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. ...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.