When Jawas Attack

By

-

November 20, 2019

It is one thing to scavenge and another to steal someone’s personal property. In The Mandalorian episodes The Child, a group of Jawas in a Sandcrawler were caught stripping the Razer Crest for parts. Multiple issues explode out of this incident.

Grand Theft Jawas

The Razer Crest was the personal property of The Mandalorian. The vehicle was parked on the planet Arvala-7. The Jawas worked collectively to strip the Razer Crest of parts, its outer hull, engine parts, equipment, and the Mandalorian’s weapons locker.

Grand theft is when a person takes real or personal property of another with a value over $950 or when property is taken from an automobile. Cal. Pen. Code § 487(a) and (d)(1). While the interstellar exchange on Beskar is unknown, the value of the Razer Crest and the equipment onboard is easily over $950 in value. The Jawas committed Grand Theft with their stripping and pillaging of the ship, which understandably upset the Mandalorian.

Trading With Jawas for the Return of Stolen Property

The Jawas wanted to “trade” something of value in exchange for the parts to the Razer Crest. Normal contract negotiations include an offer, terms, acceptance, consideration, and performance. This is rather insulting when the trade is for the return of personal property. This raises the issue of economic duress, which is when “a wrongful act which is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator’s pressure.” Andrieu v. Aquantia Corp., H044638, at *13-14 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018). Moreover, a party can rescind a contract if consent was “obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence.” CA Civ. Code § 1689(b)(1). Furthermore, statutory duress is when there is the unlawful detention of a person’s property. CA Civ. Code § 1569.

The Jawas demanding the Mandalorian to retrieve “The Egg” from a vicious wild animal in order to recover his personal property meets every meaning of “duress” in contract law. The Jawas found bold new ways to benefit from their lawless behavior, the most extreme in making someone risk their life for breakfast.

Adventures in Babysitting

The Mandalorian took his infant Target on a mission to storm the Jawas’ high speed Sandcrawler and on the worst egg hunt imaginable. This is in addition to fighting off Trandoshans and a gunfight with Jawas. Has the Mandalorian engaged in child endangerment?

California defines child endangerment as the following:

Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

Cal. Pen. Code § 273a(a).

Whether there has been child endangerment is highly fact specific. The Target’s bassinet following the Mandalorian while he attempted to board the Sandcrawler could have produced “great bodily harm” if the Jawas had fired upon the bassinet. The Jawas also deployed more medieval countermeasures of throwing objects at the Mandalorian, which could have caused injury if directed at the Target. However, since the bassinet was out of the line of fire from the bassinet, one can argue it was safer for the bassinet to follow the Mandalorian instead of being left alone in the desert.

The Mandalorian made the least dangerous decision by taking the Target with him to secure the Egg. Given the options to recover the parts were either leave the Target with Kuiil, who was with the Jawas who had expressed interest in the Target, the Mandalorian would have been rightfully concerned for the Target’s safety in the event more bounty hunters attacked or the Jawas turned on Kuiil. While leaving the Target to the side while confronting a large animal was not Plan A, it was the least bad option available to the Mandalorian.

A Public Policy Shootout over Contracts in The Mandalorian

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 19, 2019

0

Long, long, ago, in a courthouse far away, it was said that the freedom of contract be not lightly interfered with. Baltimore Ohio c. Railway v. Voigt, 176 U.S. 498, 504-5 (1900). The Mandalorian is a story with parties entering contracts upon contracts. However, what contracts in the first episode were valid and which were not?

The Enforceability of an Oral Contract Entered During a Shootout

The Mandalorian met IG-11 while the droid started an armed assault on a compound holding the Target for their respective bounties. This created an awkward meeting, as the Bounty Hunters’ Creed states that No Hunter Shall Interfere With Another’s Hunt. The Mandalorian made the offer that they split the reward for capturing the Target, to which IG-11 agreed. What was not agreed upon was IG-11’s counter offer to acquire the Reputation Credits for the hunt.

