•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided a case on February 4, 2013 that has undoubted international implications. Toro v. Sec’y dealt with the language of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA) and the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

This article focuses on how and why the court reached its decision. It analyzes the conflict between the “plain language” of the CAA and its statutory construction to rebut the court’s assertion that the VAWA self-petition was irrelevant in this case, and ultimately, offer an alternative analysis to this case.

This article also explores Canadian immigration law and demonstrates the difference in that nation’s law, as applied to domestic violence survivors, from Unites States immigration law. Finally, this article discusses how this precedent will affect the future of immigration law and its effect on natives of other countries.