Johanna Dennis is an Associate Professor of Law at the Southern University Law Center in Louisiana. Prof. Dennis earned her B.A. degree from Rutgers University J.D. degree from Temple University , M.S. in Biotechnology from the John Hopkins University and her M.A. Ed in Higher Education from Trident University International. Professor Dennis is admitted to the Pennsylvania bar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to joining the faculty at SULC, Professor Dennis was a member of the faculties at Vermont Law School, Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, and Florida A&M University College of Law, where she taught in the legal writing programs and upper-level courses in environmental, agricultural and biotechnology Patent Law, and Law and Medicine. She also serves as Deputy Editor for the American Bar Association's Section of International Law –International Law News and as Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry.

Abstract

Carlos was among the many undocumented children in the United States. A native and citizen of Mexico, he entered the U.S. illegally when he was five years old. Two years later, his father was granted legal permanent resident (LPR) status, but Carlos did not get LPR status until he was 19 years old. Two years after receiving LPR status, Carlos was arrested for smuggling, placed into removal proceedings, and faced deportation back to Mexico. Unfortunately for Carlos, he did not satisfy the requirements to obtain Cancellation of Removal -- a common form of discretionary relief available in removal proceedings. For LPR Cancellation applicants, the applicant must have five years of residence as an LPR, have seven years' physical presence after admission to any status, and not have been convicted of an Aggravated Felony. When Carlos applied for Cancellation, he was faced with the problem that although he had been physically present in the U.S. and living with his parents for 16 of his 21 years, he had not had LPR status for five years, nor had he accrued seven years of presence post-admission.The government argued that the time requirements for Cancellation must be met using only the applicant's residence and admission. Carlos argued that as an unemancipated minor living with his parents, his father's dates of admission and grant of LPR status should be imputed to him, which would render him eligible for Cancellation. Along with a case involving similar issues, Carlos' case was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2012. After discussing the relevant statistics about U.S. immigration and relief from removal, this paper discusses whether the parent's time in residence and date of admission should be imputed to an unemancipated minor; the conflicting common law precedent and agency positions; and the policy implications and impact of the government and applicants' positions on undocumented children.

(top of page)