Immigration Law Commons^™

Of Mice And Men: On The Seclusion Of Immigration Detainees And Hospital Patients, Stacey A. Tovino

Scholarly Works

With a special focus on federal provisions strictly regulating Medicare-participating hospitals' use of seclusion, this Article uses developments in health law as a lens through which the uses and abuses of seclusion in immigration detention centers might be assessed and through which the standards governing detention centers might be improved. In particular, this Article argues that the unenforceable standards governing seclusion in immigration detention, including the most recent version of ICE's Performance-Based National Detention Standards, were incorrectly modeled on correctional standards developed for use in jails and prisons with respect to convicted criminals. This Article asserts that correctional standards are …

Brief For The Florence Immigrant And Refugee Rights Project And Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Mondaca-Vega V. Lynch, Hillary G. Walsh

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Shrinking The Post-Plenary Power Problem, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Michael Kagan responds to Professor Matthew J. Lindsay's article, Disaggregating “Immigration Law.” Professor Kagan posits a majority of Supreme Court justices appear to be at least occasionally uneasy with the plenary power doctrine that has shaped immigration law since the Chinese Exclusion Case, but they are not all sure how to live without it either. He argues so long as this remains the case, the Court’s immigration jurisprudence is likely to be incrementally favorable to immigrants on the whole, but tentative, inconsistent, and incoherent in some important ways. He concludes the importance of Professor Lindsay’s intervention …

Bridging The Confluence Of Water And Immigration Law, Tom I. Romero Ii

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Domestic Violence And The Politics Of Self-Help, Elizabeth L. Macdowell

Scholarly Works

Self-help programs are conceptualized as alternatives to attorney representation that can help both courts and unrepresented litigants. The rhetoric of self-help also typically includes empowering unrepresented individuals to help themselves. But how do self-help programs respond to litigants’ efforts at self-advocacy? This Article reports findings from a study of courthouse self-help programs assisting unrepresented litigants applying for protection orders. The central finding is that self-help staff members were not neutral in the provision of services despite a professed ethic of neutrality. Using the sociological concept of demeanor, this Article shows that staff members rewarded protection order applicants who conformed to …

Limiting Deterrence: Judicial Resistance To Detention Of Asylum-Seekers In Israel And The United States, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Governments have advanced the argument that asylum-seekers may be detained in order to deter other would-­be asylum­-seekers from coming. But in recent litigation in the United States and Israel, this justification for mass detention met with significant resistance from courts. This Essay looks at the way the American and Israeli courts dealt with the proposed deterrence rationale for asylum-seeker detention. It suggests that general deterrence raises three sequential questions:

1. Is deterrence ever legitimate as a stand alone justification for depriving people of liberty?

2. If deterrence is sometimes legitimate, is it valid as a general matter in migration control, …

Binding The Enforcers: The Administrative Law Struggle Behind Pres. Obama’S Immigration Actions, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

President Obama’s ambitious use of executive discretion in immigration – especially the DACA and DAPA programs – should be understood in context of a struggle within the executive branch between the President and frontline enforcement officers in the Department of Homeland Security who have actively resisted his policy agenda. The so far successful litigation by 26 states to partially halt these programs has focused on this struggle within the executive branch, rather than on the stalemate between the President and Congress over legislative immigration reform. In preliminary rulings, the federal district court and the Court of Appeals have interpreted ambiguous …

The Grapes Of Wrath: On The Health Of Immigration Detainees, Stacey A. Tovino

Scholarly Works

This Article challenges the lack of health care provided to individuals in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. As background, many immigration detainees are physically and emotionally vulnerable at the time of initial confinement due to a history of torture and trauma, which may include human trafficking, sexual violence, political oppression, psychosocial trauma, and acculturative stress. Detention can exacerbate preexisting vulnerabilities and contribute to severe physical and mental illness as well as death. Between October 2003 and October 2015, 153 individuals died while in ICE custody. Although most proposals for detainee health reform borrow heavily from constitutional law, international …

When Immigrants Speak: The Precarious Status Of Non-Citizen Speech Under The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The legal protection of free speech for immigrants in the United States is surprisingly limited, and it may be under more threat than is commonly understood. Although many unauthorized immigrants have become politically active in campaigning for immigration reform, their ability to speak out publicly may depend more on political discretion than on the Constitutional protections that we normally take for granted. Potential threats to immigrant free speech may be seen in three areas of law. First, a broad claim has been made by the Department of Justice that immigrants who have not been legally admitted to the country have …

Integrating Skills And Collaborating Across Law Schools : An Example From Immigration Law, Jennifer Lee Koh, Anna Welch

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Feminism In Yellowface, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

This article analyzes the relationship between sexualized stereotypes of Asian women, specifically the Asian prostitute epitomized in the Suzie Wong stereotype, and the tendency of American immigration law, even in pro-women legislation such as the TVPA, to promote conservative norms regarding female sexuality and domesticity. Part I explains the significance of Asian prostitution in the history and evolution of United States immigration policy. In the nineteenth century, the Asian prostitute was constructed as the antithesis to normative American sexuality, as a foreign peril that threatened the integrity of the American domestic unity and therefore required rejection and exclusion. Part II …

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 …

The New Era Of Presidential Immigration Law, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

At the dawn of the Obama Administration, Professors Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez wrote: “[T]he inauguration of a new President can bring with it remarkable changes in immigration policy.” At the time they wrote that, this proposition was in some ways more a matter of advocacy than a description of reality. As we approach the election of a new president in 2016, we finally live in the world that Professors Cox and Rodríguez advocated. The election of a new President will likely carry significant immediate consequences for immigration policy. My goal in this short space will be to focus on …

The Unconstitutional Use Of Restraints In Removal Proceedings, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

This Article challenges the constitutionality of indiscriminately restraining civil immigration detainees during removal proceedings. Not only are immigration detainees routinely placed in handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains without any individualized determination of the need for restraints, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prosecuting party, makes the decisions about the use of restraints, rather than the judge. After examining the rationale for the well-established prohibition against the indiscriminate use of restraints during criminal and civil jury trials, and discussing how some courts have extended this rationale to bench trials, this Article contends that ICE’s practice violates substantive and procedural …

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power!, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have re-affirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

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 …

A Taxonomy Of Discretion: Refining The Legality Debate About Obama’S Executive Actions On Immigration, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Broad executive action has been the Obama Administration’s signature contribution to American immigration policy, setting off a furious debate about whether the President has acted outside his constitutional powers. But the legal debate about the scope of the President’s authority to change immigration policy has not fully recognized what is actually innovative about the Obama policies, and thus has not focused on those areas where he has taken executive discretion into uncharted territory. This essay aims to add new focus to the debate about Pres. Obama’s executive actions by defining five different types of presidential discretion: Congressionally-authorized discretion, non-enforcement discretion, …

Immigration Law’S Looming Fourth Amendment Problem, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

In 2014, a wave of federal court decisions found that local police violate the Fourth Amendment when they rely on requests from the Department of Homeland Security to detain people suspected of being deportable immigrants. The problem with these requests, known as “detainers,” was that they were not based on any neutral finding of probable cause. But this infirmity is not unique to DHS requests to local police. It is characteristic of the normal means by which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests people and detains them at the outset of deportation proceedings. These decisions thus signal a glaring constitutional …

Do Immigrants Have Freedom Of Speech?, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The Department of Justice recently argued that immigrants who have not been legally admitted to the United States have no right to claim protections under the First Amendment. If the DOJ argument is right, then most of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. could be censored or punished for speaking their minds – as many of them have in support of comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act. This Essay explores the complicated and conflicted case law governing immigrants’ free speech rights, and argues that, contrary to the DOJ position, all people in the United States are protected …

Immigrant Victims, Immigrant Accusers, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The U Visa program provides an immigration status to noncitizen victims of crime, which is essential to prevent unauthorized immigrants from being afraid to seek help from the police, and thus becoming easy prey for criminals. This visa falls into a category of immigration programs that grant benefits on the basis of victim status, rather than on family or employment connections to the United States. But the federal government structured the U Visa program so that in order to be protected as a victim, a person must also become an accuser. The U Visa thus implicates the rights of third …

