Category: Law : Law

I.​Instructions
​​Read the following hypothetical and write a decision on whether Jacque Guerrette should be granted or denied cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Your decision should discuss the issue(s) presented by the facts of the case, set forth the applicable law, apply the facts to the law, and discuss whether cancellation of removal should be granted or denied as a matter of law and discretion. You may not use ChatGPT or any other Generative Artificial Intelligence tool to assist you in this exam. Your answer will be graded for effort, grammar, clarity, and persuasiveness and is due via Canvas no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 12/17/24. Failure to turn in your exam by the deadline will result in an automatic “0” for the exam. 
II.​Hypothetical
​Jacque Guerrette, a native and citizen of Canada, is inremoval proceedings via issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
​Jacque had a removal hearing today before Immigration Judge Miller of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in Boston. He seeks relief from removal in the form of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. The following is a summary of the facts elicited at trial today.
​Jacque was born on December 25, 1980, in Montreal, Canada. He is the son of Joseph and Germaine, both natives and citizens of Canada. Jacque grew up in Montreal in the 1980s and early 1990s. Life was tough for him and his family. His parents did not have a lot of money. At the age of twelve, both his mother and father died in a car accident in Toronto. After his parents’ death, he went to live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis in Sherbrooke. Jacque went to high school in Sherbrookeand graduated in May 1999. After graduation, he went into the trades and became a plumber. 
​Jacque’s Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis currently live in Sherbrooke where they are retired and own a home. They live with Jacque’s cousin Yvonne and her husband Maurice. Yvonne works at a daycare in Sherbrooke. Maurice is a high school teacher. They have twin 11-year-old daughters. 
​In December 2008, Jacque was unemployed and looking for work. He was invited to a wedding for his friend Robert in Lewiston, Maine. On December 26, 2008, he sought admission to the United States at the Jackman Port of Entry along the Maine and Canadian border. At the time of his admission, he told the inspecting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer that he intended to attend the wedding in Lewiston and then spend time visiting friends in Boothbay Harbor before returning to Canada. Finding that he had a valid nonimmigrant intent, the CBP officer admitted him to the United States for a period not to exceed six months.
​On December 29, 2008, Jacque attended Robert’s wedding in Lewiston. He had an amazing time, and he met Judy, a United States citizen from Boston. Judy was a friend of Robert’s wife, Theresa. Jacque was immediately smitten with Judy, and they danced the night away. As the evening ended, Jacque and Judydecided to go back to Jacque’s hotel room at the Ramada Inn where they spent the night together.
​The next morning, Judy asked Jacque if he would like to go to Boston with her on December 31, 2008, to attend a New Year’s Eve party at her friend Julie’s house in Jamaica Plain. Jacque decided that it would be fun and traveled to Boston with Judy.
​New Year’s Eve was a blast! Jacque and Judy were infatuated with each other. For the next couple of months, Jacque stayed with Judy at her apartment in Brookline. On June3, 2009, Jacque told Judy that he had to return to Canada by June 24th, or he would violate the terms of his nonimmigrant admission. Judy did not want him to go and asked him to stay. Jacque was torn. He had to go but he desperately wanted to be with Judy. 
​Jacque called Robert and explained the situation. Robert told him to call his friend Eduardo. Eduardo stated that he could get a green card through Judy if they got married and she filed papers with “Immigration.”  Jacque told Judy what Robert told him. Judy was overjoyed. Jacque then proposed to Judy who accepted his marriage proposal. Jacque overstayed his authorized stay in the United States, and on July 1, 2009, he and Judy married at Boston City Hall. On the evening of their marriage, they went to dinner in the North End with Robert, Theresa, Eduardo, Zoila, and Eduardo’s cousin Fidel who lived in Worcester.
​Jacque then moved into Judy’s apartment. On July 19, 2009, Judy filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative for Jacque and Jacque concurrently filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component agency of DHS. If approved, he would be able to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident based upon his marriage to a United States citizen. He would then receive a green card allowing him to remain permanently in the United States.
​ Two months went by while waiting for an interview at the USCIS Boston Field Office. Judy worked long hours at a bankin Brookline and Jacque was unemployed. Jacque stayed in their apartment during the day and researched employment opportunities with no success. Jacque and Judy began to argue and fight with each other. Realizing they married for the wrong reasons, Jacque and Judy decided to separate. On November 6, 2009, they divorced. Judy then sent USCIS a letter withdrawing her Form I-130 and Jacque’s Form I-485 was denied for lack of an approved immigrant visa. Luckily, he was not placed in deportation proceedings as an overstay. 
​Jacque, however, had no employment and no work authorization from DHS and he did not want to go back to Canada because he enjoyed life in the United States. He called Eduardo and explained the situation. Eduardo told him not to worry and that he would get Jacque papers. 
​One week later, Jacque received a fake green card and a fake social security card in his name with a note explaining that this would help him get work. With the documents in hand, Jacque looked for work with renewed vigor. On December 1, 2009, he found employment with Smith Plumbing in Worcester. He used the fake documents when filling out a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification and falsely claimed that he was a permanent resident of the United States.
​Jacque has worked at Smith Plumbing since December 1, 2009. Jacque works hard and works long hours. Two months after his employment began, he met Charlotte, a florist in Worcester. Like Jacque, Charlotte was a Canadian citizen, and, like Jacque, she was in the United States without authorization. Charlotte had no family in the United States and no family left in Canada other than her mother in Montreal.
​Jacque was immediately attracted to Charlotte, and they began dating. On December 1, 2010, Jacque proposed to Charlotte, and she immediately accepted. On December 10, 2010, they married at Worcester City Hall. After their wedding, they bought a condominium in Worcester. They then set about building a life together. 
​On September 18, 2014, Charlotte gave birth to twin boys, Steven, and Joseph. Steven and Joseph are United States citizens. Currently, Steven and Joseph are 10 years old and attend elementary school in Worcester. Steven is healthy with an outgoing personality. Joseph has hearing and behavioral issues due to a loss of hearing in his right ear caused by bacterial meningitis when he was three years old. At school, Steve is a star student who constantly participates in class and gets good grades. Joseph has a challenging time in class. He sees a hearing and reading specialist as well as a social worker to help himdevelop coping skills when he gets angry. Both boys enjoy baseball. They are close to Jacque, and they are close to two children named Emely and Gabriela Santos who live next door.
​On May 15, 2019, Jacque drove to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough where he watched the New England Revolution lose to Chelsea, an English Premier League team. At the game, Jacque drank too much with his friend Fidel Santos. Nevertheless, he decided to drive home to Worcester. While driving home, Jacque sped up I-495 North weaving in and out of traffic. When he was about to get onto the Mass Pike, he almost went off the road. 
​Jacque was able to get to Worcester. About a mile from home, he crossed the center line three times and was pulled over by the Worcester Police Department. Jacque gave the officer a fake driver’s license. Jacque failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .15. As a result, he was charged with driving under the influence and operating without a license. In court, on July 18, 2019, he pled guilty to both offenses and received 1 year of probation and a 30-day suspended sentence. Jacque was then encountered by ICE while leaving the Worcester District Court. 
​Upon questioning, ICE determined that Jacque was in the United States illegally. He was arrested and issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) which set forth the following allegations:
​1.​You are not a citizen or national of the United States.
​2.​You are a native of Canada and a citizen of Canada.
3.​You were admitted to the United States on December 26, 2008, for a period not to exceed six months.
​4.​You remained in the United States without the authorization of the United ​​​​States Department of Homeland Security.
​Based on these allegations, ICE charged Jacque with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for being an overstay. ICE took Jacque into custody and filed an NTA with EOIR on July 23, 2019.
​On July 30, 2019, Jacque appeared pro se for a master calendar hearing before Judge Miller. Attorney Kyle represented ICE. Judge Miller read Jacque his rights, and explained the allegations and charges set forth on the NTA. During the bond hearing, ICE argued that Jacque was a danger to the community based on his July 18, 2019 OUI conviction. Judge Miller released Jacque on $5000 bond after determining that Jacquewas neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. He then gave Jacque a continuance to May 4, 2020, to obtain an attorney,submit pleadings, and file any applications for relief from removal.
​Jacque obtained Attorney Smith, and on May 4, 2020, Jacque admitted and conceded the charges of removability and informed Immigration Judge Miller that he seeks relief from removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Due to the backlog of cases in the immigration court, a trial date was set for today, December 3, 2024. 
​While awaiting his trial date, Jacque was arrested again on January 1, 2022, for operating under the influence. At the time of his arrest by the Worcester police, he failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .20. In court, on May 2, 2022, he pleaded guilty and received a 2-year suspendedsentence with probation for three years.
​During today’s trial, Jacque provided the following testimony.
• Jacque told the Court that has never left the United States since December 26, 2008, and that he has never used any fake names in the United States. Additionally, neither he nor his wife, Charlotte, have ever received public or private assistance and they have always filed their federal and Massachusetts taxreturns as required by law. He has also never been arrested other than his two arrests and convictions for drunk driving and he has never been arrested or convicted of a crime anywhere else. He also states he has never lied to get an immigration benefit.
 
