The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process in U.S. immigration to every person in the country, including noncitizens. However, the expansion of expedited removal can sometimes make this promise feel like an illusion. The policy allows low-level immigration officers to deport people without judicial review. Recent cases have challenged this system, exposing its deep flaws.
Originally meant for new arrivals at the border, expedited removal has expanded. Affecting longtime residents, asylum seekers, and even U.S. citizens who are unable to prove their status on the spot.
This article will break down the legal battles shaping the future of U.S. immigration. And what it means for individuals caught in this bureaucratic machine. More importantly, we’ll explain why citizens and noncitizens should partner with experienced Queens immigration attorneys to protect their rights.
Does the Expansion of Expedited Removal Create a Shadow Immigration System Affecting Due Process in U.S. Immigration?
For decades, due process in U.S. immigration has applied to all individuals on U.S. soil. Whether they are citizens, visa holders, or undocumented immigrants. Historically, deportation decisions were made in immigration courts. However, the 2025 expansion of expedited removal has drastically altered this framework. Under new DHS regulations, low-level immigration officers can now single-handedly order deportations.
This policy shift has led to what immigration attorneys and advocates call a “shadow immigration system.” A system that functions outside the traditional legal framework, where critical decisions are made behind closed doors.
Expedited Removal and Its Initial Limits
For nearly 25 years, expedited removal remained largely confined to border enforcement. However, in 2019, the Trump administration attempted to expand expedited removal to apply nationwide. Targeting individuals who could not prove they had lived in the U.S. for at least two years. This expansion was challenged in court and temporarily blocked.
On January 21, 2025, a new DHS rule made the nationwide expansion effective immediately. Under this new policy:
- Any noncitizen arrested anywhere in the U.S. can be subjected to expedited removal without a court hearing.
- Immigration officers can deport individuals based on discretion, requiring only a supervisor’s sign-off.
- Those detained must prove they have been in the U.S. for over two years.
This expansion completely rewrote decades of immigration enforcement norms. Removing vital legal checks that historically prevented wrongful deportations.
Expansion of DHS Power
The change effectively grants low-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers the power of a judge. Allowing them to single-handedly decide a person’s fate with no judicial review. Unlike traditional deportation proceedings, where individuals appear before an immigration judge. Expedited removal relies entirely on the judgment of individual DHS officers, many of whom lack formal legal training.
This has led to unprecedented power consolidation within DHS. Hence, a single officer’s discretionary decision can permanently separate families and deny asylum claims. Violating due process in U.S. immigration.
The Unchecked Power in Expedited Removals
A recent case provides a stark example of how expedited removal has become an unchecked enforcement tool. The lawsuit, filed by a nonprofit advocacy group, argues that the 2025 expansion violates constitutional protections. Altering due process in U.S. immigration.
The lawsuit highlights several disturbing trends:
- DHS officers are detaining individuals in the interior U.S. without warning, often at workplaces, homes, or even routine traffic stops.
- Noncitizens are not given time to present evidence or speak to an attorney before deportation orders are issued.
- longtime residents have been mistakenly detained and processed for expedited removal.
The plaintiffs argued that the expansion of expedited removal is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and fundamentally flawed.
The Risk of U.S. Citizens Being Affected
The U.S. government has wrongfully deported multiple U.S. citizens under expedited removal. In one case, a U.S. citizen with a mental disability was mistakenly deported to Mexico and left stranded for months. His case, along with others, highlights the critical risks posed by DHS’s lack of due diligence.
According to congressional reports cited in a recent case:
- DHS officers failed to refer individuals who expressed a fear of persecution for a required asylum screening. This occurred In 15% of expedited removal cases,
- Many reviewed expedited removal cases contained factual errors in DHS documentation, leading to wrongful deportations.
- Lack of translation services and rushed interviews frequently resulted in immigrants unknowingly signing their own removal orders.
These failures demonstrate how expedited removal increases the likelihood of unjust deportations, even for individuals who should never have been targeted in the first place.
Why Advocates Call This a “Shadow Immigration System”
With no judge, no right to appeal, and no public accountability, expedited removal operates in secrecy, outside the traditional legal framework.
The biggest concerns fueling this “shadow system” include:
- No standardized record-keeping: Unlike traditional immigration court cases, expedited removal orders leave no official court transcript or publicly accessible records.
- Widespread secrecy: DHS does not publish detailed statistics on how many individuals have been deported under expedited removal. Or how many wrongful deportations have occurred?
- Lack of independent oversight: There is no independent review board monitoring the conduct of immigration officers issuing expedited removals.
By removing judicial oversight, expedited removal has fundamentally altered the nature of due process in U.S. immigration. Creating a system that is opaque, unaccountable, and ripe for abuse.
How the Lack of Mental Competency Safeguards in Expedited Removal Cases Violate Due Process in U.S. Immigration
The expedited removal process is designed to fast-track deportations without court oversight. However, there is no requirement to assess whether an individual is mentally competent to understand the proceedings against them. This systemic flaw has led to wrongful deportations of individuals with severe mental illnesses. Stripping them of due process in U.S. immigration.
