These issue-specific pages focus on topics currently being litigated in the federal courts. The pages include recent Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter articles, court updates, and relevant resources such as practice advisories and pleadings, where available.

• Recent Mandamus Litigation
  This issue page provides information about recent litigation developments in immigration-related mandamus actions, with particular emphasis on cases seeking to compel the adjudication of applications that are delayed as a result of security checks.



• Natz Delay Litigation
  USCIS’s delays in adjudicating naturalization applications are forcing applicants to seek judicial remedies. Section 336(b) of the INA provides for judicial review for a stalled naturalization petition if the application is pending for more than 120 days after the date on which the examination is conducted. Many litigants seek relief under the mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedure Act, in addition or instead of INA § 336(b).



• ICE Raids Litigation
  Since late 2006, ICE has raided a number of companies and arrested and removed hundreds of noncitizens from the United States. This Litigation Clearinghouse Issue Page provides information about the federal court litigation related to the raids.



• State and Local Law Enforcement
  An increasing number of states are passing local ordinances targeting undocumented immigrants. These laws range in severity and scope, but tend to penalize landlords who rent or lease their property to undocumented immigrants, business owners who hire immigrants, and immigrants themselves. Some people affected by the ordinances are challenging them in court.



• Other Impact Litigation
  This page summarizes and discusses class action and other multi-party lawsuits that deal with current issues affecting the immigrant community and that do not fall into categories covered by Litigation Issue Pages.



• “Arriving Aliens” and Adjustment of Status
  In 1997, the former INS adopted a regulation that barred all “arriving aliens” who were in removal proceedings from adjusting status. At the same time, INS also adopted a regulation broadly defining the term “arriving alien.” As a result almost all parolees in removal proceedings were barred from adjustment of status. Several courts struck down these regulations barring adjustment as ultra vires to the statute. On May 12, 2006, the government issued an interim rule deleting the absolute bar on an "arriving alien's" ability to adjust status in removal proceedings. Under the interim rule, USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment application.



• Lopez v. Gonzales: Drug Possession Is Not an Aggravated Felony
  On December 5, 2006, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that drug possession convictions that qualify as state felonies, but would not qualify as felonies under federal law, are not “aggravated felonies” as defined under INA § 101(a)(43)(B) ("drug trafficking crimes"). Lopez v. Gonzales, No. 05-547, 549 U.S. ___ (2006).



• Matter of Blake Litigation
  In Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), the BIA ruled that a person found removable due to a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor is ineligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the INA. The BIA reasoned that the aggravated felony ground of removal (INA §§ 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 101(a)(43)(A)) had no statutory counterpart in the 212(a) grounds of inadmissibility. The BIA employed similar reasoning in Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 766 (BIA 2005). Many individuals in removal proceedings are challenging Matter of Blake and Matter of Brieva in the courts of appeals



• Judicial Review of Asylum One Year Filing Decisions
  The INA says that courts may not review determinations relating to the one year filing deadline for asylum applications, INA § 208(a)(3). Despite this provision, some important exceptions to this general rule have been carved out. This Issue Page highlights cases in which the courts have addressed their jurisdiction to review one year filing deadline decisions.



• IJ’s Jurisdiction to Apply INA § 204(j)
  In Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA Oct. 2005), the BIA held that immigration judges, when adjudicating adjustment of status applications, lack jurisdiction to determine whether an approved I-140 remains valid under INA § 204(j). Section 204(j) provides that, for purposes of an adjustment application that has been pending for more than 180 days, an approved I-140 visa petition remains valid even if the adjustment applicant changes jobs, so long as the new job is in the same or similar occupational classification. To date, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits -- the only courts to rule on this issue -- have rejected the BIA's holding.