2014 Immigration Litigation Roundtable

Yale Law School
Third Annual Immigration Litigation Roundtable
December 6 - 7, 2013

AGENDA

~ Sessions in SLB Room 120 unless otherwise noted ~

Friday, December 6

12:00 – 1:30 pm 
Lunch: The Graduate Club, 155 Elm Street, New Haven

2:00 – 2:15 pm 
Opening and Introductions

2:15 – 4:00 pm 
Session I: Wrongful Removals: Litigating to Enforce Return

4:00 – 4:15 pm 
Break

4:15 – 6:15 pm 
Session II: Challenging Deference and Defending Administrative Initiatives

7:00 pm 
Dinner for all participants

Saturday, December 7

8:30 am 
Continental breakfast

9:00 – 10:30 am 
Session III: Consular Non-Reviewability

10:30 – 10:45 am 
Break

10:45 – 12:30 pm 
Session IV: Brainstorming Session

12:30 – 1:30 pm 
Lunch - Dining Hall, Upper Level

1:30 – 3:30 pm 
Session V: Conditions of Detention

3:30 – 4:00 pm
Planning for 2014 and Roundtable Evaluation

4:00 – 4:30 pm 
Transportation to train and airports provided

5:00 pm 
Drinks and informal dinner

The Yale Immigration Litigation Roundtable is generously supported by 

the Ford Foundation

MATERIALS FOR IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ROUNDTABLE 2013

Student researchers and editors: Vera Eidelman; Kate Harris; Kaitlin Konkel; Emma Kaufman; Sam Kleiner; Cynthia Liao; Aaron Littman; Aadhithi Padhmanabhan; Karun Tilak; and Xiao Wang.

***

Session I: Wrongful Removals

• [omitted]
• DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2011 (Sept. 2012), Tables 6 & 7
• Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010)
• Desai v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 695 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2012)
• Molina v. Holder, No. 12-73462 (9th Cir. 2013), Petitioner’s Brief (excerpts)

PDF of documents in Session I Wrongful Removals⁶

Supplemental Materials:

• Boston College Law School, Post-Departure Human Rights Project, Practice Advisory on Post-Departure Motions to Reopen or Reconsider (Dec, 2012)⁷
• DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2011 (Sept. 2012)⁸
• Richard Frankel, Illegal Emigration: The Continuing Life of Invalid Deportation Orders, 65 SMU L. Rev. 503 (2012)⁹
• Practice Advisory: Departure Bar to Motions to Reopen and Reconsider (Nov. 2013)¹⁰
• Molina v. Holder, No. 12-73462 (9th Cir. 2013), Petitioner’s Brief (complete)¹¹

***

Session II: Deference and Defending Administrative Initiatives

Deference

• Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2013) (excerpt)
• Arobelidze v. Holder, 653 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2011) (excerpt)
• Alina Das, Unshackling Habeas Review: Deference Norms, Chevron, and Agency Interpretation of Immigration Detention Statutes (working draft)
• Shruti Rana, Chevron Without the Courts?: The Supreme Court’s Recent Chevron Jurisprudence Through an Immigration Lens, 26 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 313 (2012) (excerpt)
• Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005) (excerpt)
• Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2007) (excerpt)
• Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314 (3rd. Cir. 2004) (excerpt)

Prosecutorial Discretion

• Congressional Research Service, Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues (excerpt)
• Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985).
• In re Aiken County, No. 11-1271, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2013) (excerpt from Judge Kavanaugh's opinion)
• David Martin, A Lawful Step for the Immigration System, Washington Post
• Kevin Price, Enforcement Discretion and Executive Duty, Vand. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014) (excerpt)

PDF of documents in Session II Deference and Prosecutorial Discretion¹²

Supplemental Materials:

