Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 3

This issue covers the favorable district court order in the ADIT litigation (Santillan v. Gonzales) and recent decisions addressing Matter of Grijalva and the presumption of effective service.

Published On: Monday, January 9, 2006 | Download File

Lawsuit challenges Georgia’s Arizona-mimicking immigration law

Published on Fri, Jun 03, 2011

The list of Arizona S.B. 1070-style immigration-enforcement laws challenged in court keeps growing. Now it’s Georgia’s turn.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center filed a class action lawsuit challenging Georgia’s H.B. 87, the immigration-enforcement bill signed into law there by Gov. Nathan Deal last month.

The National Immigration Law Center says that H.B. 87 is out of step with fundamental values and the rule of law and gives Georgians a reason to fear that they may be stripped of their constitutional rights simply because of the way they look or sound.

Florida’s failure to pass an immigration bill that would have, among other provisions, required local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law and mandated E-Verify, was an issue of national interest. A recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Legal Arizona Workers Act heightens the possibility that such an E-Verify bill could return during Florida’s next legislative session.

According to Numbers USA, an organization that supports the concept of “attrition though enforcement” (the idea that unauthorized immigrants will leave if immigration laws are more strictly enforced), under the Georgia bill:

• Local and state police will be empowered to arrest illegal immigrants and take them to state and federal jails.

• People who use fake identification to get a job in Georgia could face up to 15 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

• A seven-member Immigration Enforcement Review Board would be established to investigate complaints about local and state government officials not enforcing state immigration-related laws.

• Government officials who violate state laws requiring cities, counties and state government agencies to use E-Verify could face fines of up to $10,000 and removal from office.Read more...

Published in the Florida Independent

Freedom of Information Act

ARCHIVED ISSUE PAGE (LAST UPDATED JUNE 2012)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that "any person" may request agency documents, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), and agencies may only withhold information from a FOIA requester under certain exceptions outlined in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9). These exceptions are to be narrowly construed, and the burden is on the agency to show why non-compliance with a FOIA request clearly falls under one of these exceptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). FOIA also requires that an agency determine whether it will comply with an initial FOIA request within 20 days of receiving the request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). If the agency withholds information or is nonresponsive, the requestor may file an administrative appeal and then file suit in district court.

This Litigation Issue Page summarizes and discusses recent developments in immigration-related FOIA lawsuits. The page also provides information about attorneys' fees, non-litigation related FOIA developments, and links to FOIA resources.

Active Cases|Closed Cases|Non-Litigation Related Developments|Attorney Fees|Additional Resources

Active Cases

FOIA Suit Seeks Release of Prosecutorial Discretion Directives and Guidelines for Removal Proceedings

National Immigrant Justice Center v. DHS, et al., No. 12-04825 (N.D. Ill. filed June 18, 2012)Read more...

Will ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’ Change Deportation Trend?

Published on Tue, Aug 23, 2011

SAN DIEGO — The Department of Homeland Security has long said that its priority is to deport criminals and immigrants who pose a threat to national security. But enforcement of immigration laws has tightened beyond that guideline, with almost 80,000 non-criminal immigrants across the country deported since 2009.

New guidelines on "prosecutorial discretion" grant law-enforcement agents the ability to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether an undocumented immigrant ought to be deported.

"The Administration is talking about cases that are pending in every immigration court around the country, not just the border regions," said Melissa Crow, director of the Legal Action Center at the American Immigration Council, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group.

"They're talking about cases at various stages of proceedings, and also on appeal to the federal courts. And also all different kinds of cases, definitely not just DREAM Act-eligible students."

Among other effects, the new rules would mean undocumented students could be allowed to stay and even apply for work permits. Military families, victims of crime, gay couples and others who pose no threat to public safety are also included. DHS says the move will prevent low-priority cases from continuing to clog the court system.

Published in the KPBS

Second or Subsequent Possession Conviction is Not an Aggravated Felony

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010)

The Supreme Court held that a second or subsequent simple drug possession conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(B) (“drug trafficking crimes”) and therefore does not preclude a lawful permanent resident from applying for cancellation of removal. Read more...

Ishwinder Kaur Explores the United States

January, 2010
Ishwinder Kaur

Ishwinder Kaur, 23, hails from New Delhi, India. She is currently training in Chicago in the field of business research and administration. She feels welcome in the US, and affectionately refers to Chicago as “a city of cold winds and warm hearts." Read more...

Latino Dollars

Published on Sun, Oct 16, 2011

THE ISSUE

Members of the Latino community in Alabama closed their businesses and stayed away from work and school Wednesday to make a point about their contribution to Alabama’s economy. A closer look reveals it is a significant contribution, regardless of legal status.

Alabama’s unduly restrictive new illegal immigration law has prompted a backlash from many in the state’s Latino community, who rightly contend they are an important part of the state’s economy.

Latino-owned businesses closed their doors Wednesday, and many Latino workers and students stayed home in a show of solidarity against what is considered the nation’s strictest immigration law.

A three-judge federal panel temporarily blocked enforcement of parts of the law Friday, but most of the objectionable portions of the law that give police sweeping powers to detain people suspected of being in Alabama illegally were left intact. The court will review the law in the coming months.

So, what of Latinos’ claims that their businesses and labor are an important part of the state’s economy?

A survey of information compiled by the Immigration Policy Center bears out their arguments. For example, unauthorized immigrants in Alabama paid $130.3 million in state and local taxes in 2010.

A breakdown of that number is:

• unauthorized immigrants paid $25.8 million in Alabama income taxes in 2010.

• unauthorized immigrants paid $5.8 million in Alabama property taxes.

• unauthorized immigrants paid $98.7 million in Alabama sales taxes.

Statistics compiled by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that unauthorized immigrants make up approximately 4.2 percent of the state’s workforce with 95,000 workers in 2010.

Most Latino business owners are legal residents, but many of them entered the country illegally years ago looking for work.Read more...

Published in the Times Daily

2012 Winter Holiday Closing Announcement: December 24th - January 1st

November 28, 2012-- The American Immigration Council's offices will be closed from 12/24/12 - 1/1/13

The International Exchange Center will be closed during the week from Christmas Eve through New Years Day.

All applications that we receive in our office after December 18th will not be reviewed until January 2nd at the earliest. Applications received on or before December 18th will be reviewed by December 21st, but our staff will not be conducting webcam interviews or issuing DS 2019 forms during the period of December 24th - January 1st. Read more...