Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
9-27-2017
Abstract
The seven amici curiae are distinguished scholars of international law, refugee rights, and the immigration laws of the United States. The names and biographical information of the amici, who are participating in their individual capacities and not as representatives of the institutions with which they are affiliated, are appended to this brief.
Over two centuries ago, this Court laid down the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains." Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, & U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). The court below did not apply that bedrock doctrine, instead deferring to regulations under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to reconcile two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in a manner that flouts the United States' treaty obligations to refugees.
Moreover, the immigration-law question presented-whether refugees with reinstated removal orders are eligible to apply for asylum-is one of enormous practical consequence. Withholding of removal does not provide the full range of substantive rights under the Refugee Convention that the Refugee Protocol mandates-including the unrestricted right to work and the ability to travel outside of the United States. Withholding of removal also does not provide refugees with adjustment to lawful permanent resident status or derivative status for family members. And there is a much higher evidentiary burden to obtain withholding of removal (or CAT protection) than asylum, meaning that for a substantial number of genuine refugees, the only realistically available options are asylum or a return to persecution. Declaring certain refugees categorically ineligible for asylum thus has potentially life-or-death consequences for significant numbers of those refugees.
Recommended Citation
Hathaway, James C., "Perez-Guzman v. Sessions: Brief of Scholars of Immigration and International Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (2017). Appellate Briefs. 38.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/38
Comments
Amicus: Chemerinsky, Professor Erwin; Goodwin-Gill, Professor Guy S.; Hathaway, Professor James C.; Johnson, Professor Kevin R.; Motomura, Professor Hiroshi; Romero, Professor Victor C.; Yale-Loehr, Professor Stephen W.