• In Worcester, Jacque and Charlotte are active in their church and Jacque is a member of the Knights of Columbus. He also coaches his sons’ youth baseballteam along with his next-door neighbor Fidel Santos. He is very accustomed to life in the United States and is well-known by the parents of his sons’ friends.
 
• Jacque stated that he and his family never had any trouble in Canada. If deported, Charlotte would return with him to Canada along with the boys because he does not want the family to break up. However, he does not want this to happen because it would be difficult to come back to the United States afterreceiving a deportation order and residing illegally in the United States for over ten years. Moreover, since Charlotte has no status in the United States, they would have to rely on their sons to file visa petitions for them after they turned 21. ​
 
• Jacque is worried about getting a job in Canada. He does not know if he can live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis, and he is concerned about his sons’future. Neither boy speaks French. Their friends are in Worcester, and they are in elementary school. Steve is in an advanced math program which is great because he is in class with his friend Emely. Of most concern is obtaining health and educational resources for Joseph in Canada as well as uprooting Steve and Joseph from their home in Worcester. 
 
• Jacque apologized for his drunk driving convictions. He knows that drunk driving is extremely dangerous,and he stated he was not thinking when he got behind the wheel drunk. He stated he is still on probation, attending AA, and he has not had a drop to drink since his last arrest.
 
