Think Immigration: An AILA Law Journal Issue for Our Times

This blog post is part of a series amplifying the latest issue of the AILA Law Journal, offering the chance for authors to share a bit more about where their ideas originated, and what they may have learned along the way from drafting to publication. In this piece, Editor-in-Chief Cyrus Mehta gives us a preview of the issue and some key highlights. AILA members have access to a free digital copy of the journal as part of their membership, just click through this link.

On any given day as an immigration law practitioner, one is faced with the need to be an advocate for their clients, to find innovative and creative solutions to challenges, to build a plane as it is flying as the saying goes. In this issue of the AILA Law Journal, your editorial board wanted to bring forward a collection of both original and thought provoking articles by authors who have creatively advanced topics and ideas that may have received too little attention.

As immigration attorneys, we know that every case is about people, and every decision has the chance to open a door, or close one. To separate a family, or reunite them. To bring innovation, or stifle talent. This issue of the AILA Law Journal is chock full of thoughtful contributions that in the complex and evolving field of immigration law. Let’s take a look together:

• Pavitra Antony’s “National Security, Public Order, and the Limits of Non-Refoulement: U.S. Border Policy Under Article 33(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention (Post-2025 Developments)” examines whether the U.S.’s post-2025 border policies comply with the international law principle of non-refoulement. Spoiler alert: the paper concludes that blanket exclusions and removals of asylum seekers violate U.S. obligations under the 1967 Protocol and undermine a cornerstone of refugee protection. I can’t disagree.
• In “The Foreign Birth Presumption: Preserving Jurisdictional Burdens in Removal Cases,” Alec Boulton and R. Linus Chan argue that foreign birth should not relieve the government of its burden to prove alienage in removal proceedings and they emphasize how pushing too much responsibility onto the individual threatens due process and risks the wrongful removal of U.S. citizens.
• David Grunblatt’s “Administrative Proxies in Immigration Adjudication: How Informal Decision Rules Shape Outcomes Beyond the Statute” argues that USCIS often relies on informal administrative proxies—such as the “last action rule,” job titles, salary levels, organizational size, or automated risk flags—as shortcuts in adjudication and cautions that such shortcuts must not replace individualized legal analysis.
• Allan Jolly’s thought-provoking “Reexamining ‘Sole and Unreviewable’ Discretion: Castaneira, Nobles, and the Adam Walsh Act” explores whether courts may still review antecedent legal and procedural questions even when Congress has insulated the Secretary’s ultimate determination from review—and suggests that this analysis could offer a potential argument for challenging similarly protected decisions elsewhere in the INA.
• In “The Procedural Architecture of Form I-589: A Framework for Threshold Review, Pretermission, and Merits Adjudication,” Bhavani Madisetti-Vemireddy offers a timely and practical framework for understanding the evolving role of Form I-589 in asylum adjudication in the midst of a flurry of BIA decisions that have had and will have tremendous impact.
• Nilda Pérez, a licensed clinical social worker with a doctorate in social leadership, provides a refreshing perspective in her article, “Credibility in Context: Trauma-Informed Record Development After Matter of T-D-E-.” Drawing on trauma neuroscience and her clinical expertise, Pérez explains how immigration adjudicators may misread trauma-driven testimony as deception and introduces the Coherence Vulnerability Matrix as a practical tool for attorneys to identify credibility risks before the immigration court hearing and build the necessary record through expert evidence and careful preparation.
• In “The Lozada Escape Hatch: Frivolous Ineffective Assistance Claims, Artificial Intelligence, and the Ethical Duty of Successor Counsel,” Jessica L. Pérez-Salazar examines the misuse of Matter of Lozada by those who may themselves act unethically, as well as by successor counsel who view filing a Lozada complaint as a reflexive professional obligation rather than a step requiring thoughtful consideration of whether an ineffective assistance claim is genuinely warranted. She also considers how AI may amplify such misuse and proposes practical safeguards to promote careful, ethical decision-making before filing.
• Elizabeth Ricci’s article, “Conscience Beyond the Catch-All: Modified Oath Naturalization for Amish, Mennonite, Quaker, Buddhist, and Muslim Applicants,” examines how the modified naturalization oath under INA § 337 extends to other faith traditions and sincere conscientious objectors and how to prepare for pushback based on the “good moral character” framework.
• Tamara Shamir’s “Challenging ACA Removals Under the Country Designation Statute,” offers an innovative and practical roadmap for challenging immigration judge orders based on Asylum Cooperative Agreements. For those working such cases, this article is truly a must-read to be prepared to help your clients in this era.

We’d love to hear from you about your favorite article, the nugget of information that helped you in your practice, or what we could do better. Please share your insights with the Editorial Board by emailing ailalawjournal@aila.org.