The Immigration and Nationality Act vests enormous discretion in the Attorney General and her subordinates, a discretion exercised frequently at all levels of the immigration system. Despite this, though, judicial review of these decisions has followed a very uneven, troubled course. This Article will explore the reasons for this, focusing first on the Administrative Procedure Act and the elusive meaning of discretion itself. It will demonstrate the "disintegration" of administrative law and the failure of its general precepts to accommodate immigration issues. Next, it will trace the development of faulty doctrine through case law, resulting in a terribly stunted judicial review. Finally it will reveal the necessity for developing a more particularized approach to judicial review to afford aliens effective access to our legal system.
Michael G. Heyman, Judicial Review of Discretionary Immigration Decisionmaking, 31 San Diego L. Rev. 861 (1994).