Centenar de profesores de leyes de EE.UU. envían carta a Trump sobre legalidad de DACA

Dallas, Texas. Ilustres juristas estadounidenses que han puesto sus aquilatados y experimentados conocimientos en materia constitucional y en la ley de inmigración al servicio de la docencia de la Ciencia Jurídica, han derrumbado con contundencia e irrebatibles argumentos, la tesis político-partidista de un grupo de Fiscales Estatales liderados por el texano Ken Paxton, que pretende coaccionar al gobierno federal para que revoque la Acción Diferida que ha reivindicado los derechos de miles de jóvenes, que habiendo llegado de niños, hoy constituyen el más grande patrimonio de los estados Unidos de América.

La misiva de los profesores de Derecho e Inmigración de las más respetadas Escuelas de Leyes y Centros de Inmigración de los Estados Unidos, invalida el argumento de que la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) es irregular, como lo ven diez fiscales generales y un gobernador que amenazaron con demandar al Gobierno si no se anula antes del 5 de septiembre la medida que protege de la deportación a por lo menos 800,000 jóvenes inmigrantes.
La maniobra politiquera de los procuradores republicanos busca confundir el amparo que se pretendió dar a los padres de los “Dreamers” con los sagrados derechos de los jóvenes los cuales están claramente amparados en la Ley de Inmigración como un Programa Humanitario denominado “Acción Diferida Para Los Llegados en la Infancia”, o en inglés, “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)”.
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, profesora de leyes en la Universidad de Pennsylvania, junto a 100 profesores de leyes de todo el país, escribió a una carta al presidente Trump explicando los fundamentos legales de DACA y su implementación por la rama ejecutiva.
“La realidad es que DACA no es ilegal, tiene fundamentos en la constitución de nuestro país”, dijo Wadhia. “La discreción (…) existe porque el gobierno tiene recursos limitados y carece de la capacidad de hacer cumplir la ley contra toda la población indocumentada”, escribieron los autores de la carta. “Reconociendo esta limitación de recursos, el Congreso ha encargado políticas y prioridades nacionales para el cumplimiento de la ley de inmigración”.
“Daca es perfectamente legal. Como Jefe del Ejecutivo tiene toda la discrecionalidad de confirmar y mantener vigente el Programa”, sostuvo Julia Vásquez, Profesora del Colegio de Leyes del Suroeste. “El Presidente Obama en el 2012, cuando desarrollo esa política, no estaba creando una ley, estaba creando un programa bajo la Acción Diferida”, afirmo Julia Vásquez, “Directing Attorney & Lecturer of Law Southwestern Law School”.
Los catedráticos de Derecho e Inmigración le dicen al presidente que, “como profesores de derecho de inmigración y académicos, le escribimos para expresar nuestra posición de que el Poder Ejecutivo tiene autoridad legal para implementar DACA”, y agregan que, a su juicio, la acción diferida tomada por el entonces presidente Barack Obama en 2012 “es un ejercicio legal de la discreción procesal”.
Nuestras conclusiones se basan en años de experiencia en el campo, y un estudio detallado de la Constitución de Estados Unidos, el derecho administrativo, los estatutos de inmigración, los reglamentos federales y la jurisprudencia”, indicaron. “A medida que el gobierno determina el futuro de DACA, la comprensión de su fundamento legal y la historia es crítica”, indicaron.
La Acción Diferida de 2012 se encuentra en la mira de los fiscales generales de 10 estados, encabezados por Texas, y el gobernador de Idaho (todos republicanos), quienes a comienzos de julio le enviaron una carta al Fiscal General Jeff Sessions para exigirle que, antes del 5 de septiembre, elimine DACA o de lo contrario acudirán a las cortes.
“Con la carta queremos cambiar la narrativa sobre DACA, y presionar al gobierno (de Trump) sobre cómo responder a las reclamaciones del Estado”, dice a Univisión Noticias Michael Oliva, presidente del distinguido centro William B. Bates de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Houston y uno de los firmantes del documento.
“Creemos que el programa es legal, y que se requieren más análisis tanto políticos como legales. Acabar con DACA sería una tragedia y una ruptura del contrato que Estados Unidos hizo con estos estudiantes. Esperamos que nuestra Carta Abierta tenga un efecto positivo”.

