Procedural failures during the expedited removal process

This thesis contributes to our understanding of the impediments to protection faced by asylum seekers subject to the “expedited removal,” or summary deportation, provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. By studying various texts, from the statute itself, to agency policy memoranda, to human rights reports, I compare the law of expedited removal as it is written and interpreted by the government, to the law as it is actually applied. I then argue that asylum seekers caught up in the expedited removal process are not being given the procedural protections that they deserve. This topic is of particular interest in light of recent immigration enforcement policy changes ordered by the Trump administration. Specifically, President Trump has extended expedited removal to cover noncitizens with substantial ties to the United States. While many academics have studied immigration enforcement, I hope to add to the conversation by looking deeply at the texts that make up the law of expedited removal, and contrasting the procedures outlined in these texts with de facto procedures in the field. As a future immigration lawyer, I believe that it is important to add to lay understanding of the law of expedited removal, and the impediments to protection that asylum seekers face when they are placed in expedited removal proceedings.