• IMMIGRATION

Kucana Vs. Holder, Attorney general

Immigration - Reopening of removal proceedings - Interpretation of statute - Interpretation of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B - Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, asserting new evidence in support of his plea for asylum - Immigration Judge denied motion and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained ruling - Appellate Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the administrative determination, holding that §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review not only of administrative decisions made discretionary by statute, but also of those made discretionary by regulation.

Held: Section 1252(a)(2)(B)'s proscription of judicial review applies only to Attorney General determinations made discretionary by statute, not to determinations declared discretionary by the Attorney General himself through regulation. Any lingering doubt about §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)'s proper interpretation would be dispelled by a familiar statutory construction principle: the presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action. When a statute is "reasonably susceptible to divergent interpretation," this Court adopts the reading "that executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review."

• CRIMINAL

Eric Presley Vs. Georgia

Criminal - Conviction for cocaine trafficking offence - Right of accused - Right to public trial - Trial Court denied Petitioner public trial claiming safety of jurors - Petitioner-accused challenged conviction claiming violation of his constitutional rights as he was denied his right to public trial by trial court - Whether Trial Court right in denying public trial to Petitioner?

Held, while the accused does have a right to insist that the voir dire of the jurors be public, there are exceptions to this general rule. "The right to an open trial may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial or the government's interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information. There are no doubt circumstances where a judge could conclude that threats of improper communications with jurors or safety concerns are concrete enough to warrant closing voir dire. But in those cases, the particular interest, and threat to that interest, must "be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered. Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials. Nothing in the record shows that the trial court could not have accommodated the public at Presley's trial.

"Press-Enterprise I, supra, at 510; see also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside, 478 U. S. 1, 15 (1986) ("The First Amendment right of access cannot be overcome by the conclusory assertion that publicity might deprive the defendant of [the right to a fair trial]").

Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials. Nothing in the record shows that the trial court could not have accommodated the public at Presley's trial.