The basics of contract formation are 1) Offer; 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration; and 4) Performance. Moreover, “All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1556. Furthermore, the question for California courts is whether there is mutual assent between the parties, which is “manifested by an offer communicated to the offeree and an acceptance communicated to the offeror.” Donovan v. RRL Corp., 26 Cal.4th 261, 270-71 (Cal. 2001), citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, § 128, p. 153.

From the context of the shootout, the Mandalorian made an offer for he and IG-11 to work together and split the reward. IG-11 accepted this offer verbally and by conduct. However, there was no mutual assent on the issue of IG-11 getting the Reputation Credits for the hunt. While that term was not agreed upon, a court could find there was a contract between the parties to split the profit from the hunt.

IG-11’s Bounty Claim Violated Public Policy

Whoever contracted with IG-11 to kill the Target violated public policy and the Bounty Hunter’s Creed. The Mandalorian was right to take protective measures against IG-11.

The Bounty Hunters’ Creed states that:

In the Hunt One Captures or Kills, Never Both

In cases where the acquisition had been taken alive, that “choice” could not be altered. To kill an acquisition in the course of the hunt was one thing, but to purposely kill an unarmed, helpless being already subdued and unable to resist was seen as simple slaughter and wanton butchery. An acquisition “killed while attempting to escape” however, would be an entirely different matter altogether.

The Mandalorian had a contract to capture the Target; IG-11 had a contract to kill the target. IG-11’s contract to purposely kill an unarmed and helpless being was a gross violation of the Bounty Hunters’ Creed. Whoever hired IG-11 did not want a Bounty Hunter, they wanted a butcher.

A contract to kill someone is not the work of a bail bondsman, but a murder-for-hire contract. It is grossly illegal to contract to kill someone, especially an infant. The legal term is solicitation. Anyone who solicits another to commit murder can be sentenced to state prison for at least three and up to nine years. CA Penal Code § 653f. This raises significant issues as to what kind of puck was issued with a kill order on an infant, the work of a bail bondsmen is to bring someone in, not play hit man.

Contracts cannot violate public policy, which was defined by Lord Brougham, “that no one can lawfully do anything which has a tendency to be injurious to the public welfare.” Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity Etc. Co., 71 Cal.App. 492, 496-97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925). A contract is void against public policy if it “clearly contravenes that which has been declared by statutory enactment or by judicial decisions to be public policy, or unless the agreement manifestly tends in some way to injure the public.” Spangenberg v. Spangenberg, 19 Cal.App. 439, 446-47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912). As murder is clearly defined as being illegal and against public policy, one cannot enter a contract to murder another person.

I Have Spoken

Can Bounty Hunters Use Lethal Force?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 18, 2019

0

The Mandalorian is the story of a bounty hunter in the Outer Rim who is no stranger to using lethal force. Is it lawful for a bounty hunter to kill?

As a preliminary matter, many states have stopped using the term “bounty hunter.” In California, such as individual is a “bail fugitive recovery person,” who has extensive statutory requirements, including having both bail and private investigator licenses. CA Penal Code § 1299.02. Other requirements include having proper documentation before apprehending a bail fugitive; must not represent themselves as being with law enforcement; and provide at least six hours of notice to local law enforcement that they are going to apprehend a bail fugitive, absent exigent circumstances. CA Penal Code §§ 1299.05; 1299.06; 1299.07; and1299.08.

There are two big requirements: bail fugitive recovery persons cannot forcibly enter a premise or carry a weapon unless in compliance with state laws. CA Penal Code §§ 1299.09 and 1299.10.

In arguendo that the Mandalorian was in compliance with California gun laws, could a bounty hunter shoot a bail jumper? In a Connecticut case that asked whether warning shots could be fired at a fleeing bail jumper, the answer is “no.” The Court explained, “A bounty hunter’s legal right to seize and hold does not automatically authorize the use of force…” McGibony v. Danaher, No. CV094020419S, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2609, at *7 (Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2009).