Facultad de la Rama Ejecutiva

Tras explicar los alcances del poder ejecutivo, garantizado por la Constitución e interpretado a lo lardo de los años por los tribunales y la Corte Suprema de Justicia, los abogados defienden la legalidad de DACA, y destacan que ha sido el Congreso quien “delegó la mayoría de las funciones discrecionales sobre inmigración al DHS”, lo que permitió en 2012 anunciar la acción ejecutiva para los “Dreamers”.
Señalan además que el Congreso, en repetidas ocasiones, ha señalado que el Poder Ejecutivo “tiene el poder de conceder” medidas diferidas “a ciertas categorías de personas, como las víctimas de delitos y la trata de personas, y recuerdan que “adicionalmente, gobiernos anteriores han anunciado programas de acción diferida para proteger a las personas calificadas”, como por ejemplo estudiantes víctimas del paso del huracán Katrina, y un programa para beneficiar a viudas de ciudadanos estadounidenses.
Los abogados también citan decisiones similares adoptadas por mandatarios y las antiguas oficinas de inmigración desde 1825, cuando la entonces Oficina de Superintendencia de Inmigración se transformó en el Buró de Inmigración de Estados Unidos.

La coacción de los 10 Estados que lidera Texas

En la misiva los abogados y profesores universitarios critican el ultimátum de los 10 estados enviado al Fiscal General Sessions a comienzos de julio, y rechazan el señalamiento de que DACA se trata de algo “ilegal”.
Indican que la oposición a DACA “combina la acción diferida, la presencia legal y la autorización de trabajo en formas que son jurídicamente erróneas y poco claras”, y advierten que una demanda ventilada en 2012 contra la ampliación de la Acción Diferida (caso Texas versus EEUU) nunca mencionó la legalidad de DACA.
El 20 de noviembre de 2014 el presidente Obama anunció una acción ejecutiva para ampliar los beneficios de DACA de 2012, y un programa para amparar la deportación de unos 5 millones de indocumentados padres de ciudadanos y residentes permanentes. Ambos beneficios fueron frenados por las cortes, pero nunca estuvo en juego la legalidad de la Acción Diferida de 2012.
“Aunque el alcance de esta carta es describir la base legal para DACA 2012, es importante destacar la historia y la inevitable discrecionalidad procesal en la aplicación de la ley de inmigración”, indican los abogados.
Agregan que “la discreción de la Fiscalía existe porque el gobierno tiene recursos limitados, y carece de la capacidad de hacer cumplir la ley contra toda la población indocumentada”, estimada en 11 millones.
También señalan que DACA tiene una dimensión humanitaria, y subrayan que en estos cinco años de vigencia “ha sido un éxito político sin reservas, permitiendo a más 750,000 beneficiarios continuar su educación, recibir licencias profesionales, encontrar empleo, pagar impuestos, cuotas en el Seguro Social y otras arcas fiscales.

Breve Reseña de DACA

DACA fue anunciado el 15 de junio de 2012 y entró en vigor 60 días más tarde, el 15 de agosto de 2012, tras la publicación de un memorando del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS). El programa ampara de la deportación y concede una autorización de empleo renovable cada dos años.
“La acción diferida es una forma de procesamiento discrecional de la ley de inmigración, y ha sido utilizada por décadas, primero por el Departamento de Justicia (cuando el servicio de inmigración dependía de este ministerio) y a partir de 2003 por el DHS”, explican los firmantes.
Los beneficiarios de DACA deben demostrar que están en el país desde antes del 15 de junio de 2017, tenían menos de 31 años al 15 de junio de 2012, estudian o se han graduado, y carecen de antecedentes criminales, entre otros requisitos.

Texto completo de la carta al presidente Trump, en la cual, un centenar de profesores de derecho e inmigración le demuestran la constitucionalidad y la legalidad del programa “DACA”

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

 August 14, 2017

 

Dear President Trump:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical.

DACA 2012 was announced by the President, and implemented in a memorandum by the Secretary of Homeland Security, on June 15, 2012.₁ It enables qualifying individuals to request a temporary reprieve from removal known as “deferred action.” Deferred action is one form of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and has been used for decades by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (and formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)) and over several administrations.₂

Whether a requesting individual receives deferred action under DACA 2012 is at the discretion of DHS. Qualifying individuals may request DACA 2012 if they came to the United States before the age of sixteen; are currently in school or have graduated; have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; have not been convicted of a felony, “significant misdemeanor,” or three or more non-significant misdemeanors; do not otherwise pose a threat to public safety or national security; and otherwise warrant protection as a matter of discretion.₃

₁ See Barack Obama, President, Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration; Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., to David V. Aguilar, Acting Comm’r, U.S. Customs & Border Prot. et al. (June 15, 2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretionindividuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.

