Embedded Files
Winter 2025: Between a (Limestone) Rock and a Hard Place: Class Certification in Suits Alleging Pattern-or-Practice FOIA Violations on Immigration Records Requests (Forthcoming, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review)
Winter 2025: Between a (Limestone) Rock and a Hard Place: Class Certification in Suits Alleging Pattern-or-Practice FOIA Violations on Immigration Records Requests (Forthcoming, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review)
My student Note on class certification in FOIA suits for immigration records is forthcoming in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. It will be published in Vol. 61.1.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on line speed limits and worker safety regulations in meat and poultry plants. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and is housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"The average American eats about 100 pounds of chicken each year. To prepare chickens for consumption, the poultry industry relies on a largely automated process in which live chickens are killed, disemboweled, inspected, defeathered, and cleaned.
Despite prevalent automation, workers still face safety risks at each stage of the poultry slaughter process, including catching their limbs in machinery, cutting themselves with knives and other sharp objects, and developing stress injuries from repetitive tasks.
Many consumer advocacy groups contend that a poultry plant’s “line speed”—the rate at which workers process chickens—impacts its workers’ health and safety. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has limited most poultry plants to a maximum line speed of 140 birds per minute since 2014. Even at that speed, however, industry experts observe that workers suffer high injury rates."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review about restrictions on federal public benefits access for noncitizens. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and is housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"As a presidential candidate in 1991, Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it.' Five years later, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law.
The 1996 welfare reform law overhauled the federal social safety net. Welfare experts often focus on the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and the end of cash assistance as a guaranteed public benefit for income-eligible families. Among other controversial reforms, TANF allowed states to decide how to spend their allocated federal welfare funds and imposed work requirements on beneficiaries.
But welfare reform introduced changes beyond TANF. Immigration and welfare policy experts point out that the 1996 law also overhauled nearly every aspect of noncitizen eligibility for public benefits, including and beyond federal cash assistance—impacting noncitizens’ health and well-being for years to come."
Read the full piece here.
I wrote an opinion piece for The Regulatory Review about the shortcomings of FOIA in the context of immigration proceedings. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and is housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"For immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship or fighting deportation orders, a network of limestone mines near Kansas City, Missouri, could contain information crucial to their cases.
No formal discovery rights exist in immigration proceedings, and the law does not require government attorneys to disclose evidence relevant to an immigrant’s case. Because of this information asymmetry, immigrants often struggle to defend themselves against deportation charges.
Instead, noncitizens must submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain their immigration records from the U.S. government. The FOIA process moves slowly, though, and the U.S. government may deport a noncitizen before the requested documents arrive.
Hundreds of miles from either border, much of the information requested by these immigrants is stored in old limestone mines known as the Cave. The Cave serves as the National Records Center for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the federal agency that processes and administers immigration benefits such as citizenship and asylum.
Today, the Cave holds over 20 million Alien Files (A-Files), which include government records documenting noncitizens’ interactions with immigration agencies through visas, photographs, birth certificates, affidavits, and internal agency correspondence about their legal status.
Administrative agencies rely on A-Files when adjudicating immigration status, supporting deportation orders, and assessing public benefits eligibility. Immigration scholars note that for some individuals in removal proceedings, their A-Files may contain evidence that verifies their legal status or otherwise supports relief from deportation.
But instead of having discovery rights to these files, noncitizens must rely on FOIA requests to access them."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"To many EU lawmakers, the agreement signals an important breakthrough and a chance for a more coherent migration and asylum system. Although the New Pact could make it easier for member states to reject asylum seekers, some EU lawmakers argue that leaving the negotiations without a deal would have risked jeopardizing Europe’s refugee protection framework.
Many human rights groups and refugee rights advocates, however, have criticized the New Pact. These advocates argue that the New Pact will allow border authorities to use substandard and “fast-tracked” asylum assessment procedures that may violate international law.