Asylum Discord: Disparities In Persecution Assessments, Scott Rempell

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Case Against Separating The Care From The Caregiver: Reuniting Caregivers' Rights And Children's Rights, Pamela Laufer-Ukeles

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dreams Of My Father, Prison For My Mother: The H-4 Nonimmigrant Visa Dilemma And The Need For An "Immigration-Status Spousal Support", Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

In this article, Professor Stewart Chang uses the situation of H-4 visa derivatives in the Asian Indian immigrant community as a case study to expose and critique larger incongruities within current American immigration policy, which on the one hand has historically extolled individuality, equality, and workforce participation as avenues to the American Dream, while enforcing gender hierarchy and dependency through requirements that prioritize family unity on the other. These incongruities remain largely unnoticed because the culture of dependency is often attributed to traditional ethnic culture, which then becomes the site of scrutiny and blame. The H-4 visa dilemma in the …

Incompetent But Deportable: The Case For A Right To Mental Competence In Removal Proceedings, Fatma E. Marouf

Scholarly Works

Important strides are currently being made toward increasing procedural due process protections for noncitizens with serious mental disabilities in removal proceedings, such as providing them with competency hearings and appointed counsel. This Article goes even further, arguing that courts should recognize a substantive due process right to competence in removal proceedings, which would prevent those found mentally incompetent from being deported. Recognizing a right to competence in a quasi-criminal proceeding such as removal would not be unprecedented, as most states already recognize this right in juvenile adjudication proceedings. The Article demonstrates that the same reasons underlying the prohibition against trial …

Buying Time? False Assumptions About Abusive Appeals, Michael Kagan, Fatma Marouf, Rebecca Gill

Scholarly Works

The federal government has expressed fear that immigrants abuse the appellate process to delay their deportations by filing meritless petitions for review with the federal courts. Some courts have responded to these concerns by imposing stricter standards for issuing stays of removal, so that the government can more easily deport petitioners even while their appeals remain pending. The risk with this approach is that immigrants who ultimately prevail may be erroneously deported. What is often overlooked is that the potential for abuse is really a function of time, with longer appeals posing a greater threat to immigration enforcement. This study …

Must Israel Accept Syrian Refugees?, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

In this article, Professor Michael Kagan discusses Israel's policy to refuse asylum to "subjects of enemy or hostile states," in the context of a 2004 asylum case filed by a Syrian girl. A decade later, Israel has not accepted a single Syrian refugee. Professor Kagan examines the moral and legal responsibilities of Israel and how they conflict with its current policy.

Justice On The Fly: The Danger Of Errant Deportations, Fatma Marouf, Michael Kagan, Rebecca Gill

Scholarly Works

The government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court had little data to inform its decision. The Court will likely need to revisit this issue, as doubts cloud the meaning of Nken’s main holdings, in part because the government misled the …

Defining American: The Dream Act, Immigration Reform And Citizenship, Elizabeth Keyes

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dubious Deference: Reassessing Appellate Standards Of Review In Immigration Appeals, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The long-standing doctrine of deferential review by appellate courts of findings of fact by administrative agencies is seriously flawed for two main reasons. First, the most prominent justification for deference relies on the empirical assumption that first-instance adjudicators are best able to determine the truth because they can directly view witness demeanor. Decades of social science research has proven this assumption about the value of demeanor false. Second, in principle, the deference rule applies to all types of administrative adjudication, with no attention to the relative gravity of interests at stake in different types of cases or to the varying …

The Role Of Foreign Authorities In U.S. Asylum Adjudication, Fatma E. Marouf

Scholarly Works

U.S. asylum law is based on a domestic statute that incorporates an international treaty, the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. While Supreme Court cases indicate that the rules of treaty interpretation apply to an incorporative statute, courts analyzing the statutory asylum provisions fail to give weight to the interpretations of our sister signatories, which is one of the distinctive and uncontroversial principles of treaty interpretation. This Article highlights this significant omission and urges courts to examine the interpretations of other States Parties to the Protocol in asylum cases. Using as an example the current debate over social …