Jones I. Mr. Akele Jones, whose family’s seed business is a client of the firm’s, has come to the office to ask you for legal advice about a racetrack that has been opened next door to his place. After he told you his story, you did some preliminary research regarding the racetrack and the upstate NY auto racing scene in general. The relevant facts for Jones’ case are as follows: Jones lives in an unincorporated area of small farms in rural, upstate New York. The new local racetrack, Bubba Raceway Park, is built for short track racing, with a half-mile asphalt oval and a third of a mile dirt one. It hosts races for stock cars, open wheels, sprints, dirt-track motorcycles and modifieds (stock cars modified for dirt tracks). Races are held in the evenings, but engine warm-up and pit runs start much earlier. Jones’ residence is located on a quarter section of his property that runs right along part of the northern section line of the Raceway property. Although the house itself is nearly a quarter mile from the shared property line, the vehicles nevertheless cause a large amount of dirt plus tire or rubber debris to fall on lawn/garden and outdoor patio area as they move along the dirt track. It covers the lawn and vegetation, the outside surfaces, cars and outdoor furniture. The cars and the crowds are also extremely noisy, and exhaust fumes waft into his yard. Because of the early warm-up times during weekends, Jones is unable to sleep past 8 a.m., which he views as a particularly annoying inconvenience. Jones’ is also concerned that the value of his residence, which can be sold separately from the rest of the farming sections, will be reduced because of the track. This was confirmed recently when he had a real estate agent give him an estimate of the residence’s worth. She gave a figure that was a full $50,000 less than the appraisal he had received from a different agent a year before the track opened. Jones has checked with local government officials, who say the racetrack is complying with all current local regulations. The country does not have zoning regulations that would apply in unincorporated areas, and there is no county decibel level ordinance and no state or county air pollution regulations that are applicable. The racing events held at the track are extremely popular in the local community, where entertainment venues are few and far between. It also employs about 250 people, which is a sizable number in the sparsely populated county. The owners invested around $300,000 to open it and expect to make around $80,000 profit per year through entrance fees, competitor fees, and sales of food and souvenirs. Jones did some research and talked to experts who indicated that if the racetrack required all drivers to add heavy duty mufflers, special tires and exhaust emission control devices to their cars, it would lessen the noise, dirt and fumes. Jones asked the racetrack owners if they would do that. They said they are not running at a ...

1. Jones
I. Mr. Akele Jones, whose family’s seed business is a client of
the firm’s, has come to the office to ask you for legal advice
about a racetrack that has been opened next door to his place.
After he told you his story, you did some preliminary research
regarding the racetrack and the upstate NY auto racing scene in
general. The relevant facts for Jones’ case are as follows:
Jones lives in an unincorporated area of small farms in rural,
upstate New York. The new local racetrack, Bubba Raceway
Park, is built for short track racing, with a half-mile asphalt
oval and a third of a mile dirt one. It hosts races for stock cars,
open wheels, sprints, dirt-track motorcycles and modifieds
(stock cars modified for dirt tracks). Races are held in the
evenings, but engine warm-up and pit runs start much earlier.
Jones’ residence is located on a quarter section of his property
that runs right along part of the northern section line of the
Raceway property. Although the house itself is nearly a quarter
mile from the shared property line, the vehicles nevertheless
cause a large amount of dirt plus tire or rubber debris to fall on
lawn/garden and outdoor patio area as they move along the dirt
track. It covers the lawn and vegetation, the outside surfaces,
cars and outdoor furniture. The cars and the crowds are also
extremely noisy, and exhaust fumes waft into his yard. Because
of the early warm-up times during weekends, Jones is unable to
sleep past 8 a.m., which he views as a particularly annoying
inconvenience. Jones’ is also concerned that the value of his
residence, which can be sold separately from the rest of the
farming sections, will be reduced because of the track. This was
confirmed recently when he had a real estate agent give him an
estimate of the residence’s worth. She gave a figure that was a
full $50,000 less than the appraisal he had received from a
different agent a year before the track opened.
Jones has checked with local government officials, who say the
racetrack is complying with all current local regulations. The

