Law Commons^™

The Impact Of Insulating Immigration Courts From Judicial Review On America’S New Generation Of Families, Christian Sanchez Leon

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Note could be read as another Note addressing Congress’s power to strip jurisdiction from Article III courts. Yet, when this power is exercised in the immigration context, its impact extends far beyond the realm of checks and balances. Instead, this Note is about the insulation of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and its unfettered ability to create, interpret, and adjudicate its own laws. Not allowing courts to review BIA decisions leaves mixed-status families vulnerable to the harsh consequences of inherently arbitrary decisions made by executive officers.

These practices go against the established common law principles of family unity. …

The Immigrant Struggle For Effective Counsel: An Empirical Assessment, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either.

One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. …

The 'Impractical And Anomalous' Consequences Of Territorial Inequity, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Located in the South Pacific Ocean, American Samoa is one of five populated “unincorporated territories” of the United States. It is unique, though, as those born there are not recognized as American citizens at birth and instead are deemed “noncitizen U.S. nationals.” They enjoy some, but not all, constitutional protections. Two federal appellate courts—the D.C. Circuit (in 2015) and the Tenth Circuit (in 2021)—have ruled that this classification does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Both courts have stated that it would be “impractical” and “anomalous” to extend birthright citizenship to the American Samoan community.

Drawing upon a powerful …

Facts Versus Discretion: The Debate Over Immigration Adjudication, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her first majority-led immigration opinion in Patel v. Garland (2022). As background, some immigrants looking to avoid deportation may apply for what is called “discretionary relief’ (e.g., asylum or adjustment of status) initially in an immigration court and then, if they lose, at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These immigration forums fall under the Department of Justice. Prior to Patel, immigrants who lost at the BIA could then ask a federal circuit court to review the factual findings of their case. Now, after Justice Barrett’s decision, Article III review is no longer available …

Judicial Deference Of The Board Of Immigration Appeals’ Regulatory Interpretations In Light Of Kisor V. Wilkie, Melissa Fullmer

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Deportation And Depravity: Does Failure To Register As A Sex Offender Involve Moral Turpitude?, Rosa Nielsen

Washington and Lee Law Review

Under U.S. immigration law, non-citizens are subject to deportation following certain criminal convictions. One deportation category is for “crimes involving moral turpitude,” or CIMTs. This category usually refers to crimes that involve fraud or actions seen as particularly depraved. For example, tax evasion and spousal abuse are CIMTs, but simple assault generally is not. For a crime to qualify as a CIMT, it must include depraved conduct and some level of intent.

The CIMT framework has been criticized for a variety of reasons. Not only is it defined ambiguously with outdated language, but the moral values it enshrines can sometimes …

Judicial Power—Immigration-Style, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Throughout this current global pandemic, but of course, even before, former President Trump advocated enacting restrictive immigration measures. Under his tenure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumed enhanced judicial authority and issued decisions that often adversely affected noncitizens. However, in June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down one of the DHS's most well-known initiatives, which sought to end the 'DACA' program. The Court held that the agency could not do so arbitrarily and had to comply with the requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.

Yet, there have been other areas where the DHS, particularly through its …

The Fractured Colossus: An Evaluation Of Gender-Based Asylum Claims For The 2020s, Karlo Goronja

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note analyzes asylum law’s lack of explicit protection for individuals who suffer persecution based on their gender, and the reluctance of immigration courts to grant asylum for claims centered on the applicant’s gender. This Note explores opportunities for relief from removal for gender-based asylum claims under the current framework, namely under the particular social group category of United States immigration law. After analysis under current law, this Note proposes a judicial resolution explicitly recognizing particular social groups such as “women from [country].” Next, a statutory of regulatory amendment is suggested that unequivocally allows for asylum claims on the basis …

Unfinished Business: How “Split Authority” Over U.S. Asylum Adjudications Highlights The Need To Relocate The Immigration Court System To The Department Of Homeland Security, Kirsten Bickelman

Legislation and Policy Brief

No abstract provided.

