Immigration Law Commons^™

The Opulent Or The Oppressed? Expedited Removal As A Violation Of The American Ideal, Amy Wingfield

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

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 …

Unlocking Secure Communities: The Role Of The Freedom Of Information Act In The Department Of Homeland Security's Secure Communities, Erica Lynn Tokar

Legislation and Policy Brief

In 1941, members of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure agreed unanimously that “an important and far-reaching defect of administrative law has been the simple lack of public information concerning its substance and procedure.” The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) uniquely addresses this concern by providing members of the general public an opportunity to consider and respond to administrative action by viewing actual agency records. FOIA affords broad access to “any person,” and it has become a key tool for both organizations and individuals who not only wish to learn more about the inner workings of the U.S. government, …

The Case For Procedural Safeguards In The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, Betsy Fisher

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The U. S. Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) is a humanitarian program that resettles vulnerable refugees to the United States. Though these refugees have suffered from extraordinarily high rates of trauma, the refugee admissions process does not have formal statutory or regulatory safeguards to accommodate the vulnerable nature of many applicants for resettlement. Yet, the applicants who have suffered the most trauma, including victims of sexual and gender- based violence, are the refugees most likely to be impeded by a process that largely centers on proving the severity of their trauma. To promote accurate outcomes, and to decrease the risk of …

My Great Foia Adventure And Discoveries Of Deferred Action Cases At Ice, Shoba S. Wadhia

Faculty Scholarship

This Article describes my adventures in FOIA litigation and analyzes deferred action data collected informally by 24 ICE field offices between October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. This Article also offers recommendations for the agency on data collection, recordkeeping, and transparency in deferred action cases. Deferred action is a form of prosecutorial discretion that can be granted at any stage of the immigration enforcement process and historically has been applied both to people who meet group characteristics and on an individual basis in compelling humanitarian circumstances. The theory behind deferred action and prosecutorial discretion more generally is to enable …

The Immigration Prosecutor And The Judge: Examining The Role Of The Judiciary In Prosecutorial Discretion Decisions, Shoba S. Wadhia

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholars and judges have long examined the role of judicial review in immigration matters, and also criticized the impacts of the “plenary power” doctrine and statutory deletions of judicial review for certain immigration cases. Absent from this scholarship is a serious examination of the judiciary’s role in immigration decisions involving prosecutorial discretion. I attribute this absence to both a silent concession that prosecutorial discretion decisions are automatically barred from judicial review because of the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); the judicial review “exceptions” in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the cases that analyze these …

Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right To Appointed Counsel For Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings, Mark Noferi

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Today, an immigrant green card holder mandatorily detained pending his removal proceedings, without bail and without counsel, due to a minor crime committed perhaps long ago, faces a dire fate. If he contests his case, he may remain incarcerated in substandard conditions for months or years. While incarcerated, he will likely be unable to acquire a lawyer, access family who might assist him, obtain key evidence, or contact witnesses. In these circumstances, he will nearly inevitably lose his deportation case and be banished abroad from work, family, and friends. The immigrant's one chance to escape these cascading events is the …

Chevron Without The Courts? The Supreme Court's Recent Chevron Jurisprudence Through An Immigration Lens, Shruti Rana

Faculty Scholarship

The limits of administrative law are undergoing a seismic shift in the immigration arena. Chevron divides interpretive and decision-making authority between the federal courts and agencies in each of two steps. The Supreme Court may now be transforming this division in largely unrecognized ways. These shifts, currently playing out in the immigration context, may threaten to reshape deference jurisprudence by handing more power to the immigration agency just when the agency may be least able to handle that power effectively.

