Immigration Law

Annually, agents collect the forensic digital data of over 40,000 international travelers. This Comment addresses the splintering doctrine between the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits regarding the Fourth Amendment limitations to performing forensic electronic searches at the border. Use restrictions consider each use of data—extracting, retaining, querying, and sharing—as a separate Fourth Amendment search, subject to a separate reasonableness analysis. This Comment will argue that applying such restrictions in the border context prevents the government from using data collected under a narrow exception for broader purposes that would otherwise require a warrant.

A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) may be detained indefinitely until her removal order is finalized. Detainees have challenged prolonged detention following a detainee’s bond hearing on Fourteenth Amendment Due Process grounds, leading to a circuit split. Courts generally apply the Mathews test when hearing these challenges, which requires balancing the individual’s liberty at stake against the government’s interest in limiting that liberty. This Comment argues that a more complete evaluation of national security implications under the clear and convincing evidence standard will more accurately capture the full scope of proffered government interests and reduce the extreme deference given to the executive branch in its national security determinations.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), individuals who have experienced past persecution or fear future persecution because of their religious beliefs can apply for asylum in the United States. Although individuals are afforded these protections under the statutory provisions of the INA, there is a fundamental problem in the way courts have treated religious asylum claims. Rather than holistically considering religion, courts have instead focused on religion’s fragmentary aspects. This Comment argues that courts must first adopt an understanding of religion in the context of religious asylum claims in order to determine what it means to be persecuted on account of religion under the INA. To avoid inconsistent reasoning among immigration and federal courts as it relates to the one central reason standard, this Comment proposes a four-part definitional methodology of religion and argues that a but-for causation standard as used in Title VII claims is sufficient in adjudicating religious asylum claims.

When federal officials told Ravidath Ragbir that they were deporting him because of his immigration activism, no one could stop them. This unreviewability was by design — a feature, rather than a bug, of our immigration laws.

This Comment analyzes the equal protection issues raised by the Dual SSN Requirement and argues that it violates the equal protection rights of citizen children and spouses.