Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)

• Failure to Appeal to the AAO: Does it Bar all Federal Court Review of the Case? (July 22, 2004)
  This practice advisory discusses whether and how a person can get review of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decision in federal court if he or she failed to appeal the decision to the AAO.

BIA & Immigration Court Procedures

• Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (March 18, 2006)
  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.

• Staying The Voluntary Departure Period When Filing A Motion To Reopen (December 16, 2005)
  This advisory discusses the interplay between motions to reopen and voluntary departure. Three courts of appeals recently have rejected the BIA's reasoning in Matter of Shaar. People whose voluntary departure period has not expired may submit a request for stay of removal and stay of voluntary departure with the motion to reopen.

• 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

• BIA “Affirmance Without Opinion”: What Federal Court Challenges Remain? (April 27, 2005)
  This practice advisory discusses the types of AWO challenges that have failed and those that remain available.

• How to Challenge an Affirmance Without Opinion by a BIA Member (Sept. 27, 2002)
  Single BIA members are deciding summarily thousands of case using the "affirmance without opinion" procedure.  This practice advisory discusses arguments that challenge a BIA Member's use of this procedure to deny an appeal.

Business Immigration

• Amended: I-140 Portability for Employment-Based Adjustment Applicants in Removal Proceedings - Strategies for Challenging Matter of Perez-Vargas (January 9th, 2008)
  Updated AILF practice advisory discussing INA § 204(j) portability, challenges to the precedent decision Matter of Perez-Vargas, and the three court of appeals decisions rejecting Perez-Vargas to-date.

• Export Licensing Requirements for Foreign Nationals (July 17, 2003)
  This practice advisory focuses on the deemed export rule under the Commerce Department's EAR which governs exports of non-military technology.

Detention

• Introduction to Habeas Corpus (April 2006)
  This is a short introduction to habeas corpus, addressing when and how a petition for habeas corpus can be used in the immigration context.

• ICE's Detention After Removal Hearing Program Practical Suggestions and Legal Analysis for Potential Challenges (April 9, 2004)
  This practice advisory provides some basic nuts and bolts suggestions for lawyers with clients subject to DARH, then outlines the statutes and regulations governing the detention of respondents subject to DARH, and sets out potential legal challenges.

• Arrest, Detention, and Bond Procedures for Noncitizens Without Criminal Convictions (Jan. 13, 2003)
  This practice advisory focuses on the law governing the arrest, detention and bond procedures for people present in the United States who do not have criminal convictions.

Expedited Removal

• Expedited Removal (August 13, 2004)
  This practice advisory discusses the Department of Homeland Security's announcement of an unprecedented expansion of expedited removal to the interior.

Federal Court Review

• Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Updated April 8, 2008)
  This practice advisory outlines in summary form arguments to make in response to the government's motion to dismiss a mandamus or Administrative Procedure Act case brought to remedy the delayed adjudication of an immigration benefit applications such as an adjustment of status application.

• Immigration Lawsuits and the APA: The Basics of a District Court Action (May 9, 2007)
  This practice advisory will discuss the primary issues involved in an APA suit, with examples of how these issues have been decided in immigration cases and arguments that can be made to meet the various procedural requirements for an APA action.

• Return to the United States after Prevailing on a Petition for Review (January 17, 2007)
  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.

• How to File a Petition for Review (October 26, 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.

• 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.

• Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Fee Application (April 7, 2006)
  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.

• Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review (April 5, 2006)
  This Practice Advisory discusses federal court jurisdiction over discretionary decisions after REAL ID in both the removal and non-removal contexts. It suggests an analysis for determining whether a court retains jurisdiction over a particular issue or case.

• Applying for a Stay of Removal During Federal Court Proceedings (October 24, 2005)
  This AILF practice advisory discusses the varying standards the courts apply when adjudicating motions for stays of removal in both petitions for review at the court of appeals and habeas corpus petitions at the district court.

• Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case (August 15, 2005)
  This AILF Practice Advisory provides basic information about filing an immigration related mandamus action in federal district court. It discusses the required elements of a successful mandamus action as well as the jurisdictional concerns that sometimes arise.

• Judicial Review Provisions of The REAL ID Act (June 7, 2005)
  On May 11, the REAL ID Act was signed into law. This Act contains numerous provisions related to federal court review of immigration cases. This Practice Advisory contains a preliminary analysis of the judicial review provisions.

• 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.