₂ See Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Beyond Deportation The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases 14-32 (2015) (“Wadhia, Beyond Deportation”); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The History of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1285, 1296-97 (2015) (“Wadhia, History of Prosecutorial Discretion”); Michael A. Olivas, Dreams Deferred: Deferred Action, Prosecutorial Discretion, and the Vexing Case(s) of DREAM Act Students, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 463, 475–92 (2012); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Sharing Secrets: Examining Deferred Action and Transparency in Immigration Law, 10 U.N.H. L. Rev. 1, 21-22 (2012) (“Wadhia, Sharing Secrets”).

₃ DHS requires that DACA applicants: “1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; 2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday; 3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time; 4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your 2 Individuals who are granted DACA 2012 receive a two-year period in deferred action and also gain eligibility to apply for employment authorization.

The legal authority for DACA 2012 originates from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three (the Take Care Clause) states in part that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”₄ Inherent in the function of the “Take Care Clause” is the ability of the President to target some immigration cases for removal and to use prosecutorial discretion favorably in others. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court:

[W]e recognize that an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict—a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”₅

As early as 1976, former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen executed a legal opinion that identified the Take Care Clause as the primary source for prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters. He wrote: “The ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’”₆

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the role of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration system. In Arizona v United States, the Court noted that “[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials . . . . Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all . . . .”₇

Congress created the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act or INA) in 1952 and it remains the primary statutory authority for immigration law today.8 Importantly, Congress has delegated most discretionary immigration functions to DHS. Section 103 of the Act provides that request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS; 5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012; 6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and 7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.” Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca (last updated Dec. 22, 2016).

₄ U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.

₅ Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, In Defense of DACA, Deferred Action, and the DREAM Act, 91 Tex. L. Rev. See Also 59, 63 (2013) (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985)).

₆ Memorandum from Sam Bernsen, Gen. Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Serv., to Comm’r, Immigration & Naturalization Serv. 2 (July 15, 1976), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/prosecutorial-discretion/service-exercisepd.pdf.

₇ 567 U.S. 387, 396.

₈ See Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.); Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act (last updated Sept. 10, 2013).

“[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens . . . .”₉

Congress has repeatedly acknowledged that the Executive has power to grant “deferred action” for certain categories of people such as victims of crimes and human trafficking.₁₀ Additionally, previous administrations have announced deferred action programs to protect qualifying individuals. For example, under the George W. Bush administration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (part of DHS) announced a deferred action program for students affected by Hurricane Katrina₁₁ and later developed a program for the widows of U.S. citizens.₁₂ Moreover, Congress also recognized legal authority for immigration prosecutorial discretion in INA § 242(g), which bars judicial review of three specific prosecutorial discretion decisions by the agency: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate cases, and to execute removal orders.₁₃

Another important legal source for deferred action is Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 274a.12(c)(14) dates to 1981 and is the product of notice and comment rulemaking.₁₄ This regulation specifically identifies deferred action by name and allows individuals granted deferred action to apply for work authorization upon a showing of “economic necessity.”₁₅ Over the last two decades, thousands of individuals have applied for and received work authorization based on a deferred action grant.₁₆

There are also agency guidance documents related to deferred action issued by DHS (and formerly INS) over the last four-plus decades. The 1976 legal opinion by former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen cites to the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as statutory and case law from as early as 1825 to affirm the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in immigration.₁₇ It was around this time when INS published its first guidance on deferred action in the form of an “Operations Instruction.” This “Operations Instruction” stated “(ii) Deferred action. In every case where the district director determines that adverse action would be unconscionable because of the existence of appealing humanitarian factors, he shall recommend consideration for deferred action category.”₁₈ Since 1975, deferred action has been identified in several subsequent

₉ 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (2012).

₁₀ See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(4) (2012), INA § 237(d)(4).

₁₁ See Press Release, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Announces Interim Relief for Foreign Students Adversely Impacted by Hurricane Katrina (Nov. 25, 2005), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/pressrelease/F1Student_11_25_05_PR.pdf; see also 70 Fed. Reg. 70,992 (Nov. 25, 2005).

