Aliens may be removed from the U.S. for a variety of reasons, such as having entered the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether they are subject to removal. Congress has determined that review by the fed. courts will not be available with respect to certain types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, etc. This report analyzes the jurisdictional issues in the Immigration and Nationality Act by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article III court¿s jurisdiction to review a removal order. A print on demand report.
Aliens may be removed from the United States for a variety of reasons, such as entering into the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether an alien is subject to removal. Although judicial review by a federal court of appeals of a removal order is generally available, Congress has denied the federal courts jurisdiction to review many types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, discretionary determinations, and matters involving prosecutorial discretion.
Aliens may be removed from the United States for a variety of reasons, such as entering into the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether an alien is subject to removal. Although judicial review by a federal court of appeals of a removal order is generally available, Congress has denied the federal courts jurisdiction to review many types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, discretionary determinations, and matters involving prosecutorial discretion. This report shall attempt to wend a way through the jurisdictional thicket created by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article III court's jurisdiction to review a removal order. Discussion concerning the procedures underlying removal hearings and administrative review is limited to their relation to judicial review and will not be expatiated.
Aliens may be removed from the United States for a variety of reasons, such as entering into the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether an alien is subject to removal. Although judicial review by a federal court of appeals of a removal order is generally available, Congress has denied the federal courts jurisdiction to review many types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, discretionary determinations, and matters involving prosecutorial discretion. Jurisdictional issues related to removal are further complicated because of the constitutional requirement that some adequate substitute for habeas corpus be available for all removal orders. In order to satisfy this requirement, Congress specifically preserved the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to review constitutional claims and questions of law for all removals, even those arising from an area where judicial review is generally barred. This report shall attempt to wend a way through the jurisdictional thicket created by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article III ...
General Procedural Framework for Judicial Review History Prior to the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1952, federal district courts reviewed removal cases via the federal writ of habeas corpus, which is a procedural mechanism that allows federal district courts to review the legality of a person's detention.1 After the passage of the INA, the Supreme Court held that judic [...] The Antiterrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted in 1996, re-codified the petition for review mechanism in INA § 242.3 Hobbs Act The INA is the primary source for the bulk of the federal immigration laws, including the substantive law involving the removal of aliens from the United States. [...] However, when outlining the procedural framework for the judicial review of removal orders, the INA adopts the procedures found in Chapter 158 of Title 28 of the U. S. Code, also known as the Hobbs Act.4 The Hobbs Act, which governs the judicial review of a select group of administrative proceedings, 1 See generally, Henry Hart, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts [...] Congressional Research Service 1 Removing Aliens from the United States: Judicial Review of Removal Orders gives exclusive jurisdiction to review all final administrative orders under its purview to the federal courts of appeals.5 This effectively channels most judicial review of removal orders to the courts of appeals and bypasses review by the federal district courts.6 The treatment of removal o [...] Congressional Research Service 5 Removing Aliens from the United States: Judicial Review of Removal Orders found subject to expedited removal even when found in the interior of the country;50 and challenges to the procedures and policies adopted by the Attorney General to implement INA § 235(b) expedited removal.51 No courts, including the courts of appeals, can issue declaratory, injunctive, or o.
Aliens may be removed from the United States for a variety of reasons, such as having entered the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether they are subject to removal. Although judicial review by a federal court of appeals of a removal order is generally available, Congress has determined that review by the federal courts will not be available with respect to certain types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, discretionary determinations, and matters involving prosecutorial discretion. Jurisdictional issues related to removal are further complicated because of the constitutional requirement that some adequate substitute for habeas corpus be available for all removal orders. In order to satisfy this requirement, Congress specifically preserved the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to review constitutional claims and questions of law for all removals, even those arising from types of claims in which judicial review is generally barred. This report analyzes the jurisdictional issues in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article ...
Aliens may be removed from the United States for a variety of reasons, such as having entered the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether they are subject to removal. Although judicial review by a federal court of appeals of a removal order is generally available, Congress has determined that review by the federal courts will not be available with respect to certain types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, discretionary determinations and matters involving prosecutorial discretion. This book analyzes the jurisdictional issues in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article III court's jurisdiction to review a removal order.
