Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Carving Out Protection and Redress for Migrants in the Americas Through the Judiciary: The Role of the High Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Migration Patterns in the Americas

  • 382 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter traces the evolution of legal practices in migration jurisprudence from 2014 until 2017 through a comparison of high court decisions on migration issues and migrants in selected receiving countries in the Americas (Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama and the United States). The chapter shows that courts have acquired great relevance in public policy debates in the Americas, becoming the final arbitrators of political disputes regarding the scope of state action and the protection of the rights of citizens. It also underscores how migrants and their advocates are increasingly seeking the courts’ intervention in cases related to immigration legislation and the protection of the rights of migrants. This phenomenon has resulted in strategic litigation efforts led by human rights organizations and immigration advocates, borrowing tactics from other rights campaigns. Additionally, the chapter shows that the demand for legal representation is contributing to the emergence of immigration law practices in several countries in the region. In the author’s view, the judicialization of migration is having positive and significant implications as it is contributing to elevating process standards in immigration control actions and expanding equal protection of the law to all persons under state jurisdiction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Brazil in 1988, Colombia 1991, Paraguay 1992, Peru 1993, Ecuador 1998 and 2008, Venezuela 1999 and Bolivia 2009. Other Latin American countries like Argentina, Mexico and Costa Rica amended their constitutions.

  2. 2.

    The Colombian constitution incorporated the right to peace (art. 22) and further developed the right of indigenous peoples to the collective titling of land (art. 329) and the right to a healthy environment (art. 79), among others.

  3. 3.

    The Ecuadorean constitution established the right to migrate and a prohibition on identifying a person as illegal regarding their migratory status (art. 40).

  4. 4.

    While since the 1950s North American geographers have argued that North and South America are two distinctively separated landmasses, South American geographers continue to insist that it is one land mass. Other cultural, political and economic differences support the separation (see Lewis and Wigen 1997).

  5. 5.

    For a discussion on the difficulties in finding case law, see also Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS 2014).

  6. 6.

    Some countries criminalize illegal entry, but in practice defer those cases to immigration authorities for expulsion or deportation, rather than prosecuting them, in an application of the principle of opportunity.

  7. 7.

    For example, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “Article 14. 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law…” (1966).

  8. 8.

    Article 1F of the 1951 Convention is the exclusion clause:

    “The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

    1. (a)

      he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

    2. (b)

      he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

    3. (c)

      he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

  9. 9.

    “Se advierte a la recurrida, o a quien ocupe su cargo, que de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado.”

    “The recurred, or whomever is filling her position, is admonished that according to article 71 of the Bill on Constitutional Jurisdiction, a punishment of between three months up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of twenty to sixty days will be imposed on a person who receives an order that they should follow or make others abide by in the context of a judicial petition and does not comply with it or does not make other comply, as long as the crime is not punished heavily elsewhere.”

Bibliography

  • Abraham, D. (2014). Law and migration: Many constants, few changes. Research Paper 15-8, University of Miami Legal Studies. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2514035.

  • Abregú, M. (1997). La aplicación de los derechos humanos por los tribunales locales: Una introducción. In M. Abregú & C. Courtis (Eds.), La aplicación de los tratados sobre derechos humanos por los tribunales locales (pp. 3–32). Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas, S. (2014). Chains of justice: The global rise of state institutions for human rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Nacional de Lanús & Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales. (2015). Jurisprudencia sobre los derechos de los migrantes en América Latina y el Caribe. Tribunales y sistema interamericano de derechos humanos (Chap. 2, pp. 19–50). Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Lanus and Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centro de Estudios Legales in Sociales. (2014). Migrantes y derechos humanos en ámitos internacionales. Retreived May 28, 2018 from https://www.cels.org.ar/web/2014/11/migrantes-y-derechos-humanos-en-losambitos-internacionales/

  • Dulitzky, A. (2015). An alternative approach to the conventionality control doctrine. American Journal of International Law, 109, 100–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer Mac-Gregor, E. (2015). Conventionality control: The new doctrine of the inter-american court of human rights. American Journal of International Law, 109, 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, G., & Ríos-Figueroa, J. (Eds.). (2011). Courts in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández Valle, R. (2011). La eclosión del recurso de amparo en Costa Rica (problemas y posibles soluciones). In M. González Oropeza & E. Ferrer MacGregor (Eds.), El juicio de amparo. A 160 años de la primera sentencia (pp. 587–599). Mexico City: UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huneeus, A. (2015). Introduction to symposium on the constitutionalization of international law in Latin America. American Journal of International Law, 109, 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf.

  • Lewis, M., & Wigen, K. (1997). The myth of continents: A critique of metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerio del Interior República de Argentina. (2014). Decreto No. 836/04. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/230000-234999/231592/norma.htm.

  • Ministerio de Seguridad de Panamá. (2012). Decreto Ejecutivo No. 167. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/27085_A/GacetaNo_27085a_20120725.pdf.

  • Motomura, H. (2006). Immigration law and Federal Court jurisdiction through the lens of habeas corpus. Cornell Law Review, 91(2), 459–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, M. R., & Ball, I. (2016). Trends in unaccompanied child and family migration from Central America. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trends-unaccompanied-child-and-family-migration-central-america.

  • Sánchez G., S. (2011). El Amparo en Panamá. Revista IUS, 27(5), 216–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, P. H. (2008). Law and the study of migration. In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory talking across disciplines (pp. 239–257). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015a). Trends in international migrant stock: Migrants by destination and origin. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.shtml.

