An Unexceptional Aspect Of President Obama's Immigration Executive Actions, Jill Family
Jan 2015
An Unexceptional Aspect Of President Obama's Immigration Executive Actions, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
Discussing Obama's recent immigration executive actions and the Obama administration's exercises of executive power.
Easing The Guidance Document Dilemma Agency By Agency: Immigration Law And Not Really Binding Rules, Jill Family
Dec 2012
Easing The Guidance Document Dilemma Agency By Agency: Immigration Law And Not Really Binding Rules, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
Immigration law relies on rules that bind effectively, but not legally, to adjudicate millions of applications for immigration benefits every year. This article provides a blueprint for immigration law to improve its use of these practically binding rules, often called guidance documents. The agency that adjudicates immigration benefit applications, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), should develop and adopt its own Good Guidance Practices to govern how it uses guidance documents. This article recommends both a mechanism for reform, the Good Guidance Practices, and tackles many complex issues that USCIS will need to address in creating its practices. The …
Opinion Analysis: Deferring To (Even More) Limited Relief From Removal, Jill Family
May 2012
Opinion Analysis: Deferring To (Even More) Limited Relief From Removal, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
In a unanimous decision on Monday, the Court held that the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasonably construed a statute to forbid the imputation of a parent’s U.S. residency and immigration status to a child to compute the child’s eligibility for relief from removal (deportation). The Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Holder v. Gutierrez, consolidated with Holder v. Sawyers.
Argument Recap: Imputing Eligibility For Relief From Removal, Jill Family
Jan 2012
Argument Recap: Imputing Eligibility For Relief From Removal, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
At oral argument on January 18, the Court questioned the attorneys in Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers about calculating relief from removal. At issue in these consolidated cases is whether a parent’s immigration status and residency in the United States may be imputed to a minor child to calculate eligibility for relief from removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) said no; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said yes.
Argument Preview: Calculating Relief From Removal, Jill Family
Jan 2012
Argument Preview: Calculating Relief From Removal, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers call into question the BIA’s decision to forbid the imputation of a parent’s immigration status and residency in the United States to a minor child for the purpose of calculating eligibility for relief from removal. Scratching that simple surface reveals a complex history of imputation and relief from removal.
Administrative Law Through The Lens Of Immigration Law, Jill Family
Dec 2011
Administrative Law Through The Lens Of Immigration Law, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
Immigration law does lag behind in the advancement of public law, but not in all respects. While immigration law is idiosyncratic in many ways, this article finds immigration law in the administrative law mainstream when it comes to its troubles with nonlegislative rules (sometimes called guidance documents). There are concerns throughout administrative law that agencies use such rules to bind regulated parties practically, even if not legally, without the procedural protections of notice and comment.
This article analyzes immigration troubles with nonlegislative rules and makes three main contributions. First, it casts new light on the negative effects of guidance documents …
Conflicting Signals: Understanding Us Immigration Reform Through The Evolution Of Us Immigration Law, Jill Family
Dec 2009
Conflicting Signals: Understanding Us Immigration Reform Through The Evolution Of Us Immigration Law, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
This essay, published in the Revista catalana de dret public (Catalan Journal of Public Law), highlights the conflicting signals sent throughout the history of US immigration law. One consistent feature of the development of US immigration law is that it has exhibited signs of welcome and of tight control. Understanding this conflicted narrative helps to explain modern debates about immigration reform in the United States. The conflicting signals are evident in debates about the effectiveness of the system designed to select immigrants (including its enforcement features) and in debates over the future of the immigration adjudication system. Opposing views in …
Stripping Judicial Review During Immigration Reform: The Certificate Of Reviewability, Jill E. Family
Dec 2007
Stripping Judicial Review During Immigration Reform: The Certificate Of Reviewability, Jill E. Family
Jill E. Family
Congress contemplated a drastic change during the 2005-2006 immigration reform debate that sought to narrow access to the federal courts: a proposed certificate of reviewability requirement. The requirement would compel foreign nationals subject to an administrative removal order to obtain permission from a single federal court of appeals judge to access the federal courts. The U.S. House of Representatives endorsed the requirement but the U.S. Senate dropped it from its slate of immigration reform priorities. Why did the requirement disappear from the Senate's agenda during an era of increased congressional restrictions on judicial review of immigration cases?
A definitive answer …
Another Limit On Federal Court Jurisdiction? Immigrant Access To Class-Wide Injunctive Relief, Jill Family
Dec 2004
Another Limit On Federal Court Jurisdiction? Immigrant Access To Class-Wide Injunctive Relief, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
This article examines a statute that may embody another limit on the power of the federal courts. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) implemented sweeping changes that substantially restrict federal court review of administrative immigration decisions. One provision implemented as a part of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), appears, at least at first glance, to prohibit courts from issuing class-wide injunctive relief in immigration cases. Such a restriction would be significant because federal courts have issued class-wide injunctions in the past to stop unconstitutional immigration practices and policies of the federal government. The Supreme Court …