2. country does not have zoning regulations that would apply in
unincorporated areas, and there is no county decibel level
ordinance and no state or county air pollution regulations that
are applicable.
The racing events held at the track are extremely popular in the
local community, where entertainment venues are few and far
between. It also employs about 250 people, which is a sizable
number in the sparsely populated county. The owners invested
around $300,000 to open it and expect to make around $80,000
profit per year through entrance fees, competitor fees, and sales
of food and souvenirs.
Jones did some research and talked to experts who indicated
that if the racetrack required all drivers to add heavy duty
mufflers, special tires and exhaust emission control devices to
their cars, it would lessen the noise, dirt and fumes. Jones asked
the racetrack owners if they would do that. They said they are
not running at a profit and do not want to discourage drivers,
car owners or fans, and said no. Jones has asked the other
landowners whose properties are close to the racetrack to join
him in bringing a suit against the racetrack, but most of them do
not have their residences near to a property line shared with the
track, and so far no one has taken him up on the idea.
We need to explore whether Jones could bring a viable claim
against the racetrack; his chances of success on such a claim, if
any; and what judicial relief he could expect, if any.
1
Sims
2. At our meeting this afternoon, Ms. Melinda Sims and I
reviewed the information she provided me the morning of June
25 when we met at the Yolo County Jail. She also provided me
with some additional facts. Ms. Sims (Client) is a 42-year-old,
white female who resides at 596 El Dorado Drive, Woodland,
CA. On the evening of June 24, Client went to a concert with
three friends. Client drove her 2004 Jeep Wrangler to see a Neil
Diamond concert at the Arco Arena, a venue in Sacramento, at

3. approximately 8:00 pm. Client consumed two beers during the
concert. After the concert finished, Client and her party went to
a nearby bar, The Pelican, where Client had one glass of wine.
At approximately 11:00 pm, Client left the bar and drove home
via Interstate 5.
After taking the Main St. exit off Interstate 5, Client was
stopped by a Yolo County police officer and asked for her
driver’s license and vehicle registration. She complied and then
was asked to step out of her car and perform several tasks to
determine if she was intoxicated. Client again complied and
proceeded to recite the alphabet while standing on one leg. She
then, upon request, paced a straight line. When she turned to
walk back, the officer drew his gun and shouted: “Put your
hands up!” The officer then approached Client and demanded
she place her hands behind her head and lie face down on the
road. Once Client had done so, the officer patted Client down
and removed from her left jacket pocket a pair of barber
scissors. After being read her rights, Client was taken into
custody at the Yolo County Jail. Client was charged with
possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under California Penal
Code Section 12020.
Client was found not to be legally intoxicated. Her blood
alcohol level was .03, well below the legal limit of .08. No
charges related to driving under the influence were filed.
After her arrest, before counsel was retained, client provided
the police with a statement about why she was carrying the
barber scissors. Though copies of the police record have not yet
arrived at the office, Client asserts that she told the police that
she carried the scissors for protection from a belligerent ex-
boyfriend. She carried them in her left jacket pocket. The
scissors, which Client believes were about 8 inches long from
end to end, would have protruded from Client’s jacket pocket by
at least two inches.
Client has been released on her recognizance and is awaiting
trial. Please evaluate our client’s case, considering the
following materials.

4. 2
Mr. Jimuake Obiako
To: Judicial Law Clerk
From: Hon. Roberta Smith, E.D. MO Date: X X, 2010 Re:
Obiako v. Rodriguez, No. 5:08-CV-2677 CAS
I am hearing oral arguments on summary judgment motions in
this case next week. The issue is one of first impression in the
8th Circuit. Please read the attached materials and the facts as I
have given them below (from the pleadings and the parties’
memoranda). I’d like to go pertinent questions and possible
rulings as soon as possible. Limit research to the materials
attached. Overall, I want to know what the 9th and 3rd Circuits
hold, and which has the better argument. Also, what deference
do we need to give to the USCIS?
In October 2008, an American freelance journalist named
Elizabeth Vargass was in Pinerolo, Italy to cover the annual
Maschera di Ferro festival. This is a festival recreating the
legend of the man in the iron mask, Maschera di Ferro, a
mysterious prisoner held in Pinrolo for 11 years without
showing anyone his face. The highlight of the festival is the
unmasking of the actor who plays Maschera di Ferro. This year
the actor was Jimuake Obiako, a Nigerian national who is a
prominent actor and Afrobeat jazz musician. Jimuake was born
in 1977 in Enugu, Nigeria. Elizabeth interviewed him, and they
hit it off. Shortly thereafter they became romantically involved,
and Jimuake proposed marriage to Elizabeth a few weeks later.
Elizabeth returned to St. Louis, her home in the United States,
and Jimuake soon followed. He was admitted to the U.S. as a
fiancé of a U.S. citizen on a K-1 visa on January 3, 2009.
Jimuake found work almost immediately with the St. Louis

