If the United States government seeks to remove him from this Country, he can apply for a hardship cancellation under 8 U.S.C. 1229(b)(1). That right accrues because he has been in the U.S.A. for over 10 years. 8 U.S.C. 1229(b)(1)(A), and he can ask for a cancellation if there is hardship to his parents, ibid (1)(C). The hardship determination musttake into account both the present condition of the parent as well as the future hardship.

Further, the INA contemplates that individuals DHS seeks to place in removal proceedings will have addresses where they can be located or contacted. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) [providing for personal service of notice to appearor notice by mail where personal service is not practicable]; see also id. §§ 1301-1306 [providing for noncitizens to register with the federal government, providetheir addresses, and notify the governmentof changes in address]; see also, e.g., Villas at Parkside Partners, supra, 675 F.3d at p. 811 [holding that a municipality was precluded under the Supremacy Clause from denying rental housing to undocumentedaliens].) 31 noncitizens present in the United States without a valid immigration status ‘live quietly, raise families, obey the law daily, and do work for our country.”’].

Indeed, Plaintiff can point to no law which gives a private citizen a legally protected interest in being free from communicable disease, although she does point to the health related grounds of inadmissibility applicable only to aliens applying 6 Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 42 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/14 Page 14 of 30 for admission to the United States. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (governing removal of aliens); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1) (health grounds of inadmissibility). But, exposure to – and contraction of – ordinary communicable respiratory infections is an intrinsic, ongoing risk of contact with other people, and especially of being a health care provider.

And indeed, the statutory provision for removal of even unlawfully present aliens from the United States plainly contemplates that an alien who challenged his removal may remain in the United States pending entry of a final removal order. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i) (an alien noticed to appear for a removal proceeding must immediately provide the Attorney General “with a written record of an address . . . at which the alien may be contacted respecting [the] proceedings.”).

Immigration prosecutors are required to lodge a charging document, known as a Notice to Appear, listing the asserted grounds for commencing a removal proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (listing requirements for a Notice to Appear). See Serrano App. at A-18.

..................................................... 7 8 U.S.C. § 1226............................................................................................................................... 6 8 U.S.C. § 1226a. ............................................................................................................................ 6 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ....................................................................................................................... 12 -v- Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 5 of 33 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). ....................................................................................................................... 12 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). ....................................................................................................................... 19 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. ............................................................................................................................ 6 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). ....................................................................................................................... 14 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3). ............................................................................................................. 6, 18 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4). ................................................................................................................... 6 8 U.S.C. § 1232............................................................................................................................... 7 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D). ............................................................................................................... 7 8 U.S.C. § 1252............................................................................................................................... 6 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e). ......................................................................................................................... 7 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f).

(See generally Johnson et al., Understanding Immigration Law (LexisNexis 2009) pp. 320- 31 [summarizing various formsofrelief from removal available to noncitizens underthe U.S. immigration laws].)'’ He would also beentitled to a due process hearing in connection with any removal proceedings. (See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229, 1230; Woodby v. I.N.S. (1966) 385 U.S. 276 [87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362].) Arguably, this would give him sufficient time to make arrangements for the transfer ofhis clientfiles.

..... 6 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) .................................................................................................................... 21 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) .................................................................................................................... 25 42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................................... 1, 20 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) .......................................................................................................... 1, 20, 21 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(d) ....................................................................................................................... 5 8 U.S.C. § 1226............................................................................................................................. 5 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) ........................................................................................................................ 6 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) ........................................................................................................................ 5 8 U.S.C. § 1357..................................................................................................................... 10, 22 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).................................................................................................................... 6 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d) ........................................................................................................................ 6 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) [INA 287(g)].................................................................................................. 8 Case4:08-cv-04220-PJH Document155 Filed12/16/09 Page10 of 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES x PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL MOTION TO DIS

3. Lack Of Medical Care And Resulting Delays in the Pending Criminal Case Undermined The Fairness of Mr. Valadez Lopez’s Bond and Removal Proceedings In Immigration Court. In his initial removal proceedings on April 11, 2005, Mr. Valadez Lopez applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229(b). In preparation for the hearing, it was discovered that Mr. Valadez Lopez would suffer torture and persecution if removed to Mexico, due to deplorable conditions in its mental institutions, where Mr. Valadez Lopez is likely to be institutionalized if removed.