Deference

• Immigration Judge Benchbook, Agency Deference & Brand X, Exec. Office for Immigration Review, Dep’t of Justice (excerpt)¹³
• Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006)¹⁴
• Carpio v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2010)¹⁵
• Quinchia v. U.S. Attorney General, 552 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008)¹⁶
• Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005) (complete)¹⁷
• Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2007) (complete)¹⁸
• Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314 (3rd. Cir. 2004) (complete)¹⁹
• Connor N. Raso & William N. Eskridge, Jr., Chevron as a Canon, Not a Precedent: An Empirical Study of What Motivates Justices in Agency Deference Cases, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1727 (2010)²⁰
• Estella F. Chen, Note, Judicial Deference after United States v. Mead: How Streamlining Measures at the Board of Immigration Appeals May Transform Traditional Notions of Deference in Immigration Law, 20 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 657 (2006)²¹
• Cass R Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 315 (2000) (excerpt)²²
• Shruti Rana, Chevron Without the Courts?: The Supreme Court’s Recent Chevron Jurisprudence Through an Immigration Lens, 26 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 313 (2012) (complete)²³

Prosecutorial Discretion

• Law Professors' Letter, re: Executive Authority to Grant Administrative Relief for DREAM Act Beneficiaries (2012)²⁴
• Rebecca Krauss, The Theory of Prosecutorial Discretion in Federal Law: Origins and Developments, Seton Hall Circ. Rev. (2009)²⁵
• David Martin, A Defense of Immigration-Enforcement Discretion: The Legal and Policy Flaws in Kris Kobach's Latest Crusade, Yale L.J. Online (2013)²⁶
• Robert Delahunty & John Yoo, Dream On: the Obama Administration's Nonenforcement of Immigration Laws, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause, Texas L. Rev. (2013)²⁷
• Saikrishna Prakash, The Statutory Nonenforcement Power, Texas L. Rev. (2013)²⁸
• In re Aiken County, No. 11-1271, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2013) (Complete)²⁹

***

Session III: Consular Non-Reviewability

• Donald Dobkin, Challenging the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability in Immigration Cases (excerpt)
• Stephen Legomsky, Fear and Loathing in Congress and the Courts: Immigration and Judicial Review (excerpt)
• Din v. Kerry, 718 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2013)
• American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2nd Cir. 2009) (excerpt)
• Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008)
• Chart: Visa Eligibility - Related Provisions of Law (National Immigration Project)
• 6 U.S.C. § 236

PDF of documents in Session III Consular Non-Reviewability³⁰

Supplemental Materials:

• Chart: Visa Responsibility (National Immigration Project)³¹
• Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security Concerning the Implementation of Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002³²
• Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)³³
• Marczac v. Greene, 971 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1992)³⁴
• Allende v. Schultz, 845 F.2d 1111 (1st Cir. 1988)³⁵
• Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999)³⁶
• Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986)³⁷
• American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2nd Cir. 2009) (complete)³⁸
• Donald Dobkin, Challenging the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability in Immigration Cases (complete)³⁹
• Stephen Legomsky, Fear and Loathing in Congress and the Courts: Immigration and Judicial Review (complete)⁴⁰

***

Session IV: Brainstorming

Criminal-Immigration Issues:

• Gowdy Amendment – Section 301(a)(4) (Definition of Aggravated Felon and Conviction)
• Descamps v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013)
• Practice Advisory: Descamps and the Modified Categorical Approach (July 2013) (excerpted version - Sections II and III(a)(5))
• Practice Advisory: Olivas-Motta v. Holder in the Ninth Circuit (May 2013)

Proportionality Defense:

• BIA Decision on proportionality (Fall 2013) (redacted excerpt)
• Hinds v. Holder, No. 13-2129 (1st Cir. 2013), Petitioner’s Brief (Nov. 22, 2013)

PDF of documents in Session IV Brainstorming⁴¹

Supplemental Materials:

Criminal-Immigration Issues:

• Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013)⁴²
• Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 716 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2013)⁴³
• Practice Advisory: Moncrieffe and the Categorical Approach (May 2013) (complete)⁴⁴
• Practice Advisory: Descamps and the Modified Categorical Approach (July 2013) (complete)⁴⁵
• Alina Das, The Immigration Penalties of Criminal Convictions: Resurrecting Categorical Analysis in Immigration Law 86 NYU L. Rev. 1669⁴⁶