  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015b). World population prospects: The 2015 revision. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/.

  • United Nations News Services. (2016). Con ayuda de la OIM, sale de Costa Rica último grupo de Cubanos varados. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.cinu.mx/noticias/mundial/con-ayuda-de-la-oim-sale-de-co/.

Case Law

  • Alex Asmet Guevara Quintero contra Dirección General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 950-15, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Amparo de Garantías Constitucionales, November 25, 2015. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://vlex.com.pa/vid/primera-instancia-corte-suprema-631808933.

  • Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 154, September 26, 2006. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_154_ing.pdf.

  • B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), SCC 58, 3 S.C.R. 704, Canada: Supreme Court, November 27, 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15647/index.do.

  • Consulta Judicial art. 249 Ley contra la Trata de Personas Ley No. 9095, No. 2016-5949, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, May 18, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edder Samuel Téllez Osma contra el Director General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 970-14, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Recurso de Habeas Corpus, November 18, 2014. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rj2014-11.pdf.

  • Elizabeth Córdoba Murgas contra Dirección General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 1062-13, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Amparo de Garantías Constitucionales, September 21, 2014. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://vlex.com.pa/vid/primera-instancia-corte-suprema-592794294.

  • Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), SCC 68, 3 S.C.R. 431, Canada: Supreme Court, October 30, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14419/index.do.

  • Gestión de adición y aclaración interpuesta por la Directora General de Migración y Extranjería contra la sentencia 2016-000808, No. 2016-06364, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, May 13, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean Servilius contra Dirección General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente E-46-13, Panamá: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Amparo de Garantías Constitucionales, August 29, 2014. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://vlex.com.pa/vid/impedimento-corte-suprema-justicia-650686885.

  • Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), SCC 61, 3CR 909, Canada: Supreme Court, December 10, 2015. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15665/index.do.

  • Kerry v. Din, Docket 13-1402, 576 United States of America: Supreme Court, June 15, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf.

  • María Francisca Araujo Mejía contra Dirección General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 678-13, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Amparo de Garantías Constitucionales, January 24, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from http://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/rj2014-01.pdf.

  • Ojeda Hernández, Luis Alberto s/ Causa, No. 2739/12, O.113.XLVIII, Recurso de Hecho, Argentina: Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, July 10, 2014. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from http://www.revistarap.com.ar/Derecho/constitucional_e_internacional/migraciones/1cnt0053097046000.html.

  • Oswaldo Márquez contra Dirección General del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 150-12, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Demanda Contencioso Administrativa de Plena Jurisdicción, September 1, 2014. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/rj2014-04.pdf.

  • Proceso penal contra Carlos Alberto Suengas Herrera y Humberto Ivan Urriola Pérez por el delito de trata sexual en perjuicio de Andiney Cruz Castro y otras, Expediente 602-G, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Segunda de lo Penal, 24 de febrero de 2015. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://vlex.com.pa/vid/sentencia-corte-suprema-justicia-650684569.

  • R. v. Appulonappa, SCC 59, 3 S.C.R. 754, Canada: Supreme Court, November 27, 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2018, from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15648/index.do.

  • Recurso de Amparo contra el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, No. 2016-7581, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, June 3, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Amparo contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-01203, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, January 26, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus a favor de Mirtha Jeaneth Barrera Bhorquez contra Directora General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2014-02030, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, February 14, 2014a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2014-2717 Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, February 24, 2014b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Directora General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2014-02425, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, February 25, 2014c.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2015-07158, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, May 19, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Amparo contra el Ministro de la Presidencia, el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones a favor de Agencia de Viajes Meridianos S.A., No. 2016-02704, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, February 26, 2016a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus presentado por menor de edad a favor de su madre contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-5929, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, June 1, 2016b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra Dirección de Policía Profesional de la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería y la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-04816, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, April 8, 2016c.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-00697, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, January 19, 2016d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-00809, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, January 20, 2016e.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-00808, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, January 20, 2016f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-00888, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional, January 22, 2016g.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recurso de Habeas Corpus contra la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 2016-00790, Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Constitucional, January 20, 2016h.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes Mata v. Lynch, Attorney General, Docket No. 14–185, United States of America: Supreme Court. June 15, 2015. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-185_i4dk.pdf.

  • Rovinson Martínez Carvajal contra el Director del Servicio Nacional de Migración, Expediente 1003-14, Panama: Corte Suprema de Justicia, Recurso de Habeas Corpus, November 17, 2014. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rj2014-11.pdf.

  • United States, et al., Petitioners v. Texas, et al., United States: Supreme Court, No. 15-674, 579, June 23, 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-674_jhlo.pdf.

  • Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4, July 29, 1988. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_07_ing.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Law and Justice, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA

    Helena M. Olea Rodríguez

Authors
  1. Helena M. Olea Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena M. Olea Rodríguez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Latin American and Latino Studies Program, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Andreas E. Feldmann

  2. Latin American and Latino Studies Program, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Xóchitl Bada

  3. Lateinamerika-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Stephanie Schütze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Olea Rodríguez, H.M. (2019). Carving Out Protection and Redress for Migrants in the Americas Through the Judiciary: The Role of the High Courts. In: Feldmann, A., Bada, X., Schütze, S. (eds) New Migration Patterns in the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89384-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation