Senate Testimony by Prof. Jill Family: DAPA, Agency Discretion, and Guidance Memos

"As for Judge Hanen’s conclusion that the INA forbids deferred action, Professor David Martin carefully examined a similar interpretation of the INA in 2012 and concluded that it “deeply misunderstands” the purpose of the statute it relies on.  If Judge Hanen’s interpretation is correct, then any kind of prosecutorial discretion exercised before an applicant for admission is placed into removal proceedings would be unlawful.  For example, Professor Martin explained that parole, a type of prosecutorial discretion, is often granted to foreign nationals who come to the United States to help with a natural disaster.  If Judge Hanen’s reading of the statute stands, then no first responder volunteer would be allowed into the country without first being detained and put into a removal hearing.  Judge Hanen erroneously looked at these statutory sections in a vacuum and failed to square his conclusion that the INA forbids deferred action with his own acknowledgement that DHS has the authority to set enforcement priorities." - Prof. Jill Family, Mar. 19, 2015.