Law Commons^™

Barriers Beyond The Border: Addressing The Economic And Racial Disparities Created By Cbp One, Ann-Renee Rubia

Refugee Law & Migration Studies Brief

CBP One is a mobile app that allows asylum seekers to schedule appointments for inspection before entering the United States ("U.S."). First, this paper will discuss the ethical issues posed by CBP One—specifically asylum seekers' unequal access to the app. Second, this paper will examine the equal protection implications posed by CBP One and the application of constitutional rights to noncitizens inside and outside the U.S. Next, it will address the ongoing litigation concerning the extension of constitutional rights to noncitizens arriving at the southern border. Lastly, it will discuss the incompatibility of CBP One with the Immigration and Nationality …

What Do We Do With You: How The United States Uses Racial-Gendered Immigrant Labor To Inform Its Immigrant Inclusion-Exclusion Cycle, Tori Delaney

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping Counsel: Challenging Immigration Detention Transfers As A Violation Of The Right To Retained Counsel, Natasha Phillips

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In 2019 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) incarcerated nearly 500,000 individuals. More than half of the individuals detained by ICE were transferred between detention facilities, and roughly thirty percent of those transferred were moved between federal circuit court jurisdictions. Detention transfers are isolating, bewildering, and scary for the detained noncitizen and their family. They can devastate the noncitizen’s legal defense by destroying an existing attorney-client relationship or the noncitizen’s ability to obtain representation. Transfers also obstruct the noncitizen’s ability to gather evidence and may prejudicially change governing case law. This Note describes the legal framework for transfers and their …

Renewing The Vagueness Challenge To Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Melissa London

Washington Law Review

Noncitizens who have been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) can be deported. However, the INA fails to provide a definition for “moral turpitude” or a list of crimes that necessarily involve “moral turpitude.” As a result, judges are given wide discretion to decide when a crime is morally reprehensible enough to render a noncitizen deportable. This moral determination in the CIMT analysis has led to disparate results among the lower courts, which deprives noncitizens of meaningful notice of what conduct could render them deportable. In 1951, the Supreme Court held …

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

Abdication Through Enforcement, Shalini Ray

Indiana Law Journal

Presidential abdication in immigration law has long been synonymous with the perceived nonenforcement of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama’s never-implemented policy of deferred action, known as DAPA, serves as the prime example in the literature. But can the President abdicate the duty of faithful execution in immigration law by enforcing the law, i.e., by deporting deportable noncitizens? This Article argues “yes.” Every leading theory of the presidency recognizes the President’s role as supervisor of the bureaucracy, an idea crystallized by several scholars. When the President fails to establish meaningful enforcement priorities, essentially making every deportable …

Toward A Race-Conscious Critique Of Mental Health-Related Exclusionary Immigration Laws, Monika Batra Kashyap

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article employs the emergent analytical framework of Dis/ability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) to offer a race-conscious critique of a set of immigration laws that have been left out of the story of race-based immigrant exclusion in the United States—namely, the laws that exclude immigrants based on mental health-related grounds. By centering the influence of the white supremacist, racist,and ableist ideologies of the eugenics movement in shaping mental health-related exclusionary immigration laws, this Article locates the roots of these restrictive laws in the desire to protect the purity and homogeneity of the white Anglo- Saxon race against the threat of …

Preventing Predatory Alienation By High-Control Groups: The Application Of Human Trafficking Laws To Groups Popularly Known As Cults, And Proposed Changes To Laws Regarding Federal Immigration, State Child Marriage, And Undue Influence, Robin Boyle Laisure

Faculty Publications

In this article, I summarize some of the significant legal developments in the United States that have taken place within the past year. First, United States v. Raniere was a criminal case launched against the founder of a purported self-help organization, NXIVM, and several of his associates. The Raniere case established precedent for using the human-trafficking statutes, among other grounds, to pursue justice for victims of high-demand groups. Second, the number of asylum seekers is increasing annually, and some of these undocumented immigrants are escaping from their countries-of-origin cults, gangs, and other extremist groups. However, once they arrive in the …

Asylum Ruling Halts Restrictions In New Rule, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Immutability: Competing Frameworks For Adjudicating Asylum Claims Based On Membership In A Particular Social Group, Talia Shiff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a refugee as any person who has a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” An emerging issue in U.S. asylum law is how to define the category “membership of a particular social group.” This question has become ever-more pressing in light of the fact that the majority of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are claiming persecution on account of their “membership in a particular social group.” The INA does not define the meaning of “particular social group” and …

Family In The Balance: Barton V. Barr And The Systematic Violation Of The Right To Family Life In U.S. Immigration Enforcement, David Baluarte

Scholarly Articles

The United States systematically violates the international human right to family life in its system of removal of noncitizens. Cancellation of removal provides a means for noncitizens to challenge their removal based on family ties in the United States, but Congress has placed draconian limits on the discretion of immigration courts to cancel removal where noncitizens have committed certain crimes. The recently issued U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barton v. Barr illustrates the troubling trend of affording less discretion for immigration courts to balance family life in removal decisions that involve underlying criminal conduct. At issue was the “stop-time rule” …

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’S Ban On Uninsured Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

New Homeland Security Asylum Rule Allows Removal To Central American Countries That Have Signed Agreements With The U.S., Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Proclamation Barring Uninsured Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legislating Morality: Moral Theory And Turpitudinous Crimes In Immigration Jurisprudence, Abel Rodríguez, Jennifer A. Bulcock

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Congress could have framed the country’s immigration policies in any number of ways. In significant part, it opted to frame them in moral terms. The crime involving moral turpitude is among the most pervasive and pernicious classifications in immigration law. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is virtually ubiquitous, appearing everywhere from the deportability and mandatory detention grounds to the inadmissibility and naturalization grounds. In effect, it acts as a gatekeeper for those who wish to enter and remain in the country, obtain lawful permanent residence, travel abroad after admission, or become United States citizens. With limited exceptions, noncitizens …

President Trump Bars Uninsured Immigrants From The U.S., Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Domestic Evolution: Amending The United States Refugee Definition Of The Ina To Include Environmentally Displaced Refugees, Barbara Mcisaac

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Administration's New Asylum Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Reinforces Mandatory Detention Of Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Travel Ban Decision, Administrative Law, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Ninth Circuit’S Asylum Ban Ruling Is A Message To Trump, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’S Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure And Agency Discretion, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Barring Asylum Claims: The President Versus The Statute, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

National Security, Immigration And The Muslim Bans, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

At Oral Argument, Supreme Court Weighs Immigrant Detention, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sky Is The Limit: Protecting Unaccompanied Minors By Not Subjecting Them To Numerical Limitations, Deborah S. Gonzalez Esq.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Unfit For The Constitution: Nativism And The Constitution, From The Founding Fathers To Donald Trump, Jared Goldstein

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Making America Safe Again: The Proper Interpretation Of [Section] 1101 (A)(43)(S) Of The Immigration And Nationality Act From Both A Chevron And A Public Policy Perspective, Jon Derenne

Cornell Law Review

The law must give our government every opportunity to protect Americans from the actions of criminal alien residents. This includes interpreting our existing statutes to provide the government with the broadest authority possible to deport resident aliens who violate our laws. As such, the optimal interpretation of the "relating to obstruction of justice" language within the INA is to implement the common sense textual interpretation applied by the Third Circuit, reading the statute broadly to encompass crimes that are listed in the obstruction of justice heading in the U.S. Code, as well as other logically related crimes.

The Travel Ban And Presidential Power, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sky Is The Limit: Protecting Unaccompanied Minors By Not Subjecting Them To Numerical Limitations, Deborah Gonzalez

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.