Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Tort Action Regarding Shooting of Israeli Citizen, and Criminal and Immigration Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on July 28, 2010 9:49 AM

Estate of Ahuva Amergi v. Palestinian Auth., No. 09-13618, concerned an action arising from the murder of Ahuva Amergi, an Israeli citizen who was shot and killed as she drove her car in the Gaza Strip in February of 2002, allegedly by agents of the Palestinian Authority.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the ground that the act plaintiffs alleged -- a single killing by non-state actors purportedly in the course of an armed conflict -- failed to meet the Alien Tort Statute's high bar.

Garces v. US Atty. Gen., No. 09-11520, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing petitioner's appeal from an immigration judge's order finding him removable under section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as an alien whom the Attorney General "knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance."  The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition on the ground that the court did not require every alien seeking admission to the U.S. to produce evidence proving clearly and beyond a doubt that he is not a drug trafficker, unless there was already some other evidence -- some "reason to believe" -- that he was one.

In US v. Tome, No. 09-16486, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence following the revocation of his supervised release after his child pornography conviction, on the grounds that 1) it was not necessary for a special condition to be supported by each section 3553(a) factor; rather, each factor was an independent consideration to be weighed; 2) the Internet ban condition was not a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary; and 3) defendant did not meet his burden to show his 24-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options