A framework for judicial review and remand in immigration law

Denver University Law Review

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 179-215

  Schueler, Collin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922191365     PISSN: 08839409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Michael P. Healy, Reconciling Chevron, Mead, and the Review of Agency Discretion: Source of Law and the Standards of Judicial Review, 19 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1, 1 (2011).
2. Gary Lawson & Stephen Kam, Making Law Out of Nothing at All: The Origins of the Chevron Doctrine, 65 ADMIN. L. REV. 1, 3 (2013).
3. John G. Osborn, Legal Philosophy and Judicial Review of Agency Statutory Interpretation, 36 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 115, 118 (1999.
4. Matthew C. Stephenson, The Strategic Substitution Effect: Textual Plausibility, Procedural Formality, and Judicial Review of Agency Statutory Interpretations, 120 HARV. L. REV. 528, 529 (2006).
5. Peter L. Strauss, "Deference" is Too Confusing-Let's Call Them "Chevron Space" and "Skidmore Weight, " 112 COLUM. L. REV. 1143, 1144 (2012).
6. Kristin E. Hickman & Matthew D. Krueger, In Search of the Modern Skid more Standard, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1235, 1246 (2007).
7. Michael P. Healy, The Past, Present and Future of Auer Deference: Mead, Form and Function in Judicial Review of Agency Interpretations of Regulations, 62 U. KAN. L. REV. 633, 691 (2014).
8. Evan J. Criddle, Chevron's Consensus, 88 B.U. L. REV. 1271, 1286-87 (2008).
9. Robert Knowles, American Hegemony and the Foreign Affairs Constitution, 41 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 87, 100-01 (2009).
10. Leading Cases, Preemption of State Law Enforcement, 123 HARV. L. REV. 322, 330 (2009).
11. Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Educ., 550 U.S. 81, 89 (2007).
12. RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., SIDNEY A. SHAPIRO, PAUL M. VERKUIL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCESS § 7.4, at 399 (5th ed. 2009).
13. Thomas W. Merrill, The Story of Chevron: The Making of an Accidental Landmark, in ADMINISTRATIVE LAW STORIES 398, 415 (Peter L. Strauss ed. 2006).
14. Niki R. Ford, Article, Easy on the MAYO Please: Why Judicial Deference Should Not Be Extended to Regulations that Violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 50 DUQ. L. REV. 799, 820 (2012).
15. Melissa M. Berry, Beyond Chevron's Domain: Agency Interpretations of Statutory Procedural Provisions, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 541, 563 (2007).
16. Kristen E. Hickman, The Need for Mead: Rejecting Tax Exceptionalism in Judicial Deference, 90 MINN. L. REV. 1537, 1548 (2006).
17. Michael Herz, Deference Running Riot: Separating Interpretation and Lawmaking Under Chevron, 6 ADMIN. L.J. AM. U. 187, 203 (1992).
18. Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, In Re Annandale and the Disconnections Between Minnesota and Federal Agency Deference Doctrine, 34 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1375, 1395 (2008).
19. Elizabeth Magill & Adrian Vermeule, Allocating Power Within Agencies, 120 YALE L.J. 1032, 1061-62 (2011).
20. John W. Guendelsberger, Judicial Deference to Agency Decisions in Removal Proceedings in Light of INS v. Ventura, 18 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 605, 619 (2004).
21. Thomas W. Merrill, The Mead Doctrine: Rules and Standards, Meta-Rules and Meta-Standards, 54 ADMIN. L. REV. 807, 812 (2002).
22. Christopher J. Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule and the Judicial Toolbox for Agency Dialogue, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1553, 1571 n.81 (2014).
23. Garrick B. Pursley, Avoiding Deference Questions, 44 TULSA L. REV. 557, 575 n.141 (2009).
24. Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Educ., 550 U.S. 81, 89 (2007).
25. James M. Puckett, Embracing the Queen of Hearts: Deference to Retroactive Tax Rules, 40 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 349, 362 (2013).
26. William D. Araiza, Deference to Congressional Fact-Finding in Rights-Enforcing and Rights-Limiting Legislation, 88 N.Y.U. L. REV. 878, 890 (2013).
27. Lisa Schultz Bressman, How Mead Has Muddled Judicial Review of Agency Action, 58 VAND. L. REV. 1443, 1467 n.155 (2005).
28. Gregg D. Polsky, Can Treasury Overrule the Supreme Court?, 84 B.U. L. REV. 185, 198 n.80 (2004).
29. Patrick J. Glen, "To Remand or Not to Remand": Ventura's Ordinary Remand Rule and the Evolving Jurisprudence of Futility, 10 RICH. J. GLOBAL L. & BUS. 1, 3 (2010).
30. Shruti Rana, Chevron Without the Courts?: The Supreme Court's Recent Chevron Jurisprudence through an Immigration Lens, 26 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 313, 350 (2012).
31. Board of Immigration Appeals Biographical Information, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, http://www.justice.gov/eoir/fs/biabios.htm#JohnW.Guendelsberger (last updated Mar. 2015).
32. Mary Holper, Specific Intent and the Purposeful Narrowing of Victim Protection Under the Convention Against Torture, 88 OR. L. REV. 777, 825 (2009).
33. Stephen H. Legomsky, The New Path of Immigration Law: Asymmetric Incorporation of Criminal Justice Norms, 64 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 469, 483 (2007).
34. Jim Rossi, Respecting Deference: Conceptualizing Skidmore Within the Architecture of Chevron, 42 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1105, 1118 (2001).
35. Evan H. Caminker, Precedent and Prediction: The Forward-Looking Aspects of Inferior Court Decisionmaking, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1, 38 (1994).
36. Martha Dragich, Uniformity, Inferiority, and the Law of the Circuit Doctrine, 56 LOY. L. REV. 535, 540-44 (2010).