That is not the end of the analysis. In the first episode of The Mandalorian, there was a fight with a human and a Quarren. The elements of the confrontation include the Mandalorian entering the cantina, not saying anything, and walking up to the bar. The two assailants surround the Mandalorian with claims the Mandalorian spilled the human’s drink when the Mandalorian entered the cantina. The human struck his knife across the Mandalorian’s chest armor and asked if the armor was real Beskar. This contact is technically battery, because the contact was a “willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242.

The contact of the knife against the armor was the moment the Mandalorian responded to the physical battery upon his person. This triggered classic self-defense analysis. The Mandalorian could have reasonably believed he was in immediate danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, because he was surrounded and a knife had made contact with his person; The Mandalorian reasonably believed the use of force was needed to defend himself; and the Mandalorian used no more force than was necessary to defend against the danger. The human assailant was subdued with the use of force, but lethal force was not used on the Quarren until he fired a blaster at the Mandalorian. See, 1 CALCRIM 505 (2018). All of the Mandalorian’s actions were proportional to the threats he faced during the altercation.

Now, we don’t exactly know what Sub Paragraph 16 of the Boadsmen’s Guild Protocol Waiver says exactly, but it is hard to imagine that giving IG-11 a license to storm a stronghold by force…

Mandalorian Podcast on Chapter 1

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 14, 2019

0

The Mandalorian is here and Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I sat down to discuss the first episode of this awesome series. Can bounty hunters kill bail jumpers? When a contract is unenforceable because it violates public policy? Find out as explore these issues and all want a toy from the big shocker at the end of the episode.

Species Protection for the Zillo Beast

By

Stephen Tollafield

-

November 13, 2019

0

Image showing Zillow Beast from Star Wars: The Clone Wars

“[The beast] has no voice to defend itself. Anakin, we have to be that voice.”

-Senator Padmé Amidala

The tale of the Zillo Beast happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but Senator Amidala’s quote perfectly captures the conservationist sentiment that prevailed here in the U.S. in 1973 when Congress passed the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). As the Star Wars saga’s answer to classic kaiju, the Zillo Beast appeared in two episodes of The Clone Wars, Season Two. While battling a Separatist invasion on the planet Malastare, Republic forces unwittingly unearthed the last known specimen of the legendary Zillo Beasts. After subduing the creature, Palpatine ordered Anakin Skywalker and Mace Windu to transport it to Coruscant for study. How might the broad protections of the ESA apply to a creature as rare as the Zillo Beast?

The Malastare Zillo Beast was an “endling”—the term for the last known individual of a species. As an endling, the beast almost certainly would qualify as an “endangered” species, the most at-risk ESA listing classification reserved for wildlife species that are “in danger of extinction.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). This listing category would entitle the beast to the highest level of species conservation protections under the ESA, which prohibit hunting, capturing, and transporting of specimens. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1). So technically, the removal of the beast from Malastare to Coruscant would violate the ESA and the Jedi could face civil and criminal fines and possibly even a short prison sentence.

However, the ESA provides some limited exceptions to endangered species protections. One exception allows the federal government to issue a permit for the capture and transportation of endangered species for “scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including . . . acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A).

And in fact, after the beast escapes, rampages through Coruscant, and is ultimately destroyed, Palpatine gives a sinister order to clone the Zillo Beast for his dark, secret purposes. This order was the last time the beast was mentioned in The Clone Wars thus far, but in a series with “clone” in the title, it seems very likely that cloning is a viable option for “enhancing the survival of the species” in Star Wars. Granted, here on Earth, cloning technology is not sufficiently advanced to reliably clone animals, and the ESA does not contemplate cloning as a method of species recovery.

But perhaps Palpatine’s cloning program has come to fruition with a new experimental population of Zillo Beasts. In the Star Wars: Age of Resistance – Kylo Ren #1 comic, the new Supreme Leader battles and kills a Zillo Beast on a remote Outer Rim world. Maybe this encounter indicates that Zillo Beasts have recovered as a species thanks to Palpatine’s clone-conservation efforts. On the other hand, if that Outer Rim creature was itself an endling, perhaps Kylo has wiped Zillo Beasts from the galaxy… again? Now more than ever—both in Star Wars and on our planet—strong environmental legal protections are important to stemming the devastating loss of plant and animal species caused by habitat destruction, climate change, and the occasional rampaging Kylo Ren.

