Click on any of the following topic areas to view all relevant practice advisories:
View Practice Advisories by Date
Administrative Appeals
Office (AAO)
BIA & Immigration Court Procedures
Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (March 18, 2008)
This new AILF Practice Advisory sets out arguments to challenge Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, a recent BIA decision holding that IJ and BIA lack jurisdiction to determine prima facie eligibility for naturalization in order to terminate removal proceedings.
Employment Authorization and Asylum: Strategies to Avoid Stopping the Asylum Clock (February 28, 2006)
This practice advisory discusses how the asylum EAD clock operates, EOIR interpretations of clock stopping events, AILF analysis, and strategies to keep the clock running.
EOIR Background and Security Check Regulations–Effective April 1, 2005 (April 6, 2005)
On April 1, 2005, EOIR’s security check regulations went into effect. The interim rule bars IJs and the BIA from granting most forms of relief until DHS has informed them that security checks are complete. DHS is requiring applicants to mail copies of their applications to USCIS service centers to initiate the security check process.
Objecting to Video Merits Hearings (December 12, 2003)
This practice advisory discusses the problems arising from the use of video hearings, and suggests ways to protect the respondent's rights and move for in-person hearings where that strategy is selected. -
Practicing Before the BIA Under the New "Procedural Reforms" Rule (September 17, 2002, Amended January 10, 2003)
The BIA's new "procedural reforms" rule went into effect on September 25, 2002. This practice advisory highlights the changes made by this rule.
Affirmance Without Opinion
Business
Immigration
Detention
Expedited Removal
Federal Court Review
APA Actions
Attorneys Fees
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Fee Application (December 8, 2008)
This Practice Advisory addresses the deadline for filing an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fee application, the statutory requirements for eligibility, and procedural aspects of filing an EAJA fee application, including documenting and calculating fees.
Habeas Petitions
Jurisdiction
Delay Litigation - Mandamus and 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Actions
Petitions for Review and Other Procedural Matters
Electronic Filing and Access to Electronic Federal Court Documents (April 13, 2009)
This Practice Advisory explains the federal rules authorizing electronic filing in federal court; describes how to file documents in federal court using the Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System; and outlines how to access electronic documents through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). The advisory also clarifies some limitations to electronic access of documents in federal immigration cases.
“Finality” of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes (August 5, 2008)
This practice advisory addresses whether a removal decision issued by an Immigration Judge or the BIA is a “final” removal order for purposes of federal court review. Federal courts can only review “final” removal orders. This advisory discusses whether a BIA remand, for example, affects the “finality” of the order. Whom to Sue and Whom to Serve (Updated April 7, 2006)
This updated Practice Advisory addresses who is, or who may be, the proper respondent-defendant and recipient for service of process in immigration-related litigation in district court. -
How to File a Petition for Review (October 25, 2006)
This practice advisory explains the procedures for filing and litigating a petition for review of a BIA deportation or removal order. It has been amended to reflect the REAL ID Act's changes to the judicial review provisions of the immigration statute and to reflect the increased filing fee for petitions for review.
How To File A Petition For Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc And Hearing En Banc In An Immigration Case (July 31, 2008)
This AILF Practice Advisory discusses the procedures and requirements for filing a petition for rehearing, rehearing en banc or hearing en banc in the court of appeals. Return to the United States after Prevailing on a Petition for Review (updated May 28, 2009)
This practice advisory contains practical and legal suggestions for attorneys representing clients who have prevailed on a petition for review or other legal action and who are outside of the United States.
Suggested Strategies for Remedying Missed Petition for Review Deadlines or Filings in the Wrong Court (April 20, 2005)
This practice advisory addresses situations in which a court might excuse a late-filed petition for review, options for remedying the failure to timely file a petition for review, and provides an overview of the statute that authorizes courts to transfer a case to cure a lack of jurisdiction when an action is filed in the wrong federal court.
FOIA
General
Electronic Filing and Access to Electronic Federal Court Documents (April 13, 2009)
This Practice Advisory explains the federal rules authorizing electronic filing in federal court; describes how to file documents in federal court using the Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System; and outlines how to access electronic documents through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). The advisory also clarifies some limitations to electronic access of documents in federal immigration cases.
Importance of Maintaining Status After September 11 (Nov. 2001)
AILA Member Angelo Paparelli authored this practice advisory about visa maintenance issues after September 11.
Immigration Benefits
§ 212(h) Eligibility: Case Law and Potential Arguments (Updated February 19, 2008)
This practice advisory addresses statutory requirements for § 212(h) waivers; availability of § 212(h) waivers in removal proceedings for both LPRs and non-LPRs; and situations when a "stand-alone" § 212(h) waiver can, or arguably might, be filed.
