Year: 2020 (Vol. 44)
Note: this is the double-issue problem created for the annual NYU Law Immigration Law Competition, hosted by the NYU School of Law in January and February 2020. Students from law schools across the country participated in the competition, and the final argument was before a distinguished panel of Circuit Court judges, including Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, Judge Cheryl A. Krause, and Judge Richard J. Sullivan, from the Ninth, Third, and Second Circuits, respectively.
Topic: Immigration Law
Questions Presented:
1) Whether section 1252(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act unconstitutionally limits a non-citizen’s ability to obtain federal judicial review of their habeas petition following an expedited removal proceedings pursuant to section 1225(b)(1).
2) Whether it is reasonable for the Board of Immigration Appeals to require asylum applicants claiming persecution based on their membership in a “particular social group” under section 1158 of the Immigration Naturalization Act to demonstrate the “particularity” and “social distinction” of their alleged social groups, and whether application of this interpretation forecloses sex trafficking victims, as a matter of law, from making asylum claims based on their membership in a particular social group.
Format: Word and PDF
Prepared by: Chang Hahn & Jahvonta Mason
Download Link for Chrome (open in new tab):
Partially preempted as of January 1, 2022: Q1 is preempted by Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2020), holding that section 1252(e)(2) does not violate the Suspension Clause (or due process clause), reversing the 9th Cir. decision depended on by appellant. Q2 is not preempted.