Document Type
Essay
Abstract
A criminal conviction can prohibit a noncitizen from accessing certain forms of relief from deportation in immigration court. Notably, certain convictions may bar a noncitizen from asylum. But what happens when that conviction is based on the manifestation of mental health disabilities? This Article is the first to explore and critique the current immigration law framework for accounting for the criminalization of a noncitizen’s mental health disability, focusing primarily on the Attorney General’s recent decision In re B-Z-R- and the missed opportunity it represents to ensure that criminalized, disabled noncitizens are still able to access justice in the form of immigration relief.
Specifically, this Article documents efforts by advocates to more forcefully change the law in favor of criminalized, disabled noncitizens through amicus briefing to the Attorney General after the announcement of his review of the case ultimately decided under the name In re B-Z-R-. It then analyzes the shortcomings in the In re B-Z-R- decision, leaving the law in a weaker state than advocates pushed for. Finally, it uncovers the adverse implications, based on analyzing the law in application to hypothetical facts, of the weak state of the law on criminalized, disabled noncitizens’ ability to access justice in the form of immigration relief.
Recommended Citation
Elizabeth Jordan,
Bars to Asylum for Disabled and Criminalized Noncitizens: Particularly Serious Crimes and Mental Health Evidence in Immigration Court After Matter Of B-Z-R-,
48 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 35
(2025).
Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol48/iss1/2