5. Opera Theatre. On February 14, 2009, he and Elizabeth were
married at the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica. In March 2009,
Elizabeth filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative,
seeking to have Jimuake reclassified as eligible to apply for an
immigrant visa as an “immediate relative” with the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Jimuake filed a Form
I-485 on the same day, seeking adjustment of his status to that
of a lawful permanent resident, relying on Elizabeth’s petition
attesting to his status as her spouse. The I-30 petition and I-485
application were received and accepted for processing on April
4, 2009.
In July 2009, Elizabeth received a special assignment in Kirkuk,
Iraq. On August 10, 2009, while she was travelling by
helicopter to a remote area, Elizabeth died immediately when
the helicopter crashed.
On September 19, 2009, Mr. Obiako’s Form I-485 rejected. The
USCIS also terminated Elizabeth’s Form I-130, which was still
under adjudication. The USCIS district director stated that,
under 8 U.S.C. § 1151, an alienspouse is no longer eligible for
immigration benefits as an “immediate relative” when the
marriage did not last for two years. The I-485 petition was
terminated because its approval depended on the I-130 petition.
Mr. Obiako appealed to this court. The government argues for
the Department of Homeland Security that the marriage
terminated upon Mrs. Vargass-Obiako’s death, so that Jimuake
was no longer a spouse.
Mr. Obiako has not remarried since. I am not eager to challenge
the USCIS & DHS interpretation of the statutes they administer,
but I’m a bit disturbed by the facts. It seems like a “double
whammy” to lose a spouse and have die with her your
opportunity to adjust your status to a lawful permanent resident
and remain in the country.
3
Adil
4. Mrs. Mahnoor Adil is a 28-year-old woman who wants to

6. resume attending the Miami-Dade County Community College.
She is of Pakistani descent, a citizen of the United States, and a
life-long resident of Florida. She is also a sincere follower of
Islam.
She, her husband and their extended family members regularly
pray at the Islamic Center of Miami. She dresses modestly in
public and wears the Islamic headscarf or “hijab.” She has worn
the hijab since her later primary school years. She believes it is
an outward sign of her religion that identifies her as a sincere
Muslim woman. Although the Islamic Center of Miami does not
specifically require that the hijab be worn, Mahnoor believes it
is customary for adult Muslim women. She personally believes
obedience to God and the Qur’an requires that she wear a hijab.
All the adult women in her family wear it as well. The hijab
generally covers a woman’s head, hair and neck but not the
face.
The senior Imam of the Islamic Center of Miami, Muhammad
Nur Abdul, says in an affidavit that God states in the Qur’an
that “believing women should . . . guard their modesty.” He
says God also states in the Qur’an that women should “draw
their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except
to their husbands, their fathers” and certain other adult men.
The Imam also states, “the vast majority of Muslim scholars and
jurists have determined that the minimum requirements for
women’s dress [are] clothing [that] cover[s] the entire body,
with the exception of the face and the hands.” He also says the
custom of wearing the hijab varies among Muslim faith
communities. The hijab is not required of women who attend
prayer and other activities at the Islamic Center of Miami;
however, it is customary, and most of the women do wear the
hijab.
Mrs. Adil lives within walking distance of the Miami-Dade
County Community College. Her primary and secondary
education was at a private school affiliated with the Islamic
Center. She has decided to resume her education after a 15-year
break; she plans to become a nurse. She was accepted at the

7. nursing program of Miami-Dade County Community College
only a few weeks before the fall semester began. During the
first two days of the week-long orientation, Mrs. Adil wore her
normal attire, including the hijab.
On the third day, Mr. Menendez, the College Dean of Student
Affairs, requested that she come to his office. She did, and at
this visit, Dean Menendez told her that she could not wear the
hijab while on campus because it was prohibited by Section
10(b) of the college procedures. Embarrassed, Mrs. Adil went
home immediately.
The complete text of Section 10(b) of the Miami-Dade County
Community College Procedures follows: Headgear and Head
Covering
No student or College employee may wear headgear or head
covering of any type when on campus or inside college
buildings during times in which classes are held. The Dean of
Student Affairs may grant permission to wear headgear or head
covering when appropriate in his or her discretion.
January 2002.
Mrs. Adil returned to Dean Menendez office the next day with
her husband, and they told him she wore the hijab because of
her religion, Islam. They asked if he could make an exception to
the rule and allow
4
her to wear it while she was at the college. Mr. Menendez
refused to make an exception but said he would take the matter
to the Faculty/Student Council on Student Life. Mrs. Adil
stayed home, missing most of the orientation.
On Friday of the following week, Dean Menendez called her and
said the Council met, discussed her request for an exception to
Section 10(b) as a Muslim woman wearing the hijab, and voted
against granting it. He said the Council discussion and votes
were confidential. Mrs. Adil appealed within the college
grievance procedures.
She has a written denial of an exception signed by the College
President, Dr. Learned Hand. It states the full text of the rule,

