Practice Advisories |
LAC Practice Advisories provide in depth discussion and analysis of select substantive and procedural issues in immigration law. The Practice Advisories are intended to assist lawyers and do not substitute for individual legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client's case.
USCIS Adjustment of Status of "Arriving Aliens" with an Unexecuted Final Order of Removal
This Practice Advisory explains why USCIS has jurisdiction over adjustment applications of an arriving alien parolee with an unexecuted final order of removal. It also outlines 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.
Published On: Thursday, November 6, 2008 | Download File
"Arriving Aliens" and Adjustment of Status: What is the Impact of the Government's Interim Rule of May 12, 2006?
This Practice Advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all "arriving aliens"
Published On: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 | Download File
"Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes
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.
Published On: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 | Download File
Arrest, Detention, and Bond Procedures for Noncitizens Without Criminal Convictions
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.
Published On: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Download File
Dada v. Mukasey Q&A: Preliminary Analysis and Approaches to Consider
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.
Published On: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 | Download File
