Limit on Judicial Review

A provision of the House immigration bill that hopefully has been set aside for theyear would “severely [restrict] access to the federal courts for individuals in removal(deportation) proceedings” and do it under the guise of reducing the number ofimmigration cases in the federal courts. Jill Family, Associate Professor at the WidenerUniversity School of Law, analyzes this provision for the Immigration Policy Center here.

The provision is a “certificate of reviewability” requirement for individuals who wantto go to federal court to challenge their orders of removal. Under the provision, accessto federal court would be permitted only if a federal judge first grants permission. Andthe judge may grant permission only after the immigrant  makes a “substantial showingthat the petition for review is likely to be granted.” The request for review would bedenied automatically if the judge fails to act. In other words, although the individualcan seek independent judicial review of an administrative action, there is no right toactual judgment.

The Senate’s version of comprehensive immigration reform legislation did not includethe “certificate of reviewability” requirement. In fact, a federal judge who testified onimmigration reform before a Senate committee explained that “it would be an extraordinarystep” to authorize one federal judge to cut off such appellate review of cases involvingindividual liberty. What is needed instead, according to a panel of federal judges whotestified in the Senate, is reform of the executive branch’s adjudication process.

  Read the entire report here.             
            
            For more information contact Tim Vettel at (202) 742-5608.