Abstract
The note examines critical due process violations in U.S. immigration courts, focusing on the circuit court split regarding non-citizens' Fifth Amendment right to obtain counsel at their own expense during removal proceedings. Currently, five circuit courts require non-citizens to prove "substantial prejudice" when denied counsel, while five courts reject this standard. The research argues that this inconsistency undermines fundamental due process protections, suggesting solutions including a Supreme Court decision, new legislation, and an executive order to establish a uniform standard that prioritizes non-citizens' rights to legal representation and ensures fair hearings, particularly given the complex and high-stakes nature of immigration proceedings.
Recommended Citation
Perry, Elisa
(2024)
"Five Circuit Courts Against Five Circuit Courts: The Inconsistent Methods of Review for Fifth Amendment Violations in the Immigration Courts,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 57:
Iss.
1, Article 4.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol57/iss1/4