8. Section 10(b), and says: “An exception to Section 10(b) of the
College Rules & Procedures for a student to wear a headscarf
for religious reasons on campus and in class is denied. Granting
such an exception runs counter to the Miami-Dade County
Community College’s policy of uniformly enforcing its Rules &
Procedures.”
Mrs. Adil is not taking classes anywhere presently. She
normally only drives in emergencies, and other nursing
programs are located too far from her home for her to walk and
be available for the needs of her primary school age children. In
addition, the Miami-Dade Community College has the most
affordable nursing program of any in the area.
Before January 2002, the applicable provision of the college
procedures simply said: “No hats in campus buildings.” Office
of Student Affairs senior staff discussed changing this language
at a rules and procedures review meeting held at the end of the
fall 2001 semester. They substituted the words, “headgear or
head covering” for hats but and did not limit the prohibition to
times in which classes are held. In response, Dean Menendez
changed the draft to the present wording of Section 10(b),
extending it to employees, adding the time limitation, and
providing he could make exceptions. He first gave it to the
senior OSA staff to review, proposed it to the Faculty/Student
Council on Student Life, and then the Vice- President. In
January of 2002, Section 10(b) was approved, along with other
rule and procedure changes in the College rule & Procedures, by
the President and the Board.
When he explained the reasons for the rule change at a meeting
of College noneducational staff members, Dean Menendez said
the OAS staff meeting happened shortly after “the events of
September 11, 2001.” He also said he and the OSA senior staff
thought 9/11 “might increase the likelihood of problems about
this on campus.” According to Dean Menendez’s deposition,
one reason for the change was “to avoid cultural or religious
tension.” He said a desire to protect “students wearing turbans,
skull caps or Islamic head scarves” from “harassment” was

9. discussed among the senior OSA staff initially and at other
meetings presenting the draft. In addition, Dean Menendez said
he and the senior staff hoped the new Section 10(b) would help
to prevent students from wearing gang identifying rags or
bandannas. Other reasons for Section 10(b) given by Dean
Menendez were: 1) to prevent weapons (primarily knives) from
coming onto the college campus and buildings; 2) to identify
students more easily; and 3) to abide by customary etiquette,
which requires men to remove their hats indoors.
The College is in a largely Christian, Roman Catholic, area of
the state. Dean Menendez said he thought most of the students
and staff were Roman Catholic and nearly all had some
Christian background or orientation. Both the college student
body and the county are racially mixed. The county is 67.7%
Hispanic, 16.1% Black, 13.6% White, 1.55% Asian, and 0.6%
Two+ residents.
5
There is no evidence of systematic, selective enforcement of
Section 10(b) against religious or Muslim head covering or
headscarves. Dean Menendez said he enforces it routinely,
against all headgear, “pretty much.” He does not allow baseball
caps -- “really not anything.” He thinks the uniform and prompt
enforcement since 2002 has kept the rule from being
controversial. He does make exceptions routinely for hats,
headgear and head scarves needed for College plays, special
athletic events, dress practices of the marching band, special
occasions -- “[s]tuff like that.” He could only recall one other
exception, for a student who wore a cast covering part of his
head and neck for several weeks following an auto accident.
Dean Menendez said there was no other Muslim girl student at
the college, apart from Mrs. Adil. He has not had a request to
wear religious head coverings before. However, he began
working at the college in the fall of 2000, and an affidavit from
a former student, Mrs. Clara Lynn, states that in 1998, a Jewish
boy visiting for a semester was allowed to wear a yarmulke.
The College has 15,000 students. It has had 176 recorded

