Immigration Law Commons^™

Deporting Disability, Tania N. Valdez

Utah Law Review

Since the enactment of the earliest migration laws in the United States, people with disabilities have been targeted for exclusion and expulsion based on stereotypes that they are either dangerous or not productive. Although some of the pejorative language regarding disability in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has changed over time, certain statutory provisions and the very structure of the INA still allow ableism to operate broadly in immigration adjudications. This Article focuses on the subtle, but pervasive, ways that immigration law disfavors noncitizens with disabilities. In particular, this Article examines ableism in the context of removal (commonly known …

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner-Appellee, Supporting Affirmance, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief filed by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The brief examines the scope of mandatory immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens seeking admission at the border rather than individuals apprehended within the interior of the United States.

Adding Family Complications To Birthright Citizenship, Scott Titshaw

Articles

On the first day of his second administration, President Trump issued an executive order purporting to restrict citizenship of U.S.-born children based on their parents’ citizenship or immigration status. In the process, it discriminates between mothers and fathers and adopts genetic definitions of “mother” and “father” to exclude any parent, who is not the child’s “immediate … biological progenitor.”

Courts and scholars have condemned this attempt to restrict birthplace citizenship as a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Yet there has been little, if any, discussion of the new family-based conditions in the order. …

Immigration, Due Process, And Executive Power, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Peter Margulies

Faculty Scholarship

The current Administration's approach to immigration law enforcement has augmented executive power and reduced procedural safeguards. That approach has raised questions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Constitution. Courts have often pushed back, although the Supreme Court has stayed judicial curbs on one area we'll discuss: Removal to a country other than the home country of the noncitizen (sometimes called third-country removal (TCR)). In other areas, such as the First Amendment rights of foreign students and the reach of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), adjudication is moving through the courts, although the Supreme Court has imposed limits …

Barriers Beyond The Border: Addressing The Economic And Racial Disparities Created By Cbp One, Ann-Renee Rubia

Refugee Law & Migration Studies Brief

CBP One is a mobile app that allows asylum seekers to schedule appointments for inspection before entering the United States ("U.S."). First, this paper will discuss the ethical issues posed by CBP One—specifically asylum seekers' unequal access to the app. Second, this paper will examine the equal protection implications posed by CBP One and the application of constitutional rights to noncitizens inside and outside the U.S. Next, it will address the ongoing litigation concerning the extension of constitutional rights to noncitizens arriving at the southern border. Lastly, it will discuss the incompatibility of CBP One with the Immigration and Nationality …

What Do We Do With You: How The United States Uses Racial-Gendered Immigrant Labor To Inform Its Immigrant Inclusion-Exclusion Cycle, Tori Delaney

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping Counsel: Challenging Immigration Detention Transfers As A Violation Of The Right To Retained Counsel, Natasha Phillips

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In 2019 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) incarcerated nearly 500,000 individuals. More than half of the individuals detained by ICE were transferred between detention facilities, and roughly thirty percent of those transferred were moved between federal circuit court jurisdictions. Detention transfers are isolating, bewildering, and scary for the detained noncitizen and their family. They can devastate the noncitizen’s legal defense by destroying an existing attorney-client relationship or the noncitizen’s ability to obtain representation. Transfers also obstruct the noncitizen’s ability to gather evidence and may prejudicially change governing case law. This Note describes the legal framework for transfers and their …

Renewing The Vagueness Challenge To Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Melissa London

Washington Law Review

Noncitizens who have been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) can be deported. However, the INA fails to provide a definition for “moral turpitude” or a list of crimes that necessarily involve “moral turpitude.” As a result, judges are given wide discretion to decide when a crime is morally reprehensible enough to render a noncitizen deportable. This moral determination in the CIMT analysis has led to disparate results among the lower courts, which deprives noncitizens of meaningful notice of what conduct could render them deportable. In 1951, the Supreme Court held …

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

Parole In Place As A Solution For The Immigration Status Of Immediate Relatives Of U.S. Citizens, Maximiliano Gluzman

Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the structural barriers that prevent many undocumented immigrants—particularly immediate relatives of U.S. citizens—from adjusting their immigration status under current U.S. immigration law. It focuses on the interaction between the Immigration and Nationality Act’s adjustment-of-status requirement that applicants be “inspected and admitted or paroled” and the unlawful presence provisions enacted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Together, these rules create a dilemma for many noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection but later become eligible for lawful permanent residence through family petitions: leaving the United States to pursue consular processing triggers the three- or …

