Law Commons^™

Achieving The Dream: Extending Immigration Reform To Administrative Case Closure, Tory E. Smith

San Diego Law Review

This Comment compares DACA to administrative case closure and argues that Congress or the President should grant employment authorization to individuals whose cases have been administratively closed. Part I describes the current interpretation of the employment authorization regulation and provides the background of administrative case closure. Part I highlights the disparate treatment that the regulation affords to undocumented immigrants facing deferred action and administrative closure—offering employment authorization to only deferred action recipients. Part II examines the history of deferred action in immigration cases and uses DACA as a framework to show how the scope of the employment authorization regulation should …

Raising The Standard: Judulang V. Holder Condemns The Use Of Arbitrary And Capricious Policies When Determining Eligibility For The Section 212(C) Waiver, Adjoa Anim-Appiah

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Plight Of Bi-National Same-Sex Couples In America, Michael Rivers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are There Still Collateral Consequences In New York After Padilla?, John H. Wilson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is When?: 8 U.S.C. § 1226(C) And The Requirements Of Mandatory Detention, Gerard Savaresse

Fordham Law Review

Over the past several decades, immigration law has come to resemble criminal law in a number of ways. Most significantly, the current statutory regime allows the U.S. Attorney General (AG) to detain noncitizens during their removal proceedings. Ordinarily, the AG may detain noncitizens subject to removal so long as the AG provides an individualized bond hearing to assess whether the noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), however, the AG must detain and hold without bond any noncitizen who has committed qualifying offenses “when the alien is released” from criminal …

“Branded To Drive: Obstacle Preemption Of North Carolina Driver’S Licenses For Daca Grantees”, Tung Sing Wong Mr.

Tung Sing Wong Mr.

The article focuses on whether driver’s licenses that North Carolina recently issued to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) grantees are obstacle preempted. DACA grantees do not have legal status, but are protected from removal. North Carolina issued new driver’s licenses that publicize the immigration status of DACA grantees. The issue is whether a state can publish the immigration status of individuals who do not have legal status in the U.S., but are nonetheless protected from removal. Additionally, the article explores how the interaction of the North Carolina licenses with 287(g), Secured Communities, and recent state law such as Arizona's …

Gender Plus One: Broadening Judicial Interpretation Of Gender-Based Social Group Formulations, Andrea Coutu

Seventh Circuit Review

Individuals seeking asylum must prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of five protected grounds, one ground being membership in a particular social group. In Matter of Acosta, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a social group as a group of persons who share an immutable characteristic, meaning a characteristic that is either unchangeable or fundamental to one's identity or conscience such that the person should not be required to change. Despite listing sex as an immutable characteristic in Acosta, courts are reluctant to accept social group formulations based on gender alone. …

The Legitimacy Of Crimmigration Law, Juliet P. Stumpf

Juliet P Stumpf

Crimmigration law—the intersection of immigration and criminal law—with its emphasis on immigration enforcement, has been hailed as the lynchpin for successful political compromise on immigration reform. Yet crimmigration law’s unprecedented approach to interior immigration and criminal law enforcement threatens to undermine public belief in the fairness of immigration law. This Article uses pioneering social science research to explore people’s perceptions of the legitimacy of crimmigration law. According to Tom Tyler and other compliance scholars, perceptions about procedural justice—whether people perceive authorities as acting fairly—are often more important than a favorable outcome such as winning the case or avoiding arrest. Legal …

It's Time For An Immigration Jury, Daniel I. Morales

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

From Citizenship To Custody: Unwed Fathers Abroad And At Home, Albertina Antognini

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The sex-based distinctions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) have been remarkably resilient in the face of numerous equal protection challenges. In Miller v. Albright, Nguyen v. INS, and most recently United States v. Flores-Villar — collectively the "citizenship transmission cases" — the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the INA’s provisions that require unwed fathers, but not unwed mothers, to take a series of affirmative steps in order to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad.