Why Guidance From The Supreme Court Is Required In Redefining The Particular Social Group Definition In Refugee Law, Liliya Paraketsova

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

One of the most debated topics in refugee law has been the meaning of particular social group (PSG)—one of the five categories used to claim refugee status. In 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted a narrower PSG definition. Since that adoption, a circuit split has persisted over the meaning of PSG. Two circuits in particular have continually refused to adopt this definition—even when the BIA attempted to revise the definition in response to their criticism. This Note proposes a reform that would include a compromise between the two current definitions of PSG by rejecting the BIA’s particularity requirement …

Finality Of A Conviction: A Noncitizen's Right To Procedural Due Process, Daniela Mondragon

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Examining The Board Of Immigration Appeals' Social Visibility Requirement For Victims Of Gang Violence Seeking Asylum, Elyse B. Wilkinson

Maine Law Review

Since the late 1990s, Latin America has been plagued by gang violence. The increasingly organized and progressively larger gangs are known as the Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and the 18th Street Gang (collectively referred to as the “Mara” in this Comment). These gangs are ubiquitous within certain Latin American countries and pose a serious threat to the economic and social stability of the region. The targets of the Mara are mostly youth between the ages of fifteen and eighteen (but as young as eight), women, and those who decry the gang's violence. Resistance to the Mara has resulted in death …

Ms-13 As A Terrorist Organization: Risks For Central American Asylum Seekers, Jillian Blake

Michigan Law Review Online

In its first year, the Trump Administration has used aggressive rhetoric in a crusade against the transnational gang MS‑13. In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called MS‑13 “one of the most violent gangs in the history of our country” and said that the gang “could qualify” as a terrorist organization. Since then, the administration has put its fight against MS‑13 at the front and center of its agenda. In a speech this summer, President Donald Trump called MS‑13 gang members “animals” and vowed to “dismantle, decimate and eradicate” their operations. The president has also used the threat posed by MS‑13 …

Theorizing The Immigrant Child: The Case Of Married Minors, Medha D. Makhlouf

Faculty Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Proposing A One-Year Time Bar For 8 U.S.C. § 1226(C), Jenna Neumann

Michigan Law Review

Section 1226(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires federal detention of certain deportable noncitizens when those noncitizens leave criminal custody. This section applies only to noncitizens with a criminal record (“criminal noncitizens”). Under section 1226(c), the Attorney General must detain for the entire course of his or her removal proceedings any noncitizen who has committed a qualifying offense “when the alien is released” from criminal custody. Courts construe this phrase in vastly different ways when determining whether a criminal noncitizen will be detained. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Fourth Circuit read “when …

Finality And Judicial Review Under The Immigration And Nationality Act: A Jurisprudential Review And Proposal For Reform, Jesi J. Carlson, Patrick J. Glen, Kohsei Ugumori

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), aliens may petition for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) as long as that decision constitutes a “final order of removal.” Usually it is not difficult to ascertain when an alien should file her petition: the thirty-day statutory filing deadline begins to run when the Board issues a decision that affirms the immigration judge’s removal order in its entirety. In some cases, however, an alien seeks multiple forms of relief from removal in a single proceeding. When that occurs, some forms of relief might be granted, …

To Loose The Bonds: The Deceptive Promise Of Freedom From Pretrial Immigration Detention, Denise L. Gilman

Indiana Law Journal

Each year, the United States government detains more than 60,000 migrants who are eligible for release during immigration court proceedings that will determine their right to stay in the United States. Detention or release should be adjudicated through a custody determination process focused on the question of whether a mi-grant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Yet, because the process skips the critical inquiry into the need for detention before setting monetary bond require-ments for release that are difficult to fulfill, freedom remains elusive.

The custody determination process is a cornerstone in the U.S. immigration de-tention edifice …

An Administrative Stopgap For Migrants From The Northern Triangle, Collin Schueler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

From 2011–2014, the United States Department of Homeland Security recorded an extraordinary increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the southern border from Central America’s “Northern Triangle”—the area made up of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In fact, in fiscal year 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection apprehended over 50,000 unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle. That is thirteen times more than just three years earlier. This Article examines the intersecting humanitarian and legal crises facing these children and offers an administrative solution to the problem. The children are fleeing a genuine humanitarian crisis—a region overrun by …

Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not remove a long-term lawful permanent resident from the United States based on a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The decision clarified the meaning of an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removal, an important question under the U.S. immigration laws. In the removal proceedings, Adrian Moncrieffe, a black immigrant from Jamaica, did not challenge his arrest and drug conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not review the facts surrounding, or the lawfulness of, the criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the traffic …

"Following-To-Join" The Fifth And Ninth Circuits: Why The Supreme Court In Scialabba V. Cuellar De Osorio Erred In Interpreting The Child Status Protection Act, Justin Youngs