10. instances of weapons (knives) entering the College since the fall
of 2000. A person in the College’s neighborhood is 2.5 times
more likely to be a victim of violent crime than those in the
surrounding suburban areas. Dean Menendez said there was also
staff concern that some rags and bandanas could have gang
significance.
The College had no reason to suspect Mrs. Adil of bringing in
weapons, and she and her parents say she has “no record of
public misbehavior or violent behavior.” All entrances to
College buildings have metal detectors that can detect metal
weapons hidden in clothes, bags, hats or headscarves. Dean
Menendez said state law banned guns on campus, and the
college has posted “No guns allowed on campus” signs. He
noted that guns and other weapons, like knives, could be
brought on campus nevertheless, in bags or backpacks. These
are commonly put over or around the detectors to a friend to get
through the detectors faster. Weapons that enter that way could
then be put in headgear and brought to class.
However, Dean Menendez admitted the College does not have
staff posted at detectors to ensure backpacks and bags do go
through or to search them if they do not. The campus is not
enclosed by fencing. The College does not require identification
badges or use an electronic means to indicate who on campus
has a reason to be there. Dean Menendez admitted identification
was not a reason for the regulation mentioned either at the
initial OAS senior staff meetings, or later presentations and
meetings. Mrs. Adil’s face is not covered, and she believes she
stands out because of her headscarf.
Dean Menendez said he did not think the practices of women
wearing hats in church or Jewish men wearing a yarmulke
indoors were considered bad etiquette in the community. Mrs.
Adil wants to return to the College nursing program as soon as
possible and be allowed to wear the hijab while on campus. She
seeks our firm's advice and assistance.
6

11. Jones
I. Mr. Akele Jones, whose family’s seed business is a client of
the firm’s, has come to the office to ask you for legal advice
about a racetrack that has been opened next door to his place.
After he told you his story, you did some preliminary research
regarding the racetrack and the upstate NY auto racing scene in
general. The relevant facts for Jones’ case are as follows:
Jones lives in an unincorporated area of small farms in rural,
upstate New York. The new local racetrack, Bubba Raceway
Park, is built for short track racing, with a half-mile asphalt
oval and a third of a mile dirt one. It hosts races for stock cars,
open wheels, sprints, dirt-track motorcycles and modifieds
(stock cars modified for dirt tracks). Races are held in the
evenings, but engine warm-up and pit runs start much earlier.
Jones’ residence is located on a quarter section of his property
that runs right along part of the northern section line of the
Raceway property. Although the house itself is nearly a quarter
mile from the shared property line, the vehicles nevertheless
cause a large amount of dirt plus tire or rubber debris to fall on
lawn/garden and outdoor patio area as they move along the dirt
track. It covers the lawn and vegetation, the outside surfaces,
cars and outdoor furniture. The cars and the crowds are also
extremely noisy, and exhaust fumes waft into his yard. Because
of the early warm-up times during weekends, Jones is unable to
sleep past 8 a.m., which he views as a particularly annoying
inconvenience. Jones’ is also concerned that the value of his
residence, which can be sold separately from the rest of the
farming sections, will be reduced because of the track. This was
confirmed recently when he had a real estate agent give him an
estimate of the residence’s worth. She gave a figure that was a
full $50,000 less than the appraisal he had received from a
different agent a year before the track opened.
Jones has checked with local government officials, who say the
racetrack is complying with all current local regulations. The
country does not have zoning regulations that would apply in

12. unincorporated areas, and there is no county decibel level
ordinance and no state or county air pollution regulations that
are applicable.
The racing events held at the track are extremely popular in the
local community, where entertainment venues are few and far
between. It also employs about 250 people, which is a sizable
number in the sparsely populated county. The owners invested
around $300,000 to open it and expect to make around $80,000
profit per year through entrance fees, competitor fees, and sales
of food and souvenirs.
Jones did some research and talked to experts who indicated
that if the racetrack required all drivers to add heavy duty
mufflers, special tires and exhaust emission control devices to
their cars, it would lessen the noise, dirt and fumes. Jones asked
the racetrack owners if they would do that. They said they are
not running at a profit and do not want to discourage drivers,
car owners or fans, and said no. Jones has asked the other
landowners whose properties are close to the racetrack to join
him in bringing a suit against the racetrack, but most of them do
not have their residences near to a property line shared with the
track, and so far no one has taken him up on the idea.
We need to explore whether Jones could bring a viable claim
against the racetrack; his chances of success on such a claim, if
any; and what judicial relief he could expect, if any.
1
Sims
2. At our meeting this afternoon, Ms. Melinda Sims and I
reviewed the information she provided me the morning of June
25 when we met at the Yolo County Jail. She also provided me
with some additional facts. Ms. Sims (Client) is a 42-year-old,
white female who resides at 596 El Dorado Drive, Woodland,
CA. On the evening of June 24, Client went to a concert with
three friends. Client drove her 2004 Jeep Wrangler to see a Neil
Diamond concert at the Arco Arena, a venue in Sacramento, at
approximately 8:00 pm. Client consumed two beers during the

