Immigration Law Commons^™

Taming Immigration Trauma, Raquel E. Aldana

Cardozo Law Review

This Article documents the United States’ century-long efforts to humanize our borders. In the end, law has been insufficient to tame immigration law’s enforcement. How the United States enforces borders, however, can and should be more humane. Two important principles should guide this process. First, the United States should recognize that borders’ impacts are as severe as other forms of punishment, especially when the means to enforce the immigration power have become indistinguishable from criminal enforcement. Second, human trauma should guide immigration policy toward meaningful inclusion. After significant reckoning over the travesty of shutting our borders, the United States has …

Systemic Racism In The U.S. Immigration Laws, Kevin R. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay analyzes how aggressive activism in a California mountain town at the tail end of the nineteenth century commenced a chain reaction resulting in state and ultimately national anti-Chinese immigration laws. The constitutional immunity through which the Supreme Court upheld those laws deeply affected the future trajectory of U.S. immigration law and policy.

Responding to sustained political pressure from the West, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an infamous piece of unabashedly racist legislation that commenced a long process of barring immigration from all of Asia to the United States. In upholding the Act, the Supreme Court …

Takings Property And Appropriative Water Rights, Luis Inaraja Vera

Cardozo Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”1 While courts and academics have put considerable amounts of effort into discussing the meaning of “taken” or “public use,” they have given far less attention to the phrase “private property.” Notable scholars have provided a set of definitions and frameworks to determine when a particular right qualifies as takings property. However, courts and commentators have yet to define the types of rights that are entitled to constitutional protection with sufficient precision to avoid an …

Acts Of Justice: Restoring Justice For Immigrants Through State Pardons, Sadie M. Casamenti

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking The "Fam" Out Of Family: Adjudicating The State Department's Discriminatory Treatment Of Same-Sex Parents On The Merits, Camrin M. Rivera

Maine Law Review

Cisgender same-sex male married couples, unlike cisgender opposite-sex married couples, will always require artificial reproductive technology (ART) for at least one of the spouses to attain biological parenthood. Due to legal and financial barriers to ART, many of these couples turn to international ART services to grow their families. In doing so, these families may face immigration battles when they apply for recognition of their child’s United States citizenship. For example, a prior State Department policy sparked three lawsuits after the State Department refused to recognize children as United States citizens from birth because the children were not biologically related …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Decitizenizing Asian Pacific American Women, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Margaret Hu

University of Colorado Law Review

The Page Act of 1875 excluded Asian women immigrants from entering the United States, presuming they were prostitutes. This presumption was tragically replicated in the 2021 Atlanta Massacre of six Asian and Asian American women, reinforcing the same harmful prejudices. This Article seeks to illuminate how the Atlanta Massacre is symbolic of larger forms of discrimination, including the harms of decitizenship. These harms include limited access to full citizenship rights due to legal barriers, restricted cultural and political power, and a lack of belonging. The Article concludes that these harms result from the structure of past and present immigration laws …

Facts Versus Discretion: The Debate Over Immigration Adjudication, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her first majority-led immigration opinion in Patel v. Garland (2022). As background, some immigrants looking to avoid deportation may apply for what is called “discretionary relief’ (e.g., asylum or adjustment of status) initially in an immigration court and then, if they lose, at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These immigration forums fall under the Department of Justice. Prior to Patel, immigrants who lost at the BIA could then ask a federal circuit court to review the factual findings of their case. Now, after Justice Barrett’s decision, Article III review is no longer available …

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: How Attorney General Review Undermines Our Immigration Adjudication System, Emma K. Carroll

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Failures Of Good Moral Character Determinations For Naturalization, Zachary New

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article examines the effects of the good-moral-character requirement in naturalization proceedings. Specifically, it looks to such character requirements as a method by which a citizen polity screens out undesirable noncitizens from those who are deserving of inclusion in the "in"g roup of citizenship. The Article discusses historical methods of good-moral-character adjudication, and especially how such methods carried an undercurrent of forgiveness and redemption-an undercurrent lacking in the current method of statutory bars to showings of good moral character. By looking at specific examples of statutory bars to showings of good moral character, this Article argues that the overinclusive nature …

