preview

Analysis of Lopez vs. Gonzales Court Case Essay

Good Essays
Even before the Declaration of Independence was written, the United States was always a country where people journey upon to seek a better life to the land of the free in order to find a life style on the idea “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Since immigration is recognized as one of the largest dilemmas of homeland security, people value their safety, disregarding the fact that the United States was born from immigrants. However, this does not mean that immigrants do not have to obey the law; it is an obligation or else consequences will arise. Because the United States is a democratic nation, it trusts the people of the country to assist in the making and carrying out laws. When people do commit a crime, in a particular…show more content…
The judge ordered Lopez removed “in light of 8 U. S. C. §1229b(a)(3), which provides that the Attorney General’s discretion to cancel the removal of a person otherwise deportable does not reach a convict of an aggravated felony.” (FindLaw) The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) confirmed and the Eighth Circuit acknowledged the BIA. He was released for good conduct after 15 months’ imprisonment.
The United States Supreme Court constituted a “felony punishable under the CSA” only if it proscribed conduct punishable as felony under the CSA, as quote by quote “ordinarily “trafficking meant commercial dealing, reading would render the law of alien removal, and sentencing for illegal entry into the country.” (FindLaw)
The Immigration and Naturalization Services pursued to deport the individual on two grounds: first being, his commission of the aggravated felony and the second, his conviction of the offense involving a controlled substance. Because Lopez was a permanent resident of South Dakota, he was qualified to apply to the Attorney General for his “cancellation” of the deportation. The court denied his application for cancellation of his deportation order, since the Immigration and Naturalization center forbids the Attorney General from cancelling
    Get Access