13. concert. After the concert finished, Client and her party went to
a nearby bar, The Pelican, where Client had one glass of wine.
At approximately 11:00 pm, Client left the bar and drove home
via Interstate 5.
After taking the Main St. exit off Interstate 5, Client was
stopped by a Yolo County police officer and asked for her
driver’s license and vehicle registration. She complied and then
was asked to step out of her car and perform several tasks to
determine if she was intoxicated. Client again complied and
proceeded to recite the alphabet while standing on one leg. She
then, upon request, paced a straight line. When she turned to
walk back, the officer drew his gun and shouted: “Put your
hands up!” The officer then approached Client and demanded
she place her hands behind her head and lie face down on the
road. Once Client had done so, the officer patted Client down
and removed from her left jacket pocket a pair of barber
scissors. After being read her rights, Client was taken into
custody at the Yolo County Jail. Client was charged with
possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under California Penal
Code Section 12020.
Client was found not to be legally intoxicated. Her blood
alcohol level was .03, well below the legal limit of .08. No
charges related to driving under the influence were filed.
After her arrest, before counsel was retained, client provided
the police with a statement about why she was carrying the
barber scissors. Though copies of the police record have not yet
arrived at the office, Client asserts that she told the police that
she carried the scissors for protection from a belligerent ex-
boyfriend. She carried them in her left jacket pocket. The
scissors, which Client believes were about 8 inches long from
end to end, would have protruded from Client’s jacket pocket by
at least two inches.
Client has been released on her recognizance and is awaiting
trial. Please evaluate our client’s case, considering the
following materials.
2

14. Mr. Jimuake Obiako
To: Judicial Law Clerk
From: Hon. Roberta Smith, E.D. MO Date: X X, 2010 Re:
Obiako v. Rodriguez, No. 5:08-CV-2677 CAS
I am hearing oral arguments on summary judgment motions in
this case next week. The issue is one of first impression in the
8th Circuit. Please read the attached materials and the facts as I
have given them below (from the pleadings and the parties’
memoranda). I’d like to go pertinent questions and possible
rulings as soon as possible. Limit research to the materials
attached. Overall, I want to know what the 9th and 3rd Circuits
hold, and which has the better argument. Also, what deference
do we need to give to the USCIS?
In October 2008, an American freelance journalist named
Elizabeth Vargass was in Pinerolo, Italy to cover the annual
Maschera di Ferro festival. This is a festival recreating the
legend of the man in the iron mask, Maschera di Ferro, a
mysterious prisoner held in Pinrolo for 11 years without
showing anyone his face. The highlight of the festival is the
unmasking of the actor who plays Maschera di Ferro. This year
the actor was Jimuake Obiako, a Nigerian national who is a
prominent actor and Afrobeat jazz musician. Jimuake was born
in 1977 in Enugu, Nigeria. Elizabeth interviewed him, and they
hit it off. Shortly thereafter they became romantically involved,
and Jimuake proposed marriage to Elizabeth a few weeks later.
Elizabeth returned to St. Louis, her home in the United States,
and Jimuake soon followed. He was admitted to the U.S. as a
fiancé of a U.S. citizen on a K-1 visa on January 3, 2009.
Jimuake found work almost immediately with the St. Louis
Opera Theatre. On February 14, 2009, he and Elizabeth were

15. married at the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica. In March 2009,
Elizabeth filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative,
seeking to have Jimuake reclassified as eligible to apply for an
immigrant visa as an “immediate relative” with the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Jimuake filed a Form
I-485 on the same day, seeking adjustment of his status to that
of a lawful permanent resident, relying on Elizabeth’s petition
attesting to his status as her spouse. The I-30 petition and I-485
application were received and accepted for processing on April
4, 2009.
In July 2009, Elizabeth received a special assignment in Kirkuk,
Iraq. On August 10, 2009, while she was travelling by
helicopter to a remote area, Elizabeth died immediately when
the helicopter crashed.
On September 19, 2009, Mr. Obiako’s Form I-485 rejected. The
USCIS also terminated Elizabeth’s Form I-130, which was still
under adjudication. The USCIS district director stated that,
under 8 U.S.C. § 1151, an alienspouse is no longer eligible for
immigration benefits as an “immediate relative” when the
marriage did not last for two years. The I-485 petition was
terminated because its approval depended on the I-130 petition.
Mr. Obiako appealed to this court. The government argues for
the Department of Homeland Security that the marriage
terminated upon Mrs. Vargass-Obiako’s death, so that Jimuake
was no longer a spouse.
Mr. Obiako has not remarried since. I am not eager to challenge
the USCIS & DHS interpretation of the statutes they administer,
but I’m a bit disturbed by the facts. It seems like a “double
whammy” to lose a spouse and have die with her your
opportunity to adjust your status to a lawful permanent resident
and remain in the country.
3
Adil
4. Mrs. Mahnoor Adil is a 28-year-old woman who wants to
resume attending the Miami-Dade County Community College.

