7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Are Collective Joint Employers of College Athletes? Empirical Analysis of NIL Deals and School Policies
Get PDFWii Need Clarity: A Proposed Federal Amendment to Trademark Confusion Tests Through the Lens of Esports and Electronic Word Marks
Get PDF
The Big Ten\u27s Legal Duties and Risks: Protecting College Athletes Through the Voluntary Undertaking Doctrine in a Changing Landscape
Get PDF
Forced Back Into the Lion\u27s Mouth: Per Se Reporting Requirements in U.S. Asylum Law
Get PDFThis Article makes a significant contribution to scholarship on asylum
law by identifying and calling for the abolition of a deadly (but unexplored)
development in asylum law: per se reporting requirements. In jurisdictions
where they apply, per se reporting requirements automatically bar protection
to asylum seekers solely because they did not report their non-state persecutors
(such as cartels or domestic abusers) to the authorities before fleeing, even
where reporting would have been futile or dangerous. These requirements
similarly provide no exception where law enforcement openly support an
applicant’s persecutor.
This Article demonstrates that even though per se reporting requirements
have no basis in asylum law, individual immigration judges throughout the
United States have developed and imposed them surreptitiously on asylum
applicants for over twenty years. These adjudicators have done so in the face
of a rare precedential Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision—binding
on all immigration courts—rejecting the application of a reporting requirement
in 2000. Even the BIA itself has applied reporting requirements in unpublished
opinions since that decision, in direct opposition to its own precedent. While
five courts of appeals have rejected these requirements, one has outright
adopted them, and five have not taken a firm position on them.
This Article argues that reporting requirements are a surreptitious—but
noteworthy—attack on the lives and safety of asylum seekers and the rule of
law. The administrative bodies and federal courts that apply these requirements
not only shirk their duty to meaningfully review claims for protection (and, at
times, ignore their own precedent), but also violate U.S. treaty obligations and
perpetuate the violence against the very people they are supposed to protect.
The Article also offers solutions for legislative, administrative, and legal
advocacy to abolish per se reporting requirements and to protect the safety and
lives of asylum seekers. These reforms would establish a system that complies
with the letter and spirit of U.S. asylum law nationwide, ensures adherence to
U.S. treaty obligations, and encourages adjudicators to fulfill their duty to
consider the record meaningfully
DMCA\u27s Double Scienter Requirement: Allowing Intermediary Software Companies to be Worry-Free in Making a Buck Off Another\u27s Dime
Get PDFNon
Prosecutions Under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to Protect United States Companies from the Chinese Government\u27s Theft of Trade Secrets
Get PDF
