A consular officer issued a visa to an alien, without executing the application under oath as required by statute. Nevertheless, the officer exacted him a discretionary fee — to get a "new seed" immigrant and Americanize him. The alien who had a valid employment contract with a foreign government resigned and immigrated. The alien was provided with neither public assistance nor unemployment compensation and became homeless indefinitely. The question presented is:

1. Whether the government intentional interference with an alien's valid employment contract that results in the alien's indefinite homelessness is a taking. In other words, whether an alien's valid employment contract with a foreign government is a protected property interest.

Homeless individuals have the right to be represented by their own choice of counsel at the government expense for a denial of public benefit. The question presented is:

2. Whether a homeless individual is entitled to an assignment of counsel and injunctive reliefs to institute a taking claim for his appropriated employment contract.

Whether the government's intentional interference with an alien's valid employment contract that results in the alien's indefinite homelessness is a taking