16. She is of Pakistani descent, a citizen of the United States, and a
life-long resident of Florida. She is also a sincere follower of
Islam.
She, her husband and their extended family members regularly
pray at the Islamic Center of Miami. She dresses modestly in
public and wears the Islamic headscarf or “hijab.” She has worn
the hijab since her later primary school years. She believes it is
an outward sign of her religion that identifies her as a sincere
Muslim woman. Although the Islamic Center of Miami does not
specifically require that the hijab be worn, Mahnoor believes it
is customary for adult Muslim women. She personally believes
obedience to God and the Qur’an requires that she wear a hijab.
All the adult women in her family wear it as well. The hijab
generally covers a woman’s head, hair and neck but not the
face.
The senior Imam of the Islamic Center of Miami, Muhammad
Nur Abdul, says in an affidavit that God states in the Qur’an
that “believing women should . . . guard their modesty.” He
says God also states in the Qur’an that women should “draw
their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except
to their husbands, their fathers” and certain other adult men.
The Imam also states, “the vast majority of Muslim scholars and
jurists have determined that the minimum requirements for
women’s dress [are] clothing [that] cover[s] the entire body,
with the exception of the face and the hands.” He also says the
custom of wearing the hijab varies among Muslim faith
communities. The hijab is not required of women who attend
prayer and other activities at the Islamic Center of Miami;
however, it is customary, and most of the women do wear the
hijab.
Mrs. Adil lives within walking distance of the Miami-Dade
County Community College. Her primary and secondary
education was at a private school affiliated with the Islamic
Center. She has decided to resume her education after a 15-year
break; she plans to become a nurse. She was accepted at the
nursing program of Miami-Dade County Community College

17. only a few weeks before the fall semester began. During the
first two days of the week-long orientation, Mrs. Adil wore her
normal attire, including the hijab.
On the third day, Mr. Menendez, the College Dean of Student
Affairs, requested that she come to his office. She did, and at
this visit, Dean Menendez told her that she could not wear the
hijab while on campus because it was prohibited by Section
10(b) of the college procedures. Embarrassed, Mrs. Adil went
home immediately.
The complete text of Section 10(b) of the Miami-Dade County
Community College Procedures follows: Headgear and Head
Covering
No student or College employee may wear headgear or head
covering of any type when on campus or inside college
buildings during times in which classes are held. The Dean of
Student Affairs may grant permission to wear headgear or head
covering when appropriate in his or her discretion.
January 2002.
Mrs. Adil returned to Dean Menendez office the next day with
her husband, and they told him she wore the hijab because of
her religion, Islam. They asked if he could make an exception to
the rule and allow
4
her to wear it while she was at the college. Mr. Menendez
refused to make an exception but said he would take the matter
to the Faculty/Student Council on Student Life. Mrs. Adil
stayed home, missing most of the orientation.
On Friday of the following week, Dean Menendez called her and
said the Council met, discussed her request for an exception to
Section 10(b) as a Muslim woman wearing the hijab, and voted
against granting it. He said the Council discussion and votes
were confidential. Mrs. Adil appealed within the college
grievance procedures.
She has a written denial of an exception signed by the College
President, Dr. Learned Hand. It states the full text of the rule,
Section 10(b), and says: “An exception to Section 10(b) of the

