Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.352258
Title: The role of the courts in immigration law : the United Kingdom and the United States
Author: Legomsky, S. H.
ISNI:       0000 0001 3607 8078
Awarding Body: University of Oxford
Current Institution: University of Oxford
Date of Award: 1984
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis analyses the role of the Judiciary in cases arising under the immigration laws of the United Kingdom and the United States. Judicial review of immigration decisions is contrasted with that of other governmental decisions, and several unusual patterns characterising the courts' approaches to immigration cases are explored. Chapter I studies by example the results, the techniques, and the rhetoric of the British immigration cases. Chapter II performs a similar function with respect to the American immigration decisions, except that cases presenting constitutional issues are reserved for separate treatment in chapter III. Chapter IV provides a descriptive analysis of the patterns emerging from the immigration cases in both countries. Building on the material contained in chapters I, II, and III, this chapter will identify more specific differences between the immigration cases and other public law cases. It will then offer possible explanations for these differences, with principal emphasis on the courts' perceptions of their own roles. Next, the differences between judicial review in the British immigration cases and that in the American immigration cases will be noted, and again possible explanations advanced. The chapter concludes by considering how judicial review has varied, within the context of immigration law and within each of the two countries studied, from one sub-category of immigration case to another. Chapter V serves a prescriptive function. After exploring the general arguments for and against judicial review of governmental action, it analyses possible reasons for modifying those arguments in immigration cases. It concludes that those reasons do not justify the departures, in immigration cases, from the usual principles of judicial review.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.352258  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Law
Share: