Legal Action Center

Released on Mon, Jan 30, 2012

Washington, D.C.- Today, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected the government’s attempt to bar noncitizens from seeking to reopen their cases from outside the United States. This is the seventh appellate court to find the “departure bar”—a regulation barring noncitizens from pursuing their cases after departure or deportation—unlawful and is a step forward in protecting the right to a fair immigration hearing. The decision is particularly significant because the Tenth Circuit had been the only court at odds with the majority. The court had granted rehearing en banc to reconsider its prior decision.

Despite the overwhelming rejection of the departure bar, the government continues to defend the regulation and apply it to cases outside the circuits that have invalidated the bar. The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), which filed amicus briefs in the Tenth Circuit and argued before the court, renew their call for the agency to strike this unlawful regulation.

Read more about the LAC and NIPNLG’s challenges to the departure bar on our website, Motions to Reopen from Outside the Country.

###

For more information contact [email protected].

View Release

Released on Mon, Nov 21, 2011

Washington D.C. - Last week, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued new guidance addressing the “asylum clock.”  The asylum clock calculates a mandatory 180-day waiting period before an asylum applicant can receive work authorization.  Any delay caused by the asylum applicant will stop the clock and prolong the waiting period for work authorization.  However, delays are often incorrectly attributed to the applicant and asylum seekers are unjustly prevented from working for long periods of time. 

EOIR’s new guidance provides some much-needed clarity and addresses certain longstanding problems.  In particular, it clarifies that the asylum clock should not stop in the event of a delay caused by a government attorney or the court, and that immigration judges must indicate on the record the reason for postponing a case.

Unfortunately, EOIR fails to resolve more systemic problems through its new guidance including:Read more...

View Release

Released on Fri, Sep 09, 2011

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the release of a new practice advisory: “DHS Review of Low Priority Cases for Prosecutorial Discretion.” Following an announcement on August 18, 2011, a joint Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-Department of Justice (DOJ) working group has been established to review all pending removal cases and to administratively close those cases that do not fall within the agency’s highest immigration enforcement priorities, namely, national security, public safety, border security and the integrity of the immigration system. This Practice Advisory details information that is known to date about the review and includes suggested steps that attorneys can take to ensure that DHS has the information it needs to determine that a client’s case is “low priority.”

For a complete list of all LAC Practice Advisories, please visit our website.

View Release

Released on Mon, Aug 15, 2011

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council strongly condemns last week’s ruling from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that immigrants arrested without a warrant are not entitled to certain Miranda-like warnings prior to questioning by immigration officers. In a precedent decision, the Board held that noncitizens need not be informed of their right to counsel or warned that their statements can be used against them until after they have been placed in formal deportation proceedings.

For decades, immigrants placed under arrest have been entitled to these critical advisals. Like “Miranda” warnings for criminal suspects, such notifications help to ensure that statements made during questioning are not the product of coercion. As a result of last week’s ruling, noncitizens under arrest will now be even more vulnerable to pressure from interrogating officers, and immigration judges will face greater difficulty determining whether statements made during questioning were truly voluntary.

“This decision epitomizes the substandard system of justice that’s been created and imposed on immigrants in the United States,” said Melissa Crow, Director of the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center. “The Board’s ruling renders the advisals practically meaningless and makes immigrants less likely to remain silent when questioned and less likely to assert their right to counsel.”

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative tribunal on immigration and nationality matters in the United States. Decisions of the Board may be subject to review by federal courts or by the Attorney General. The ruling came in Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 580 (BIA 2011).

###Read more...

View Release

Released on Tue, May 31, 2011

Washington, D.C. - The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the release of a new practice advisory: “Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: A General Overview.” Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress seek to exclude evidence obtained by government agents in violation of an individual’s constitutional or other legal rights.  Though federal immigration officers often disregard immigrants’ rights, legal and practical obstacles prevent many individuals from challenging the procedures used to arrest them once placed in removal proceedings.  By filing motions to suppress more frequently, immigrants will promote greater accountability by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens.

For a complete list of all LAC Practice Advisories, please visit our website.

View Release

Released on Thu, Feb 03, 2011

Washington, D.C. - Today, a federal appellate court chastised the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for preventing noncitizens from reopening their cases from outside the United States. This important ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit repudiates the government's view that immigration judges and the BIA lack "jurisdiction" over such cases.

The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, which filed a joint amicus brief in the case, applaud the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Legal Action Center and National Immigration Project have coordinated litigation on this issue nationwide and call on the BIA to abandon its misguided regulation barring review of motions filed by noncitizens outside the United States.

"The Sixth Circuit recognized that the regulation deprives noncitizens of their statutory right to present new evidence in their cases. The decision corrects the government's unlawful attempt to separate families and opens the door for them to return to the United States," said attorney Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Project. Beth Werlin of the Legal Action Center said, "A motion may be a person's only chance to present his case to the immigration judge. The government should take immediate steps to withdraw this unfair and outdated regulation rather than proceed with continued, unnecessary and costly litigation."Read more...

View Release

Released on Thu, Oct 07, 2010

Washington D.C. - In a continuing effort to promote greater federal court oversight of immigration decision-making, the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) recently submitted amicus (friend of the court) briefs in two cases involving motions to reopen. For noncitizens facing removal from the United States, a motion to reopen (an opportunity to present new evidence in a case) may be the last and only way to pursue their claims for lawful residency in the United States. Failure to grant such a motion might prevent anyone - from an asylum seeker to a U.S. citizen's family member - from presenting new evidence that could prevent deportation.  Yet, although the federal courts are the last chance for redress, they frequently refuse to hear claims that immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals abuse their discretion when they deny motions to reopen.

The LAC argument is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Kucana v. Holder that the Board of Immigration Appeals cannot shield its decisions from judicial review by labeling these decisions "discretionary." Only Congress can limit court review of motions to reopen, and it has not done so.

Given the gravity of removal from the United States, the high volume of immigration court cases, and the reality that most noncitizens do not have lawyers (only 39% of noncitizens were represented in immigration court in 2009), federal court oversight is critical to ensure due process.  For an immigration system that is widely understood to be plagued with errors, judicial checks and balances are especially critical.Read more...

View Release

Released on Thu, Mar 04, 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the arguments of the Legal Action Center (LAC), of the American Immigration Council, that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unlawfully imposed extra-regulatory requirements on a petition for a worker of "extraordinary ability" (EB-1).

View Release

Released on Tue, Feb 23, 2010

The American Immigration Council invites you to join us as we honor

African Americans, Civil Rights and Immigration: A Legacy of Inspiration and Leadership

at our 15th Annual Washington, DC Immigrant Achievement Awards

View Release