The conventional account of these citizenship transmission cases is that the Court upholds sex-based distinctions that would otherwise fail …

Policy On Immigration From The Southwest And Resulting Border Control Security Implications, Amber Gottfried, Arpit Bawa, Russel Goff, Austin Grelle, Marielynn Herrera

Student Papers in Public Policy

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) forced the United States to examine its immigration policies and how they relate to the national security of the nation. In the months following these events, Congress expanded the nation’s ability to collect data and share information on suspected terrorists through the passage of several laws focused on detaining and deportation of immigrants (Rosenblum, 2011). Although the intention of the enactment of these policies was to protect the nation from further terrorist attacks, they have created unforeseen impacts on populations identified as immigrants into the United States.

Educating The Underground: The Constitutionality Of Non-Residence Based Immigrant In-State Tuition Laws, Alexander F.A. Rabanal

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Recent political discourse on undocumented immigration has triggered questions regarding the extent to which the individual states are preempted from making undocumented immigrants eligible for certain state benefits. In-state tuition, in particular, has become a site of contentious debate. This Note examines whether states may, consistent with federal law and federal preemption principles, make undocumented students eligible to matriculate at public universities at the in-state rate. Part I of this Note provides historical background on the development of the federal exclusivity principle in matters of immigration law. Part II examines the federal laws against which immigrant in-state tuition laws are …

Business As Usual: Immigration And The National Security Exception, Shoba S. Wadhia

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

Javaid Iqbal is a native and citizen of Pakistan and a Muslim. After moving to the United States, Iqbal worked as a cable television installer on Long Island. Iqbal was one among hundreds of men apprehended and detained by the United States Department of Justice in the weeks that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks. Iqbal was held in a federal prison in Brooklyn, New York called the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), for more than one year. In January 2002, Iqbal was transferred to the maximum security section of the jail known as the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (ADMAX …

The Role Of Prosecutorial Discretion In Immigration Law, Shoba S. Wadhia

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

The concept of "prosecutorial discretion" appears in the immigration statute, agency memoranda and court decisions about select immigration enforcement decisions. Prosecutorial discretion extends to decisions about which offenses or populations to target; whom to stop, interrogate, and arrest; whether to detain or release a noncitizen; whether to initiate removal proceedings; and whether to execute a removal order; among other decisions. Similar to the criminal context, prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context is an important tool for achieving cost-effective law enforcement and relief for individuals who present desirable qualities or humanitarian circumstances. Yet there is a dearth of literature on the …

Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring 2013; The Error In Finding That Undocumented Persons Are Not “The People”: A Deeper Look At The Implications Of United States V. Portillo-Munoz, Dorota Gibala

Northern Illinois Law Review Supplement

In 2011, the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Portillo-Munoz that undocumented persons are not entitled to the protections of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Although part of the court’s reasoning was based on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), its decision also turned on the belief that the meaning of the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment did not incorporate undocumented persons. This Note argues that Portillo-Munoz’s interpretation of “the people,” as implying that “the people” exclusively encompasses only citizens, is erroneous with how the phrase “the people” is similarly situated in the Fourth Amendment. As set out …

Across The Border And Back Again: Immigration Status And The Article 12 “Well-Settled” Defense, Michael Singer

Fordham Law Review

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral international treaty designed to effectively govern the return of children abducted (often by a parent) and taken to a foreign country. In most cases, if the “left-behind” parent applies for relief under the Convention within a year of the abduction, the child must be returned to the country of origin for a custody hearing. If, however, the application for return is made more than one year after abduction and the child is now “well-settled” in their new environment, the application may be denied under the well-settled …

Book Reviews, David J. Agatstein

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Deportation And The War On Independence , Stephen H. Legomsky

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Judicial independence, despite its long history and cherished place in American jurisprudence, has periodically been attacked by those who disagree with particular outcomes. In recent years, Congress and the executive branch have mounted a sustained assault on decisional independence in the adjudication of deportation (now called “removal”) cases. Various actions taken by Attorney General Ashcroft in 2002 and 2003 and still in place today have left both immigration judges and the members of the Board of Immigration Appeals without any meaningful decisional independence. Meanwhile, in 1996 and again in 2005, Congress imposed severe limitations on judicial review of administrative orders …

Accepting The Unacceptable: How Jama V. Immigration And Customs Enforcement Affects Deportation Policies With Non-Accepting Governments , Jamie Norman

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

The Supreme Court's ruling in Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement affects the Government's authority to elect destination countries when deciding where to deport removable aliens. This note will explore the Jama decision. Part II details the procedural history of the case. Part III details and sets forth the facts of the case. Part IV analyzes the majority opinion by Justice Scalia, as 160 well as the dissenting opinion by Justice Souter. Part V considers Jama's judicial, administrative and social impact.5 Finally, Part VI concludes the discussion of Jama and the deportation policy.