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Extradition - Denial Of Asylum - Withholding Deportation - Different Tactics Used By The Attorney General To Deliver Provisional Irish Republican Army Members To The British: Doherty V. United States, 908 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1990), William Roebuck

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Board Of Immigration Appeals' Social Visibility Doctrine In The Context Of Human Trafficking, Kathleen M. Mallon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

United States asylum law provides individuals who have been persecuted in their country of origin with residency in the United States. Membership in a “particular social group” (PSG) confers refugee status on individuals applying for asylum in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) initially defined a PSG as a group composed of members who all share an immutable characteristic, that is, an unchangeable characteristic or one so fundamental to an individual’s identity that they should not be required to change it. This test functioned well for over a decade; however, the BIA added an additional requirement to …

An Insurmountable Obstacle: Denying Deference To The Bia’S Social Visibility Requirement, Kathleen Kersh

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In the last fifteen years, the Board of Immigration Appeals has imposed a requirement that persons seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must establish that the social group is “socially visible” throughout society. This Comment argues that the social visibility requirement should be denied administrative deference on several grounds. The requirement should be denied Chevron deference because Congress’s intent behind the Refugee Act of 1980 is clear and unambiguous and, alternatively, the requirement is an impermissible interpretation of the statute. The requirement is also arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. This Comment argues that …

Discretionary (In)Justice: The Exercise Of Discretion In Claims For Asylum, Kate Aschenbrenner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that asylum may be granted to an applicant who meets the definition of a refugee-that is, someone who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in her own country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief which means that the United States government is not required to grant asylum to every refugee within the United States but instead may decide whether or not to do so. This Article sets out in Part …

Judulang V. Holder And The Future Of 212(C) Relief, Patrick J. Glen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Judulang v. Holder, a case addressing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ use of the comparable grounds approach for determining eligibility for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court held that this approach was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and remanded for the agency to determine a new way for determining the eligibility of deportable aliens for 212(c) relief. The purpose of this article is to place the Court’s decision in its proper historical context and to chart the …

One Time Too Many: In Re Briones And The Bia's Rigid Interpretation Of The Life Act And Its Dire Consequences For Undocumented Reentry, Lauren Gonzalez

San Diego International Law Journal

This Casenote will discuss both the origins of the LIFE Act and its early potential, and then focus attention on the BIA decision itself in Briones and its impact on immigration courts and U.S. courts of appeals. In Part II, this Casenote will give a brief overview of the LIFE Act and its creation. Parts III and IV will discuss the issues presented in Briones, the facts of the case, and the BIA?s decision. In Part V, the Casenote will then analyze the decision in Briones as it conflicts with previous case law from multiple circuit courts of appeal and …

Implicit Bias And Immigration Courts, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

This Article highlights the importance of implicit bias in immigration adjudication. After tracing the evolution of prejudice in our immigration laws from explicit "old-fashioned" prejudice to more subtle forms of "modem" and "aversive" prejudice, the Article argues that the specific conditions under which immigration judges decide cases render them especially prone to the influence of implicit bias. Specifically, it examines how factors such as immigration judges' lack of independence, limited opportunity for deliberate thinking, low motivation, and the low risk of judicial review all allow implicit bias to drive decisionmaking. The Article then recommends certain reforms, both simple and complex, …

The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf

San Diego International Law Journal

The piece examines the treatment of the Fourth Amendment in immigration courts by surveying its jurisprudential history in those courts and then analyzes the judicial responses thereto. Disparities among circuit court rulings add to the confusion and unpredictability typical of Immigration Court decisions. Finally, the article discusses the difficulties raised by the divergent circuit court opinions and offers suggestions as to how we may resolve these difficulties in accordance with the Constitution's requirement of fair play.

The Ninth Circuit: No Place For Drug Offenders, Bill Ong Hing

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Matter Of S-E-G-: The Final Nail In The Coffin For Gang-Related Asylum Claims?, Lindsay M. Harris, Morgan M. Weibel

Journal Articles

In July 2008, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)1 affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum to three young Salvadoran siblings fleeing gang violence and threats. This decision affects the likelihood that other youth and their family members fleeing gang violence will gain protection in the United States. The reach of the BIA decision in Matter of S-E-G-2 stretches far beyond the facts of the actual case or gang cases in general and may shape the future of asylum based on membership in a particular social group. The BIA published Matter of S-E-G- as one of only 36 precedent …