Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

Expedited removal procedures are designed to rapidly remove individuals who lack lawful admission or fail to establish credible fear. However, when credible fear determinations are misapplied, rushed interviews yield incomplete information, or perfunctory screenings misstate the record, there is room for meaningful challenge. A persuasive brief should first carefully map the procedural history, identifying where the administrative process diverged from established standards. Then, it should present a coherent narrative that connects the factual gaps to legal rights, highlighting how the decision-making process failed to secure accurate information or to consider all relevant statutory factors. This approach helps ensure that the court recognizes the potential for error without elevating form over substance.

A strong brief begins with precise factual statements supported by documentary evidence. It should quote applicable regulations and agency guidance, noting any departures from the required timelines or notice requirements. The credibility of the applicant hinges on the completeness and reliability of the record, so the brief must document any missing transcripts, unrecorded comments, or translator inadequacies. Next, it should articulate the legal standard for credible fear, contrasting it with the agency’s interpretation. By foregrounding concrete discrepancies between the record and the governing framework, counsel can frame the issue as a procedural defect with substantive consequences, making it harder for the reviewing court to overlook the error.

The first component of an effective brief is identifying procedural defects that taint the expedited removal process. For example, if the applicant was not provided the required information about asylum procedures or was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present qualifying evidence, those gaps can undermine the integrity of the credible fear determination. A well-crafted section should trace the timeline from initial intake to decision, flagging missed opportunities for corroboration, and explain why these omissions undermine reliability. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against shortcuts in border proceedings when individual rights are at stake. Demonstrating that the process failed to meet basic due process requirements can form a robust basis for reversal or remand.

Beyond procedure, the brief must scrutinize the substantive rationales used to justify expedited removal. Arguments often rely on generalized assurances rather than specific findings tied to the applicant’s experiences. The brief should dissect the credibility determination line by line, calling attention to baseless assumptions, misinterpretations of statements, or improper weighting of evidence. It is crucial to demonstrate that the agency either ignored relevant country conditions, failed to assess fear plausibility, or rejected corroborating documents without justification. By methodically exposing these errors, counsel can show that the credible fear finding, as applied, fails the reasoned decision standard required by law.

When presenting legal authorities, the brief should align constitutional considerations with statutory mandates. The court’s review often hinges on whether the expedited removal framework adequately safeguards due process and equal protection. A persuasive brief will cite controlling precedents on asylum eligibility, protection against refoulement, and the standard of review for credibility assessments. It should also distinguish between discretionary decisions and those that are legally compelled by the record. By weaving constitutional concerns with statutory interpretation, the advocate reinforces the argument that a flawed credible fear determination touches core legal protections and warrants careful judicial scrutiny.

A comprehensive argument will also address the potential prejudice to the applicant. The expedited process frequently limits the opportunity to obtain and present documentary support, expert testimony, or country condition analysis. The brief should document how these limitations may have biased the outcome, including any inability to depose witnesses, secure translations, or access relevant case law. Demonstrating prejudice strengthens the claim that the decision was not the product of a fair, informed assessment. It also helps the court weigh the necessity of remand for a full, deliberate consideration of all credible fears.

In crafting the relief section, the brief should propose precise, legally sound remedies, such as remand for reconsideration or a new hearing with full opportunity to present evidence. The proposed remedy should be tailored to the errors identified, ensuring the court can fashion an order that meaningfully corrects the record. It is not enough to request relief in the abstract; the brief should specify the type of proceedings, the scope of evidence to be reviewed, and the standards the new determination must meet. Clear, attainable remedies increase the likelihood that the court will grant relief and return the matter to a more thorough process.

The concluding portions of the brief must synthesize the facts, law, and requested remedy into a cohesive argument. A strong conclusion reiterates the central claim: that the expedited removal decision rests on an erroneous credible fear determination due to procedural and substantive faults. It should remind the court of the potential consequences for the applicant if the decision stands without correction. A focused, well-supported conclusion helps ensure the judges leave no room for ambiguity about the appropriate remedy and the rationale behind it, reinforcing the ethical obligation to protect fundamental rights in immigration proceedings.

In addressing the record, counsel should leverage any available country condition reports, expert analyses, and corroborating interviews to counter gaps in the agency’s narrative. The brief should present a structured comparison: what the applicant asserted, what the agency accepted or rejected, and why the evidence should have altered the outcome. When evidence was discounted, the brief should explain the proper standards for assessment and why the discount was inappropriate. A clear demonstration that the agency failed to weigh material evidence can be decisive in establishing reversible error and supporting a remand order.

The argument should also emphasize the ethical and legal imperative to ensure asylum seekers receive a fair opportunity to establish fear. By highlighting the human dimension alongside the legal framework, the brief resonates with judges who are tasked with balancing swift border administration with constitutional safeguards. The narrative should avoid sensationalism, instead relying on precise, well-cited points that reflect careful scholarship and a sense of justice. A persuasive tone grounded in facts and law will enhance credibility and increase the chances of a favorable ruling.

As you prepare the final draft, organize the brief to maximize readability without sacrificing depth. Use clear headings, consistent terminology, and a logical progression from factual background to legal argument to relief. While institutions differ in format preferences, the core requirement remains: a precise articulation of why the credible fear determination was flawed and how those flaws prejudiced the applicant. The brief should be internally coherent, ensuring that each section builds on the previous one. Meticulous editing for accuracy, tone, and citation integrity supports a persuasive and credible presentation before the reviewing court.

Finally, anticipate counterarguments and prepare rebuttals that stay within the record. A robust brief acknowledges possible agency justifications while methodically undermining them with cited authorities and factual corrections. By demonstrating command of both procedural rules and substantive law, counsel can present a compelling case for remand or reversal. The result is a document that not only argues for relief but also models best practices in immigration advocacy, reinforcing the standard that credible fear determinations deserve careful, principled scrutiny.