MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275514020

Immigration Law - Alien Denied Entry to Another Country and Returned Involuntarily to United States, Not "Found In" United States

2014· article· en· W2275514020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurica D. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueSuffolk transnational law review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationLawAlienStatuteImmigrationPolitical scienceImmigration lawLawsuitFederal lawConvictionLegislationCitizenshipPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMMIGRATION LAW--Alien Denied Entry to Another Country and Returned Involuntarily to United States, Not Found In United States--United States v Vasquez Macias, 740 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2014). Under 8 U.S.C. [section] 1326(a), after an alien is deported from the United States, reentry by that alien into the United States without approval of the U.S. Attorney General is an offense. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) a point of contention with this statute is the meaning of the United States, specifically when an alien leaves the United States, but does not gain legal entry into another country. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) in United States v. Vasquez Macias, (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined whether an alien who was previously deported from the United States was the United States after Canadian border officials detained him on the Canadian side of a bridge and transported him in handcuffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) The Second Circuit held that Vasquez Macias (Vasquez) was not the United States, because he crossed the physical border into Canada and was returned to the United States under restraint by Canadian border officials. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) Vasquez, a citizen of Honduras, was deported from the United States in 2000 following a criminal conviction for selling drugs to undercover officers. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) After his deportation, he illegally reentered the United States and remained for a number of years. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) For unknown reasons, Vasquez decided to leave the United States by crossing the Rainbow Bridge from Niagara Falls, New York to Niagara Falls, Ontario on January 10, 2012. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) Officers of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) observed Vasquez walking along the Canadian side of the bridge and took him to the CBSA office to conduct an inspection. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) At this time CBSA officers found that Vasquez had neither a passport nor a visa to gain entrance into Canada, nor a believable reason for traveling, and thus, they denied him entry. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) The CBSA gave Vasquez a document entitled Allowed to Leave, which is given to individuals who are denied entry to Canada from the United States. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) However, despite providing Vasquez with this document, which bestows a right to freely leave Canada's border, the CBSA placed Vasquez in handcuffs and transported him to the U.S. border, where they turned him over to CBP officials. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) a routine check of Vasquez's record revealed that he was deported from the United States in 2000 due to a felony drug conviction. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) Vasquez was charged with being unlawfully found in the United States after deportation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York and on May 11, 2012 a jury convicted him under 8 U.S.C. [section][section] 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2) for an illegal alien found in the United States. (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) Vasquez moved for an acquittal of the verdict by challenging the terms contained in [section] 1326(a). (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \*MERGEFORMAT) The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York noted that Vasquez's request was untimely filed, and although the court stated it had the authority to allow Vasquez's request as timely, the court concluded that it would not reconsider his argument that he crossed into foreign territory and was therefore incapable of violating [section] 1326(a). (NOTEREF _Ref257636377 \h \* MERGEFORMAT) Finding that there was no reason to reconsider the case, the court denied Vasquez's request as untimely, while reiterating its stance that a previously-deported alien denied entry to another country has not legally left the United States, and can therefore be guilty of the United States upon returning to the U. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuffolk transnational law reviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207