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 …

Toward A Race-Conscious Critique Of Mental Health-Related Exclusionary Immigration Laws, Monika Batra Kashyap

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article employs the emergent analytical framework of Dis/ability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) to offer a race-conscious critique of a set of immigration laws that have been left out of the story of race-based immigrant exclusion in the United States—namely, the laws that exclude immigrants based on mental health-related grounds. By centering the influence of the white supremacist, racist,and ableist ideologies of the eugenics movement in shaping mental health-related exclusionary immigration laws, this Article locates the roots of these restrictive laws in the desire to protect the purity and homogeneity of the white Anglo- Saxon race against the threat of …

Preventing Predatory Alienation By High-Control Groups: The Application Of Human Trafficking Laws To Groups Popularly Known As Cults, And Proposed Changes To Laws Regarding Federal Immigration, State Child Marriage, And Undue Influence, Robin Boyle-Laisure

Faculty Publications

In this article, I summarize some of the significant legal developments in the United States that have taken place within the past year. First, United States v. Raniere was a criminal case launched against the founder of a purported self-help organization, NXIVM, and several of his associates. The Raniere case established precedent for using the human-trafficking statutes, among other grounds, to pursue justice for victims of high-demand groups. Second, the number of asylum seekers is increasing annually, and some of these undocumented immigrants are escaping from their countries-of-origin cults, gangs, and other extremist groups. However, once they arrive in the …

Asylum Ruling Halts Restrictions In New Rule, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Immutability: Competing Frameworks For Adjudicating Asylum Claims Based On Membership In A Particular Social Group, Talia Shiff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a refugee as any person who has a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” An emerging issue in U.S. asylum law is how to define the category “membership of a particular social group.” This question has become ever-more pressing in light of the fact that the majority of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are claiming persecution on account of their “membership in a particular social group.” The INA does not define the meaning of “particular social group” and …

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

Scholarly Articles

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” …

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’S Ban On Uninsured Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

New Homeland Security Asylum Rule Allows Removal To Central American Countries That Have Signed Agreements With The U.S., Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Proclamation Barring Uninsured Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legislating Morality: Moral Theory And Turpitudinous Crimes In Immigration Jurisprudence, Abel Rodríguez, Jennifer A. Bulcock

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Congress could have framed the country’s immigration policies in any number of ways. In significant part, it opted to frame them in moral terms. The crime involving moral turpitude is among the most pervasive and pernicious classifications in immigration law. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is virtually ubiquitous, appearing everywhere from the deportability and mandatory detention grounds to the inadmissibility and naturalization grounds. In effect, it acts as a gatekeeper for those who wish to enter and remain in the country, obtain lawful permanent residence, travel abroad after admission, or become United States citizens. With limited exceptions, noncitizens …

President Trump Bars Uninsured Immigrants From The U.S., Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Hamama V. Adducci: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Margo Schlanger

Appellate Briefs

Question Presented:

Petitioners are Iraqis with final orders of removal who lived for years or decades in the United States under orders of supervision, because Iraq would not accept their repatriation. In 2017 Iraq indicated it might change its policy; it allowed repatriation of several Iraqis with final orders. Petitioners and others similarly situated were suddenly detained and threatened with immediate removal, without the opportunity to challenge their removal in immigration court. Petitioners, who include Christians, Yezidis, Kurds, and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, faced likely torture and death in Iraq. After their final orders of removal were …

Domestic Evolution: Amending The United States Refugee Definition Of The Ina To Include Environmentally Displaced Refugees, Barbara Mcisaac

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Administration's New Asylum Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Slouching Towards Oblivion: Divergent Implementation And Potential Exodus Of Chevron Analysis In The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of Immigration Law, Amy L. Moore

Law Faculty Scholarship

In Slouching Towards Oblivion: Divergent Implementation and Potential Exodus of Chevron Analysis in the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Immigration Law, Amy L. Moore examines the Supreme Court’s uneven application of Chevron deference in cases interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Mapping the Court’s immigration jurisprudence from 1984 through 2018, the Article documents a striking inconsistency: although the Court has repeatedly interpreted the INA, it has invoked Chevron in only a minority of those cases. Through a doctrinal survey of decisions such as Cardoza-Fonseca, Aguirre-Aguirre, and St. Cyr, the Article identifies recurring rationales for declining deference, …

Supreme Court Reinforces Mandatory Detention Of Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Travel Ban Decision, Administrative Law, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.