Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
The One-Year Bar to Asylum in the Age of the Immigration Court Backlog
No full textImagine being forced to flee your home, separated from your children, and undergoing the perilous journey to seek safety and protection in the United States. Upon arrival, you are immediately detained and questioned about your intentions. You explain that you fear for your life and seek asylum protection. You may even undergo a detailed interview with an asylum officer, who finds that you have a significant possibility of establishing asylum eligibility. You are released from detention to pursue your asylum claim in immigration court. You diligently attend check-ins with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer for the next two years but struggle to find affordable legal representation as you await your first court date—scheduled two years after your arrival. When you appear at that court date, without an attorney, you learn for the first time that you were required to file an application for asylum with the immigration court within one year of your arrival. Your failure to do so bars you from asylum eligibility. You are now only eligible for a lesser form of relief and will live in limbo—you will never be reunited with your children who remain in danger in your home country, you can never travel abroad, and you will never become a permanent resident or a United States citizen. This absurd situation, faced by thousands of asylum seekers navigating our complex immigration system alone, results from the disastrous interplay of a twenty-year-old law barring asylum for those who do not file within one year of arrival, and an immigration court backlog rendering compliance virtually impossible. Our immigration courts are overwhelmed, with over 521,000 cases pending and a wait, on average, of almost two years for an initial court hearing. More than half of the recently arrived asylum seekers, largely women and children fleeing violence in Central America, lack legal representation. The United States Government provides no notice to asylum seekers of the one-year bar, practically denying all but those with competent legal counsel a meaningful opportunity to file within one year. Drawing upon contemporary cases, this Article is the first to illuminate the human costs of the one-year bar to asylum in this age of unprecedented immigration court backlog: needless deprivation of rights and full protection for vulnerable children and families seeking protection in the United States. It is also the first to analyze the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s recent attempt to solve this problem for asylum seekers represented by legal counsel. In doing so, the Article lays out a detailed road map of complementary reforms and actions by each actor in the immigration system necessary to ensure access to justice—specifically, to provide a fair and meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum for all asylum seekers
Many Women Seeking Asylum in the U.S. Have Been Released From Detention But With Ankle Monitors
No full text
A Dozen Immigrants in Recent Raids Win Temporary Deportation Halt, Including Dallas Family
No full text
Navigating The Unknown: Why SCOTUS Ought to Again Affirm That Achieving True Diversity in Higher Education is a Compelling Interest That Satisfies Strict Scrutiny When It Rehears Fisher
No full textOn June 29th, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to once again hear oral arguments in Fisher. This decision is troubling to supporters of Affirmative Action policies because of the Court\u27s indistinguishable motivation for hearing the case a second time. This Note argues that theCourt must continue to allow race-based considerations in higher education admissions policies. Part I takes a look at the beginnings of affirmative action and the effects of past discrimination on the educational attainment of minorities. Part II charts the case law related to affirmative action in higher education. Part III tracks how the meaning of narrowly-tailored has evolved through the relevant case law. Part IV explores the individual, educational and societal benefits of achieving true diversity in higher education and asserts that these benefits are paramount, especially as our society becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The Note concludes by maintaining that in order to have meaningful minority representation in all areas of society, it is essential that within the context of higher education admissions, the Court\u27s definition of narrowly-tailored must continue to include certain race-based considerations. Specifically, considering race as a factor, among many, in making an offer of admission must again be deemed constitutionally permissible
The Social Maladjustment Exclusion: Leaving a Category of Students Behind and The Problem With State and Judicial Interpretation of Congressional Intent
No full textSince its inception in 1975, controversy surrounding the Social Maladjustment Exclusion has plagued its understnding. This paper delves deeper into the controversy and explores jurisdictional and nationwide patterns in the judicial interpretation of the social maladjustment exclusion. This analysis further demonstrates how the evolving interpretation of social maladjustment is out of touch with the needs of vulnerable youth in our schools and society, and may be based, in large measure, on a small group of non-representative plaintiffs