Meanwhile, migration experts anticipate that third-country agreements will continue even if the New Pact becomes law. Thus, those lawmakers who oppose the New Pact caution that thousands of asylum seekers will continue to die en route to Europe. Furthermore, refugee rights advocates contend that the EU’s disproportionate focus on border security fails to address the underlying drivers of migration."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on a proposed rule to address problems with the State Department's Exchange Visitor Program for au pairs. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"Are au pairs cultural ambassadors in the United States or vulnerable low-wage workers requiring robust labor protections?
It depends on who you ask.
Proponents of the U.S Department of State’s au pair program argue that the program—one of over a dozen J-1 visa schemes governed by the State Department’s Exchange Visitor Program—should be considered a “public diplomacy tool” and an opportunity for young foreign nationals to learn about American life by studying and working as live-in childcare providers to U.S. host families. By contrast, many labor experts argue that the program is an unregulated low-wage work scheme cloaked in the false promise of cultural exchange."
Read the full piece here.
In The Regulatory Review, I analyzed a proposed rule that seeks to address problems with the immigration court system. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"Are immigration judges like Cinderella—that is, mistreated stepchildren who feel overworked and unsupported by their superiors within the U.S. Department of Justice?
Some immigration judges think so. But they argue that a proverbial glass slipper cannot solve the challenges facing U.S. immigration courts, where 650 judges nationwide must navigate a current backlog of nearly 2 million cases.
The Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)—a component of the Justice Department that adjudicates immigration cases—recently attempted to tackle the problem."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on a proposed rule to address problems with the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"Some advocates for immigrant laborers argue that the H-2 programs often expose foreign workers to wage theft and exploitation. H-2A farmworkers, for example, are not protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees private sector workers the right to organize for better working conditions. These advocates also suggest that the Labor Department’s poor oversight of the H-2 programs allows companies that break labor laws to continue hiring foreign workers with impunity.
Moreover, because the legal statuses of H-2 visa holders are tied to their petitioning employers, foreign workers may hesitate to report their employers for violations such as unpaid wages or poor working conditions for fear of retaliation.
USCIS seeks to provide H-2 visa holders new whistleblower protections through the proposed rule. In addition, the proposed rule would loosen ties between foreign workers and their petitioning employers. If H-2 workers lose their jobs or change employers, the proposed rule allows workers to maintain their H-2 status in the United States for 60 days while they find new employment. This change also enables other prospective employers to hire them without submitting a new petition."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on the legal uncertainty facing Afghan nationals granted humanitarian parole. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"Unlike other forms of humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylee status, parole is discretionary and does not confer pathways to lawful permanent residency or citizenship. Yet immigrants’ rights advocates emphasize that parole can be a lifesaving resource during acute crises, such as the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Entering the United States through other immigration channels may take years and require significant documentation.
After two years of living in the United States, many Afghan parolees report living in “legal limbo.” Immigration experts observe that parolees are often anxious about their legal status, especially during presidential administrations that tighten immigration restrictions. Labor and welfare scholars note that Afghan parolees fear losing their jobs because their work permits are tied to their parole status."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on Medicaid work requirements. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"In 2021, President Biden revoked Section 1115 waiver approvals for several of the states that sought to attach work requirements to Medicaid. Only one state—Georgia—sued the Biden Administration in response. Judge Lisa G. Wood of the Southern District of Georgia sided with the state, finding that the Administration failed to consider whether rescinding Georgia’s program would result in less Medicaid coverage.
Judge Wood’s decision cleared the way for Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage Program—a limited Medicaid expansion program that covers a subset of low-income adults who meet work requirements and which began enrollment on July 1 of this year.
Currently, Georgia is the only state to condition Medicaid receipt on employment.
In discussion of work requirements, many scholars argue that the requirements impose barriers to health coverage and fail to increase employment rates among Medicaid enrollees. Indeed, the Georgia Department of Community Health revealed that nearly 100,000 low-income Georgians lost health coverage after the state reassessed their eligibility in advance of the new coverage program."
Read the full piece here.
I was the lead author of a Saturday Seminar essay for The Regulatory Review on the future of the U.S. asylum regime. The Regulatory Review is a daily publication of the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"Five days after Title 42’s expiration, the U.S. Department of Justice and DHS issued a final rule introducing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for migrants who fail to 'avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways' before attempting to enter the United States. In response to the Biden Administration’s recent efforts to restrict asylum access, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed suit in a federal court in California in an attempt to block the new policies."
Read the full piece here.
Before law school, I was a researcher at American Oversight, a FOIA litigation and government transparency organization. There, I developed federal and state investigation targets and composed litigation-ready public records requests aimed at increasing government transparency and exposing evidence of corruption, abuses of power, or conflicts of interest. My investigations primarily focused on the mismanagement of federal and state COVID-19 response, illegal barriers to asylum and humanitarian protection, immigrants' rights abuses, civil rights and privacy concerns pertaining to surveillance technologies, and problems in federal contracting practices.
From Aug. 2021 - Aug. 2022, I led the organization's investigations into the origin, implementation, and continuation of Title 42, an inhumane, Trump-era anti-immigration measure disguised as public health policy. The policy undermines the right to asylum and humanitarian protection, and subjects vulnerable migrants to harm when they are expelled to Mexico. Before leaving my position at American Oversight, I wrote a blog post highlighting Title 42 investigations undertaken and document productions received in response to FOIA requests. Some of these requests yielded documents detailing allegations of abuse faced by migrants subject to this policy. You can read the piece on American Oversight's website. An excerpt can be found below:
"In response to our request to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) for complaints the office received regarding Title 42, we acquired a database summarizing allegations of civil rights violations and abuse committed against migrants expelled to Mexico under the policy. The allegations as detailed suggest that expulsions under Title 42 are particularly dangerous for unaccompanied migrant children, Black migrants and those racialized as “Black,” migrants with chronic health conditions, and those identifying as LGBTQ+.
A number of complaints demonstrate that Black migrants expelled under Title 42 are vulnerable to racist attacks in Mexico because of their visibility as a racial minority and their assumed inability to speak Spanish. LGBTQ+ migrants often face verbal or physical violence because of their (imputed or actual) gender identity or sexual orientation; lesbian migrants, for instance, have been subject to “corrective” rape and other forms of sexual violence. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers sometimes question unaccompanied children — who are supposed to be exempt from Title 42 and instead processed under Title 8 — about their “actual” ages, accuse them of being gang members, or even summarily expel them, incorrectly claiming there are “no [humanitarian] exceptions whatsoever” under Title 42.
The allegations detailed in the database indicate that CBP was potentially ignoring recommendations made by CRCL in a memo, which American Oversight obtained in response to a request to the office for assessments relating to migrant safety concerns regarding Title 42. In the memo, CRCL recommended that CBP officers document instances in which an individual expresses a credible fear claim that may qualify them for a Title 42 exception, and that this documentation be transmitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for proper assessment. Notably, CRCL also recommended that CBP issue formal guidance advising its agents to consider particular vulnerabilities, like certain medical or health conditions or an increased risk of harm because of sexual orientation or gender identity, when exercising its discretionary authority on Title 42 exceptions."
I was invited to contribute a chapter to an edited volume, Refugees and Higher Education: trans-national perspectives on access, equity, and internationalization (eds. Hans de Wit, Lisa Unangst, Hakan Ergin, and Araz Khajarian).
Part of my chapter's introduction can be read below:
The inability to locate work is often identified as the most significant barrier to the social inclusion of refugees. Being low-income and without opportunities to interact with the native-born population can undermine newcomers’ integration (Phillimore & Goodson, 2006). Those touting the success of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, for example, often point to its emphasis on rapid employment and economic “self-sufficiency.” But can optimal economic integration be defined as new arrivals entering the labor market as quickly as possible – in any kind of work or sector – regardless of their education or experience levels? Others ask whether governments should prioritize re-certifying refugees’ qualifications, providing training and “upskilling” opportunities, and placing them in work closely commensurate to their education and experience levels, even at the cost of severely delaying their entry into the labor market. While this option may provide the benefit of a higher starting salary, could severely delayed labor market entry, and subsequent long-term unemployment, lead to deskilling and social exclusion? These are pressing questions in the context of current displacement crises worldwide, but they are particularly salient in EU Member States, which have seen over 1.8 million refugee arrivals since 2014 (Henley, 2018).
A longstanding failure to answer these questions is partly attributable to the lack of intervention logic or “theory of change” in program designs: policymakers sometimes fail to articulate why they believe particular program components will improve refugees’ economic outcomes, instead opting for solutions that may be politically expedient, but not necessarily evidence-based (Ott, 2013, p. 24).
Fundamental disagreements surrounding refugees’ impacts on host communities’ employment rates, GDP, and other economic indicators, combined with disagreements over the definition of “self-sufficiency,” muddle our understanding of the combination of services and educational opportunities needed to facilitate refugees’ labor market inclusion. It is this latter issue – educational opportunities – upon which this chapter will focus. Drawing upon a few of the nearly 70 interviews I conducted as a Fulbright-Schuman grantee during the 2016-2017 academic year, I will examine select vocational education, job training, and higher education initiatives designed to accommodate the education and training needs of refugees in Germany and Sweden. In particular, I will discuss Germany’s long-standing and well-regarded Vocational Education and Training (VET) program. I will also discuss recent initiatives from the tech sector in the country, including the emergence of coding schools like the ReDI School of Digital Integration, and Kiron, an online pathway to higher education for refugees. In Sweden, I will discuss the newly emergent Fast Track program, which combines “bridging” or upskilling courses with temporary work placements for refugees possessing skills in industries facing chronic labor shortages.
The education and vocational training programs discussed in this chapter aim to facilitate refugees’ job readiness and labor market integration. Thus, in assessing these initiatives, I also problematize concepts like “economic self-sufficiency” and “self-reliance,” and detail the methodological challenges involved in interpreting causal links between refugees’ economic outcomes and the education and training programs discussed in this chapter. I conclude by arguing that while we should recognize and celebrate refugees’ educational and economic achievements, we should also critique the respectability politics that so often governs mainstream conversations surrounding refugee integration policies (Luangrath, 2019a). Of course, educational initiatives like the ones discussed in this chapter can benefit refugee livelihoods, as early investment in vocational and higher education initiatives can better prepare and position refugees for jobs more closely commensurate to their experience. However, as researchers and advocates push back against claims that refugees are a drain on a host country’s economy, it is crucial to frame investments in education and training programs beyond purely economic calculations. Indeed, they are part of national governments’ humanitarian duties to assist refugees (Luangrath, 2019b).
In recognition of National Public Health Week, Dr. Leana Wen and I wrote a blog post for Front Lines, the Big Cities Health Coalition blog. Click here to read the full blog post.
“When public health is invisible, we only end up talking about it when things go wrong; people tend to think about public health agencies as entities that respond to infectious disease outbreaks or shut down a restaurant due to health code violations. We frequently think about health as healthcare, but what determines how long and how well we live is less about what happens in the doctor’s office and more about where we live, the air we breathe, and the availability of other resources in our communities. At the Baltimore City Health Department (BCHD), we believe that all issues – education, housing, employment, public safety, and beyond – can and should be tied back to health. We are committed to making the progress earned through public health visible, and to make the case for incorporating health-in-all policies across the City.”
“Health enables citizens to engage more fully as members of a polity. Enhancing our understanding of good governance—outside the confines of party identification—can provide insight into how city-level interventions aimed at addressing health disparities can also improve employment outcomes, housing access, neighborhood safety, and numerous other social outcomes.”
