Law Commons^™

Rwu Law Alumni Newsletter April 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

Why Are We Not Worth Saving? Latin American Immigrant Women's Experiences With Post-9/11 Crimmigration Policies And Asylum-Seeking In The United States, Kaye Romans

Undergraduate Honors Theses

This thesis discusses Crimmigration—the convergence of criminal policies and immigration law—in a post-9/11 world as it relates to Latin American Immigrant women seeking asylum in the United States. Utilizing case law, legislation, and legal scholarship, I situate these policies in the broader context of immigration law both nationally and internationally, focusing on key post-9/11 legislation and policies such as Operation Streamline, Operation Liberty Shield, and Title 42, as well as key post-9/11 case law dealing with Latin American women seeking asylum in the United States. With these foundational understandings, I provide possible solutions that would lessen the harms presented to …

¿Por Qué No Vale La Pena Salvarnos? Experiencias De Mujeres Inmigrantes Latinoamericanas Con Políticas De Inmigración Post-9/11 Y Solicitantes De Asilo En Los Estados Unidos, Kaye Romans

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Esta tesis aborda la Crimmigration—la convergencia de las políticas criminales y la ley de inmigración—en un mundo post-9/11 en lo que se refiere a las mujeres inmigrantes latinoamericanas que buscan asilo en los Estados Unidos. Utilizando la jurisprudencia, la legislación y la erudición legal, sitúo estas políticas en el contexto más amplio de la ley de inmigración tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, centrándome en la legislación y políticas claves posteriores al 9/11 tales como la Operation Streamline, la Operation Liberty Shield y el Title 42, así como la jurisprudencia clave posterior al 9/11 que trata con las mujeres latinoamericanas …

Abandoning The Subjective And Objective Components Of A Well-Founded Fear Of Persecution, Grace Kim

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Current asylum law requires that asylum seekers prove that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution.” However, a “well-founded fear”—the evidentiary standard in asylum cases—has remained ambiguous and difficult to apply in asylum cases. In Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court held that an asylum seeker can establish a well-founded fear with less than a 50% probability of future persecution. Although the Supreme Court sought to clarify the meaning of a well-founded fear, the decision has complicated the evidentiary standard by implying that it consists of two parts: the subjective component and objective component. The “subjective” component—the asylum seekers’ subjective fear …

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 04-2021, Michael M. Bowden, Barry Bridges, Political Roundtable

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Law School News: Professor Gonzalez Is 2020 Rhode Island Lawyer Of The Year 01/11/21, Barry Bridges, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Extraterritorial Rights In Border Enforcement, Fatma E. Marouf

Washington and Lee Law Review

Recent shifts in border enforcement policies raise pressing new questions about the extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights. Policies that keep asylum seekers in Mexico, expand the use of expedited removal, and encourage the cross-border use of force require courts to determine whether noncitizens who are physically outside the United States, or who are treated for legal purposes as being outside even if they have entered the country, can claim constitutional protections. This Article examines a small, but growing body of cases addressing these extraterritoriality issues in the border enforcement context, focusing on disparities in judicial analyses that have resulted in …

A Suspended Death Sentence: Habeas Review Of Expedited Removal Decisions, Lauren Schusterman

Michigan Law Review

Expedited removal allows low-level immigration officers to summarily order the deportation of certain noncitizens, frequently with little to no judicial oversight. Noncitizens with legitimate asylum claims should not find themselves in expedited removal. When picked up by immigration authorities, they should be referred for a credible fear interview and then for more thorough proceedings.

Although there is clear congressional intent that asylum seekers not be subjected to expedited removal, mounting evidence suggests that expedited removal fails to identify bona fide asylum seekers. Consequently, many of them are sent back to persecution. Such decisions have weighty consequences, but they have remained …

The Asylum Makeover: Chevron Deference, The Self-Referral And Review Authority, Jessica Senat

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flight Risk Or Danger To The Community? Rodriguez And The Protection Of Civil Liberties In The U.S. Immigration System, Charlie Kazemzadeh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For many who contest their deportation, their fate is civil incarceration until their case is adjudicated, which can take several years. The case of Jennings v. Rodriguez addresses the constitutionality of prolonged civil incarceration without the access of mandatory, periodic bond hearings for these individuals.

Applying The U.S. Constitution To Foreign Asylum Seekers: Exposing A Curious, Inconsistent Practice In The Federal Courts, Shalini Bhargava Ray

Marquette Law Review

Asylum law is based on an international treaty, but federal courts routinely invoke U.S. constitutional norms in adjudicating asylum claims. Specifically, they rely on constitutional norms when gauging whether an asylum applicant has suffered harm amounting to “persecution” and whether the harm was inflicted “on account of” a protected characteristic, such as political opinion or religion. In a close analysis of this unusual practice, this Article argues that federal courts have come to inconsistent, and often incompatible, conclusions regarding the use of constitutional norms in the analysis of asylum claims: principally, on whether constitutional norms establish sufficient, insufficient, necessary, or …

Immigration, Repatriation, Asylum - The President Can Order The Repatriation Of Haitian Aliens Picked Up In International Waters Without A Determination As To Their Status As Refugees. Sale V. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2549 (1993)., Austin E. Carter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Immigration - Asylum - Deportation - Standards To Be Met By Illegal Aliens Applying For Withholding Of Deportation And Political Asylum, Mendoza Perez V. Ins, 902 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1990), Theodosia Gavatides

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Asylum Discord: Disparities In Persecution Assessments, Scott Rempell

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Municipal And State Sanctuary Declarations: Innocuous Symbolism Or Improper Dictates?, Jorge L. Carro

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bah V. Mukasey, Sandrine Dehaeze

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Material Support To Terrorists Or Terrorist Organizations: Asylum Seekers Walking The Relief Tightrope , Craig R. Novak

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

The Sanctuary Movement: Above The Law Or Beyond It's Reach?, Dennis P. Riordan

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

The Indefinite Detention Of Excluded Aliens: Statutory And Constitutional Justifications And Limitations, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Note examines the statutory authority for the indefinite detention of excluded aliens. It concludes that although the INA does not explicitly authorize such detention, the statute's purposes and specific provisions imply that Congress intended to establish a statutory preference for the detention of excluded aliens. The Note then argues in Part II that indefinite detention is constitutionally permissible when it is necessary to vindicate the government's sovereign right to exclude aliens. The Note concludes, however, that the Constitution requires the government to make a continuing good faith effort to deport a detained, excluded alien.