Talk:Removal proceedings

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"How Appeals Work" section POV, original research issues

The "How Appeals Work" section seems to represent a particular user's opinion, violating POV, no original research, and encyclopedic tone policies. See, e.g., the use of "ping pong" to describe cases taken up by two courts, the strong implicit attack on the standard of review used by the courts, the throwaway reference to President Trump, the statement "This is a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution", with excessive citation of court cases, constructing a legal argument but not an encyclopedic conclusion, etc.

Since I don't have any relevant knowledge I can't update and don't want to delete, so I'm flagging here. --72.69.118.204 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

This article is full of OR issues and a number of false claims. I don't have time right now to list them all, but here's my go:

"who are empowered by statute to grant injunctive relief in particular cases" -- implies that the standard form of review is by injunction, while nearly all injunctive actions are barred
"Lawful permanent residents (legal immigrants) could either be aliens or "nationals but not citizens of the United States," which requires a case-by-case analysis and depends mainly on the number of continuous years they have spent in the United States before getting convicted of an offense that triggers removability" ... uh, no. Non-citizen nationals are never (except potentially in certain edge cases but I think never) LPRs. And the citations have nothing to do this. "They must never be treated as foreign nationals" -- yeah, no, LPRs are always treated as foreign nationals.
Uses the "special inquiry officer" title which is far outdated
Actually, nearly all of the recently added citations don't contribute much at all to the article and obscure the real content. WP:NOR discourages use of primary sources, which this article is absolutely full of.

Pinging Libracarol, who contributed much of the recent addition to this article. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say that an LPR is a foreign national and not an American? What if he or she was a US national by statute? I rewrote the article in a way so that the general public can get a much better idea about how US immigration laws work. Federal courts resolve these legal issues and I simply add that information here. They are precedents and Wikipedia editors cannot reject them. Injunctive relief in immigration cases is obtaining something from the government by the power of law and a federal court. It's a court order (other than a procedural order). For example, if a US national is placed in removal proceedings by the government the US national can go straight to a federal court and request injunctive relief. All other procedural requirements can be skipped because those are only for aliens. In fact, in every case a person can request injunctive relieve unless a statute explicitly prohibits such a relief. A person has to tell the court in writing exactly what he/she wants done. What would be the purpose of requesting review if there was no such thing as injunctive relief? This relief is available in district courts, in courts of appeals, and in the Supreme Court. [1] In some situations people can actually die if they don't get relief in time. Regarding "standard of review", all courts know the standards of review in immigration cases, but that doesn't get what an alien wants. The court simply prepares a procedural order such as remanding the case but the remand obviously does not end the proceeding, and the lower court or the federal agency can put the case on hold for years if it wishes to. There's no rule on how fast a case must be decided. That's one of the reasons why Congress expressly made injunctive relief available to all people in removal proceedings, including aliens.--Libracarol (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you're right about LPRs. "Lawfully admitted for permanent residence" is defined at 8 USC 1101 such that it can apply only to aliens, and "alien" is defined as anyone who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States. So an LPR cannot be a non-citizen national. An LPR who acquires US nationality ceases to be an LPR at that moment. Furthermore, there is no way for an LPR to acquire non-citizen nationality; it is only possible to acquire citizenship. That paragraph should be deleted. Phoogenb (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article recently and was flabbergasted by the nature of the referencing and claims made in it. From this talk page I can see I'm not going crazy. I have to wonder whether the most reasonable option might simply be to return the article to its state on February 6, 2018. I think it is a shame to have to be considering this, because some of the added material seems useful, and Libracarol clearly put a lot of work into it. But I am not sure if there is an easy way to disentangle it from the great mass of outrageous violations of the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies.

To name another serious, but non-obvious example, the article now states in its second sentence: "Procedural defenses such as collateral estoppel (or res judicata) and double jeopardy do not apply to the current removal proceedings,..." Yet the first case cited in support of this proposition makes clear, at some length, that collateral estoppel does apply in immigration proceedings in general; it merely found that the doctrine should not be applied in the narrow circumstances of the case. Part of the reason we have a policy against original research is to avoid this sort of misinterpretation.

Thoughts, Kevin, Phoogenb, Libracarol? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emufarmers: I would certainly support reverting the article to that state. A quick spot-check of Libracarol's contributions to other articles is also somewhat troubling at a glance. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have gone ahead and reverted it. I happened to be looking at adjustment of status after this article. It doesn't have glaring POV issues, but I do have the same concerns about OR. This talk page probably isn't the best page to talk about this, though; would you like to start a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 10:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emufarmers: Sorry, I don't have much capacity right now but I'll keep it on my list – if you bring it to a board ping me. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 16:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I wasn't finished. I was going to improve the article from time to time but became busy on something else. Emufarmers, I was trying to explain to readers that a wrong decision in an immigration case does not put an end to that case. It can be litigated over and over until a correct decision is made or the litigant simply gives up. In other words, there are no limitations for an alien obtaining a US visa and similarly there are no limitations for an alien in removal proceedings obtaining an available relief. The point is removal proceedings are not criminal proceedings or other civil proceedings.--Libracarol (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]