During closing arguments, Attorney Smith argued that notwithstanding his drunk driving convictions, Jacque was a person of good moral character and that his removal from the United States would cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children because they would be uprooted from the only home they have ever known. He asserted that Jacque has been sober since the day of his last arrest, has dutifully attended AA, and feels extremely remorseful for his conduct. As such, he argues that Jacque should be granted cancellation of removal and, in the alternative, he should be granted voluntary departure rather than receive an order of removal.
For their part, DHS argued that his two drunk driving convictions preclude him from establishing good moral character during the statutory period, asserted he was dishonest when he obtained employment via fake documents and argued that his removal would not cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children who could easily adjust to life in Canada. Moreover, they argued that he was a danger to the community due to his drunk driving. As a result, they argued that he should be denied cancellation as a matter of law and discretion and that she should be denied voluntary departure as well. Towards this end, they argue that she should be removed from the United States.
After the trial, Immigration Judge Miller asked you, his clerk, to review the hearing transcript and draft a decision by 12/17/24 at 11:59 pm EST for him to consider.
Decision
I. Issue Presented
II. Legal Rule
III. Analysis
IV. Conclusion
 

I.​Instructions
​​Read the following hypothetical and write a decision on whether Jacque Guerrette should be granted or denied cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Your decision should discuss the issue(s) presented by the facts of the case, set forth the applicable law, apply the facts to the law, and discuss whether cancellation of removal should be granted or denied as a matter of law and discretion. You may not use ChatGPT or any other Generative Artificial Intelligence tool to assist you in this exam. Your answer will be graded for effort, grammar, clarity, and persuasiveness and is due via Canvas no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 12/17/24. Failure to turn in your exam by the deadline will result in an automatic “0” for the exam. 
II.​Hypothetical
​Jacque Guerrette, a native and citizen of Canada, is inremoval proceedings via issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
​Jacque had a removal hearing today before Immigration Judge Miller of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in Boston. He seeks relief from removal in the form of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. The following is a summary of the facts elicited at trial today.
​Jacque was born on December 25, 1980, in Montreal, Canada. He is the son of Joseph and Germaine, both natives and citizens of Canada. Jacque grew up in Montreal in the 1980s and early 1990s. Life was tough for him and his family. His parents did not have a lot of money. At the age of twelve, both his mother and father died in a car accident in Toronto. After his parents’ death, he went to live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis in Sherbrooke. Jacque went to high school in Sherbrookeand graduated in May 1999. After graduation, he went into the trades and became a plumber. 
​Jacque’s Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis currently live in Sherbrooke where they are retired and own a home. They live with Jacque’s cousin Yvonne and her husband Maurice. Yvonne works at a daycare in Sherbrooke. Maurice is a high school teacher. They have twin 11-year-old daughters. 
​In December 2008, Jacque was unemployed and looking for work. He was invited to a wedding for his friend Robert in Lewiston, Maine. On December 26, 2008, he sought admission to the United States at the Jackman Port of Entry along the Maine and Canadian border. At the time of his admission, he told the inspecting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer that he intended to attend the wedding in Lewiston and then spend time visiting friends in Boothbay Harbor before returning to Canada. Finding that he had a valid nonimmigrant intent, the CBP officer admitted him to the United States for a period not to exceed six months.
​On December 29, 2008, Jacque attended Robert’s wedding in Lewiston. He had an amazing time, and he met Judy, a United States citizen from Boston. Judy was a friend of Robert’s wife, Theresa. Jacque was immediately smitten with Judy, and they danced the night away. As the evening ended, Jacque and Judydecided to go back to Jacque’s hotel room at the Ramada Inn where they spent the night together.
​The next morning, Judy asked Jacque if he would like to go to Boston with her on December 31, 2008, to attend a New Year’s Eve party at her friend Julie’s house in Jamaica Plain. Jacque decided that it would be fun and traveled to Boston with Judy.
​New Year’s Eve was a blast! Jacque and Judy were infatuated with each other. For the next couple of months, Jacque stayed with Judy at her apartment in Brookline. On June3, 2009, Jacque told Judy that he had to return to Canada by June 24th, or he would violate the terms of his nonimmigrant admission. Judy did not want him to go and asked him to stay. Jacque was torn. He had to go but he desperately wanted to be with Judy. 
​Jacque called Robert and explained the situation. Robert told him to call his friend Eduardo. Eduardo stated that he could get a green card through Judy if they got married and she filed papers with “Immigration.”  Jacque told Judy what Robert told him. Judy was overjoyed. Jacque then proposed to Judy who accepted his marriage proposal. Jacque overstayed his authorized stay in the United States, and on July 1, 2009, he and Judy married at Boston City Hall. On the evening of their marriage, they went to dinner in the North End with Robert, Theresa, Eduardo, Zoila, and Eduardo’s cousin Fidel who lived in Worcester.
​Jacque then moved into Judy’s apartment. On July 19, 2009, Judy filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative for Jacque and Jacque concurrently filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component agency of DHS. If approved, he would be able to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident based upon his marriage to a United States citizen. He would then receive a green card allowing him to remain permanently in the United States.