Expedited removal allows DHS officers to deport individuals with cognitive impairments. This includes trauma-related disorders and severe mental illnesses without any protective measures.
Why Mental Competency Matters in Immigration Proceedings
A mentally incompetent individual cannot meaningfully participate in legal proceedings. This is a fundamental principle of due process in U.S. immigration law.
The right to a fair hearing assumes that a defendant:
- Understands the nature of the charges
- Can effectively communicate with legal counsel
- Is capable of making reasoned legal decisions
In standard removal proceedings, individuals suspected of being mentally incompetent are entitled to competency hearings before an immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals has repeatedly recognized that failing to assess mental competency undermines the integrity of the legal process.
However, expedited removal bypasses these protections. DHS officers, who have no legal training in assessing mental competency, have full authority to issue immediate deportation orders.
This is particularly alarming because many immigrants facing expedited removal have survived extreme trauma, persecution, or prolonged detention. Conditions that can severely impact cognitive function and mental well-being. According to the case records, expedited removal subjects even the most vulnerable individuals to an unforgiving system. One that does not pause to assess their ability to defend themselves.
International Human Rights Violations and Mental Competency
The U.S. has international legal obligations to protect individuals with mental disabilities from arbitrary detention and deportation. Under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the U.S. must ensure:
- All individuals facing removal receive a fair hearing
- Immigrants are not deported to countries where they face persecution or mistreatment
- Detainees with disabilities receive proper evaluations and support
Legal Reforms Needed to Protect Mentally Vulnerable Immigrants
Immigration advocates and legal organizations have outlined key policy reforms. These reforms could prevent wrongful deportations of mentally ill individuals under expedited removal:
- Mandatory mental competency screenings for all individuals in expedited removal.
- Access to medical evaluations before issuing removal orders.
- Legal representation guarantees for individuals with suspected mental impairments.
- Judicial review for cases involving mentally vulnerable individuals.
- Training DHS officers to recognize and handle cases involving mental illness.
Does Expedited Removal Violate the U.S. Government’s Treaty Obligations?
The CAT prohibits the U.S. government from deporting individuals to countries where they are likely to face torture. However, expedited removal circumvents this protection, leading to wrongful deportations of asylum seekers and persecuted individuals.
The U.S.’s Legal Obligations Under the CAT
The U.S. government cannot deport a person to a country where they may be endangered under Article 3 of CAT. That is to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face torture.
This commitment was codified into U.S. law through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA). However, the expanded use of expedited removal directly contradicts this legal obligation. The 2025 policy eliminates judicial review and limits access to asylum officers. This means individuals who might qualify for CAT protections are being deported without ever having the chance to raise their claims.
The Deportation of Persecuted Individuals
The case file outlines:
- Failure to Screen for Torture or Persecution Risks: Immigration officers often skip critical questions or fail to document fear claims, leading to improper removals.
- Expedited Removal of Individuals Eligible for Protection: Some asylum seekers who qualify for CAT protections are removed before they can even present their cases.
- Documented Errors in DHS Processing: Reports show multiple cases where individuals were deported despite having legal grounds to remain. Due to administrative mistakes and rushed proceedings.
Legal Challenges to Expedited Removal Based on International Law
Attorneys challenging expedited removal argue that it violates multiple international legal principles, including:
- The Convention Against Torture: By removing individuals without assessing their fear claims, the U.S. is failing to uphold Article 3 of CAT.
- The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines: These guidelines state that refugees and asylum seekers must have access to a full and fair hearing before removal. Something expedited removal blatantly disregards.
- Customary International Law: The principle of non-refoulement prohibits returning individuals to countries where they face serious harm or persecution. Expedited removal undermines this standard.
The 2025 lawsuit argues that the U.S. government has knowingly expanded a system that violates its treaty commitments.
What Can Be Done to Prevent Treaty Violations?
Legal experts and advocacy groups have proposed several urgent reforms to align expedited removal policies with international law:
- Mandate Judicial Oversight: Expedited removal decisions should be subject to court review. Ensuring that deportations are not happening without due process.
- Strengthen Fear Screening Procedures: Every individual who expresses a fear of persecution should automatically receive a full asylum screening. Not a rushed officer interview.
- Restore the Right to Legal Counsel: Access to experienced immigration attorneys would prevent wrongful deportations.
- Stop Deportations While Appeals Are Pending: Immigrants facing expedited removal should not be deported before their appeals are reviewed. Preventing irreversible mistakes.
Protect Your Rights with a Queens Immigration Attorney
Expedited removal is one of the biggest threats to due process in U.S. immigration law today. It has shown that immigration justice is fragile. The difference between staying in the U.S. and being permanently deported often comes down to certain factors. These are; having proof in your pocket, a competent officer, or a chance encounter with the right attorney before it’s too late.
If you or someone you know is facing deportation, it is critical to consult with an experienced Queens immigration attorney. Protect yourself and fight for your rights by scheduling a free consultation today!
