The asylum seeking process in the United States is arbitrary in nature, many aspects of which have been well documented. The legal process rests the burden of proof upon the asylum seeker to demonstrate he or she is truly fleeing persecution to a legal system where asylum seekers are not eligible for free representation. This contributes to a lower rate of success and an uncertain future, due to the limited or no access to employment, education, and health benefits, within the country in which they seek asylum. However, the academic literature pertaining to the repatriation process of the failed asylum seeker in the United States remains relatively unexplored. Consequently, the true failure rate remains unknown. This paper contends that genuine asylum seekers may fall through the cracks, unable to show evidence of their persecution. Thus, repatriations result in a dual victimization of the failed asylum seeker resulting in situations where a genuine case can be exposed to the very same dangers he or she fled in the first place. This is a grave violation of their human rights and the principle of Non-refoulement.

Therefore, this paper argues the theory of the Marginalized Other in Human Rights Law (Simmons 2011) can be extended to the repatriations process of failed asylum seekers in the United States. Using secondary data and reports this thesis breaks down the repatriations process into three components in order to demonstrate how the failed asylum seeker is treated as a Marginalized Other during each point of contact. By addressing the victimization that occurs during the repatriations process this paper concludes the threat posed to the human rights of failed asylum seekers can be minimized.

Immigration courts fail to live up to courtroom ideals. Around 2009, proposals were offered to address the problems of these troubled courts. My study illustrates the inevitable linkage between court reform proposals and conceptions of fairness and efficiency, and ultimately justice. I ask: (1) From the perspective of attorneys defending immigrants' rights, what are the obstacles to justice? How should they be addressed? And (2) How do proposals speak to these attorneys' concerns and proposed resolutions? The proposals reviewed generally favor restructuring the court. On the other hand, immigration (cause) lawyers remain unconvinced that current proposals to reform the courts' structure would be successful at addressing the pivotal issues of these courts: confounding laws and problematic personnel. They are particularly concerned about the legal needs and rights of immigrants and how reforms may affect their current and potential clients. With this in mind, they prefer incremental changes - such as extending pro bono programs - to the system. These findings suggest the importance of professional location in conceptualizing justice through law. They offer rich ground for theorizing about courts and politics, and justice in immigration adjudication.