Law Commons^™

Montes-Lopez V. Holder: Applying Eldridge To Ensure A Per Se Right To Counsel For Indigent Immigrants In Removal Proceedings, Soulmaz Taghavi

Soulmaz Taghavi

Part I of this Comment reviews the historical and current state of procedural due process and its role in Immigration Law, specifically removal proceedings. Part II extends certain legal arguments in the opinion of Montes-Lopez v. Holder, which held among divided federal Circuit Courts that an immigrant in removal proceedings has a statutory and constitutional right to appointed counsel. Last, Part III demonstrates how a non-citizen in deportation hearing has a per se right to counsel outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and brought to life by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

"Passed Beyond Our Aid:" U.S. Deportation, Integrity, And The Rule Of Law, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

The United States is still in the midst of a massive deportation experiment that is exceptionally sweeping and harsh by virtually any historical or comparative measure. In the last twenty-five years, the number of non-citizen deportations has exceeded 25 million. It is therefore important to think critically about how deportation is really working, especially as to many hundreds of thousands of green-card holders. These individuals have grown up, been fully acculturated, attended school, and raised families in the United States. Upon deportation, they are separated from their families and sent to places where they frequently have few acquaintances, do not …

The Right To Deportation Counsel In Padilla V. Kentucky: The Challenging Construction Of The Fifth-And-A-Half Amendment, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

The U.S. Supreme Court’s pathbreaking decision in Padilla v. Kentucky seems reasonably simple and exact: Sixth Amendment norms were applied to noncitizen Jose Padilla’s claim that his criminal defense counsel was ineffective due to allegedly incorrect advice concerning the risk of deportation. This was a very significant move with virtues of both logic and justice. It will likely prevent many avoidable and wrongful deportations. It may also help some deportees who have been wrongly or unjustly deported in the past. However, the apparent exactness of the case, as a Sixth Amendment decision, raises fundamental constitutional questions. For more than a …

Padilla V. Kentucky And The Evolving Right To Deportation Counsel: Watershed Or Work-In-Progress?, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

Though widely heralded by immigration and human rights lawyers as a “landmark,” possible “watershed,” and even “Gideon decision” for immigrants, Padilla v. Kentucky is perhaps better understood as a Rorschach test, than as a clear constitutional precedent. It is surely a very interesting and important U.S. Supreme Court case in the (rapidly converging) fields of immigration and criminal law in which the Court struggles with the functional relationship between ostensibly “civil” deportation proceedings and criminal convictions. This is a gratifying development, for reasons not only of justice, fairness, proportionality, and basic human decency, but also (perhaps) of doctrinal consistency. The …

The Revitalization Of The Common-Law Civil Writ Of Audita Querela As A Post-Conviction Remedy In Criminal Cases: The Immigration Context And Beyond, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins