Contributions

How can asy­lum appli­cants and their advo­cates safe­guard their rights to a fair, impar­tial con­sid­er­a­tion of their claims when the Board of Immi­gra­tion Appeals has vir­tu­al­ly com­plete dis­cre­tion in its deci­sions? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Susan Levin­son (’19) argues that the lack of pro­ce­dur­al safe­guards built into the asy­lum process, cou­pled with the Court’s gen­er­al­ly def­er­en­tial, hands-off approach in the immi­gra­tion con­text, deprive vul­ner­a­ble appli­cants of their right under due process to a fair, impar­tial con­sid­er­a­tion of their claims. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion rec­om­mends judi­cial, reg­u­la­to­ry, and leg­isla­tive reforms to pro­tect legit­i­mate asy­lum claims. 

Contributions

Do pass­ports and Con­sular Reports of Birth Abroad con­sti­tute con­clu­sive proof of U.S. cit­i­zen­ship such that the State Department’s revo­ca­tion of these doc­u­ments is not imper­mis­si­bly retroac­tive? Sonya Chung (’17) and Zi Lin (’17) exam­ine this ques­tion, based on their expe­ri­ence as writ­ers of the prob­lem for the New York Uni­ver­si­ty School of Law 2016 Immi­gra­tion Law Com­pe­ti­tion. Their Con­tri­bu­tion dis­cuss­es the state of the law sur­round­ing pass­ports and CRBAs as evi­dence of cit­i­zen­ship and their revo­ca­bil­i­ty. The Con­tri­bu­tion argues that courts should allow indi­vid­u­als to use these doc­u­ments as con­clu­sive proof of cit­i­zen­ship and that the State Department’s pow­er to cor­rect its own errors should be cir­cum­scribed care­ful­ly in cas­es where there has been extend­ed reliance on cit­i­zen­ship rights.