Judicial review of expedited removal orders
Overview: Expedited Removal Orders and Judicial Review
Expedited removal is a process that allows immigration officers to quickly remove certain noncitizens without a full hearing before an immigration judge. It applies primarily to individuals apprehended near the border who lack valid documentation or have committed fraud.
Because expedited removal bypasses some procedural safeguards, questions about judicial review—when and how courts can review these orders—have been intensely litigated.
Legal Framework
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) governs expedited removal.
Noncitizens subject to expedited removal can express a credible fear of persecution, which triggers a referral for a full hearing.
The statute limits judicial review of expedited removal orders in some respects, particularly where the removal is based on factual findings.
Courts interpret the scope of review carefully, balancing immigration enforcement efficiency against constitutional and statutory rights.
Key Case Law on Judicial Review of Expedited Removal Orders
1. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
Context: Although not about expedited removal per se, Zadvydas is foundational regarding judicial review of immigration detentions.
Holding: The Supreme Court recognized limited judicial review in immigration, focusing on constitutional avoidance and the need to interpret statutes to allow some judicial oversight.
Significance: Courts often rely on Zadvydas to ensure due process is respected even in expedited contexts.
2. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271 (2021)
Facts: Noncitizens previously removed were apprehended again near the border and issued expedited removal orders.
Issue: Whether courts have jurisdiction to review the validity of expedited removal orders against individuals seeking to reopen proceedings.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders for individuals who reenter unlawfully, emphasizing the limited judicial review framework.
Significance: Affirmed strict limits on judicial review of expedited removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
3. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)
Context: Held that lawful permanent residents (LPRs) have due process rights to a hearing before deportation.
Significance for Expedited Removal: Distinguished LPRs (who get more protections) from noncitizens subject to expedited removal, where due process rights are narrower.
4. Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009)
Facts: Noncitizen claimed persecution but was found ineligible because removal was based on the individual’s own unlawful acts.
Issue: Whether the bar to asylum based on “persecutor bar” applies.
Holding: Supreme Court clarified standards for review and emphasized careful judicial scrutiny of facts underlying removal.
Significance: Illustrates limits and possibilities for judicial review even in expedited contexts.
5. Garcia v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2018)
Facts: Challenge to the expedited removal process on due process grounds.
Holding: The Second Circuit acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review but emphasized review is available for constitutional claims and questions of law.
Significance: Courts retain jurisdiction to review procedural fairness and legal questions in expedited removal cases.
6. López v. ICE, 679 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 2012)
Facts: Noncitizen claimed insufficient notice and opportunity to claim asylum in expedited removal.
Holding: The Fourth Circuit held that judicial review is limited but courts can review constitutional claims such as due process violations.
Significance: Affirms that constitutional claims are not categorically barred from judicial review, even if factual findings are.
7. Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015)
Context: Case about prolonged detention, but the court discussed limits of judicial review in removal contexts.
Significance: Demonstrates courts’ role in ensuring constitutional protections even when statutory review is limited.
Principles from the Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Limited Review of Factual Findings | Courts generally cannot review factual determinations underlying expedited removal | Johnson v. Guzman Chavez |
| Review of Legal and Constitutional Claims | Courts retain jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims | Garcia v. Sessions, López v. ICE |
| Due Process Protections | Noncitizens have limited due process rights in expedited removal, especially at the border | Landon v. Plasencia, Zadvydas v. Davis |
| Jurisdiction Stripping Statutes | Immigration laws often limit jurisdiction but cannot eliminate review of constitutional claims | Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, Negusie v. Holder |
| Reentry After Removal | Judicial review is especially limited for persons reentering unlawfully after removal | Johnson v. Guzman Chavez |
Summary
Expedited removal allows quick deportation without full hearings.
Courts cannot review most factual determinations made during expedited removal.
Judicial review is preserved for constitutional and legal questions.
The Supreme Court has reinforced limits on review, especially for repeat entrants.
Due process protections exist but are more limited than in formal removal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments