Citizenship Harder To Prove Through Fathers
Recent Cases
An immigration law that extends citizenship to children whose mothers are naturalized does not violate due process by not following the same rule for fathers, the 2nd Circuit ruled.
Otis Grant, a Jamaican citizen, was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder. He challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' ruling that he should be deported, arguing that his father was naturalized before Grant's 18th birthday and that he should have derivative citizenship. The immigration judge disagreed, stating that Grant was not entitled to citizenship because his father did not have legal custody of him.
A three-judge panel decided not to focus on the custody issue. Instead, it ruled that in order for a father to confer citizenship on his child, the father must legitimize him, acknowledge him or prove paternity.
"A mother's parental status is verifiable from the birth itself," the court ruled. "There is no such obvious or compelling proof of a father's status."
Using that reasoning, the court ruled that Grant's rights to equal protection and due process were not violated. The court denied Grant's petition to review his deportation.
Related listings
-
Class Action Challenges Mandatory Electronic Filing
Recent Cases 07/18/2008Questions regarding whether LexisNexis Courtlink is licensed to do business in Georgia and the location of its registered agent prompted attorney Steven J. Newton to amend his complaint against the company and Fulton County State and Superior Court o...
-
Man Says Eminem Sucker-Punched Him
Recent Cases 07/15/2008Eminem sucker-punched a man as he used the urinal in a Detroit nightclub, the man claims in Oakland County Court. Miad Jarbou demands more than $100,000 from the rapper, whose real name is Marshall Mathers. Jarbou says he was using a urinal at Cheeta...
-
Man Says Social Security Guards Beat Him
Recent Cases 07/11/2008Private contract guards hired by the Social Security Administration assaulted a man, fracturing his hand, and maliciously prosecuted him because he clipped his fingernails while waiting in the Social Security office, the man claims in Federal Court. ...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.