Stay in School: An Analysis of Scholastic Sanctuary in His Dark Materials

By

Gabriella Martin

-

November 10, 2019

0

The long anticipated television adaptation of Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series is finally here. Like HBO’s other major fantasy drama, Game of Thrones, His Dark Materials exists in its own world, with its own laws and lexicon. The concept of scholastic sanctuary in particular is front and center in the pilot episode, “Lyra’s Jordan.”

The episode opens during the Great Flood, with Lord Asriel (James McAvoy) arriving at Jordan College in Oxford with his infant niece, Lyra Belacqua. He leaves her in the care of Dr. Carne (Clarke Peters) invoking the protection of scholastic sanctuary. In this context, scholastic sanctuary appears to have some element of infant safe haven law attached to it.

Infant Safe Haven laws are state laws which have been enacted to address infant abandonment concerns and prevent infants from being left in places that pose a threat to their health and safety. They exist in some form in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These laws allow parents to relinquish newborn infants at certain locations without fear of prosecution within a certain time period after the infant’s birth. The statutes also discuss the liabilities and responsibilities of these safe havens–hospitals, fire stations, etc— have with regard to the relinquished newborn. Baby Lyra seems to fit within at least two states’ safe haven period as she appears to be less than a year old when Asriel carries her through the flooded Oxford campus. What is less clear, are the responsibilities and liabilities Dr. Carne and Jordan College have with regards to taking Lyra in under the veil of scholastic sanctuary.

Dr. Carne tells Asriel that Jordon College is “not suitable for a child.” However, it appears that as Asriel invoked scholastic sanctuary, the college has the responsibility of sheltering baby Lyra from whatever it is outside the college that endangers her. This privilege seems to be so absolute that Asriel feels confident leaving his niece in the hands of the Master before taking off again.

Whether this initial guarantee of protection was indefinite, or whether at some point, between the relinquishment by Asriel and the cut to present day, a guardianship agreement was drafted in which Dr. Carne became Lyra’s legal guardian, remains to be seen. We clearly see that the Master’s responsibilities and duties have expanded beyond mere protection to full-fledged guardianship.

The concept of scholastic sanctuary becomes even more complicated when it is next brought up by the Librarian. He tells Lyra that if not for scholastic sanctuary, neither of them would be there. It’s unclear whether he means alive in general or just enjoying all that Jordan College has to offer. The Librarian also hints that scholastic sanctuary was a privilege that had to be earned and one that “must not be abused.” According to the HDM wiki, scholastic sanctuary is “the idea of giving sanctuary to an individual at a scholastic place.” The traditional Latin invocation of scholastic sanctuary in the HDM series, gives us a bit more information, it speaks of “legem de refugio scholasticorum” (the laws of refuge of scholastics) and seeks the “protectionem tegimentumque huius collegii” (protection and shelter of this college). While it’s not a whole lot, it does indicate that the law of scholastic sanctuary operates as a quasi refugee and/or sensitive location law. How similar to either would depend on whether the Magisterium, which presumably governs the right of scholastic sanctuary, operates on a federal-like system or is a more international body, akin to something like the United Nations.

The 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 protocol, defines who a refugee is, sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum to refugees. It was initially enacted to protect the European refugees displaced as a result of WWII. The key element here being the responsibilities of those nations who accept refugees, known as “contracting states.” The convention sets out the basic treatments and protections of refugees who are granted asylum. This seems to be a bit of a broader concept than scholastic sanctuary. Although, one can assume that the privilege of scholastic sanctuary has been written down in some form of law governed by the Magisterium. This document also presumably indicates who and what may be protected by scholastic sanctuary, what the responsibilities are of the academic institution providing the sanctuary, and most importantly what goes beyond the protection of scholastic sanctuary. We see this later in the episode when Lord Carlo Boreal meets with Father MacPhail. The two discuss Asriel’s declaration that he can see a hidden city in the Dust. Father MacPhail asks whether “the Master of Jordan College risks him saying as much?” Boreal simply responds, “scholastic sanctuary.” Father MacPhail goes on to wonder whether the Master can be “so naive as to imagine that scholastic sanctuary protects him from the accusation of heresy.” This is our first indication that scholastic sanctuary is not an absolute protection.

