Jessica Arco · April 2014
82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 493 (2014)
Although implemented with good intentions, the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy puts its intended beneficiaries in a precarious position. Because the policy constitutes an agency policy statement outlining an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, administrative law precedent suggests that deferred action applicants are unable to seek enforcement of the policy’s benefits. Thus, if a future administration chooses to rescind the policy, deferred action applicants could be placed in removal proceedings utilizing the information provided in the application, despite the government’s assurance that the information would not be used for enforcement purposes. This Note analogizes this assurance to a promise of leniency in the criminal context, which courts have held may render a confession involuntary. Individuals placed in removal proceedings could argue, then, that the “confessions” of immigration law violations within their deferred action applications were involuntary. This Note also suggests that the doctrines of detrimental reliance and estoppel may provide other avenues for relief.