• How To File A Petition For Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc And Hearing En Banc In An Immigration Case (October 27, 2004)
  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.

• The Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla on Immigration Habeas Petitions (June 30, 2004)
  This practice advisory discusses the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla on immigration habeas petitions.

General

• 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.

CSPA/Aging Out

• 2006 Update on the Child Status Protection Act: New Administrative Interpretation (Corrected September 26, 2006)
  This Practice Advisory discusses recent developments in the interpretation and implementation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. 107-208 (Aug. 6, 2002) by the USCIS and the BIA. There are no regulations yet implementing the Act. The agencies have continued to interpret the Act through policy memoranda and unpublished BIA decisions.

• Aging Out: Recent Developments Related to the Child Status Protection Act and Other Provisions (February 24, 2005)
  This Practice Advisory will discuss recent developments in the interpretation and implementation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Department of State (DOS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals. See also our 3/8/04 advisory Amended: Child Status Protection Act.

• Amended: Child Status Protection Act (March 8, 2004)
  The Child Status Protection Act was enacted to provide relief to children who "age-out" as a result of delays in processing visa petitions and asylum and refugee applications. This practice advisory provides an overview of the CSPA and its implementation. See also our 2/24/05 advisory Aging Out: Recent Developments Related to CSPA.

Naturalization

• Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (March 18th, 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.

• Amended: Circumventing Naturalization Delays: How to get Judicial Relief Under 8 USC 1447(B) for a Stalled Naturalization Application (October 6th, 2005)
  Discusses the nuts and bolts of how to circumvent agency delay in naturalization cases and get immediate federal court review, when CIS fails to make a decision within 120 days of the naturalization interview.

Religious Workers

• Special Immigrant Religous 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.

• Protecting Your Client When Prior Counsel Was Ineffective (April 2002)
  This practice advisory provides an overview of the BIA's requirements for making an ineffective assistance claim under Matter of Lozada and describes recent developments in the circuit courts.  This advisory also includes a chart listing the significant cases in each circuit.  

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

• Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (March 18, 2006)
  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.
• Protecting Your Client When Prior Counsel Was Ineffective (April 2002)
  This practice advisory provides an overview of the BIA's requirements for making an ineffective assistance claim under Matter of Lozada and describes recent developments in the circuit courts.  This advisory also includes a chart listing the significant cases in each circuit.  

• 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 of “Arriving Aliens” Under the Interim Regulations: Challenging the BIA’s Denial of a Motion to Reopen, Remand, or Continue a Case (April 16, 2007)
  This practice advisory is the third in a series about the interim regulations, adopted May 12, 2006, which give USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of an “arriving alien” parolee who is in removal proceedings. This practice advisory will focus on what the BIA should do to implement the interim regulations in accordance with the adjustment statute and prevailing case law.

• USCIS Adjustment of Status of “Arriving Aliens” with an Unexecuted Final Order of Removal (Amended March 14, 2007)
  This practice advisory explains why USCIS has jurisdiction over adjustment applications of an arriving alien parolee with an unexecuted final order of removal. It will also outline the arguments why such a parolee remains eligible for adjustment notwithstanding an unexecuted final order of removal. This practice advisory supplements an earlier practice advisory addressing the adjustment of paroled “arriving aliens” under the interim regulations adopted on May 12, 2006.

• “Arriving Aliens” and Adjustment of Status: What is the Impact of the Government’s Interim Rule of May 12, 2006? (Updated October 3, 2006)
  This practice advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all “arriving aliens” –including parolees—from adjusting to permanent resident status if they were in removal proceedings and suggests steps that a parolee can take to benefit from the interim rule.

Voluntary Departure

• 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.

• Staying The Voluntary Departure Period When Filing A Motion To Reopen (December 16, 2005)
  This advisory discusses the interplay between motions to reopen and voluntary departure. Three courts of appeals recently have rejected the BIA's reasoning in Matter of Shaar. People whose voluntary departure period has not expired may submit a request for stay of removal and stay of voluntary departure with the motion to reopen.

• Protecting Voluntary Departure Period During Court of Appeals Review (October 25, 2005)
  This Practice Advisory reviews the existing law on what happens to an order of voluntary departure while a person pursues a petition for review in the court of appeals. In most cases, petitioners are advised to seek a stay of the voluntary departure period when filing a petition for review. The advisory includes a chart with relevant cases from each circuit.