Law

Advocates File Suit Against DHS for Refusal to Disclose Records on Enforcement Program

Released on Mon, Mar 12, 2012

Washington D.C. - Last week, an alliance of national immigration advocacy organizations filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seeking to compel the release of documents concerning the agency’s Criminal Alien Program (CAP).

Seeking greater transparency, the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the Connecticut chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) brought the suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires federal agencies to produce responsive, non-exempt records upon request. For years, the public has been unable to scrutinize CAP because DHS has shrouded the program in secrecy. AIC and AILA Connecticut requested a variety of documents related to CAP last year, but DHS has not produced a single one.

CAP is the workhorse of the federal immigration enforcement system. Under CAP, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are stationed in prisons and jails, visit other detention facilities, and initiate deportation proceedings against people convicted of criminal offenses. However, CAP also sweeps up individuals who have been arrested but never convicted of any crime. And while DHS is still rolling out Secure Communities, CAP — a more far-reaching program — has been operational for years. Over the past five years alone, CAP has led to the arrest of more than a million people, and the program was implicated in approximately half of all removal proceedings in FY 2009. Read more...

View Release

En Banc Court Reverses Adverse Holding, Says Immigrants Can Pursue Cases from Outside the U.S.

Published on Mon, Jan 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012 - 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, however, 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:

Motions to Reopen from Outside the Country (LAC Litigation Page, January 2012)

###

For more information, contact clearinghouse@immcouncil.org

Published in the | View PDF

American Immigration Council and Partners Sue U.S. Immigration Agencies Over Asylum “Clock”

Released on Tue, Dec 20, 2011

Washington, D.C.—Last week, the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in federal court in Seattle. The lawsuit alleges widespread problems with the asylum “clock”—the system that the government uses to determine when immigrants with pending asylum applications become eligible to obtain work authorization in the United States. The class certification motion describes the nationwide impact of these policies.

The complaint, co-filed with the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, was submitted on behalf of untold numbers of asylum applicants wrongfully denied work authorization due to unlawful agency policies and practices. The named plaintiffs include asylum seekers who have pursued their cases for years without work authorization—including a man from China who initially filed his asylum application in 2003.Read more...

View Release

Implications of Judulang v. Holder for LPRs Seeking § 212(c) Relief and for Other Individuals Challenging Arbitrary Agency Policies

This Practice Advisory describes the Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder, which rejected the BIA's "comparable grounds" test for § 212(c) relief, and offers strategies for lawful permanent residents and others who may be affected by it.

Published On: Friday, December 16, 2011 | Download File

LAC Urges Fifth Circuit to Permit Removal Cases to Continue from Outside the United States

Released on Thu, Dec 15, 2011

Washington, D.C.—The Legal Action Center, along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), filed an amicus brief yesterday urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the departure bar, a regulation that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) interprets as barring it from reviewing cases after a person has left the United States. In this case, Lari v. Holder, the petitioner filed a timely motion to reconsider his removal order. Just three weeks later – before the BIA adjudicated the motion – the Department of Homeland Security deported him. The BIA then dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked authority to consider the petitioner’s claims now that he was outside the United States. The Legal Action Center and NIPNLG argue that the BIA’s rule unlawfully deprives noncitizens of their right to an adjudication of their removal case.

The Legal Action Center and NIPNLG have coordinated litigation on issues related to post departure review nationwide. Read more about the LAC and NIPNLG’s efforts on the LAC’s website. To date, six circuit courts have found the departure regulation unlawful.

###

For inquiries contact Brian Yourish at byourish@immcouncil.org.

View Release

Court Overturns BIA Decision Matter of Blake Regarding 212(c) Eligibility

Judulang v. Holder, No. 10-694, 565 U.S. ___ (Dec. 12, 2011)

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision overturning the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board or BIA) policy of restricting relief from removal, namely section 212(c) waivers, for many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with old criminal convictions. Under the Board’s now-rejected policy, LPRs found deportable were eligible for 212(c) relief only if they could show that the ground of deportation was substantially equivalent to a ground of inadmissibility. The Board’s policy, referred to as the “comparable ground test,” was announced in the 2005 decisions Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), and Matter of Brieva, 23 I&N Dec. 766 (BIA 2005). Read more...

LAC Issues Updated Practice Advisory on DHS’s Plan to Review Removal Cases for Prosecutorial Discretion

Released on Mon, Dec 12, 2011

Washington, D.C.— The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the release of an updated practice advisory: "DHS Review of Low Priority Cases for Prosecutorial Discretion." On August 18, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of a joint DHS-Department of Justice (DOJ) working group charged with reviewing the approximately 300,000 cases pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to identify candidates for administrative closure. Subsequently, on November 17, 2011, DHS issued three documents detailing how the agency will implement the review process, which includes the launch of two pilot projects. This practice advisory summarizes information that is known to date about the review and discusses some of the ambiguities and contradictions that the recent announcements have created.

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

###

For questions contact Brian Yourish at byourish@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7516.

View Release

Representing Clients with Mental Competency Issues under Matter of M-A-M-

This Practice Advisory provides a detailed analysis of the BIA's precedent decision in Matter of M-A-M- and offers strategic advice on how to address issues that may arise in the context of representing noncitizens with mental competency issues.

Published On: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 | Download File

New Asylum Clock Policies Provide No Significant Systemic Change

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

Lawsuits Filed Against Department of Homeland Security Seek Greater Transparency

American Immigration Council Seeks Disclosure of Records Regarding Access to Counsel

Released on Wed, Nov 09, 2011

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) this week filed two lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The LAC pursued disclosure of these records, as well as records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed last March. To date, USCIS has failed to turn over any documents, and CBP has turned over only a few excerpts from its practice manuals. ICE has informed the LAC that it conducted a search for records, but that it is “unable to locate or identify any responsive records.” The LAC has filed an administrative appeal of ICE’s determination and will pursue litigation if necessary.

These FOIA requests were prompted by the results of a survey conducted by the LAC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association that revealed widespread restrictions on access to counsel before USCIS, ICE and CBP. Such limitations include bars on attorney presence at CBP inspections, limitations on the ability to consult with attorneys in ICE detention facilities and during questioning by ICE, and restrictions on attorneys’ ability to participate in interviews before USCIS. The survey also highlighted significant variations in policies and practices in DHS offices throughout the country.Read more...

View Release