Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Arléne Amarante
Assistant Professor of Law
Lincoln Memorial University
Who is at risk for deportation (and why the rest of us should care).
What have we done to address this gap (and how you can help).
Undocumented
Lawfully Present
Lawful
Permanent Resident
Citizen
This can happen when...
This can happen anywhere within the interior of the United States, including:
The extent of local cooperation with ICE varies by jurisdiction.
Knox County has an active 287(g) agreement.
USCIS may notify ICE that an application will be or has been denied.
Whether and how removal proceedings are to be initiated depends on where the individual was apprehended and their immigration history.
Noncitizens who have previously been ordered removed may be deported at any time. Under certain circumstances, prior removal orders can be reopened and challenged.
Noncitizens encountered and arrested by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) may be deported without seeing an immigration judge; this is known as an expedited removal.
Noncitizens within the interior of the United States are generally eligible to appear before an Immigration Judge and request relief from removal, including cancellation of removal and asylum.
Noncitizens who are issued an NTA are entitled to two kinds of hearings:
A Master Hearing is to determine prima facia eligibility for relief, find an attorney, and establish a timeline.
An Individual/Merits Hearing is a trial, where eligibility for relief is formally denied or established.
If the receiving country accepts, ICE may immediately deport the noncitizen.
The noncitizen may be detained at this time or may be released under an Order of Supervision.
ICE may also grant a stay of removal. This is a temporary, discretionary relief noncitizens may request using ICE Form I-246.
Most forms of relief from removal have two components:
(1) statutory eligibility; and (2) a favorable exercise of discretion
Refugee, defined
INA 101(a)(42)
any person who is [1] outside [2] any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and [3] who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of [4] persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution [5] on account of [6] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion …
Form I-589, Application for Asylum, Withholding of Removal and CAT
Dead
Meissner Memo provided that INS officers may decline to prosecute a removal case if the federal immigration enforcement interest to be served by prosecution is not substantial. Facts included immigration history, length of U.S. residency, humanitarian concerns, likelihood of removal, military service, etc.
Morton Memos provided that ICE should exercise discretion not to commence immigration actions against witnesses to and victims of crimes, individuals involved in civil rights efforts (e.g., nonczns complaining about housing or engaged in union activity).
Recognizes that it’s not possible to remove all deportable persons in the U.S.
Encourages exercise of discretion early in removal process to maximize efficiency.
Priorities
Aside from priorities, encourages consideration of factors from Meissner Memo. Allows officials do depart from priorities if warranted.
The Attorney General’s 2018 decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I & N Dec. 271, 274 (AG 2018), limiting the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases, will correspondingly limit the discretion of DHS attorneys to terminate ongoing cases pending in immigration court.
Building on the reasoning in Castro-Tum, the Attorney General expressly stated in Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 462 (AG 2018) that immigration judges have “no inherent authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings.”
This Case Study centers around Adelante, a nonprofit law firm and community legal education initiative based in Knoxville, Tennessee. Through participatory action research, Adelante seeks to unite deportation defense practitioners, noncitizens, and allies in crafting a collaborative, online platform to improve access to deportation defense.
1. Examine our Practices
5. Document Consequences
2. Critique Consequences
3. Deliberate with Practitioners
By Alejandra Palomo, Javier Corral, and Michael Caskey
By Tyler Demski and Ankitbhai Patel