[TAX & LAW] 변호사(KO, USA, IL) 이재욱
LAW OFFICE [ TAX & LAW ] 세금과 법률
I P

Hello everybody! Translate this page:

You can translate the content of this page by selecting a language in the select box. This Website provides diverse language translation by Google Translation button. You can find translation menu at the upper left corner of this website. You can select your own language for the translation of the pages you want to read in your own language.
∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"

[한국변호사, 미국변호사, 일리노이 변호사, 세무사 이재욱] → [의뢰인이 비용을 지불하고 적법한 해결을 원하는 것이라면 개인과 기업을 위한 모든 법률문제를 서비스하고 뭐든지 대리해드립니다. ]
∗ 1997년부터 20년이상의 노하우를 가지고 웬만한 개인과 기업이 평생에 걸쳐 경험할 수 있는 거의 대부분의 민사,형사,행정,조세,국제거래,국제계약,이민,탄원,진정,고소,고발,제안,협상,중재,조정,업무대행,대리 사건의 자문과 소송과 계획안 제출대리 업무을 경험하고 처리해 왔으며, 이를 바탕으로 국내거래나 국제거래를 비롯하여 개인과 기업이 당면한 어떤 문제도 모두 해결해 드립니다.
관련된 업무분야는 아래 매뉴항목을 참조하십시요. 아래 업무 메뉴는 예시이며, 메뉴에 없는 서비스도 모두 제공합니다. 주저하지 마시고 사무실을 내방하여 이재욱변호사의 축적된 경험과 학식과 지식을 이용하여 상담부터 받으세요. 본 사무실에서 해결해드리지 못할 경우 다른 해결방안을 제시해드립니다.

∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"


ATTORNEY [ licensed to practice in KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ] LEE, JAE WOOK
∗ [FOR FOREIGNERS - ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEGAL SERVICES in Counseling, Application and LITIGATION & TRIAL IN COURTS and TRIBUNALS in KOREA]
INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE, CIVIL, REAL ESTATE, PERSONAL INJURY, DAMAGES, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, FRAUD, PENAL LAW, CRIMINAL TRIAL, FELONY, GUILTY PLEA, LEASE, RENTAL LAW, IMMIGRATION, INVESTMENT, TAX, INCORPORATION, TRADE, CONTRACT, DISPUTE IN CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, REFUGEE, REMOVAL, VISA, PERMANENT RESIDENCE, CITIZENSHIP]
For more information for the services Attorney LEE provide for the foreigners who want for legal services in Korea, Please do not hesitate to click the below MENU link for "SERVICES FOR FOREIGNERS".

∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"


상담료
선임료
소개
위치
| 민사
상속
이혼
부동산
| 세무
조세
행정
주식분쟁
| 병역법
기소중지
병역면제
국외여행
| 특허
지적재산
상표권
침해소송
| 형사재판
고소
고발
| 미국이민
VISA
영주권
SERVICE
| SERVICES
FOR
FOREIGNERS
| |
↓ DACA, DAPA
→   미국 이민,비자,영주권
→   미국이민뉴스
→   PRACTITION TIP
→   U.S.A. Tax News
→   미국이민 범죄행위 Defend 서비스
→   미국 이민사기 범죄 Defend 서비스
→   비거주자,영주권자의 상속세,증여세
→   미국 부동산거래실무
→   비거주자,영주권자의 양도소득세
→   비거주자,영주권자의 소득세
→   미국세금(U.S. TAX)
→   재산상속,분쟁,이전,세금
→   C VISA
→   FATCA
→   USCIS AFM(DHS)
→   FBAR
→   9 FAM VISAS(DOS)
→   PERM (Labor Certification)
→   Consular Process(DOS)
→   E1, E2
→   F visa
→   H visa
→   J visa
→   K visa
→   L visa
→   O, P visa
→   R visa
→   S visa
→   T, U visa
→   V visa
→   WAIVER(추방,입국불허면제)
→   체류기간연장(NIV EOS)
→   비이민비자 신분변경(NIV COS)
→   inadmissibility 입국불허사유
→   deportability 추방사유
→   조건해제(Removal of condition)
→   EB2, NIW(국익면제)
→   고용이민
→   가족이민
→   영주권 신분변경(AOS)
→   투자이민(EB-5)
→   LPR TRAVEL 영주권자 해외여행
→   DACA, DAPA
→   VAWA
→   legal english
→   AAO불복
→   연방법원항소
→   Immigration Court 항소
→   BIA항소
→   ICE 이민집행
→   CBP 세관 및 입출국관리
→   Removal 추방
→   일리노이주법 기초
→   캘리포니아법 기초
→   미 연방법 기초
→   캘리포니아 부부공동체법
→   캘리포니아 가족법
→   캘리포니아 민사소송법
→   일리노이 민사소송법
→   일리노이 가족법
→   미국 연방헌법
→   PT
↓ DACA, DAPA


↓   Introduction prosecutorial discretion


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.




↑   Introduction prosecutorial discretion
HOME      목록보기 <제목정렬> <날짜정렬>
    ← Previous     Next →

Copyright 1997-2019 TAX & LAW (세금과 법률)
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례(온라인이 아니라 대법원이 종이책으로 출간한 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집)에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.
따라서, 이 곳에 기재된 대법원 판례에 혹시라도 귀하의 성명과 인적사항이 있다면, 그것은 귀하의 것이 아니며, 귀하와 동명이인이거나 가상의 인적사항이라는 점에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 이를 귀하의 인적사항이라고 주장하신다면, 귀하는 본 사이트가 아니라 대법원에 그러한 점을 적시하여 공개된 (종이책으로 출간된 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집) 판례의 내용을 전부 직접 수정을 해줄 것을 스스로 주장하십시요. 본 사무실에 연락하실 부분이 아닙니다.
[OFFICE MAP] ↓