1,720,966 research outputs found
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal
No full textFor refugees and asylum seekers, application of the so-called persecutor bar is tantamount to a death sentence. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals -- without any real deliberation--has arrived at an interpretation of a generic-relief, burdenshifting regulation to allow for application of the persecutor bar based upon very little evidence. Even mere membership in a group with a poor human rights record has been held sufficient to switch the burden of proof and apply the bar. While the recent holding of Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (June 28, 2018) can be read and understood largely as a victory for refugees on the question of the duress defense to the bar, that decision is under review by the AG. Additionally, more work is needed to solidify capacious procedural safeguards in the application of the bar ab initio before adjudicators even reach questions of duress. Safeguards are crucial because the current procedures allow adjudicators to apply the bar merely where there is possible assistance in persecution. Given the dearth of past scholarly attention devoted to procedural application of the persecutor bar, this article aims to contribute to this nascent, timely, and largely-untouched discussion. I argue here that it is only where the record contains a preponderance of the evidence to allow an adjudicator to find actual assistance in persecution -- and the applicant is given fair notice and opportunity to respond--that the statute, case law, and international law allow the persecutor bar to be applied.2213-2593
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Being Deprived of the Right to Effective Counsel in Removal Proceedings: Why the Eighth Circuit’s Decision in Rafiyev Must Be Overturned
Get PDFThe situation for immigrants who have received frightfully defective assistance from their attorneys, or non-attorneys masquerading as such, is all too common. For the reasons discussed more fully in this article, immigrant victims are at particular risk in tribunals beneath the Eighth Circuit because of its aberrant precedent in the area of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. In this article, I will first provide an overview of the procedure for making a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings and give a brief history of this procedure as used since the Board’s seminal decision in Matter of Lozada. Second, I will discuss the Eighth Circuit’s treatment of ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings and how it compares with its sister circuits. Third, I will argue that the Eighth Circuit has erred in this area of the law and should join the vast majority of other circuits in the country by holding that there is a constitutional due process right to effective counsel in immigration proceedings. Finally, I will present a strategy that a future Eighth Circuit panel could use to overrule its previous decisions
Recommended from our members
Being Deprived of the Right to Effective Counsel in Removal Proceedings: Why the Eighth Circuit’s Decision in Rafiyev Must Be Overturned
No full textThe situation for immigrants who have received frightfully defective assistance from their attorneys, or non-attorneys masquerading as such, is all too common. For the reasons discussed more fully in this article, immigrant victims are at particular risk in tribunals beneath the Eighth Circuit because of its aberrant precedent in the area of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. In this article, I will first provide an overview of the procedure for making a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings and give a brief history of this procedure as used since the Board’s seminal decision in Matter of Lozada. Second, I will discuss the Eighth Circuit’s treatment of ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings and how it compares with its sister circuits. Third, I will argue that the Eighth Circuit has erred in this area of the law and should join the vast majority of other circuits in the country by holding that there is a constitutional due process right to effective counsel in immigration proceedings. Finally, I will present a strategy that a future Eighth Circuit panel could use to overrule its previous decisions
Creighton Law Review
No full textINTRODUCTION|Mr. Utoc Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States in 1992, fleeing the brutal civil war that had been raging in his country for several decades. He was from a minority ethnic Mayan group heavily targeted by the Guatemalan government for its suspected ties to the guerilla movement. In fact, reports have shown that the Guatemalan government engaged in systematic human rights violations to a degree approximating genocide in some locations. He fled Guatemala and sought refuge in the United States. After his arrival, he immediately brought himself to the attention of U.S. authorities by filing for asylum in 1992.|However, similar to many other Guatemalan asylum seekers, Mr. Utoc was not given his first interview before the branch of the government that adjudicates asylum applications until 2007, fifteen years after having filed for asylum. The Asylum Corps was plagued with...332015-2016523-554494
The Toll Paid When Adjudicators Err: Reforming Appellate Review Standards for Refugees
No full textDeep, variegated, and unresolved tensions run between and within the U.S. courts of appeals’ standard of review classifications of the five core elements of the refugee definition. Several circuits have taken note of their dissonant jurisprudence, calling for either en banc or Supreme Court intervention. While existing scholarship raises cogent criticisms of excessive factual deference in U.S. immigration adjudications, very little attention has been paid to how the fact-law divide regarding the refugee definition maps onto review standards in the appellate context. This dearth of scholarly consideration is accompanied by the reality that standards of review often decide cases where the risk of erroneous denial involves the return of a putative refugee to persecution, torture, or death.
In this article, I provide the first comprehensive circuit-by-circuit study of each of the five core elements of the refugee definition to show the depth of disagreement related to standards of review. Notwithstanding the high stakes involved in reviewing asylum denials, and the inherent difficulty in obtaining remand when the deferential fact-based standard is applied, confusion prevails in how to catalog each discrete element. Given well-documented deficiencies in agency fact-finding, it is of paramount importance that asylum seekers receive nondeferential review of their case denials as capaciously as the law permits. Yet, my original research reveals that U.S. appellate courts often vacillate over how to treat each element, or misclassify as factual issues that are actually legal.
The present state of affairs is unacceptably incongruous with the humanitarian ethos undergirding asylum and refugee law. Courts must not forget what is at stake each time they wrongly deny a meritorious asylum application. It is in light of this toll paid when courts err, that I advance an approach that could harmonize the courts of appeals’ disparate case law. I posit that application of the plenary nondeferential, mixed-question standard of review—anchored in recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence—offers a framework most likely to provide refugees with more searching review and thereby reduce the likelihood that bona fide claims are errantly rejected
The Toll Paid When Adjudicators Err: Reforming Appellate Review Standards for Refugees
Get PDFDeep, variegated, and unresolved tensions run between and within the U.S. courts of appeals’ standard of review classifications of the five core elements of the refugee definition. Several circuits have taken note of their dissonant jurisprudence, calling for either en banc or Supreme Court intervention. While existing scholarship raises cogent criticisms of excessive factual deference in U.S. immigration adjudications, very little attention has been paid to how the fact-law divide regarding the refugee definition maps onto review standards in the appellate context. This dearth of scholarly consideration is accompanied by the reality that standards of review often decide cases where the risk of erroneous denial involves the return of a putative refugee to persecution, torture, or death.
In this article, I provide the first comprehensive circuit-by-circuit study of each of the five core elements of the refugee definition to show the depth of disagreement related to standards of review. Notwithstanding the high stakes involved in reviewing asylum denials, and the inherent difficulty in obtaining remand when the deferential fact-based standard is applied, confusion prevails in how to catalog each discrete element. Given well-documented deficiencies in agency fact-finding, it is of paramount importance that asylum seekers receive nondeferential review of their case denials as capaciously as the law permits. Yet, my original research reveals that U.S. appellate courts often vacillate over how to treat each element, or misclassify as factual issues that are actually legal.
The present state of affairs is unacceptably incongruous with the humanitarian ethos undergirding asylum and refugee law. Courts must not forget what is at stake each time they wrongly deny a meritorious asylum application. It is in light of this toll paid when courts err, that I advance an approach that could harmonize the courts of appeals’ disparate case law. I posit that application of the plenary nondeferential, mixed-question standard of review—anchored in recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence—offers a framework most likely to provide refugees with more searching review and thereby reduce the likelihood that bona fide claims are errantly rejected
- …