18. College Rules & Procedures for a student to wear a headscarf
for religious reasons on campus and in class is denied. Granting
such an exception runs counter to the Miami-Dade County
Community College’s policy of uniformly enforcing its Rules &
Procedures.”
Mrs. Adil is not taking classes anywhere presently. She
normally only drives in emergencies, and other nursing
programs are located too far from her home for her to walk and
be available for the needs of her primary school age children. In
addition, the Miami-Dade Community College has the most
affordable nursing program of any in the area.
Before January 2002, the applicable provision of the college
procedures simply said: “No hats in campus buildings.” Office
of Student Affairs senior staff discussed changing this language
at a rules and procedures review meeting held at the end of the
fall 2001 semester. They substituted the words, “headgear or
head covering” for hats but and did not limit the prohibition to
times in which classes are held. In response, Dean Menendez
changed the draft to the present wording of Section 10(b),
extending it to employees, adding the time limitation, and
providing he could make exceptions. He first gave it to the
senior OSA staff to review, proposed it to the Faculty/Student
Council on Student Life, and then the Vice- President. In
January of 2002, Section 10(b) was approved, along with other
rule and procedure changes in the College rule & Procedures, by
the President and the Board.
When he explained the reasons for the rule change at a meeting
of College noneducational staff members, Dean Menendez said
the OAS staff meeting happened shortly after “the events of
September 11, 2001.” He also said he and the OSA senior staff
thought 9/11 “might increase the likelihood of problems about
this on campus.” According to Dean Menendez’s deposition,
one reason for the change was “to avoid cultural or religious
tension.” He said a desire to protect “students wearing turbans,
skull caps or Islamic head scarves” from “harassment” was
discussed among the senior OSA staff initially and at other

19. meetings presenting the draft. In addition, Dean Menendez said
he and the senior staff hoped the new Section 10(b) would help
to prevent students from wearing gang identifying rags or
bandannas. Other reasons for Section 10(b) given by Dean
Menendez were: 1) to prevent weapons (primarily knives) from
coming onto the college campus and buildings; 2) to identify
students more easily; and 3) to abide by customary etiquette,
which requires men to remove their hats indoors.
The College is in a largely Christian, Roman Catholic, area of
the state. Dean Menendez said he thought most of the students
and staff were Roman Catholic and nearly all had some
Christian background or orientation. Both the college student
body and the county are racially mixed. The county is 67.7%
Hispanic, 16.1% Black, 13.6% White, 1.55% Asian, and 0.6%
Two+ residents.
5
There is no evidence of systematic, selective enforcement of
Section 10(b) against religious or Muslim head covering or
headscarves. Dean Menendez said he enforces it routinely,
against all headgear, “pretty much.” He does not allow baseball
caps -- “really not anything.” He thinks the uniform and prompt
enforcement since 2002 has kept the rule from being
controversial. He does make exceptions routinely for hats,
headgear and head scarves needed for College plays, special
athletic events, dress practices of the marching band, special
occasions -- “[s]tuff like that.” He could only recall one other
exception, for a student who wore a cast covering part of his
head and neck for several weeks following an auto accident.
Dean Menendez said there was no other Muslim girl student at
the college, apart from Mrs. Adil. He has not had a request to
wear religious head coverings before. However, he began
working at the college in the fall of 2000, and an affidavit from
a former student, Mrs. Clara Lynn, states that in 1998, a Jewish
boy visiting for a semester was allowed to wear a yarmulke.
The College has 15,000 students. It has had 176 recorded
instances of weapons (knives) entering the College since the fall

20. of 2000. A person in the College’s neighborhood is 2.5 times
more likely to be a victim of violent crime than those in the
surrounding suburban areas. Dean Menendez said there was also
staff concern that some rags and bandanas could have gang
significance.
The College had no reason to suspect Mrs. Adil of bringing in
weapons, and she and her parents say she has “no record of
public misbehavior or violent behavior.” All entrances to
College buildings have metal detectors that can detect metal
weapons hidden in clothes, bags, hats or headscarves. Dean
Menendez said state law banned guns on campus, and the
college has posted “No guns allowed on campus” signs. He
noted that guns and other weapons, like knives, could be
brought on campus nevertheless, in bags or backpacks. These
are commonly put over or around the detectors to a friend to get
through the detectors faster. Weapons that enter that way could
then be put in headgear and brought to class.
However, Dean Menendez admitted the College does not have
staff posted at detectors to ensure backpacks and bags do go
through or to search them if they do not. The campus is not
enclosed by fencing. The College does not require identification
badges or use an electronic means to indicate who on campus
has a reason to be there. Dean Menendez admitted identification
was not a reason for the regulation mentioned either at the
initial OAS senior staff meetings, or later presentations and
meetings. Mrs. Adil’s face is not covered, and she believes she
stands out because of her headscarf.
Dean Menendez said he did not think the practices of women
wearing hats in church or Jewish men wearing a yarmulke
indoors were considered bad etiquette in the community. Mrs.
Adil wants to return to the College nursing program as soon as
possible and be allowed to wear the hijab while on campus. She
seeks our firm's advice and assistance.
6