Judicial review of DHS parole programs
Judicial Review of DHS Parole Programs
Parole in immigration law refers to a discretionary authority allowing certain aliens to enter or remain temporarily in the United States without formal admission. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), the Secretary of DHS (through USCIS, ICE, or CBP) may “parole” an alien into the U.S. temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
Key Issues in Judicial Review of DHS Parole Programs
Scope of discretion: DHS has broad, largely unreviewable discretion to grant or deny parole.
Standard of review: Courts generally apply very limited review, often only procedural, not substantive.
Challenges under constitutional, statutory, or procedural grounds.
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007)
Though not about parole specifically, this case establishes limits on judicial review of discretionary executive actions related to immigration and administrative programs.
The Court emphasized the “presumption against judicial review” in immigration matters unless Congress clearly provides otherwise.
This principle applies strongly to parole decisions as they are discretionary.
2. Biden v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 2325 (2023)
This case involved the Biden administration’s termination of the "Remain in Mexico" policy and the related parole program.
The Supreme Court held that courts have limited power to second-guess agency decisions concerning immigration enforcement and parole, as long as the agency provides a reasoned explanation.
The case reiterated the broad discretion of DHS in immigration enforcement policies, including parole programs.
3. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018)
Although focusing on detention rather than parole, this case is crucial because it emphasizes that statutory provisions related to immigration custody and release must be clearly interpreted to permit judicial review.
Courts held that indefinite detention under the INA does not automatically guarantee bond hearings unless Congress explicitly provides so.
By analogy, parole being discretionary, courts give broad deference to DHS decisions unless there is clear statutory or constitutional violation.
4. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008)
Addressed habeas corpus jurisdiction in the context of detainees held by U.S. military and immigration authorities.
The Court recognized limits to judicial review of executive detention and discretionary decisions related to alien status.
While parole is not detention, the case supports limited judicial oversight of immigration-related discretionary decisions.
5. Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I. & N. Dec. 771 (BIA 2012) (Board of Immigration Appeals)
The BIA ruled that parole is a discretionary, non-appealable decision by DHS.
An alien cannot appeal a denial of parole as it is not a final order of removal or admission.
The decision reinforced that parole decisions are subject to limited, if any, judicial review.
6. Washington v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 3d 236 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
The court examined DHS’s parole practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It held that while DHS has discretion over parole, parole programs must comply with statutory mandates and cannot be arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
Limited judicial review was permitted on procedural and constitutional grounds, but not on the substantive decision to parole or not.
Summary of Judicial Review Principles:
Broad DHS discretion: DHS parole authority is discretionary, allowing parole for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit.”
Limited substantive review: Courts rarely review DHS’s substantive decisions to grant or deny parole.
Procedural review: Courts can review whether DHS complied with procedural requirements (e.g., proper notice, non-arbitrariness).
Non-appealable decisions: Parole denials generally are not appealable within the immigration system.
Habeas and constitutional review: Courts can review constitutional claims (e.g., due process violations) but typically uphold DHS’s parole discretion.
Conclusion
Judicial review of DHS parole programs is highly limited, reflecting Congress’s intent to grant DHS broad discretion in immigration enforcement. The cases above illustrate that while procedural compliance and constitutional safeguards are enforceable, courts rarely intervene in the substance of parole decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments