Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEsquivel, Daniel J.
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-04T20:28:37Z
dc.date.available2019-09-04T20:28:37Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/124306
dc.description.abstractThis Note will discuss the Sixth Circuit’s analysis in refusing to find a due process violation when an IJ fails to advise an alien of the availability of discretionary relief. First, this Note will present the facts and holding of Estrada.An examination of the procedures in removal proceedings and procedural due process will follow. This Note will then discuss the United States Supreme Court’s decisions regarding an alien’s right to discretionary relief. This Note will also discuss the recent circuit split regarding whether an IJ’s failure to notify an alien of discretionary relief amounts to a due process violation. Finally, this Note will argue that the Sixth Circuit’s failure to recognize federal regulations resulted in the denial of due process because 8 C.F.R. section 1240.11(a)(2) establishes a property interest in the IJ’s notice to an alien of the availability of discretionary relief.en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleUnited States v. Estrada: The Sixth Circuit Misses the Mark in Finding No Due Process Violation in Immigration Judges' Failure to Provide Notice of Eligibility for Discretionary Reliefen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume52en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.pages353-374en_US
dc.date.year2019en_US
dc.date.monthJune
dc.description.issue3en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record