Read the full article, co-authored with Dr. Leana Wen, in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH).
“The Kerner Commission declared: ‘It is time now to turn with all the purpose at our command to the major unfinished business of this nation […] It is time to make good the promises of American democracy to all citizens —urban and rural, white and black, Spanish-surname, American Indian, and every minority group.’ Local health departments can help fulfill some of American democracy’s unfulfilled promises by employing interventions that address racial disparities in health. Those of us working on the frontlines in public health have the power to translate the values and goals articulated in the Kerner Report into programs and policies—local solutions befitting our communities.”
Read the full article, co-authored with Dr. Leana Wen and published by the Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), here. Read more about #Kerner50 here.
The Baltimore Sun published an op-ed I wrote in response to changes made to the USCIS mission statement. Click here to read the full article.
"Combined with recent moves to end family reunification and DACA, changes to the USCIS mission statement underscore the Trump administration’s larger efforts to redefine who counts as American. Thus, Mr. Cissna’s comments imply two things: first, that the interests of “the American people” and those of immigrants applying for benefits or of U.S. citizens petitioning for their non-citizen family members are necessarily in conflict; and second, that immigrants like my parents — despite living here for over 40 years and successfully navigating a long, challenging naturalization process — will never be considered "real Americans" in the eyes of this administration.
While the perpetual foreigner stereotype is often weaponized against non-white populations more broadly, it is most frequently wielded against Asian-Americans, invoking painful historical memories, cutting at their sense of belonging, and intensifying their feelings of inferiority and isolation. Mr. Cissna’s email, coupled with his changes to the mission statement, conceptualizes Americanness as a matter of birth and lineage, rather than something to which anyone can aspire. Put more bluntly, his language and actions amount to a dangerous whitewashing of U.S. history."
Penn Law's Journal of Law and Social Change (JLASC) blog published my thoughts on the Trump Administration's decision to cap U.S. refugee admissions to 45,000 for FY 2018. Read the full article here.
"Since fleeing Laos after the country’s civil war, my relatives’ economic contributions have touched the lives of countless Portlanders. Lee Vinsel and Andrew Russell’s essay “Hail the Maintainers” and their New York Times op-ed published last summer acknowledges people like my family members – Laotian refugees – who do the vital, but often uncelebrated work that keeps society functioning. My family members started arriving in the United States during the late 1970s, along with hundreds of thousands of other Southeast Asian refugees. They were part of a migration that spurred Congress to pass the Refugee Act of 1980, which provided the legal basis for today’s refugee admissions program.
That’s why I was disheartened when the Trump Administration announced last fall its plans to cap refugee admissions at 45,000 in FY 2018, a historically low number. Worse still, the Administration is on track to miss its own admissions target: at the current rate, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) projects that only 21,292 refugees will be resettled by the end of the fiscal year. Now is not the time for the United States to shirk its humanitarian responsibilities, especially when 22.5 million refugees are currently displaced worldwide. Like in Portland, numerous cities and towns across our country have been enriched by the arrival of refugees who work alongside us. And as many of these same cities and towns feel the effects of shrinking populations, cutting refugee admissions and depriving these communities of much needed contributors is something we cannot afford."
My chapter, “No Date on the Door: Direct Provision Housing, Child Asylum Seekers, and Ireland’s Violations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” was published in Children and Forced Migration: Durable Solutions During Transient Years (2017). The chapter examined the asylum application system in Ireland, focusing on the negative impacts of direct provision accommodation on the physical and mental health of child asylum seekers. Direct provision is a full room and board system introduced in 2000 in response to a housing crisis in Dublin arising from a dramatic increase in asylum seeker arrivals. I explore how the treatment of child asylum seekers in direct provision illustrates Ireland’s failure to uphold the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Referencing relevant articles of the CRC, I discuss the material deprivation and social exclusion faced by children in direct provision centers across Ireland. You can learn more about the edited volume here.
Google Sites
Report abuse