Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right to Appointed Counsel for Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings

Mark L. Noferi

American Immigration Council

May 19, 2012

Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012
Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 308

When a Department of Homeland Security officer mandatorily detains a green card holder without bail pending his removal proceedings, for a minor crime committed perhaps long ago, the immigrant’s life takes a drastic turn. If he contests his case, he likely will remain incarcerated in substandard conditions for months or years, often longer than for his original crime, and be unable to acquire a lawyer, access family whom might assist, or access key evidence or witnesses. In these circumstances, it is all but certain he will lose his deportation case, sometimes wrongfully, and be banished abroad from work, family, and friends. The immigrant’s one chance to escape these cascading events is the off-the-record “Joseph” hearing challenging detention. If he wins, is released, and can secure counsel, he likely will win his case to stay in America. Yet pro se and detained, he may not even be told the “Joseph” hearing exists, let alone win the hearing involving complex statutory analysis on facts, witnesses, and evidence relating to the conviction, now all outside his reach.

It is rare in modern American law that a non-lawyer’s decision causes so much to hang in the balance in such complex yet informal proceedings without a lawyer to challenge it. Indeed, the modern immigration detention system is uniquely rare, in peacetime or war, in providing for preventive pretrial detention without counsel pursuant to underlying proceedings without counsel. It creates a cascading risk of wrongful detention and deportation – one cognizable under modern procedural due process theories, even notwithstanding traditional plenary power over immigration laws. In a post-Padilla v. Kentucky world with an increasingly functionalist Constitutional view of deportation, and where criminal defenders now must advise on the same issues litigated at the Joseph hearing, a right to appointed counsel for mandatorily detained immigrants pending removal proceedings is constitutionally viable, and practically feasible.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 67

Keywords: appointed counsel, immigration, immigration detention, removal, mandatory detention, preventive detention, preventative detention, Gideon, civil Gideon, deportation, procedural due process, due process, Demore v. Kim, unbundled representation, 236(c), aggravated felony, moral turpitude, CIMT

Download This Paper

Date posted: May 20, 2012 ; Last revised: January 4, 2013

Suggested Citation

Noferi, Mark L., Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right to Appointed Counsel for Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings (May 19, 2012). Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012; Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 308. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2062952

Contact Information

Mark L. Noferi (Contact Author)
American Immigration Council ( email )
1331 G St. NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
United States
2025077533 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://immigrationpolicy.org/ipc-staff
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,309
Downloads: 235
Download Rank: 80,888

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.265 seconds