Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- File Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies In Immigration Cases: Finding Jurisdiction To Review Unexhausted Claims The Board Of Immigration Appeals Considers Sua Sponte On The Merits, Larry R. Fleurantin
Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies In Immigration Cases: Finding Jurisdiction To Review Unexhausted Claims The Board Of Immigration Appeals Considers Sua Sponte On The Merits, Larry R. Fleurantin
Larry R. Fleurantin
In order for an appellate court to review an agency action, the action must be final and all administrative remedies must be exhausted. With regard to the exhaustion requirement, the author examines how the majority of circuits have held that federal circuit courts have jurisdiction to review immigration claims considered sua sponte by the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the Eleventh Circuit seems to be the one outlier finding no jurisdiction, and the author believes the holding in Amaya-Artunduaga v. United States Attorney General to be incorrect and recommends it be overruled
Immigrant Workers And The Thirteenth Amendment, Maria Ontiveros
Immigrant Workers And The Thirteenth Amendment, Maria Ontiveros
Maria L. Ontiveros
This chapter examines the treatment of immigrant workers through the lens of the Thirteenth Amendment. It examines how the intersection of labor and immigration laws impact immigrant workers in general, "guest workers" and undocumented immigrants. It argues that immigrant workers can be seen as a caste of nonwhite workers laboring beneath the floor for free labor in ways which violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Further, it suggests ways in which immigrant workers can use the Thirteenth Amendment to improve their situation and offers an analysis of how the Thirteenth Amendment can form a bridge for organizing between labor, civil rights, immigration …
Fitting The Formula For Judicial Review: The Law-Fact Distinction In Immigration Law, Rebecca Sharpless
Fitting The Formula For Judicial Review: The Law-Fact Distinction In Immigration Law, Rebecca Sharpless
Rebecca Sharpless
The ill-defined law-fact distinction often stands as the gatekeeper to judicial review of an agency deportation order, restricting non-citizens facing deportation to raising only questions of law when appearing before an appellate court. The restriction on review most affects cases whose dispositions typically turn on the resolution of factual issues, including claims under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and claims for discretionary relief from deportation like cancellation of removal. Convention Against Torture claims, for example, often involve extensive fact-finding on the part of the immigration judge regarding conditions in the applicant’s home country and the applicant’s personal circumstances. …