Helping The Helpless: The Foreign Policy Strategies Underlying Humanitarian Rhetoric In American Refugee Law And Policy, Ashleigh Reif Kasper

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

U.S. Asylum Law As A Path To Religious Persecution, Jack C. Dolance Ii

Jack C Dolance II

U.S. asylum law protects against persecution “on account of . . . religion.” But must the law protect a non-believer seeking religious asylum in the United States? Many may instinctively answer “no,” for a non-believer is by most definitions not “religious.” Such a response misses the mark however — at least in the context of U.S. asylum law, which is subject to the First Amendment. The protection of religious liberty enshrined in the First Amendment embodies freedom from persecution on account of one’s “religion” — in whatever form that religion may take. In the asylum context, then, “religion” must be …

Is The Doctor In? The Contemptible Condition Of Immigrant Detainee Healthcare In The U.S. And The Need For A Constitutional Remedy, Kate Bowles

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Murky Immigration Law And The Challenges Facing Immigration Removal And Benefits Adjudication, Jill E. Family

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Immigration adjudication is more diverse than it may seem. Scholars tend to focus on one aspect of administrative immigration adjudication, the decision-making process established to determine whether an individual may be removed (deported) from the United States. But there is a whole other function of administrative immigration adjudication that relatively is ignored in the legal literature. Immigration adjudicators are also tasked with determining whether to grant immigration benefits, such as whether to grant lawful permanent resident (green card) status. Both types of administrative immigration adjudication, removal and benefits, are in crisis. This article explores the challenges facing each and argues …

The States Of Immigration, Rick Su

Journal Articles

Immigration is a national issue and a federal responsibility — so why are states so actively involved? Their legal authority over immigration is questionable. Their institutional capacity to regulate it is limited. Even the legal actions that states take sometimes seem pointless from a regulatory perspective. Why do they enact legislation that essentially copies existing federal law? Why do they pursue regulations that are likely to be enjoined or struck down by courts? Why do they give so little priority to the immigration laws that do survive?

This Article sheds light on this seemingly irrational behavior. It argues that state …

Immigration, Sovereignty, And The Constitution Of Foreignness, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

It is a central premise of modern American immigration law that immigrants, by virtue of their non-citizenship, are properly subject to an extra-constitutional regulatory authority that is inherent in national sovereignty and buffered against judicial review. The Supreme Court first posited this constitutionally exceptional authority, which is commonly known as the “plenary power doctrine,” in the 1889 Chinese Exclusion Case. There, the Court reconstructed the federal immigration power from a form of commercial regulation rooted in Congress’s commerce power, to an instrument of national self-defense against invading hordes of economically and racially degraded foreigners.

Today, generations after the United States …

Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall

Emily Naser-Hall

After the September 11th terrorist attacks at the hands of al-Qaeda operatives who slipped through the cracks of the US immigration system, immigration and asylum law became increasingly focused on ensuring that potential terrorists are not allowed into the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act and its subsequent legislation created what has become an unyielding bar to admission for any individual who is a member of a terrorist organization or who has committed terrorist activities. While the terrorism bar developed in response to real or perceived threats to US national security and has recently regained public light with the trial …

Alienating Sham Marriages For Tougher Immigration Penalties: Congress Enacts The Marriage Fraud Act, Karen L. Rae

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall

Emily Naser-Hall

No abstract provided.

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Understanding Immigration: Satisfying Padilla's New Definition Of Competence In Legal Representation, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Panel Discussion on Padilla v. Kentucky.