​ Two months went by while waiting for an interview at the USCIS Boston Field Office. Judy worked long hours at a bankin Brookline and Jacque was unemployed. Jacque stayed in their apartment during the day and researched employment opportunities with no success. Jacque and Judy began to argue and fight with each other. Realizing they married for the wrong reasons, Jacque and Judy decided to separate. On November 6, 2009, they divorced. Judy then sent USCIS a letter withdrawing her Form I-130 and Jacque’s Form I-485 was denied for lack of an approved immigrant visa. Luckily, he was not placed in deportation proceedings as an overstay. 
​Jacque, however, had no employment and no work authorization from DHS and he did not want to go back to Canada because he enjoyed life in the United States. He called Eduardo and explained the situation. Eduardo told him not to worry and that he would get Jacque papers. 
​One week later, Jacque received a fake green card and a fake social security card in his name with a note explaining that this would help him get work. With the documents in hand, Jacque looked for work with renewed vigor. On December 1, 2009, he found employment with Smith Plumbing in Worcester. He used the fake documents when filling out a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification and falsely claimed that he was a permanent resident of the United States.
​Jacque has worked at Smith Plumbing since December 1, 2009. Jacque works hard and works long hours. Two months after his employment began, he met Charlotte, a florist in Worcester. Like Jacque, Charlotte was a Canadian citizen, and, like Jacque, she was in the United States without authorization. Charlotte had no family in the United States and no family left in Canada other than her mother in Montreal.
​Jacque was immediately attracted to Charlotte, and they began dating. On December 1, 2010, Jacque proposed to Charlotte, and she immediately accepted. On December 10, 2010, they married at Worcester City Hall. After their wedding, they bought a condominium in Worcester. They then set about building a life together. 
​On September 18, 2014, Charlotte gave birth to twin boys, Steven, and Joseph. Steven and Joseph are United States citizens. Currently, Steven and Joseph are 10 years old and attend elementary school in Worcester. Steven is healthy with an outgoing personality. Joseph has hearing and behavioral issues due to a loss of hearing in his right ear caused by bacterial meningitis when he was three years old. At school, Steve is a star student who constantly participates in class and gets good grades. Joseph has a challenging time in class. He sees a hearing and reading specialist as well as a social worker to help himdevelop coping skills when he gets angry. Both boys enjoy baseball. They are close to Jacque, and they are close to two children named Emely and Gabriela Santos who live next door.
​On May 15, 2019, Jacque drove to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough where he watched the New England Revolution lose to Chelsea, an English Premier League team. At the game, Jacque drank too much with his friend Fidel Santos. Nevertheless, he decided to drive home to Worcester. While driving home, Jacque sped up I-495 North weaving in and out of traffic. When he was about to get onto the Mass Pike, he almost went off the road. 
​Jacque was able to get to Worcester. About a mile from home, he crossed the center line three times and was pulled over by the Worcester Police Department. Jacque gave the officer a fake driver’s license. Jacque failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .15. As a result, he was charged with driving under the influence and operating without a license. In court, on July 18, 2019, he pled guilty to both offenses and received 1 year of probation and a 30-day suspended sentence. Jacque was then encountered by ICE while leaving the Worcester District Court. 
​Upon questioning, ICE determined that Jacque was in the United States illegally. He was arrested and issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) which set forth the following allegations:
​1.​You are not a citizen or national of the United States.
​2.​You are a native of Canada and a citizen of Canada.
3.​You were admitted to the United States on December 26, 2008, for a period not to exceed six months.
​4.​You remained in the United States without the authorization of the United ​​​​States Department of Homeland Security.
​Based on these allegations, ICE charged Jacque with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for being an overstay. ICE took Jacque into custody and filed an NTA with EOIR on July 23, 2019.
​On July 30, 2019, Jacque appeared pro se for a master calendar hearing before Judge Miller. Attorney Kyle represented ICE. Judge Miller read Jacque his rights, and explained the allegations and charges set forth on the NTA. During the bond hearing, ICE argued that Jacque was a danger to the community based on his July 18, 2019 OUI conviction. Judge Miller released Jacque on $5000 bond after determining that Jacquewas neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. He then gave Jacque a continuance to May 4, 2020, to obtain an attorney,submit pleadings, and file any applications for relief from removal.
​Jacque obtained Attorney Smith, and on May 4, 2020, Jacque admitted and conceded the charges of removability and informed Immigration Judge Miller that he seeks relief from removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Due to the backlog of cases in the immigration court, a trial date was set for today, December 3, 2024. 
​While awaiting his trial date, Jacque was arrested again on January 1, 2022, for operating under the influence. At the time of his arrest by the Worcester police, he failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .20. In court, on May 2, 2022, he pleaded guilty and received a 2-year suspendedsentence with probation for three years.
​During today’s trial, Jacque provided the following testimony.
• Jacque told the Court that has never left the United States since December 26, 2008, and that he has never used any fake names in the United States. Additionally, neither he nor his wife, Charlotte, have ever received public or private assistance and they have always filed their federal and Massachusetts taxreturns as required by law. He has also never been arrested other than his two arrests and convictions for drunk driving and he has never been arrested or convicted of a crime anywhere else. He also states he has never lied to get an immigration benefit.
 
• In Worcester, Jacque and Charlotte are active in their church and Jacque is a member of the Knights of Columbus. He also coaches his sons’ youth baseballteam along with his next-door neighbor Fidel Santos. He is very accustomed to life in the United States and is well-known by the parents of his sons’ friends.
 