₁₂ See DHS Establishes Interim Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (June 9, 2009), http://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/06/09/dhs-establishes-interim-relief-widows-us-citizens. See generally Wadhia, Beyond Deportation, supra, ch.4.

₁₃ 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2012).

₁₄ See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14); Unconstitutionality of Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Stephen H. Legomsky); Reining in Amnesty: Texas v. U.S. and Its Implications: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight, Agency Action, Fed. Rights & Fed. Courts, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Jill E. Family); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Demystifying Employment Authorization and Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases, 6 Colum. J. Race & L. 1 (2016) (“Wadhia, Demystifying Employment Authorization”).

₁₅ 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14).

₁₆ See Wadhia, Demystifying Employment Authorization, supra, at 25.

₁₇ Memorandum from Sam Bernsen, supra, at 2.

₁₈ (Legacy) Immigration and Naturalization Service, Operations Instructions, O.I. § 103.1(a)(1)(ii) (1975); see also 4 guidance documents.₁₉ Guidance documents are common in administrative law and are a recognized form of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.₂₀

At tension with the aforementioned body of law is a letter sent by ten state Attorneys General to the administration requesting that DACA 2012 be rescinded.₂₁ This letter refers to DACA 2012 as “unlawful” and does so without citing to the foundational legal authorities behind deferred action. Furthermore, the letter conflates deferred action, “lawful presence” and work authorization in ways that are legally unsound and unclear. Finally, the letter itself shoehorns arguments into Texas v. United States, a lawsuit that never included the core of DACA 2012, and instead involved policies that are at this point in time moot.₂₂ Moreover, a previous lawsuit challenging DACA 2012 failed on jurisdictional grounds and would inevitably inform any future challenge.₂₃

While the scope of this letter is to describe the legal foundation for DACA 2012, it is important to highlight the history and inevitability of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion exists because the government has limited resources and lacks the ability to enforce the law against the entire undocumented population. Recognizing this resource limitation, Congress has charged the Secretary of DHS with “establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”₂₄ Prosecutorial discretion and policies like DACA 2012 also have a humanitarian dimension, and such factors have long driven deferred action decisions. Finally, DACA 2012 has been an unqualified policy success, allowing over threequarters of a million recipients to continue their education, receive professional licensing, find employment, and pay taxes into Social Security and other tax coffers.₂₅

Wadhia, Beyond Deportation, supra at ch. 2; Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law, 9 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 243, 247-52 (2010); Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Sharing Secrets, supra, at 9-11 (2012); Leon Wildes, John Lennon v. The U.S.A.: The Inside Story of the Most Bitterly Contested and Influential Deportation Case in United States History (2016).

₁₉ Wadhia, History of Prosecutorial Discretion, supra; Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The Aftermath of United States v. Texas: Rediscovering Deferred Action, Yale J. on Reg.: Notice & Comment Blog (Aug. 8, 2017, 12:19 PM), http://yalejreg.com/nc/the-aftermath-of-united-states-v-texas-rediscovering-deferred-action-by-shoba-sivaprasadwadhia.

₂₀ Reining in Amnesty: Texas v. U.S. and Its Implications: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight, Agency Action, Fed. Rights & Fed. Courts, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Jill E. Family)

₂₁ Letter from Ken Paxton, Att’y Gen. of Texas et al., to Jefferson B. Sessions, Att’y Gen. of the United States (June 29, 2017) https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/DACA_letter_6_29_2017.pdf?cachebuster:5.

₂₂ Texas v. United States involves challenges to two deferred action policies announced two years after the original DACA policy was announced. The two later policies, popularly known as “DACA +” and “DAPA,” were enjoined by a federal district court in Brownsville, Texas, and later by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). Although the Supreme Court reviewed the case, the Court was equally divided. United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). A majority of the Supreme Court never ruled on the case, and the litigation never reached beyond the preliminary injunction stage. On June 15, 2016, DHS issued a memorandum rescinding DAPA. Memorandum from John F. Kelly, Dep’t of Homeland Security Sec’y, to Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Comm’r U.S. Customs and Border Prot., et al., (June 15, 2017), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DAPA%20Cancellation%20Memo.pdf.

₂₃ Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 252 (5th Cir. 2015).

