We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT CALLED INTO QUESTION AGAIN: THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY HOLDS "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" RAISES GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS IN VALENZUELA GALLARDO v. LYNCH.
- Authors
GIBSON, TAYLOR
- Abstract
On March 31, 2016, in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," used as one definition of an aggravated felony within the Immigration and Nationality Act, raised grave unconstitutional vagueness concerns because there are no limits to where the process of justice begins and ends. This issue, identified by the Ninth Circuit, was not addressed by the Second or Eighth Circuits despite these courts interpreting the same statutory provision in separate cases. This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit was correct on two accounts. First, the phrase, obstruction of justice, does raise unconstitutional vagueness concerns. Under the Board of Immigration Appeal's new interpretation of the phrase, nearly every specific intent crime could be considered obstruction of justice. Second, the Second and Eighth Circuits overlooking this concern does not create a circuit split. Neither court held that the phrase was without unconstitutional vagueness concerns, but rather had no reason to discuss unconstitutional vagueness in their analysis.
- Subjects
UNITED States; UNITED States. Immigration &; Nationality Act; CONSTITUTIONAL law; OBSTRUCTION of justice; VAGUENESS doctrine (Constitutional law); UNITED States. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit); NONCITIZENS; FELONIES; DEPORTATION; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); LAW; LEGAL status of noncitizens
- Publication
Boston College Law Review, 2017, Vol 58, p108
- ISSN
0161-6587
- Publication type
Article