Proportionality Defense:

• Hinds v. Holder, No. 13-2129 (1st Cir. 2013), ACLU Amicus Brief in support of the petitioner (Nov. 29, 2013)⁴⁷

***

Session V: Conditions of Detention

• [omitted]
• [omitted]
• [omitted]
• Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2000)
• U.S. v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007)
• Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011)
• Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012)
• Redacted Administrative Complaint Regarding “Icebox” Conditions
• Complaint, Castellano v. Napolitano, No. CV09-2281 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2009)
• Parsons v. Ryan, No. 13-16396 (9th Cir. 2013), ACLU Brief in support of class certification (excerpt)

PDF of documents in Session V Conditions of Detention⁴⁸

Supplemental Materials:

• Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004)⁴⁹
• Settlement, In Re Hutto Family Detention Center, No. A-07-CA-164-SS (W.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2007)⁵⁰
• National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Practice Advisory: Federal Torts Claims Act — Frequently Asked Questions for Immigration Attorneys (Jan. 24, 2013)⁵¹
• U.S. Border Patrol, Detention Standard Ref. No. 08-11267: Hold Rooms and Short- Term Custody, Jan. 31, 2008⁵²
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Policy No. 11022.1: Detainee Transfers, Jan. 4, 2012⁵³
• Parsons v. Ryan,⁵⁴No. 13-16396 (9th Cir. 2013), ACLU Brief in support of class certification (complete)⁵⁴

MATERIALS  

Session I: Advancing Appointed Counsel in Immigration Proceedings

Readings for session

1. Turner v. Rogers⁵⁵, 131 S.Ct. 2507 (2011)
2. Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder⁵⁶, (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2010), Briefing in support of summary judgment (excerpts) (full versions on website)
3. Judith Resnik, Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers⁵⁷, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 78 (2011)  (excerpt) (full version on website)
4. 8 U.S.C. § 1252⁵⁸
5. Aguilar v. U.S. ICE⁵⁹, 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (excerpt) (full version on website)

PDF of documents 1-5 for printing.⁶⁰

Background readings

1. M.L.B. v. S.L.J⁶¹., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)
2. Brad Snyder, Note, Disparate Impact on Death Row: M.L.B. and the   Indigent's Right to Counsel at Capital State Postconviction Proceedings⁶², 107 Yale L.J. 2211, 2213 (1998)
3.  
4. Judith Resnik, Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 78 (2011) (full article)⁶³
5. Aguilar v. U.S. ICE, 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (full decision)⁶⁴

Brainstorming I

Update on ‘proportionality’ arguments

1. In re R-M-L-, E.O.I.R. (I.J. Straus, March 15, 2012) (excerpt) (full version on website)⁶⁵
2. In re R-M-L-, Brief in Support of otion for SuppMression of Evidence and Termination of Proceedings, and Objection to Entry of a Removal Order (Hartford Immigration Court March 15, 2012) (excerpt) (full version on website)⁶⁶

CARPP

Judulang and Beyond

1. Manny Vargas, et al., AIC Legal Action Center, et al., Practice Advisory: Implications ofJudulang v. Holder for LPRs Seeking § 212(c) Relief and for Other Individuals Challenging Arbitrary Agency Policies (Dec. 16, 2011) (excerpt) (full version on webpage)⁶⁷