Entrance Fees: Self-Funded Agencies And The Economization Of Immigration, Daimeon Shanks

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pursuing Citizenship During Covid-19, Ming Hsu Chen

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hernández V. Mesa: A Case For A More Meaningful Partnership With The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights, Peyton Jacobsen

Seattle University Law Review

Through an in-depth examination of Hernández, the Inter-American Human Rights System, and the success of Mexico’s partnership with said system, this Note will make a case for embracing human rights bodies— specifically, the Inter-American System on Human Rights—as an appropriate and necessary check on the structures that form the United States government. Part I will look closely at the reasoning and judicially created doctrine that guided the decision in Hernández, with the goal of providing a better understanding of the complicated path through the courts that led to a seemingly straightforward yet unsatisfying result. Part II will illustrate the scope …

Promoting Privacy, Fairness And The Open Court Principle In Immigration And Refugee Proceedings, Jon Khan, Sean Rehaag

All Papers

Court decisions and court documents are becoming easier to access online than ever before. This access provides many possible benefits, including increased fairness. But court decisions and documents often contain intensely personal information. Public exposure of that private information may even lead to significant harm. The Federal Court of Canada has demonstrated leadership among Canadian courts in attempting to proactively grapple with these issues, including by consulting stakeholders about increased electronic access to court records.

We—researchers connected with the Refugee Law Lab based out of York University’s Centre for Refugee Studies and Osgoode Hall Law School—write this paper to participate …

Do Courts Have Jurisdiction To Consider Questions Of Fact To Determine Whether A Noncitizen Is Entitled To Eligibility For Discretionary Relief From Removal?, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article previews Patel v. Garland, a United States Supreme Court case addressing the scope of federal court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as amended by the REAL ID Act. The central question is whether federal courts retain jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary factual determinations underlying eligibility for discretionary relief from removal, or whether the statute’s bar on reviewing “any judgment” precludes judicial review of such threshold findings. The case arises from the denial of adjustment of status to Pankajkumar Patel, deemed inadmissible for allegedly falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen on a driver’s license application. Both petitioner …

Rethinking Prosecutorial Discretion In Immigration Enforcement, Nicole Hallett

Cardozo Law Review

Prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement stands at a crossroads. It was the centerpiece of Obama’s immigration policy after efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform failed. Under the Trump administration, it was declared all but dead, replaced by an ethos of maximum enforcement. Biden has promised a return to the status quo ante, but the record of using prosecutorial discretion to accomplish humanitarian goals in immigration enforcement under Obama was, at best, mixed. Moreover, it is unclear whether Biden can depend on the availability of programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Obama’s signature prosecutorial discretion program. Although the …

Legalizing Undocumented Work, Jennifer J. Lee

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Abdication Through Enforcement, Shalini Ray

Indiana Law Journal

Presidential abdication in immigration law has long been synonymous with the perceived nonenforcement of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama’s never-implemented policy of deferred action, known as DAPA, serves as the prime example in the literature. But can the President abdicate the duty of faithful execution in immigration law by enforcing the law, i.e., by deporting deportable noncitizens? This Article argues “yes.” Every leading theory of the presidency recognizes the President’s role as supervisor of the bureaucracy, an idea crystallized by several scholars. When the President fails to establish meaningful enforcement priorities, essentially making every deportable …

Weighing Pain: How The Harm Of Immigration Detention Must Be Factored In Custody Decisions, Linus Chan

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The United States is currently in the midst of a “third wave of potential pretrial detention reform.” And while certain reforms are gaining traction in an effort to reduce pretrial criminal detention, efforts to do the same for immigration detention have lagged. Reformers and abolitionists make the case that immigration detention needs to be either restricted or eliminated entirely. Nonetheless, the number of people held in detention for immigration purposes rises year after year. Not only do the numbers of people in immigration detention grow, but the systems in place have grown less concerned with the harsh consequences of detention …