An unprecedented surge in immigration cases—now approximately 90% of the federal administrative docket—has arrived just as the Court is whittling …

Judulang V. Holder And The Future Of 212(C) Relief, Patrick J. Glen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Judulang v. Holder, a case addressing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ use of the comparable grounds approach for determining eligibility for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court held that this approach was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and remanded for the agency to determine a new way for determining the eligibility of deportable aliens for 212(c) relief. The purpose of this article is to place the Court’s decision in its proper historical context and to chart the …

Where You Stand Depends On Where You Sit: Bureaucratic Politics In Federal Workplace Agencies Serving Undocumented Workers, Ming H. Chen

Publications

This Article integrates social science theory about immigrant incorporation and administrative agencies with empirical data about immigrant-serving federal workplace agencies to illuminate the role of bureaucracies in the construction of rights. More specifically, it contends that immigrants' rights can be protected when workplace agencies incorporate immigrants into labor law enforcement in accordance with the agencies' professional ethos and organizational mandates. Building on Miles' Law that "where you stand depends on where you sit," this Article argues that agencies exercise discretion in the face of contested law and in contravention to a political climate hostile to undocumented immigrants for the purpose …

Asylum Rights And Wrongs: What The Proposed Refugee Protection Act Will Do And What More Will Need To Be Done, Michele R. Pistone

Working Paper Series

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) added major new restrictions to U.S. asylum law. Several other laws passed in the wake of 9/11 produced additional restrictions. Various proposals to modify or even eliminate the changes made by IIRI¬RA and the post-9/11 laws have been introduced over the years; the Refu¬gee Protection Act of 2010 (RPA) is the most prominent recent example of these efforts. As this Article details, the RPA has much to commend within it, especially its proposed elimination of the one year deadline for asylum applications that was originally imposed by IIRIRA.

The Search For Fair Agency Process: The Immigration Opinions Of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, 1994-2010, Lenni B. Benson

Articles & Chapters

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins has been a member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals since 1994; but he has been concerned with the forms and varieties of administrative or bureaucratic process his entire career. When he became a member of the federal judiciary, his role was clearly altered. However, his commitment to fairness and integrity in adjudication remained undiminished. This article will explore some of Judge Hawkins’s many immigration decisions, both majority and dissenting opinions, which reflect his commitment to the preservation of a due process.

The reality of immigration adjudication in the Ninth Circuit is that there are …

“To Remand, Or Not To Remand”: Ventura’S Ordinary Remand Rule And The Evolving Jurisprudence Of Futility, Patrick J. Glen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is a foundational principle of administrative law that a reviewing court should not dispose of a petition for review or appeal on grounds not relied upon by the agency, and should not reach issues in the first instance not addressed administratively. In such circumstances, there is a strong presumption that the reviewing court should remand the case to the agency for further proceedings rather than reach out to decide the disputed issues. The United States Supreme Court explicitly extended operation of the “ordinary remand rule” to the immigration context in its 2002 decision in INS v. Ventura. Notwithstanding subsequent …

"Streamlining" The Rule Of Law: How The Department Of Justice Is Undermining Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Shruti Rana

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of administrative decision making is an essential institutional check on agency power. Recently, however, the Department of Justice dramatically revised its regulations in an attempt to insulate its decision making from public and federal court scrutiny. These “streamlining” rules, carried out in the name of national security and immigration reform, have led to a breakdown in the rule of law in our judicial system. While much attention has been focused on the Department of Justice’s recent attempts to shield executive power from the reach of Congress, its efforts to undermine judicial review have so far escaped such scrutiny. …

The Shifting Border Of Immigration Regulation, Ayelet Shachar

Michigan Journal of International Law

While American immigration law is still largely informed by the doctrine of plenary power, which holds that "[a]dmission to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign" (as the Supreme Court asserted in Knauff more than fifty years ago), what has dramatically changed in recent years is the location of "our gates," which no longer stand at the country's territorial edges. Instead, the border itself has become a moving barrier, a legal construct that is not tightly fixed to territorial benchmarks. This shifting border of immigration regulation, as we might call it, is selectively utilized by national …

Asylum In A Different Voice: Judging Immigration Claims And Gender, Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

An extensive statistical study of disparities in asylum adjudication throughout the United States reveals gross disparities in rates of asylum grants by region of country, experience of adjudicators, prior employment, and other factors. One of the most robust findings was one of gender disparities in adjudication rates. If the adjudicator of claims for asylum was female there was a 44% greater likelihood that asylum would be granted. This chapter in the book reporting these findings reflects on this significant finding of gender differences in judging and discusses, in light of the author's prior work on gender differences in lawyering, whether …

