Aliens, Mar. 2, 2011, at 1-2, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/
110302washingtondc.pdf (aliens who have been convicted of crimes, are at least 16 years of age and participate in organized criminal gangs, are subject to outstanding criminal warrants, or “otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety” constituting the highest priorities for removal).
9 John Morton, Director, ICE, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, June 17, 2011, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf [hereinafter “2011 DHS Guidance”].
10 Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children, June 15, 2012, at 1, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1- exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.
11 U.S. ICE, Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities, No. 306-112-
002b, Aug. 23, 2013, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/
parental_interest_directive_signed.pdf.
12 See, e.g., “Does Administrative Amnesty Harm Our Efforts to Gain and Maintain Operational Control of the Border?” Hearing Before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Oct. 4, 2011; “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Priorities and the Rule of Law,” Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 12, 2011.
13 See, e.g., Testimony of Senator Michael S. Lee Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, “The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power,” Sept. 12, 2012, at 5, available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/ Hearings%202012/Lee%2009122012.pdf; The Obama Administration, the DREAM Act, and the Take Care Clause, supra note 3, at 5 (noting that the DREAM Act, “in one form or other, has been before Congress since 2001”).




This report begins
        a) by discussing
                i) the sources of federal power
                        A) to regulate immigration and,
                        B) particularly, the allocation of power
                                I) between Congress and the President in this area.

It next addresses
        a) the constitutional and other foundations
                i) for the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, as well as
        b) the potential ways
                i) in which prosecutorial discretion may be exercised
                        A) in the immigration context.

It concludes
        a) by addressing potential
                i) constitutional,
                ii) statutory, and
                iii) administrative
                        A) constraints
                                I) upon the exercise
                                        (a) of prosecutorial discretion.

The report does not address other aspects
        a) of discretion
                i) in immigration law,
        b) such as the discretion
                i) exercised
                        A) by immigration officers
                                I) in granting benefits (e.g., asylum), or
                        B) by immigration judges
                                I) in non-enforcement contexts (e.g., cancellation of removal).15


Federal Power to Regulate Immigration

The Constitution does not directly address the sources
        a) of federal power
                i) to regulate
                        A) which non- U.S. nationals (aliens) may
                                I) enter and
                                II) remain in
                                        (a) the United States, or
                ii) to establish the conditions
                        A) of their continued presence
                                I) within the country.

However,

several of the enumerated powers
        a) of the federal government

1) have been construed
        a) as authorizing such regulation.



http://taxnlaw.co.kr/

  추천하기   [HOME]  [bitly]  [반전해제]  목록보기

Copyright 1999-2018 Zeroboard / skin by zero
일부 항목은 회원가입후 login하셔야 글을 읽고 쓰실 수 있습니다.
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.

세금과 법률
세금과 법률, 부동산경매, 토지수용, 이민(TAX & LAW, REAL ESTATE, IMMIGRATION)
변호사 이재욱(한국, 미국)
우)06653
서울특별시 서초구 서초동 1589-5 센츄리1 오피스텔 412호
서울특별시 서초구 반포대로14길 30 (센츄리오피스텔) 412호.
Suite 412, Banpo-daero 14-gil 30, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea, 06653

email: jawala.lee@gmail.com
연락전화: +82-010-6350-1799 / 미국전화: +1-323-553-1799

세금과 법률, 부동산경매, 토지수용, 이민
(TAX & LAW, REAL ESTATE, IMMIGRATION)

TAX & LAW, ART DEALING, IMMIGRATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW(KOREA, USA, ILLINOIS)
KOREA CELL: +82-010-6350-1799 / U.S.A., CELL: +1-323-553-1799
email: jawala.lee@gmail.com
우)06653
Suite 412, Banpo-daero 14-gil 30, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea, 06653