Cam Edwards points to an immigration case regarding a young man from Guinea:

Malik Jarno, 18, has been held in detention since January 2001, when he was spotted entering the country at Washington Dulles International Airport with a fake passport. In August, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant his request for asylum.

At a hearing Monday before the Board of Immigration Appeals, experts said Jarno would be ostracized if he returned to Guinea, which they said has no services for the mentally disabled.

I think this is a good decision. I wish I could get my hands (see: “lazy to go through court records”) on the case itself and find out how the decision was framed. On account of the fraud alone it is almost an open and shut case.

I wonder if he tried the “extreme hardship” Hail Mary in the court. One thing that always induces a low, discreet chuckle in me is that attempt. Many people confuse it for extreme hardship on their part, but no: “section 349 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IRIRA) amended section 212(i) of the INA to require that an alien seeking to overcome a ground of inadmissibility must show that being denied admission will result in extreme hardship to his or her U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien spouse or parent.” (Matter of Cervantes)

The only other Hail Mary would be the Alien Child Protection and Deferred Enforced Departure Family Unity Act of 2003 [Jay is not sure if this has passed into law. --- Ed.] where illegals get a stay of removal if they have American-born US Citizen children below 18. Should a provision like this instigate changing the principle of jus soli? I think not. Kathy brought the matter up before, and I stand by my position that this is not reason enough.