Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Immigration (3)
- Adjudication (2)
- Asylum (2)
- BIA (1)
- Bias (1)
-
- Board of Immigration Appeals (1)
- Book review (1)
- Credibility (1)
- Deportation (1)
- Driver’s license (1)
- EOIR (1)
- Executive Office for Immigration Review (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration control (1)
- Immigration law (1)
- Issues (1)
- Legislative (1)
- Mental health (1)
- Mental illness (1)
- Mental state (1)
- Mentally ill (1)
- National security (1)
- Noncitizens (1)
- Particularly serious crime (1)
- Policies (1)
- Post 9/11 (1)
- Prejudice (1)
- Refugees (1)
- Restrictive laws (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Believable Victims: Asylum Credibility And The Struggle For Objectivity, Michael Kagan
Believable Victims: Asylum Credibility And The Struggle For Objectivity, Michael Kagan
Scholarly Works
Asylum adjudication is often the invisible frontline in the struggle by oppressed groups to gain recognition for their plights. Through this process, individual people must tell their stories and try to show that they are genuine victims of persecution rather than simply illegal immigrants attempting to slip through the system. In 2002, because the world had not yet acknowledged the nature of the calamity from which they were escaping, many Darfurian asylum cases would have relied on the ability of each individual to convince government offices to believe their stories. They would have had to be deemed “credible,” or they …
Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf
Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf
Scholarly Works
In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of G-G-S- that a noncitizen’s mental health status at the time of an offense is irrelevant to determining whether the offense is a “particularly serious crime” for immigration purposes. Since a “particularly serious crime” is a bar to asylum and withholding of removal, it can result in a noncitizen’s deportation to a country where he or she faces a serious risk of persecution. In deciding that immigration judges “are constrained by how mental health issues were addressed as part of the criminal proceedings,” the BIA failed to recognize the …
Implicit Bias And Immigration Courts, Fatma Marouf
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, …
Aliens In Our Midst Post-9/11: Legislating Outsider-Ness Within The Borders, Sylvia R. Lazos, Raquel E. Aldana
Aliens In Our Midst Post-9/11: Legislating Outsider-Ness Within The Borders, Sylvia R. Lazos, Raquel E. Aldana
Scholarly Works
Three recent books written by Professors Bill Ong Hing, Kevin R. Johnson, and Victor C. Romero provide skillfully crafted roadmaps with which to understand the key emerging issues that will shape immigration law well into the next decade: the relationship of immigration control to national security. This Review captures the insights provided by these three authors to examine the restrictive laws and policies aimed at noncitizens in the name of national security as highlighted by the current efforts to federalize driver’s licenses. As this Review explains, these three books map the current antagonistic attitudes towards noncitizens post 9/11, and serve …