₂₄ 6 U.S.C. § 202(5) (2016).

₂₅ See, e.g., Tom K. Wong et al., New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes, Center for American Progress (Oct. 18, 2016),

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2016/10/18/146290/new-study-of-daca-beneficiariesshows-positive-economic-and-educational-outcomes. 5

This letter outlines the legal foundation for DACA 2012 and confirms that maintaining such a policy falls squarely within the Executive’s discretion. The legal authority for the Executive Branch to operate DACA 2012 is crystal clear. As such, choices about its future would constitute a policy and political decision, not a legal one. As the administration decides how best to address DACA 2012, we hope that the legal foundation and history for this policy is addressed wisely and that decisions on the future of DACA 2012 are made humanely.

Thank you for your attention.

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Esq.*

Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar & Clinical Professor of Law

Director, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Penn State Law

 

Jill E. Family

Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government

Widener University Commonwealth Law School

 

Michael A. Olivas

William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law

University of Houston Law Center

CC: John F. Kelly, White House Chief of Staff

Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

 

* All institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not signify institutional endorsement of this letter

 

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice Cornell Law School

 

Hiroshi Motomura

Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law

University of California Los Angeles

 

Lenni Benson

Professor of Law, Director Safe Passage Project Clinic

New York Law School

 

Stephen Legomsky

John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus

Washington University School of Law

 

Roxana C. Bacon

Adjunct Professor University of Miami School of Law

 

Maryellen Fullerton

Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School

 

Renee C. Redman

Adjunct Professor of Law University of Connecticut School of Law

 

Polly J. Price

Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law Emory University School of Law

 

Kristina M. Campbell

Professor of Law UDC David A. Clarke School of Law

Linda Bosniak

Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

 

Caitlin Barry

Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

 

David Baluarte

Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law

 

Jessica Anna Cabot

Clinical Teaching Fellow University of Connecticut School of Law

 

Jennifer Lee

Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Temple University Beasley School of Law

 

Sarah Song

Professor of Law and Political Science U.C. Berkeley School of Law

 

Karen Musalo

Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law

Professor & Director, Center for Gender and Refugee Status U.C. Hastings College of the Law

 

Geoffrey Hoffman

Director, University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic

University of Houston Law Center

 

Melynda Barnhart

Visiting Associate Professor New York Law School

Randi Mandelbaum Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

 

Janet Beck

Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center

Kevin Ruser

Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law

 

Benjamin Casper Sanchez

Director, James H. Binger Center for New Americans University of Minnesota Law School

 

Dr. Barbara Harrell-Bond

Emerita Professor, Refugee Studies Centre University of Oxford

 

Leti Volpp

Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law

U.C. Berkeley School of Law

 

Deborah M. Weissman

Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law

University of North Carolina School of Law

 

Michael J Churgin

Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law

University of Texas at Austin

 

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

Associate Professor of Law University of Denver Sturm College of Law

 

Enid Trucios-Haynes

Professor of Law Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville

 

Miriam Marton

Assistant Clinical Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law

 

Christopher N. Lasch

Associate Professor University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Michael J. Wishnie

William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School

 

Rubén G. Rumbaut

Distinguished Professor University of California, Irvine

 

Hiroko Kusuda

Clinic Professor Loyola New Orleans College of Law

 

Maureen A. Sweeney

Associate Professor University of Maryland Carey School of Law

 

David Abraham

Professor of Immigration and Citizenship Law University of Miami School of Law

 

Alina Das

Professor of Clinical Law New York University School of Law

 

Elissa Steglich

Clinical Professor University of Texas School of Law

 

Violeta R. Chapin

Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School

 

Marisa Cianciarulo

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law Chapman University

 

Kate Griffith

Associate Professor Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations

 

Stephen Wizner

William O. Douglas Clinical Professor Emeritus and Professorial Lecturer Yale Law School

Jennifer Moore

Professor of Law University of New Mexico School of Law

 

Peter Margulies

Professor of Law Roger Williams University School of Law

 

Charles Shane Ellison

Special Assistant Professor of Law in the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic Creighton University School of Law

 

Prerna Lal

Staff Attorney and Clinical Supervisor EBCLC, a clinic of Berkeley Law U.C. Berkeley School of Law

 

Marissa Montes

Co-Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic Loyola Law School

 

Theo Liebmann

Clinical Professor of Law Hofstra Law School

 