Special Immigrant Religious Workers (September 29, 2004)
This updated practice advisory explains why federal courts have overturned AAO decisions that erroneously imposed three types of heightened requirements for the term "religious occupation": (1) religious training requirements; (2) distinctions between secular and non-secular duties; and (3) salary and hour requirements.
Motions to Reopen
Rescinding an In Absentia Order of Removal (Amended September 21, 2004 from the previous version dated
May 20, 2002.)
Individuals who have been ordered removed in absentia may file a motion to reopen to rescind the removal order. This practice advisory addresses the elements and requirements for an in absentia motion to reopen.
Reinstatement
Reinstatement of Removal (Updated April 23, 2008)
This practice advisory addresses where to obtain federal court review of reinstatement orders and what arguments are available to challenge the legality of reinstatement orders in federal court, including challenges to the underlying removal order.
Relief from Removal
The § 237(a)(1)(H) Fraud Waiver (June 1, 2009)
This practice advisory discusses the § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver for fraud or misrepresentation at admission that would otherwise render deportable certain LPRs and VAWA self-petitioners. The advisory addresses when the waiver is available, the statutory eligibility requirements, and the relief that results from a grant of the waiver. Orozco v. Mukasey case update: Ninth Circuit Vacates Orozco
On October 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss Orozco v. Mukasey and vacate its published decision, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008). The parties’ motion came after the BIA granted a joint motion to reopen the case. The practice advisory discussing the holding in Orozco prior to it being vacated is still available for review. Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (March 18, 2008)
This new AILF Practice Advisory sets out arguments to challenge Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, a recent BIA decision holding that IJ and BIA lack jurisdiction to determine prima facie eligibility for naturalization in order to terminate removal proceedings. § 212(h) Eligibility: Case Law and Potential Arguments (Jan 22, 2008)
This practice advisory addresses statutory requirements for § 212(h) waivers; availability of § 212(h) waivers in removal proceedings for both LPRs and non-LPRs; and situations when a "stand-alone" § 212(h) waiver can, or arguably might, be filed. Rescinding an In Absentia Order of Removal (Amended September 21, 2004 from the previous version dated May 20, 2002.)
Individuals who have been ordered removed in absentia may file a motion to reopen to rescind the removal order. This practice advisory addresses the elements and requirements for an in absentia motion to reopen.
212(c)-St. Cyr
St. Cyr Regulations And Strategies For Applicants Who Are Barred From Section 212(C) Relief Under The Regulations (October 19, 2004)
This AILF practice advisory describes who can apply for section 212(c) relief under the new St. Cyr regulations and discusses strategies and arguments to assist individuals who are barred under the regulations.
-
Proposed St. Cyr Regulations (Aug. 29, 2002)
This practice advisory describes the proposed rule on St. Cyr and discusses arguments and strategies to help those who are not eligible for 212(c) relief under the proposed rule.
-
St. Cyr and Accrual of Lawful Unrelinquished Domicile (Oct. 25, 2001)
This practice advisory discusses the law governing accrual of lawful unrelinquished domicile for 212(c) and responses to INS's arguments regarding accrual of lawful unrelinquished domicile and St. Cyr.
-
Who Should Benefit From St. Cyr? (Aug. 1, 2001)
This practice advisory, authored by Nancy Morawetz, Professor, New York University School of Law, describes some of the issues left open after St. Cyr, including whether an individual convicted after a jury trial is eligible for 212(c) relief.
-
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Regarding INA . 212(c) and Jurisdiction (June 28, 2001)
INS v. St. Cyr and Calcano-Martinez v. INS, both decided by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2001, address important issues regarding federal court jurisdiction over immigration cases and the availability of 212(c) relief. This practice advisory highlights the key holdings of these cases.
Adjustment of Status for "Arriving Aliens"
Voluntary Departure
Voluntary Departure Q&A (December 22, 2008).
This Q&A provides an overview of EOIR’s new regulations on voluntary departure. The new regulations, which go into effect on January 20, 2009, address various aspects of voluntary departure, including what happens to voluntary departure when motions to reopen and reconsider and petitions for review are filed. Dada v. Mukasey Q&A: Preliminary Analysis and Approaches to Consider (June 17, 2008).
This Q&A offers preliminary analysis about the potential impact of Dada v. Mukasey on individuals’ cases and suggestions about immediate steps to take. In Dada, the Supreme Court protected the right to file a motion to reopen by holding that voluntary departure recipients are permitted to unilaterally withdraw their voluntary departure request before the expiration of the voluntary departure period. Failure to Depart After a Grant of Voluntary Departure: The Consequences and Arguments to Avoid Them (February 21, 2006)
Many individuals who are granted voluntary departure but do not depart the Unites States are barred from relief from removal, including adjustment of status, for ten years. This practice advisory discusses when the consequences apply and proposes arguments to avoid the consequences of failing to depart.
Return to Legal Action Center homepage
|
|
