Sudomir v. Mcmahon (1985)

Francis Hospital v. D’Elia, 71 A.D.2d 110 , 422 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1979), aff'd 53 N.Y.2d 825 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 185 , 422 N.E.2d 830 (1981) (Medicaid benefits); Gillar v. Employment Division, 717 P.2d 131 (Or.1986) (unemployment benefits); Rubio v. Employment Division, 66 Or.App. 525 , 674 P.2d 1201 (1984); Lapre v. Department of Employment Security, 513 A.2d 10 (R.I.1986) (unemployment benefits); Antillon v. Department of Employment Security, 688 P.2d 455 (Utah 1984) (unemployment …

See Sudomir, 767 F.2d at 1466 (“To so hold would amount to compelling the states to adopt each and every more generous classification which, on its face, is not irrational.”).

See Sudo-mir, 767 F.2d at 1466 (“To so hold would amount to compelling the states to adopt each and every more generous classification which, on its face, is not irrational”).

See United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468 , 1473 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that “judicial scrutiny of [federal] alienage classifications is relaxed *1198 to a ‘rational basis’ standard”) (citing Diaz, 426 U.S. at 83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883 ); Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that because “there is no rational basis for treating Garberding differently,” the INS’s “singling her out for deportation is wholly irrational” under Diaz); Sudomir, 767 F.2d…

Such classifications will be held valid unless "wholly irrational." Mathews, 426 U.S. at 83 ; Garberding, 30 F.3d at 1190 ; Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976)).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976)).

See, e.g., Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting the submission of an application for adjustment of status “does not connote that- the alien’s immigration status has changed, as the very real possibility exists that the [government] will deny the alien’s application altogether” (quoting United States v. Elrawy, 448 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2006))); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (with respect to asylum applicants w…

Cf. Holley v. Lavine, 553 F.2d 845, 849 (2d Cir.1977) (determining that an alien who resided in the United States illegally but possessed an official letter from the INS stating that the agency did not contemplate enforcing her departure at that time, was "permanently residing in the United States under color of *17 law" within the meaning of a regulation implementing the Social Security Act); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation and internal quo…

See Korab v. Fink, No. 11-15132, 748 F.3d 875, 878-79, 886-87 , 2014 WL 1302614, at *2, *9 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2014); Pimentel, 670 F.3d at 1109 ; Hong Pham, 16 A.3d at 661 ; Khrapunskiy, 881 N.Y.S.2d 377 , 909 N.E.2d at 77 ; cf. Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1465-66 (9th Cir.1985).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).] On Opinion page 1304, replace the deleted text with the following text: [Because Mashiri did not properly raise his argument that his asylum application demonstrates his eligibility for FFELP loans, we do not address whether an alien who properly demonstrates that he is an asylum applicant is eligible for such loans.] With the opinion thus amended, the panel has voted unanimously to…

FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 , 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1985).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir.1985) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456,1462 (9th Cir.1985) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).] On Opinion page 1304, replace the deleted text with the following text: [Because Mashiri did not properly raise his argument that his asylum application demonstrates his eligibility for FFELP loans, we do not address whether an alien who properly demonstrates that he is an asylum applicant is eligible for such loans.] With the opinion thus amended, the panel has voted unanimously to d…

Section 1229b(a) requires both residence and admission, and his residence was merely “tolerated ... [but] has not been legitimated by any affirmative act.” See Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1462 (9th Cir.1985).

In Petitioner’s view, “this yawning variance between waivers for hardened criminals and this petitioner violates [the constitutional guarantee of equal protection].” “Federal classifications distinguishing among groups of aliens are ... valid unless ‘wholly irrational.’ ” Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976)).

He is wrong. “[F]ederal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary.” Mendoza v. INS, 16 F.3d 335, 338 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985)).

He is wrong. “[F]ederal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary.” Mendoza v. INS, 16 F.3d 335, 338 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985)).

Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985)).

However, because federal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary, “ ‘[f]ed-eral classifications distinguishing among groups of aliens ... are valid unless “wholly irrational.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985)).

See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883, 1893 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985).

See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883, 1893 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985). 22 Most cases addressing the relaxed scrutiny due federal alienage classifications have involved Congressional action taken pursuant to its plenary power to regulate immigration and naturalization under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.

However, “[Qederal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary.” Mendoza v. INS, 16 F.3d 335, 338 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985)).

First, “[f]ederal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary.” Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985).

We disagree. 61 Under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, "[f]ederal classifications distinguishing among groups of aliens ... are valid unless [they are] 'wholly irrational.' " Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 82-83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883, 1892-1893 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976).

Under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, “[fjederal classifications distinguishing among groups of aliens ... are valid unless [they are] ‘wholly irrational.’ ” Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 82-83 , 96 S.Ct. 1883, 1892-1893 , 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976).

Well-settled in this circuit is the rule that “[granting or denying a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court,” Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1458 (9th Cir.1985); People of Gambell v. Hodel, 774 F.2d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1985), rev’d on other grounds, Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531 , 107 S.Ct. 1396 , 94 L.Ed.2d 542 , and that review of a district court’s grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is ordin…

II 14 Fong claims that the trial court erred when it dissolved the preliminary injunction. 15 Well-settled in this circuit is the rule that "[g]ranting or denying a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court," Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1458 (9th Cir.1985); People of Gambell v. Hodel, 774 F.2d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1985), rev'd on other grounds, Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531 , 107 S.Ct. 1396 , 94 L.Ed.2d 5…

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1457 (9th Cir.1985).

Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1457 (9th Cir.1985).

It is necessary to apply this relaxed standard of scrutiny to both federal and state laws that follow a federal classification because “[i]t *710 would make no sense to say that Congress has plenary power in the area of immigration and naturalization and then hold that the Constitution compels the states to refrain from adhering to the federal guidelines [when a state denies state-funded welfare benefits to certain aliens],” quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1466 (9…

(Sudomir v. McMahon (9th Cir. 1985) 767 F.2d 1456, 1459-1462 (Sudomir); Zurmati v. McMahon (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 164, 173-175 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 374 ] (Zurmati).) In Sudomir, supra, the majority acknowledged the issue was a close one, but ruled that asylum applicants who have not yet been granted asylum status are not yet permanently residing under color of law and, therefore, are not yet entitled to welfare benefits under the federal-state AFDC program. (767 F.2d at pp. 1459-1…

Aliens who have official authorization to remain indefinitely until their status changes reside permanently; asylum applicants who merely participate in a process that gives rise to the possibility of such an authorization reside temporarily. 767 F.2d at 1462 (footnote omitted, emphasis *149 in original). [4] Sudomir is in accordance with HHS policy, and both HRS and HHS argue that we should defer to agency policy and agency interpretations of that policy.

The dissenting judge in Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d at 1467-68 (9th Cir.1985) (Canby, J., dissenting), disagreed with the conclusion that asylum applicants were not "permanent residents” on the ground that federal law allows applications for asylum by “those who cannot or will not return to their own countries 'because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…

Rational Basis 27 Even if SIJs and T-1 nonimmigrants are similarly situated, USCIS’s decision to 28 provide different paths to employment authorization passes rational-basis scrutiny. 14 Case 2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR Document 48 Filed 10/26/22 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:489 1 “[F]ederal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary.” 2 Mendoza v. I.N.S., 16 F.3d 335, 338 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sudomir v. McMahon, 3 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985)).

REV. 77, 127 (2016), applies, state action that distinguishes among people on the basis of alienage may be subject to rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny because the state is “following federal direction.” See, e.g., Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1465 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The defendants respond by asserting that it is not necessary to make such a showing [under strict scrutiny] because California has merely adopted a federal classification which is subject on…

The Ninth Circuit could also hold that the uniformity requirement is more limited than as the court interprets based on Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464-66 (9th Cir.1985).

As stated in the dissent to Sudomir [ v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 , 1464 (9th Cir. 1985)]: `The common characteristics of all these temporary relationships is that they exist for a defined purpose with a defined end, and there is never any intention of abandoning the country of origin as home.' 767 F.2d at 1467 (Canby, J., dissenting).

Sudomir, 767 F.2d at 1464, 1466 ; Cid, 598 N.W.2d at 892 .

While naturalization of United States citizens lies within the exclusive province of the federal government, see 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (1994); cf. Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985) (noting that “federal authority in the areas of immigration and naturalization is plenary”), the United States Constitution allows states to prohibit persons convicted of crimes from voting or holding state or local offices.

See also United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1474 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied sub nom., Hernandez v. United States, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 794 , 133 L.Ed.2d 743 (1996); Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir.1985) (applying "not wholly irrational” standard to uphold denial of welfare benefits to asylum applicants because "federal classifications based on alienage are subject to relaxed scrutiny”); Lopez v. Bergland, 448 F.Supp. 1279, 1282-83 (N.D.Cal.1978) (…

App. 3d at 809 .) Castillo and Jimenez are, therefore, unlike the aliens before the court in either Sudomir or Esparza who were merely “tolerated during the period necessary to process their applications.” Sudomir, 767 F.2d at 1462.

No. 7 at 3), Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir.1985). 1 However, in determining whether an alien will be eligible for food stamps, the Food Stamp Act specifically relies on the definition of “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” as it is “defined by sections 1101(a)(15) and 1101(a)(20) of Title 8” and the regulations of the Food Stamp Act specify that eligibility for food stamps is extended to “an alien who is, as of June 1, 1987, or thereafter,…

The citizenship requirement also requires consideration of the citizenship of the "caretaker relative.” However, the law only requires such consideration to the extent that the caretaker relative’s "needs are to be taken into account in making the determination [of total funding level].” See also Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1458 (9th Cir.1985) ("Her [the non-PRU-COL applicant’s] application for AFDC benefits was rejected in part by the Department because [she was non-…

Aliens who have official authorization to remain indefinitely until their status changes reside permanently; asylum applicants who merely participate in a process that [merely] gives rise to the possibility of such an authorization reside temporarily.” (Emphasis in original.) Sudomir, 767 F.2d at 1462.

See Sudomir v. McMahon, supra at 1466 ; Cid v. South Dakota Dep’t of Social Servs., supra at 892.

Plyler, supra, 457 U.S. at 226 , 102 S.Ct. at 2399 , 72 L.Ed.2d at 805 ; see Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F. 2d 1456, 1466 (9th Cir.1985) (“It would make no sense to say that Congress has plenary power in the area of immigration and naturalization and then hold that the Constitution impels the states to refrain from adhering to the federal guidelines.”).

Plyler, supra, 457 U.S. at 226 , 102 S.Ct. at 2399 , 72 L.Ed.2d at 805 ; See Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1466 (9th Cir.1985) (“It would make no sense to say that Congress has plenary power in the area of immigration and naturalization and then hold that the Constitution impels the states to refrain from adhering to the federal guidelines.”).

See Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal classifications valid unless wholly irrational).