Immigration Judicial Reviews

This book analyses how the system of immigration judicial reviews works in practice, as an area which has, for decades, constituted the majority of judicial review cases and is politically controversial. Drawing upon extensive empirical research and unprecedented research access, it explores who brings judicial review challenges against immigration decisions and why, the type of immigration decisions that are challenged, how cases proceed through the judicial review process, how cases are settled out of court, and how judicial review interacts with other legal and non-legal remedies. It also examines the quality of immigration judicial review claims and the quality of the initial administrative decisions being challenged. Through developing a novel account of the operation of the immigration judicial review system in practice and the lived experience of it by judges, representatives, and claimants, this book adds a significant new perspective to the wider understanding of judicial review.

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.

Aliens may be removed from the U.S. for a variety of reasons, such as having entered the country unlawfully, overstaying a visa, or committing a crime. Prior to removal, however, aliens usually have access to a removal hearing or some other form of adjudication that determines whether they are subject to removal. Congress has determined that review by the fed. courts will not be available with respect to certain types of removals, such as expedited removal orders, crime-related removals, etc. This report analyzes the jurisdictional issues in the Immigration and Nationality Act by focusing on the procedural mechanisms used to initiate judicial review and the reach of an Article III court¿s jurisdiction to review a removal order. A print on demand report.

Judicial Review: A Practical Guide is a handbook which aims to be a first port of call in all matters concerning judicial review applications, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. This new edition has been significantly amended to take account of the following developments in law and practice, including: * Development of the Unified Tribunal system with transfers of judicial reviews * Regionalisation of Administrative Court * Clear development of mistake of fact as a mistake of law * Increasing understanding of the impact of the Human Rights Act * Limitations upon judicial review in the context of immigration * Ongoing case-law developments * Changes to Appeals (CPR Pt 52) * Developments in costs and funding In addition to the authors' commentary, Judicial Review: A Practical Guide contains over 20 precedents covering all aspects of the litigation process, together with all the main legislative and judicial materials.

This book tackles the important topic of the relationship between three parts of the public law regime in a common law jurisdiction: the common law of judicial review or the unwritten constitution, the written constitution and public international law. Thematic coherence is ensured by the fact that the papers were presented at a conference in early 2003 and then extensively revised and by a general focus on a path-breaking decision of Canada's Supreme Court (Baker). The book thus contains a highly productive exchange between an international group of scholars on such themes as the rule of law, judicial deference, the separation of powers, the role of human rights in common law reasoning on immigration and security matters, and the nature of legal authority.

This book deals with one of the greatest challenges for the judiciary in the 21st century. It reflects on the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative discretion in the administrative state; a role that can no longer solely be understood from the traditional doctrine of the Trias Politica. Traditionally, courts review acts of administrative bodies implying a degree of discretion with quite some restraint. Typically it is reviewed whether the decision is non-arbitrary or whether there is no manifest error of assessment. The question arises though as to whether the concern regarding ensuring the non-arbitrary character of the exercise of administrative power, which is frequently performed at a distance from political bodies, goes far enough to guarantee that the administration exercises its powers in a legitimate way. This publication searches for new modes of judicial review of administrative discretion exercised in the administrative state. It links state-of-the-art academic research on the role of courts in the administrative state with the daily practice of the higher and lower administrative courts struggling with their position in the evolving administrative state. The book concludes that with the changing role and forms of the administrative state, administrative courts across the world and across sectors are in the process of reconsidering their roles and the appropriate models of judicial review. Learning from the experiences in different sectors and jurisdictions, it provides theoretical and empirical foundations for reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of different models of review, the constitutional consequences and the main questions that deserve further research and debate. Jurgen de Poorter is professor of administrative law at Tilburg University and deputy judge in the District Court of The Hague. Ernst Hirsch Ballin is distinguished university professor at Tilburg University, professor in human rights law at the University of Amsterdam, and president of the T.M.C. Asser Institute for International and European Law. He is also a member of the Scientific Council for Government policy (WRR). Saskia Lavrijssen is professor of Economic Regulation and Market Governance of Network Industries at Tilburg University.