• Jacque stated that he and his family never had any trouble in Canada. If deported, Charlotte would return with him to Canada along with the boys because he does not want the family to break up. However, he does not want this to happen because it would be difficult to come back to the United States afterreceiving a deportation order and residing illegally in the United States for over ten years. Moreover, since Charlotte has no status in the United States, they would have to rely on their sons to file visa petitions for them after they turned 21. ​
 
• Jacque is worried about getting a job in Canada. He does not know if he can live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis, and he is concerned about his sons’future. Neither boy speaks French. Their friends are in Worcester, and they are in elementary school. Steve is in an advanced math program which is great because he is in class with his friend Emely. Of most concern is obtaining health and educational resources for Joseph in Canada as well as uprooting Steve and Joseph from their home in Worcester. 
 
• Jacque apologized for his drunk driving convictions. He knows that drunk driving is extremely dangerous,and he stated he was not thinking when he got behind the wheel drunk. He stated he is still on probation, attending AA, and he has not had a drop to drink since his last arrest.
 
During closing arguments, Attorney Smith argued that notwithstanding his drunk driving convictions, Jacque was a person of good moral character and that his removal from the United States would cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children because they would be uprooted from the only home they have ever known. He asserted that Jacque has been sober since the day of his last arrest, has dutifully attended AA, and feels extremely remorseful for his conduct. As such, he argues that Jacque should be granted cancellation of removal and, in the alternative, he should be granted voluntary departure rather than receive an order of removal.
For their part, DHS argued that his two drunk driving convictions preclude him from establishing good moral character during the statutory period, asserted he was dishonest when he obtained employment via fake documents and argued that his removal would not cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children who could easily adjust to life in Canada. Moreover, they argued that he was a danger to the community due to his drunk driving. As a result, they argued that he should be denied cancellation as a matter of law and discretion and that she should be denied voluntary departure as well. Towards this end, they argue that she should be removed from the United States.
After the trial, Immigration Judge Miller asked you, his clerk, to review the hearing transcript and draft a decision by 12/17/24 at 11:59 pm EST for him to consider.
Decision
I. Issue Presented
II. Legal Rule
III. Analysis
IV. Conclusion
 