Embracing Paradox: Three Problems The Nlrb Must Confront To Resist Further Erosion Of Labor Rights In The Expanding Immigrant Workplace, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the Supreme Court's 2002 Hoffman Plastic Compounds opinion, normally considered in terms of its social justice ramifications, from the different perspective of NLRB attorneys tasked with pursuing enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) under the conceptually (and practically) odd rubric that some NLRA employees (unauthorized workers) have no remedy under the NLRA. The article focuses on three problems evincing paradox. First, NLRB attorneys prosecuting cases involving these workers will probably gain knowledge of unlawful background immigration conduct. To what extent must the attorneys disclose it, and to whom? Second, NLRB attorneys are extraordinarily reliant on …

Book Review Of A Refugee’S Struggle For Safety In America, Nancy Morawetz

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Protection From A Well-Founded Fear: Applying The Disfavored Group Analysis In Asylum Cases, Bridget Tainer-Parkins

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immigration Law: Nowhere To Turn-Illegal Aliens Cannot Use The Freedom Of Information Act As A Discovery Tool To Fight Unfair Removal Hearings, Larry R. Fleurantin

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article argues that the use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by illegal aliens to obtain necessary documents for their removal hearings is ineffective and unfair. The government withholds crucial information, such as asylum interview notes, under FOIA exemptions, particularly exemption (b)(5), which is intended for internal memos and attorney work product. This practice denies asylum seekers the ability to prepare their cases adequately, leading to unfair removal hearings and violating their due process rights. The author advocates for legislative reform to ensure fair access to information and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Make The Dream A Reality: Why Passing The Dream Act Is The Logical First Step In Achieving Comprehensive Immigration Reform, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1251 (2008), Aimee Deverall

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immigration Reform In America: Past, Present, And Future, Thaddeus Coffman

Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects

This paper examines immigration legislation throughout the history of the United States. The author has divided the focus of legislative activity into four main eras: the Laissez- Fair Era (1789-1875), the Anti-Asian Era (1876-1920), the National Origin Quotas Era (1921-1953), and the Illegal Immigration Era (1954-present). While these eras are not all inclusive, they are indicative of the main focus of legislation passed during their time. The author then compares the impact of major legislation passed during these eras to three current proposals aimed at addressing the increasing issue of illegal immigration: two versions of a guest-worker program and amnesty/legalization …

You Can’T Get There From Here: Managing Judicial Review Of Immigration Cases, Lenni B. Benson

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Terrorism And Asylum Seekers: Why The Real Id Act Is A False Promise, Marisa S. Cianciarulo

Working Paper Series

The Real ID Act, passed on May 11, 2005, is the first post-September 11 antiterrorism legislation specifically to target a group of vulnerable individuals to whom the United States has historically granted protection: asylum seekers. The passage of the Real ID Act led asylum advocates to wring their hands in despair and immigration restrictionists to clap their hands in glee. This Article argues that both sides of the debate may have been justified in their reactions, but not because of the immediate chilling impact on asylum that they seem to expect. With regard to requirements for establishing asylum eligibility, the …

Taking The Stand: The Lessons Of The Three Men Who Took The Japanese American Internment To Court, Lorraine K. Bannai

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Shifts In Policy And Power: Calculating The Consequences Of Increased Prosecutorial Power And Reduced Judicial Authority In Post 9/11 America, Chris Mcneil

ExpressO

Among many responses to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the states have shifted to the executive branch certain powers once held by the judicial branch. This article considers the impact of transferring judicial powers to prosecutorial officers, and compares the consequent increased powers of the prosecutor with those powers traditionally held by prosecutors in Japanese criminal courts. It considers the impact of removing from public view and judicial oversight many prosecutorial functions, drawing comparisons between the largely opaque Japanese prosecutorial roles and those roles now assumed in immigration and anti-terrorism laws, noting the need for safeguards not …