Howard F. Chang

Earle Hepburn Professor of Law University of Pennsylvania Law School

 

Sylvia Lazos

Justice Myron Leavitt Professor William S Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas

 

Estelle M. McKee

Clinical Professor Cornell Law School

 

Rachel E. Rosenbloom

Professor of Law Northeastern University School of Law

 

Laila L.Hlass

Professor of Practice Tulane University School of Law

 

John A Scanlan

Emeritus Professor of Law Maurer School of Law, Indiana UniversityBloomington

 

Stewart Chang

Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law

Whittier Law School

 

Denise Gilman

Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas Law School

 

Sarah Sherman-Stokes

Associate Director of the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program Boston University School of Law

 

Stella Burch Elias

Professor University of Iowa College of Law

 

Sabi Ardalan

Assistant Clinical Professor Harvard Law School

 

Charles H. Kuck

Adjunct Professor Emory Law School

 

Rebecca Kitson

Adjunct Professor of Law University of New Mexico School of Law

 

Rebecca Sharpless

Clinical Professor University of Miami School of Law

 

Irene Scharf

Professor of Law University of Mass Dartmouth School of Law

 

 

Jennifer Nagda

Lecturer University of Pennsylvania Law School

 

Maria Woltjen

Lecturer University of Chicago Law School

 

Linda Tam

Clinical Instructor U.C. Berkeley School of Law

 

Michelle A. McKinley

Bernard B. Kliks Professor of Law University of Oregon School of Law

 

Philip L. Torrey

Managing Attorney, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School

 

Gabriel J. Chin

Edward L. Barrtt Jr. Chair & Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law U.C. Davis School of Law

 

David B. Thronson

Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Experiential Education Michigan State University College of Law

 

Ericka Curran

Immigration Clinic Professor Florida Coastal School of Law

 

Veronica T. Thronson

Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigration Law Clinic Michigan State University College of Law

 

Jennifer Lee Koh

Professor of Law Western State College of Law

 

 

Peter L. Markowitz

Professor of Law Cardozo School of Law

Anil Kalhan

Associate Professor of Law Drexel University Kline School of Law

 

Christina Pollard

Visiting Assistant Professor University of Arkansas School of Law

 

Kari Hong

Assistant Professor Boston College Law School

 

Laura A Hernandez

Professor of Law Baylor Law School

 

Holly S. Cooper

Lecturer and Co-Director of the Immigration Law Clinic U.C. Davis School of Law

 

Julia Vazquez

Directing Attorney & Lecturer of Law Southwestern Law School

 

Monika Batra Kashyap

Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Seattle University School of Law

 

Anita Sinha

Assistant Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law

 

Margaret H. Taylor

Professor of Law Wake Forest University School of Law

 

Victor C. Romero

Professor of Law Penn State Law

 

Kathleen Kim

Professor of Law Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Alan Hyde

Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

 

Susan Hazeldean

Assistant Professor Brooklyn Law School

 

Kit Johnson

Associate Professor of Law University of North Dakota School of Law

 

Joanne Gottesman

Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic Rutgers Law School

 

Mary Holper

Associate Clinical Professor Boston College Law School

 

Sabrina Rivera

Staff Attorney/Adjunct Faculty Western State College of Law

 

Jon Weinberg

Professor of Law Wayne State University

 

Lynn Marcus

Professor of the Practice; Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

 

Gloria Valencia-Weber

Professor Emerita University of New Mexico School of Law

 

Raquel E. Aldana

Associate Vice Chancellor for Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law U.C. Davis School of Law

Sarah Paoletti

Practice Professor of Law and Director, Transnational Legal Clinic University of Pennsylvania School of Law

 

Andrew Moore

Associate Professor of Law University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

 

Jayesh Rathod

Professor of Law American University, Washington College of Law

 

Sheila Velez Martinez

Jack and Lovell Olender Professor of Asylum Refugee and Immigration Law

University of Pittsburgh School of Law

 

Mariela Olivares

Associate Professor of Law Howard University School of Law

 

Richard A. Boswell

Professor of Law U. C. Hastings College of the Law

 

Muneer I. Ahmad

Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy Director for Experiential Education Yale Law School

 

Ediberto Roman

Professor of Law & Director of Immigration and Citizenship Initiatives Florida International University

arnoby@elhispanonews.com

arnoby@elhispanonews.com