Another possibly applicable legal doctrine is that of “sensitive locations.” Sensitive locations refers to a Department of Homeland Security policy that governs the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and its procedures regarding arresting undocumented individuals. The policy prohibits enforcement actions at so-called sensitive locations, including places of worship, schools, and hospitals, except in “limited circumstances.” It is a policy intended to “to enhance public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in the activities or utilize the services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.” Similarly, it appears that scholastic sanctuary prevents the Magisterium from going after those who are under the protection of the college, except when it comes to the crime of heresy.

What will be interesting to see as the series continues is whether the writers plan to take a political stance and use how the Magisterium chooses to enforce or not enforce scholastic sanctuary as a mirror to the current issues we see with ICE and the sensitive locations policy. It can be assumed that Lord Asriel’s decision to continue investigating the Dust and the hidden city will no doubt factor in any future treatment of scholastic sanctuary by the Magisterium.

Could Japanese Tourists in the U.S. and Mexico Successfully Apply For Asylum During A Kaiju Rampage in Japan?

By

Nikhil Shah

-

November 3, 2019

0

My last article dealt with U.S. refugee procedure for those Japanese citizens in Japan who were displaced. In this article I would like to discuss the situation of Japanese tourists who were visiting the U.S. or Mexico on vacation and Godzilla or another Kaiju attacked and ransacked Japan.

Say a Japanese tourist was in Los Angeles and the events of the Godzilla movie, Godzilla, King Ghiddorah, Mothra: Monsters all-out Attack (GMK) occurred. What option would that Japanese tourist have if his or her stay was about to expire and his homeland was being destroyed by Godzilla? In the prior article, I went over the legal standard for refugee status which is also the same for asylum. Asylum is a procedure that a person applies for within the U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry. If they were in Los Angeles and they found that Godzilla was attacking Japanese people because of their nationality with the aim to destroy them and the government of Japan was unable to stop him, they could apply for asylum. The individual applying for asylum has to do so within a year of his entry into the U.S. This should not be a problem for a tourist from Japan as their stay is usually limited to three months or less. However, if a Japanese Citizen was here on another temporary non immigrant visa like an H1B and had lived in the U.S. for two years on that visa and Godzilla began his rampage during the second year, he or she can apply for an exception to the one year requirement such as changed circumstances in the home country or them possessing a valid visa to stay in the U.S. prior to filing the asylum application.[1]

The person would have to file the asylum application with supplemental information to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration office having jurisdiction over their case. In Southern California, this would be the Anaheim Asylum office. Under new regulations under the Trump administration, the individual would be interviewed for the basis of their claim within a month of submission of the claim. During the interview, the officer at the asylum office would ask the person questions for several hours to determine if they meet the standards for asylum. If their case is approved, they are granted asylee status and can apply for Legal Permanent Residency (green card) after one year. If their case is denied by the asylum office, they are referred to Immigration Court for removal proceedings, where they may renew the request for asylum and appear before an Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge grants their case, he or she can again apply for permanent residency within a year. If the Judge denies their case, they can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) and if the Board denies it, to the Circuit Court within their jurisdiction.

In Immigration Court, the individual can also apply for other forms of relief that is related to asylum called Withholding of Removal and Withholding of Removal Under the Convention Against Torture.[2] Withholding of removal has fewer bars than asylum, but it has a higher standard. An applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon deportation to her home country. That persecution is “more likely than not” is a substantially higher burden of proof than showing a “well-founded fear” which is the standard of asylum as discussed in the previous article. The applicant can also apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture in Immigration Court. In order to qualify for this relief, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured upon deportation to his or her home country. The applicant is not required to show a nexus: unlike with asylum or withholding, the torture that the applicant fears does not need to be inflicted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The definition of torture includes both physical and mental pain and suffering such as beating, burns, electric shocks, suspension, suffocation, exposure to excessive light, sexual aggression, prolonged denial of food, hygiene, food and medical assistance, etc. The Convention’s definition of torture covers only acts “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”[3] Torture may be committed by a private actor so long as the government acquiesces to the actions. A public official’s awareness or knowledge of, or “willful blindness” toward, a private actor’s torture is sufficient to meet this requirement. Again, it would be easy to show that the Japanese Citizen would be subjected to conduct defined as torture by Godzilla with the government acquiescing to the torture because of them being overpowered by the indestructible King of Monsters. Being granted withholding of removal or withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture does not lead to Legal Permanent Residency and Citizenship but just temporary permission to stay in the U.S. and work authorization.