I.​Instructions
​​Read the following hypothetical and write a decision on whether Jacque Guerrette should be granted or denied cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Your decision should discuss the issue(s) presented by the facts of the case, set forth the applicable law, apply the facts to the law, and discuss whether cancellation of removal should be granted or denied as a matter of law and discretion. You may not use ChatGPT or any other Generative Artificial Intelligence tool to assist you in this exam. Your answer will be graded for effort, grammar, clarity, and persuasiveness and is due via Canvas no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 12/17/24. Failure to turn in your exam by the deadline will result in an automatic “0” for the exam. 
II.​Hypothetical
​Jacque Guerrette, a native and citizen of Canada, is inremoval proceedings via issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
​Jacque had a removal hearing today before Immigration Judge Miller of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in Boston. He seeks relief from removal in the form of cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. The following is a summary of the facts elicited at trial today.
​Jacque was born on December 25, 1980, in Montreal, Canada. He is the son of Joseph and Germaine, both natives and citizens of Canada. Jacque grew up in Montreal in the 1980s and early 1990s. Life was tough for him and his family. His parents did not have a lot of money. At the age of twelve, both his mother and father died in a car accident in Toronto. After his parents’ death, he went to live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis in Sherbrooke. Jacque went to high school in Sherbrookeand graduated in May 1999. After graduation, he went into the trades and became a plumber. 
​Jacque’s Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis currently live in Sherbrooke where they are retired and own a home. They live with Jacque’s cousin Yvonne and her husband Maurice. Yvonne works at a daycare in Sherbrooke. Maurice is a high school teacher. They have twin 11-year-old daughters. 
​In December 2008, Jacque was unemployed and looking for work. He was invited to a wedding for his friend Robert in Lewiston, Maine. On December 26, 2008, he sought admission to the United States at the Jackman Port of Entry along the Maine and Canadian border. At the time of his admission, he told the inspecting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer that he intended to attend the wedding in Lewiston and then spend time visiting friends in Boothbay Harbor before returning to Canada. Finding that he had a valid nonimmigrant intent, the CBP officer admitted him to the United States for a period not to exceed six months.
​On December 29, 2008, Jacque attended Robert’s wedding in Lewiston. He had an amazing time, and he met Judy, a United States citizen from Boston. Judy was a friend of Robert’s wife, Theresa. Jacque was immediately smitten with Judy, and they danced the night away. As the evening ended, Jacque and Judydecided to go back to Jacque’s hotel room at the Ramada Inn where they spent the night together.
​The next morning, Judy asked Jacque if he would like to go to Boston with her on December 31, 2008, to attend a New Year’s Eve party at her friend Julie’s house in Jamaica Plain. Jacque decided that it would be fun and traveled to Boston with Judy.
​New Year’s Eve was a blast! Jacque and Judy were infatuated with each other. For the next couple of months, Jacque stayed with Judy at her apartment in Brookline. On June3, 2009, Jacque told Judy that he had to return to Canada by June 24th, or he would violate the terms of his nonimmigrant admission. Judy did not want him to go and asked him to stay. Jacque was torn. He had to go but he desperately wanted to be with Judy. 
​Jacque called Robert and explained the situation. Robert told him to call his friend Eduardo. Eduardo stated that he could get a green card through Judy if they got married and she filed papers with “Immigration.”  Jacque told Judy what Robert told him. Judy was overjoyed. Jacque then proposed to Judy who accepted his marriage proposal. Jacque overstayed his authorized stay in the United States, and on July 1, 2009, he and Judy married at Boston City Hall. On the evening of their marriage, they went to dinner in the North End with Robert, Theresa, Eduardo, Zoila, and Eduardo’s cousin Fidel who lived in Worcester.
​Jacque then moved into Judy’s apartment. On July 19, 2009, Judy filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative for Jacque and Jacque concurrently filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component agency of DHS. If approved, he would be able to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident based upon his marriage to a United States citizen. He would then receive a green card allowing him to remain permanently in the United States.
​ Two months went by while waiting for an interview at the USCIS Boston Field Office. Judy worked long hours at a bankin Brookline and Jacque was unemployed. Jacque stayed in their apartment during the day and researched employment opportunities with no success. Jacque and Judy began to argue and fight with each other. Realizing they married for the wrong reasons, Jacque and Judy decided to separate. On November 6, 2009, they divorced. Judy then sent USCIS a letter withdrawing her Form I-130 and Jacque’s Form I-485 was denied for lack of an approved immigrant visa. Luckily, he was not placed in deportation proceedings as an overstay. 
​Jacque, however, had no employment and no work authorization from DHS and he did not want to go back to Canada because he enjoyed life in the United States. He called Eduardo and explained the situation. Eduardo told him not to worry and that he would get Jacque papers. 
​One week later, Jacque received a fake green card and a fake social security card in his name with a note explaining that this would help him get work. With the documents in hand, Jacque looked for work with renewed vigor. On December 1, 2009, he found employment with Smith Plumbing in Worcester. He used the fake documents when filling out a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification and falsely claimed that he was a permanent resident of the United States.
​Jacque has worked at Smith Plumbing since December 1, 2009. Jacque works hard and works long hours. Two months after his employment began, he met Charlotte, a florist in Worcester. Like Jacque, Charlotte was a Canadian citizen, and, like Jacque, she was in the United States without authorization. Charlotte had no family in the United States and no family left in Canada other than her mother in Montreal.
​Jacque was immediately attracted to Charlotte, and they began dating. On December 1, 2010, Jacque proposed to Charlotte, and she immediately accepted. On December 10, 2010, they married at Worcester City Hall. After their wedding, they bought a condominium in Worcester. They then set about building a life together. 
​On September 18, 2014, Charlotte gave birth to twin boys, Steven, and Joseph. Steven and Joseph are United States citizens. Currently, Steven and Joseph are 10 years old and attend elementary school in Worcester. Steven is healthy with an outgoing personality. Joseph has hearing and behavioral issues due to a loss of hearing in his right ear caused by bacterial meningitis when he was three years old. At school, Steve is a star student who constantly participates in class and gets good grades. Joseph has a challenging time in class. He sees a hearing and reading specialist as well as a social worker to help himdevelop coping skills when he gets angry. Both boys enjoy baseball. They are close to Jacque, and they are close to two children named Emely and Gabriela Santos who live next door.
​On May 15, 2019, Jacque drove to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough where he watched the New England Revolution lose to Chelsea, an English Premier League team. At the game, Jacque drank too much with his friend Fidel Santos. Nevertheless, he decided to drive home to Worcester. While driving home, Jacque sped up I-495 North weaving in and out of traffic. When he was about to get onto the Mass Pike, he almost went off the road. 
​Jacque was able to get to Worcester. About a mile from home, he crossed the center line three times and was pulled over by the Worcester Police Department. Jacque gave the officer a fake driver’s license. Jacque failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .15. As a result, he was charged with driving under the influence and operating without a license. In court, on July 18, 2019, he pled guilty to both offenses and received 1 year of probation and a 30-day suspended sentence. Jacque was then encountered by ICE while leaving the Worcester District Court. 
​Upon questioning, ICE determined that Jacque was in the United States illegally. He was arrested and issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) which set forth the following allegations:
​1.​You are not a citizen or national of the United States.
​2.​You are a native of Canada and a citizen of Canada.
3.​You were admitted to the United States on December 26, 2008, for a period not to exceed six months.
​4.​You remained in the United States without the authorization of the United ​​​​States Department of Homeland Security.
​Based on these allegations, ICE charged Jacque with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for being an overstay. ICE took Jacque into custody and filed an NTA with EOIR on July 23, 2019.
​On July 30, 2019, Jacque appeared pro se for a master calendar hearing before Judge Miller. Attorney Kyle represented ICE. Judge Miller read Jacque his rights, and explained the allegations and charges set forth on the NTA. During the bond hearing, ICE argued that Jacque was a danger to the community based on his July 18, 2019 OUI conviction. Judge Miller released Jacque on $5000 bond after determining that Jacquewas neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. He then gave Jacque a continuance to May 4, 2020, to obtain an attorney,submit pleadings, and file any applications for relief from removal.
​Jacque obtained Attorney Smith, and on May 4, 2020, Jacque admitted and conceded the charges of removability and informed Immigration Judge Miller that he seeks relief from removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under INA § 240B, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Due to the backlog of cases in the immigration court, a trial date was set for today, December 3, 2024. 
​While awaiting his trial date, Jacque was arrested again on January 1, 2022, for operating under the influence. At the time of his arrest by the Worcester police, he failed a field sobriety test, and he had a blood alcohol level of .20. In court, on May 2, 2022, he pleaded guilty and received a 2-year suspendedsentence with probation for three years.
​During today’s trial, Jacque provided the following testimony.
• Jacque told the Court that has never left the United States since December 26, 2008, and that he has never used any fake names in the United States. Additionally, neither he nor his wife, Charlotte, have ever received public or private assistance and they have always filed their federal and Massachusetts taxreturns as required by law. He has also never been arrested other than his two arrests and convictions for drunk driving and he has never been arrested or convicted of a crime anywhere else. He also states he has never lied to get an immigration benefit.
 
