Admissibility and Removal

  • Shaugnessy
    • Focuses on fact that power to control immigration rests with Congress, Constitution doesn’t apply when people are seeking admission.
    • Power with Congress, NOT agency, who simply applies law as given by Congress--must apply statute within narrow range.
  • Rodriquez
    • Brings in international law. (But 10th Circuit opinion, not SCOTUS.)
  • Clark case, quintessential statutory interpretation case.
    • Had previously used same statute before, and thus had to apply statute in same manner.
  • Raffiti, lawful permanent resident in US--expedited removal--court willing to take a careful look because he’s a LPR. Not that expedited removal improper. This is also before the 1996 act that changed law.
  • Felisna and Rosenberg cases
    • Statute in effect at time different than today, but the reasoning could be used today.
    • If expedited removal statute is Const. as applied to persons found within the US within 100 miles and less than 2 years, then can be treated as still seeking admission, then OK.
    • Or could find that 14th Amendment protects them and the rest doesn’t follow, and that law would be restricted from applying to that person.
    • So just because a statute or regulation exists, may not need to accept it as legal/Const. or as a proper interp. of statute if flies in face of an impermissible interp. statute.
      • Doesn't matter what agency says if they are wrong.
View most interesting 'lawschool' photos on Flickriver

Related Notes

Related Commentary