PDF of Proportionality, CARRP, and Judulang documents for printing.⁶⁸
 
Background readings

1. In re R-M-L-, E.O.I.R. (I.J. Straus, March 15, 2012) (full decision)⁶⁹
2. In re R-M-L-, Brief in Support of Motion for Suppression of Evidence and Termination of Proceedings, and Objection to Entry of a Removal Order (Hartford Immigration Court March 15, 2012) (full brief)⁷⁰
3. Letter from Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Asst. Exec. Sec'y., Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R. to Ronald C. Slye and Robert Pauw regarding Compliance with Recommendations, Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz, et. al., Cases 12.561 and 12.562 (Nov. 15, 2012).⁷¹
4. Manny Vargas, et al., AIC Legal Action Center, et al., Practice Advisory: Implications ofJudulang v. Holder for LPRs Seeking § 212(c) Relief and for Other Individuals Challenging Arbitrary Agency Policies (Dec. 16, 2011) (full advisory)⁷²
5. Jeffrey D. Stein, Delineating Discretion: How Judulang Limits Executive Immigration Policy-Making Authority and Opens Channels for Future Challenges, Geo. Immigr. L.J. (forthcoming)⁷³

Session II:  Litigating Immigration Detainers

Readings for session 

1. , in 1 Immigration Law for the Colorado Practitioner 34-1 (Nancy B. Elkind, et al. eds., 2011)
2. Kate M. Manuel, Congressional Research Service, Immigration Detainers: Legal Issues (Aug. 31, 2012)⁷⁴
3. Sample Form I-247⁷⁵
4. Connecticut Department of Correction, Immigration Detainer Detention/Release Form, CN 9308⁷⁶
5. Brizuela v. Feliciano, No. 3:12-cv-00226 (D. Conn. filed Feb. 13, 2012), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint⁷⁷

PDF of documents 1-5 for printing.⁷⁸

Background readings

1. Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano, No. 1:2011cv05452 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 11, 2011), Complaint.⁷⁹
2. Roy v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 19, 2012), Complaint⁸⁰
3. TRUST Act, A.B. 1081, 2011-12 Regular Session (Cal. 2011)⁸¹
4. Gov. Brown’s TRUST Act veto message (Sept. 30, 2012)⁸²
5. Law professors' letter in support of the TRUST Act⁸³
6.  
7. , 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 164 (2008)
8. Christopher N. Lasch, How the Court's Upholding of Federal Immigration Enforcement Authority in Arizona v. United States Casts Doubt on the Validity of Federal Immigration Detainers, 46 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. (forthcoming Spring 2013) ⁸⁴
9. In re M-S-C-L-, Brief in Support of Motion for Suppression of Evidence and Termination of Proceedings, and  Objection to Entry of a Removal Order (Hartford Immigration Court March 10, 2012) (excerpts)⁸⁵
10.  In re R-M-L-, Brief in Support of Motion for Suppression of Evidence and Termination of Proceedings, and  Objection to Entry of a Removal Order (Hartford Immigration Court March 15, 2012) (excerpts)⁸⁶
11. In re R-M-L-, E.O.I.R. (I.J. Straus, March 15, 2012)⁸⁷

Brainstorming II

Consular Non-reviewability

1. Rivas v. Napolitano⁸⁸, 677 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012)
2. Bustamonte v. Mukasey⁸⁹, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008)

Update on Videohearings

1. Vilchez v. Holder⁹⁰, 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012)

PDF of Consular non-reviewability and videohearings documents for printing.⁹¹

Background readings
    1.    DOS-DHS Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Implementation of Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002⁹²
    2.    6 U.S.C. § 236⁹³

Session III:  Litigating Border Issues

Readings for session

1.  
2. Summary of April 28, 2012 U.S.D.A. OASCR decision⁹⁴
3. Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012)⁹⁵
4. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2006)⁹⁶
5. Matter of E-R-M-F & A-S-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 580 (BIA 2011)⁹⁷
6.  
7. 8 C.F.R. § 292.5⁹⁸
8. 8 CFR § 287.3(c)⁹⁹

PDF of documents 1-8 for printing.¹⁰⁰

Background readings

1. Tabbaa v. Holder¹⁰¹, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007)
2. Hernandez v. Cremer¹⁰², 913 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1990)
3. Orantes v. Thornburgh¹⁰³, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990)
4. --- v. Vilsack, No. FS-11-5171, Office of the Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, U.S.D.A. (Apr. 28, 2012)¹⁰⁴