• In Worcester, Jacque and Charlotte are active in their church and Jacque is a member of the Knights of Columbus. He also coaches his sons’ youth baseballteam along with his next-door neighbor Fidel Santos. He is very accustomed to life in the United States and is well-known by the parents of his sons’ friends.
 
• Jacque stated that he and his family never had any trouble in Canada. If deported, Charlotte would return with him to Canada along with the boys because he does not want the family to break up. However, he does not want this to happen because it would be difficult to come back to the United States afterreceiving a deportation order and residing illegally in the United States for over ten years. Moreover, since Charlotte has no status in the United States, they would have to rely on their sons to file visa petitions for them after they turned 21. ​
 
• Jacque is worried about getting a job in Canada. He does not know if he can live with his Aunt Jane and Uncle Louis, and he is concerned about his sons’future. Neither boy speaks French. Their friends are in Worcester, and they are in elementary school. Steve is in an advanced math program which is great because he is in class with his friend Emely. Of most concern is obtaining health and educational resources for Joseph in Canada as well as uprooting Steve and Joseph from their home in Worcester. 
 
• Jacque apologized for his drunk driving convictions. He knows that drunk driving is extremely dangerous,and he stated he was not thinking when he got behind the wheel drunk. He stated he is still on probation, attending AA, and he has not had a drop to drink since his last arrest.
 
During closing arguments, Attorney Smith argued that notwithstanding his drunk driving convictions, Jacque was a person of good moral character and that his removal from the United States would cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children because they would be uprooted from the only home they have ever known. He asserted that Jacque has been sober since the day of his last arrest, has dutifully attended AA, and feels extremely remorseful for his conduct. As such, he argues that Jacque should be granted cancellation of removal and, in the alternative, he should be granted voluntary departure rather than receive an order of removal.
For their part, DHS argued that his two drunk driving convictions preclude him from establishing good moral character during the statutory period, asserted he was dishonest when he obtained employment via fake documents and argued that his removal would not cause exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children who could easily adjust to life in Canada. Moreover, they argued that he was a danger to the community due to his drunk driving. As a result, they argued that he should be denied cancellation as a matter of law and discretion and that she should be denied voluntary departure as well. Towards this end, they argue that she should be removed from the United States.
After the trial, Immigration Judge Miller asked you, his clerk, to review the hearing transcript and draft a decision by 12/17/24 at 11:59 pm EST for him to consider.
Decision
I. Issue Presented
II. Legal Rule
III. Analysis
IV. Conclusion
 

Answer both questions with minimum of 250 words each include one reference per question as well as in text citations.
1) Below you will find two sets of variables. From each set, devise a testable hypothesis.  Identify the independent and dependent variables. As a point of departure, briefly describe what independent and dependent variables are.
Set 1: age and propensity to vote in presidential elections
Set 2: democratic political systems and political violence
2) What are the characteristics of a strong hypothesis? Explain. Is the following an example of a strong hypothesis? If not, revise it. Defend your revision.
Hypothesis: President Macron (of France) is a wonderful world leader.

Answer both questions with 250 words each include references minimum one reference per question.
1)Below you will find two sets of variables. With each set, craft an empirical research question. Clearly identify the dependent and independent variables. Is scientific research the only way in which knowledge about political phenomena can be produced? Explain. Consider, for instance, a role for constructionism and critical theory.
Set 1: voter turnout and legitimacy of election outcomes.
Set 2: male/female gender identification and support for Republican candidates.
2) What are the characteristics of a strong hypothesis? Explain. Is the following an example of a strong hypothesis? If not, revise it. Defend your revision.
Hypothesis: President Macron (of France) is a wonderful world leader.

