• Litigation Clearinghouse Volume 4, Issue 11 (October 2, 2009)
    This issue highlights Supreme Court cases that will be argued this fall, judicial review of denied adjustment of status applications, challenges to the use of detainers, and updates from the LAC, including a recent victory in a naturalization delay case and favorable developments in a BIA case involving portability/Matter of Perez Vargas.

  • Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo (September 18, 2009)
    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.

  • AILF URGES BIA TO VACATE MATTER OF PEREZ-VARGAS
    AILF’s Legal Action Center filed an amicus brief for AILF and AILA in Matter of Neto (oral argument to be held October 1, 2009). The BIA is considering vacating, Matter of Perez-Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005), which held that an immigration judge has no jurisdiction over INA § 204(j) portability determinations for adjustment applications. The amicus brief argues that this violates § 204(j) and deprives skilled foreign workers in removal proceedings of the right and opportunity to change jobs while they wait for their long-delayed adjustment applications to be decided. The LAC has litigated and helped others litigate the issue and several courts of appeals have reversed the BIA.

  • AILF BRIEF ARGUES AREGUILLIN STILL CORRECT
    The Legal Action Center’s amicus brief for AILF and AILA, filed in Matter of Aguilar-Cerda (BIA), argues that Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), should be reaffirmed and that the respondent was “admitted” when an immigration officer at a port of entry inspected him and allowed his entry, even if he was inadmissible at the time.

  • The Child Status Protection Act (Updated September 9, 2009)
    This AILF practice advisory updates and replaces three earlier advisories and provides a comprehensive overview of the CSPA, with a discussion of the most recent agency interpretations and court cases.

  • Litigation Clearinghouse Volume 4, Issue 10 (September 11, 2009)
    This issue covers E-Verify litigation, prolonged detention class actions, favorable BIA precedents, removal cases involving the statute of limitation to rescind adjustment, and recently filed AILF briefs

  • AILF/AILA Litigation Institute Is Sold Out
    Registration for the Litigation Institute is now sold out. We have started a waiting list and will continue to take applications. If you are interested in applying, please contact AILF to inquire about being added to the waiting list. If you are added to the waiting list, we advise you not to make your travel arrangements until you receive confirmation space has become available.

  • How to get Judicial Relief Under 8 USC 1447(b) for a Stalled Naturalization Application (Amended August 31, 2009)
    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.

  • Whom to Sue and Whom to Serve (Updated August 18, 2009)
    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 (August 13, 2009)
    This Practice Advisory addresses the current procedures and general requirements for filing and litigating a petition for review.

  • Updated AILF Practice Advisories
    The Legal Action Center has updated its mandamus practice advisories to include the latest on jurisdiction, the government's arguments for dismissal, and how courts are anyalyzing the mandamus prerequisites in challenges to delays in adjudication of applications for immigration benefits. See Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case (August 6, 2009) and Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss (July 23, 2009).

  • Litigation Clearinghouse Volume 4, Issue 9 (August 3, 2009)
    This issue covers two class actions, one seeking to recover TPS fees and the other involving the Child Status Protection Act; upcoming BIA argument on Matter of Perez Vargas (IJ's jurisdiction to apply INA § 204(j)); a decision on the consular nonreviewability doctrine; and a court order compelling DOL to adjudicate a PERM application.

  • Special AILF Teleconference: Duran Gonzales Litigation -- Update and Q&A With Plaintiffs' Counsel. On August 7, 2009, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Duran Gonzales litigation will provide an update on the class action and offer suggestions for lawyers whose clients are class members or are otherwise affected by the Ninth Circuit’s adverse decision. Duran Gonzales is a Ninth Circuit-wide class action regarding whether individuals who have previously been removed or deported are not eligible to apply for adjustment of status (under INA § 245(i)) along with an accompanying I-212 waiver application. Read about the litigation.

  • CSPA Case Certified as National Class Action
    AILF and AILA submitted an amicus brief in support of a motion for class certification in the CSPA case Costelo, et al. v. Chertoff, et al., No SACV 08-688 (C.D. Ca.). In the brief, AILF and AILA argue that the BIA erred in Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009) when it held that derivative children who “aged-out” were not entitled to retain the earlier priority date of their parent’s visa petition under section 3 of the CSPA, and that this decision is not entitled to any deference by the district court. Subsequently, on July 16, 2009, the district court certified a national class of LPR parents who seek to enforce section 3 of the CSPA for their “aged out” children.

  • Litigation Clearinghouse Volume 4, Issue 8, July 10, 2009
    This issue of AILF's Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter covers a court order requiring DHS to respond to a detention standards petition, BIA and Ninth Circuit decisions on continuances, a class action challenging prolonged detention, retroactive application of a change in law, and litigation resources on the Supreme Court's decision in Nijhawan.