The Emerging Lessons Of Trump V. Hawaii, Shalini Bhargava Ray

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the years since the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, federal district courts have adjudicated dozens of rights-based challenges to executive action in immigration law. Plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens, civil rights organizations, and immigrants themselves, have alleged violations of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause with some regularity based on President Trump’s animus toward immigrants. This Article assesses Hawaii’s impact on these challenges to immigration policy, and it offers two observations. First, Hawaii has amplified federal courts’ practice of privileging administrative law claims over constitutional ones. For example, courts considering …

"De-Americanization" During The Trump Administration: Derivative Citizenship And Deceased Parents In The United States, Katheryn J. Maldonado

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The Trump Administration’s war on immigration will be marked in history as one replete with white supremacy and terror. Much attention has been focused in the realm of undocumented immigrants, detention centers, and family separations because of the pervasiveness of those issues and the gravity of the human rights violations occurring in the United States. However, little focus has been given to immigrants who are lawful permanent residents or naturalized citizens at risk of denaturalization and deprivation of their constitutional rights. This Note highlights the effects of the Trump Administration’s war on immigration on citizens and green card holders in …

Relentless Pursuits: Reflections Of An Immigration And Human Rights Clinician On The Past Four Years, Sarah H. Paoletti

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Deconstructing Invisible Walls: Sotomayor's Dissents In An Era Of Immigration Exceptionalism, Karla Mckanders

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Family In The Balance: Barton V. Barr And The Systematic Violation Of The Right To Family Life In U.S. Immigration Enforcement, David Baluarte

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The United States systematically violates the international human right to family life in its system of removal of noncitizens. Cancellation of removal provides a means for noncitizens to challenge their removal based on family ties in the United States, but Congress has placed draconian limits on the discretion of immigration courts to cancel removal where noncitizens have committed certain crimes. The recently issued U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barton v. Barr illustrates the troubling trend of affording less discretion for immigration courts to balance family life in removal decisions that involve underlying criminal conduct. At issue was the “stop-time rule” …

The Continuing Legacy Of The National Origin Quotas, Angela M. Banks

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Authority Of International Refugee Law, Evan J. Criddle, Evan Fox-Decent

William & Mary Law Review

As COVID-19 has spread around the world, many states have suspended their compliance with a core requirement of international refugee law: the duty to refrain from returning refugees to territories where they face a serious risk of persecution (the duty of non-refoulement). These measures have prompted some observers to question whether non-refoulement will survive the pandemic as a nonderogable legal duty. This Article explains why the international community should embrace non-refoulement as a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) that applies even during public emergencies, such as the coronavirus pandemic. Viewed from a global justice perspective, the …

Systemic Racism And Immigration Detention, Carrie L. Rosenbaum

Seattle University Law Review

The denouement of the Trump presidency was a white supremacist coup attempt against a backdrop of public reawakening to the persistence of institutionalized racism. Though the United States has entered a new administration with a leader that expresses his commitment to ending institutionalized racism, the United States continues to imprison Central American and Mexican immigrants at the southern border. If the majority of the people in immigration jails at the border are Latinx, does immigration law disparately impact them, and do they have a right to equal protection? If they do, would equal protection protect them? This Article explores whether …

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …

Asylum Attorney Burnout (Model Survey And Additional Survey Responses), Lindsay M. Harris, Hillary A. Mellinger

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Asylum Attorney Burnout And Secondary Trauma, Lindsay M. Harris, Hillary Mellinger

Journal Articles

We are in the midst of a crisis of mental health for attorneys across all practice areas. Illustrating this broader phenomenon, this interdisciplinary Article shares the results of the 2020 National Asylum Attorney Burnout and Secondary Traumatic Stress Survey (“Survey”). Using well-established tools, such as the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and the Secondary Stress Trauma Survey, the Survey assessed the well-being of over 700 immigration attorneys navigating the tumultuous asylum space. As the largest such study of United States attorneys to date, it is particularly timely. Between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration’s extreme policies, sweeping regulatory changes, and Attorney General …