On February 1, Professors Andrew Knapp and Jennifer Koh spoke at a symposium organized by the Southwestern Law Review on “Immigration in the Trump Era.” Both participated in a panel entitled, “Dimaya and the Crimmigration of Migration.” Professor Knapp shared about his representation of James Dimaya, whose case he took from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and for whom he and the rest of the legal team prevailed in Sessions v. Dimaya (invalidating a portion of the “crime of violence” definition in immigration law under the void for vagueness doctrine). Professor Koh’s comments focused on the void for vagueness doctrine and immigration enforcement, which arose from her law review article, “Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine,” which appeared in a 2017 issue of the Wisconsin Law Review as well as a forthcoming essay that will soon appear in the Stanford Law Review Online.
Professors Andrew Knapp, Jennifer Koh, and Daniel Sharp all served as speakers at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Annual Conference in San Francisco, which took place from June 13-16. Their panels addressed preserving due process protections in immigration court (Professor Knapp), evidentiary objections in immigration court (Professor Koh), and management and leadership skills for immigration attorneys (Professor Sharp). The AILA Annual Conference is the largest immigration law gathering of its kind in the country, and each year brings together thousands of immigration law practitioners, leading law experts, government officials, and other legal professionals from around the United States and the world.
On November 14, 2016, Professors Andrew Knapp and Jennifer Koh co-authored an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Szonyi v. Lynch, a case involving the immigration consequences of crime. The amicus brief addresses the application of the doctrines of Chevron deference, constitutional avoidance and void for vagueness to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of a “single scheme of criminal misconduct.” The brief was submitted on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)’s Amicus Committee.
Professor Knapp is currently counsel to Respondent James Dimaya in Lynch v. Dimaya, a Supreme Court case that will be argued in early 2017 involving whether the definition of “crimes of violence” in the immigration context is unconstitutionally vague. Professor Koh has authored an article, forthcoming in the December 2016 volume of the Wisconsin Law Review, entitled “Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine,” which explores the void for vagueness doctrine in the context of crime-based removal statutes in more depth.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari on September 29, 2016, Adjunct Professor Andrew Knapp will be appearing before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the noncitizen respondent in Lynch v. Dimaya, a case involving the application of the void for vagueness doctrine to the federal definition of a “crime of violence” at 18 U.S.C. section 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act. Professor Knapp, a graduate of Western State Class of 1995, teaches in the Western State College of Law Immigration Clinic, where he is supervising students in the inaugural class of the Clinic’s Ninth Circuit Representation Project. Professor Knapp, who also serves as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School, represented Mr. James Dimaya before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through the Southwestern Law School Ninth Circuit Clinic. He will be co-counseling the case with the law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, where the legal team includes former Supreme Court law clerks E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Brian Goldman.