{ "id": "R45314", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45314", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606141, "date": "2019-10-08", "retrieved": "2019-10-11T22:18:04.830920", "title": "Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework", "summary": "The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission. \nIn general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review. \nINA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States. The statute also authorizes, but does not require, the government to apply this procedure to aliens who are inadmissible on the same grounds if they have been physically present in the country for less than two years.\nImmigration authorities currently apply expedited removal in more limited fashion than authorized by statute\u2014in general, the process is applied strictly to covered aliens (1) apprehended when arriving at a designated port of entry; (2) who arrived in the United States by sea without being admitted or paroled into the country by immigration authorities, and who had been physically present in the United States for less than two years; or (3) who were found in the United States within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entering the country, who had not been admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities. Nevertheless, expedited removal has accounted for a substantial portion of the alien removals each year. And in July 2019, DHS announced that it would expand expedited removal within the broader framework of INA Section 235(b)(1) to eligible aliens apprehended in any part of the United States who have not been admitted or paroled by immigration authorities, and who have been physically present in the country for less than two years. A federal district court, however, has enjoined the implementation of this expansion pending a legal challenge.\nAlthough INA Section 235(b)(1) generally confers broad authority on immigration officials to apply expedited removal to certain classes of aliens, in some circumstances an alien subject to expedited removal may be entitled to certain procedural protections before he or she may be removed from the United States. For example, an alien who expresses a fear of persecution may obtain administrative review of his or her claim, and if the alien\u2019s fear is determined credible, the alien will be placed in formal removal proceedings where he or she can pursue asylum and related protections. Additionally, an alien may seek administrative review of a claim that he or she is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, admitted refugee, or asylee. Unaccompanied alien children also are statutorily exempted from expedited removal. \nGiven the streamlined nature of expedited removal and the broad discretion afforded to immigration officers to implement that process, challenges have been raised contesting the procedure\u2019s constitutionality. In particular, some have argued that the procedure violates aliens\u2019 due process rights because aliens placed in expedited removal do not have the opportunity to seek counsel or contest their removal before a judge or other arbiter. Reviewing courts have largely dismissed such challenges for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, rejected the claims on the grounds that aliens seeking entry into the United States generally do not have constitutional due process protections. But such cases have concerned aliens arriving at the U.S. border or designated ports of entry, and such aliens may be entitled to lesser constitutional protections than aliens located within the United States. Expanding the expedited removal process to aliens located within the interior could compel courts to tackle questions involving the relationship between the federal government\u2019s broad power over the entry and removal of aliens and the due process rights of aliens located within the United States.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45314", "sha1": "925f8ce03f031058f756fabb60d6c5f2dcc43e8b", "filename": "files/20191008_R45314_925f8ce03f031058f756fabb60d6c5f2dcc43e8b.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45314", "sha1": "c617c3f5bbd8e446a0fcc04c69751f26a2e3bad5", "filename": "files/20191008_R45314_c617c3f5bbd8e446a0fcc04c69751f26a2e3bad5.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4791, "name": "Asylees, Refugees, & Other Humanitarian Concerns" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4883, "name": "Border Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4886, "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 585590, "date": "2018-09-19", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:44:19.575096", "title": "Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework", "summary": "The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission. \nIn general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review. \nINA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States. The statute also authorizes, but does not require, the government to apply this procedure to aliens who are inadmissible on the same grounds if they have been physically present in the country for less than two years.\nAs a matter of practice, however, immigration authorities have applied expedited removal in more limited fashion than potentially authorized by statute\u2014in general, the process is applied strictly to (1) arriving aliens apprehended at a designated port of entry; (2) aliens who arrived in the United States by sea without being admitted or paroled into the country by immigration authorities, and who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years; or (3) aliens who are found in the United States within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entering the country, who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities. Nevertheless, expedited removal accounts for a substantial portion of the alien removals each year. And in January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to expand expedited removal within the broader framework of INA Section 235(b)(1). The agency has yet to promulgate regulations implementing this directive.\nIn some circumstances, however, an alien subject to expedited removal may be entitled to certain procedural protections before he may be removed from the United States. For example, an alien who expresses a fear of persecution may obtain administrative review of his claim, and if his fear is determined credible the alien will be placed in formal removal proceedings where he can pursue asylum and related protections. Additionally, an alien may seek administrative review of a claim that he is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, admitted refugee, or asylee. Unaccompanied alien children also are statutorily exempted from expedited removal. \nGiven the streamlined nature of expedited removal and the broad discretion afforded to immigration officers to implement that process, challenges have been raised contesting the procedure\u2019s constitutionality. In particular, some have argued that the procedure violates aliens\u2019 due process rights because aliens placed in expedited removal do not have the opportunity to seek counsel or contest their removal before a judge or other arbiter. Reviewing courts have largely dismissed such challenges for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, rejected the claims on the grounds that aliens seeking entry into the United States generally do not have constitutional due process protections. But such cases have concerned aliens arriving at the U.S. border or designated ports of entry, and such aliens may be entitled to lesser constitutional protections than aliens located within the United States. Expanding the expedited removal process to aliens located within the interior could compel courts to tackle questions involving the relationship between the federal government\u2019s broad power over the entry and removal of aliens and the due process rights of aliens located within the United States.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45314", "sha1": "dd907e3412aee1782aa4d4e5482d2f6603c44a90", "filename": "files/20180919_R45314_dd907e3412aee1782aa4d4e5482d2f6603c44a90.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45314", "sha1": "c3ef06aff1882dd93afef04d6b9ca674fe022302", "filename": "files/20180919_R45314_c3ef06aff1882dd93afef04d6b9ca674fe022302.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4791, "name": "Asylees, Refugees, & Other Humanitarian Concerns" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4883, "name": "Border Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4886, "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs" ] }