Logo image
Bringing "Civil"ity into Immigration Law: Using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Fix Immigration Adjudication
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Bringing "Civil"ity into Immigration Law: Using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Fix Immigration Adjudication

Richard Frankel
Vanderbilt law review, v 76(5), pp 1379-1436
01 Oct 2023
url
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375159View
Open

Abstract

20th century Deportation Discovery rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Immigration policy Noncitizens Pretrial discovery Substance over form Trials Tribunals & commissions
Government lawyers frequently argue, and courts have frequently held, that noncitizens in removal proceedings do not have the same rights as defendants in criminal proceedings. A common argument made to support this position is that removal proceedings are civil matters. Accordingly, a noncitizen facing deportation has fewer due process protections than a criminal defendant, and deportation proceedings similarly provide fewer protections than criminal proceedings. In many ways, however, the rules governing immigration proceedings differ markedly from those governing civil actions in court. Immigration proceedings suffer from arcane and hypertechnical procedures that impede immigrants from having their claims reviewed on the merits. Notably, similar problems plagued the civil justice system back in the early twentieth century. The response was to create the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which emphasized a preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. The modern Federal Rules have substantially simplified pleading requirements and emphasized flexibility in order to foster the goals of fairness, efficiency, and decisions on the merits. This Article argues that the process that spawned the Federal Rules can offer valuable lessons for reforming immigration proceedings. The Article identifies several examples where immigration rules differ from the Federal Rules in ways that inhibit decisions on the merits. It then proposes a fundamental reexamination of immigration rules with an eye toward promoting decisions based on substance rather than procedure, as well as a structure for ongoing reform. Given the high stakes in removal proceedings, if society continues to treat immigration proceedings as civil matters, the least it can do is incorporate those aspects of the Federal Rules that best promote access to justice for noncitizens.

Metrics

21 Record Views
1 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Web of Science research areas
Law
Logo image