Sufficiently Safeguarded?: Competency Evaluations of Mentally Ill Respondents in Removal Proceedings
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
5-2016
ISSN
0017-8322
Publisher
University of California Hastings College of Law
Language
en-US
Abstract
In this Article, I examine the current regime for making mental competency determinations of mentally ill and incompetent noncitizen respondents in immigration court. In its present iteration, mental competency determinations in immigration court are made by immigration judges, most commonly without the benefit of any mental health evaluation or expertise. In reflecting on the protections and processes in place in the criminal justice system, and on interviews with removal defense practitioners at ten different sites across the United States, I conclude that the role of the immigration judge in mental competency determinations must be changed in order to protect the fundamental fairness of the proceeding. Specifically, I propose a central role for mental health professionals, whose expertise, evaluation, and testimony can inform the court and lead to a more thorough and fair decision making process.
Recommended Citation
Sarah R. Sherman-Stokes,
Sufficiently Safeguarded?: Competency Evaluations of Mentally Ill Respondents in Removal Proceedings
,
in
67
Hastings Law Journal
1023
(2016).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/354
Comments
Boston University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-17