This is the procedure for someone physically in the U.S. who applies for asylum. What happens if a Japanese tourist is visiting Mexico and got stuck there during Godzilla’s rampage on Japan? That individual could come to a U.S. port of entry and request asylum. However, under the new Migrant Protection Protocols by the Trump administration, migrants are prevented from applying for asylum if they passed another country other than their own before arriving to the U.S.[4] That means that asylum seekers from any country but Mexico will now be ineligible for asylum if they show up at the southern border. The person would be forced to show that he or she applied for asylum in Mexico first and had their claim rejected there. The U.S. Courts have not had the same confidence in the ability of the Mexican government to protect citizens under its control as the Trump administration does. In Madrigal v. Holder, the court held that a former Mexican military member who was targeted by the drug cartels in Mexico could be eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 716 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2013). The court in Madrigal found that the government of Mexico was unable to curtail the violence there because of high levels of corruption at the local and state levels. Id. 506-507. The court stated, “Voluminous evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico remains a problem, particularly at the state and local levels of government, with police officers and prison guards frequently working directly on behalf of drug cartels” Id. at 510. The court again reaffirmed that the Mexican government’s ineptness in protected vulnerable individuals in Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015). Despite this, the Trump administration has deemed Mexico a safe third country. An interesting dilemma may also develop is if the kaiju, Rodan, began a rampage in Mexico as occurred in the recent movie King of the Monsters. In the movie it was very clear that Mexico was unable to contain Rodan.

If the person applied for asylum in Mexico and was rejected, they could present themselves at the U.S. port of entry and request asylum. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials would then conduct something called a credible fear interview.[5] Credible fear of persecution or torture means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.

If the credible fear is denied, the individual is ordered removed. The individual can ask for an Immigration Judge to review the process. If the Immigration Judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings. If the Immigration Judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the U.S. According to the new rules of the Trump administration, the individual seeking asylum must wait in Mexico until the conclusion of his removal proceedings and will only be allowed in to the U.S. if their asylum case is approved.

Usually when a major calamity like Godzilla’s destruction occurs in a country, and residents of that country are in the U.S., the government of the U.S. starts a program for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for them. TPS offers a temporary legal status to certain immigrants in the U.S. who cannot return to their country of origin due to ongoing armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary reasons. The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to decide when a country merits a TPS designation and they are usually granted for anywhere from 6 months to a year and a half at a time. Individuals are given work authorization during the pendency of their TPS status. However, the Trump administration has declined to designate TPS status to Bahamians after Hurricane Dorian, Venezuelans after major political instability in their country, and has set end dates for the TPS programs for El Salvador, Honduras, Sudan and Haiti so I would not put too much hope on this effort. It seems like the best option for Japanese nationals to have is to avoid seeking the wrath of Godzilla at any cost or make arrangements to go to Canada instead.

Nikhil Shah is an Immigration Attorney based in the Los Angeles area. His areas of specialty include asylum and refugee law and federal court litigation.

[1] INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 CFR §§ 208.4(a)(4) and 208.4(a)(5).

[2] INA § 241(b)(3); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); 8 CFR § 208.16(c)(2).

[3] 8 CFR § 208.18(a)(1).

[4] The U.S. already has a safe third country agreement with Canada since 2004.

[5] 8 CFR §§ 208.30, 235.3(b)(1)(4), 1208.30 and 1235.3(b)(1)(4).