Instructions
Please Choose Topic 1 and use case law as well as Supreme Court and varies case 2009 and above.
Your research papers are due at the end of Week 6. I recommend starting work on them during the first week of the course, as this paper will take some time to complete.
Your research paper will automatically go through Turnitin shortly after you submit it — each time.  I strongly recommend that you submit your near-final draft before the due date.  Doing so will allow you time to review your report, and if necessary, make corrections before your final version is due.  If the Turnitin Originality Report is yellow, orangeor red, you should review it close to see if you may need to insert some additional citations or paraphrase some material. If you do have a red or orange report, you should include a note to your instructor explaining why and how you mitigated it with citations, etc.
Write your paper on one of the following topics:
1. Research the case law and statutory law behind self-defense and the use of deadly force. What does the case law reveal that an average citizen can use in terms of self-defense and deadly force? How is that different than what a law enforcement officer can do? Provide a detailed analysis of the case law in which the courts have grappled with these issues. Focus primarily on the Supreme Court cases on this issue. At the end, give your opinion of what self defense laws should look like and whether they should be uniform across all states.
2. What is the current state of sexual assault law in the United States? Does it need to be revised? Is the law itself discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner in some jurisdictions? Use caselaw and statutes to illustrate your arguments.
3. Research the insanity defense and how it is applied. Which version of the defense do you think is the most appropriate? How well is our society handling mentally ill individuals who commit crimes? If you could change how we handle these individuals, what would you do? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/mental_health/#:~:text=Percent%20of%20people%20in%20state,care%20while%20incarcerated%3A%2066%25%20%2B 
4. If you are very interested in researching another criminal law topic, please send me a message by the end of Week 3 to seek approval for your topic. Otherwise, please choose from among the three above topics.
No matter your selected topic:
• use effective, well-designed search strategies and tools to efficiently and creatively refine searches, on the fly as needed• apply multiple criteria to assess relevance, currency, authority, accuracy, purpose, audience and ideological perspectives related to your topic.• look for statistical evidence that either supports or detracts from the criminal law-related challenges that you address, and explain its relevance and value to your selected topic. • clearly and effectively communicate, organize, and synthesize complex and often contradictory information to advance graduate level scholarly knowledge about your selected topic. • Quote, paraphrase, and cite information correctly and consistently, always using information in ways that are true to the original context. 
Your paper should be 8-10 pages. Here are some general guidelines. Please use a clear (e.g., Times New Roman, Arial, Courier) 12 point font and one inch margins on all four sides. Please include page numbers. Please double space. I recommend using topic and sub topic headings to organize your paper.
Please apply Bluebook citation style (which uses footnotes) if you are a Legal Studies student.  
What I’m really looking for in the paper is graduate level cohesive writing in which you research and analyze primary legal sources, such as case law, statutes and the US Constitution.
1. Write an introduction, which clearly identifies the topic of your report and the issues which you seek to illuminate. The introduction should include the thesis statement (or basis of your report), and a very preliminary overview of the evidence you will use to support it. Finally, the introduction should include a statement that identifies why is the topic of your report important.2. The body of your report should be dedicated to supporting your thesis statement with claims gleaned from your research (into what others have written on the topic; data that you have gathered), readings from the course text, discussions, and/or case law, law review articles, etc. 3. Conclude your report by recapitulating your thesis statement and explaining in greater detail the significance of your findings. Include in your conclusion some questions or claims about the topic and/or specific which you’ve written. If you believe more research needs to be done on your topic, be specific about what kind of research and how you think it ought to be done.
Upload your papers in the Assignment section of the classroom. Your paper will automatically be processed through Turnitin.

Write a draft about what a sponsorship contract entails:
1. What is sponsorship & what are sponsorship deals like
2. Compensation terms
3. Type, format & quantity of content
4. Exclusivity
5. Usage rights of content
6. Termination
*No need to add quotes or excerpts just write a draft*
Here are some websites I found but feel free to find other websites you think is good
1. https://www.contractscounsel.com/t/us/sponsorship-agreement
2. https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/influencer-agreements-what-you-need-to-know-about-managing-influencer-marketing-contracts/
3. https://grin.co/blog/influencer-law-for-brands/

The text should be double-spaced, font size 12, have a title page, introduction, conclusion, and bibliography. The content should be at least 2,000 words excluding the title page and bibliography. You should save it in PDF format. It is recommended to conduct an investigative analysis of the chosen topic, including laws, jurisprudence, and articles from journals and/or newspapers. You may include comparative information from other countries. The work should also include an index.

Write a paper of 750 to 1,000 words in which you do the following:
Define socialism.
Explain how socialism differs from the American political and economic structure.
Describe programs of the American government at the federal and state level that have aspects of socialism.
If some American policies and practices are socialistic in nature, does that make America a socialist political system?
Use the GCU Library to locate three to five peer-reviewed sources in support of your content.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

prepare a short presentation on a sociological theory of crime, a sociologist, or an analysis of criminal events from a sociological point of view. The presentation should have three parts: an introduction, body, and conclusion. In the introduction, establish the problem/ topic at hand (usually stated in the title) and the key objectives. Next, state the leading theories, criticisms of the current theories briefly, and make mention of methods and empirical evidence. Convince your classmates that your topic is essential.
In the body, be specific about the items mentioned in your introduction. Describe the question/problem and support your arguments with some sociological theories. It is highly recommended to keep your ideas with empirical evidence by visiting peer-reviewed journals. In the conclusion section, summarize the material you have already presented. Then, once again, state your main argument, the main theories surrounding it, and then give your conclusion and final interpretation. Some tips Do not simply read off a sheet of paper. It is always better to have your speech committed to memory as much as possible. Slow down, don’t speak too fast. Pace yourself. Rehearse, maintain eye contact, remain calm, smile and support your group members Speak articulately (no mumbling) and sufficiently loud. Try to avoid using too many verbal pauses (such as “uh,” “um,” and the like).It can be distracting. You are encouraged to use PowerPoint slides to assist the presentation. Tips for good ppt slides Keep them simple and put the main points on them only Minimize words’ Use color, short videos, charts, and pictures,
my topic is SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
the presentation should be 20 minutes long