Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
Quick guide on detention-release arguments for SIJS youth, including practical reminders on posture, custody, and the limits of older detention assumptions.
Recent policies announced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, new legislation signed into law, and unusual legal interpretations by the Board of Immigration Appeals have all led to a significant uptick in ICE detentions since January 2025. As advocates, our goal in every case where a client is detained is to secure their release, if at all possible. However, in many cases recently, ICE is claiming that the noncitizen cannot legally be released or even get a bond hearing, under a theory that
Motions to reopen are extremely important for people with final removal orders. Final orders of removal render people vulnerable to detention and immediate removal from the United States. However, a successful motion to reopen places the person back in active removal proceedings before an immigration judge where they can pursue immigration relief, provides additional arguments for release from detention, and prevents their immediate removal. This practical resource provides fifteen concrete step
On September 12, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, dissolved its temporary, partial administrative stay, and fully restored the district court’s August 1 order in CHIRLA v. Noem , a lawsuit challenging Trump 2.0 government directives applying expedited removal to paroled individuals. The August 1 order, which is now fully in effect, stays policies that allowed DHS to put individuals who were previously paroled into the United States at a port of ent
Immigration authorities have long invoked § 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to justify the detention of noncitizens entering the United States. The number of noncitizens detained under INA § 235(b), rather than the general detention provision, INA § 236(a), has increased exponentially in recent years. The reach of § 235(b) has extended even further under the second Trump administration, as the government seeks to subject more people to expedited removal and detention without
On August 26, 2025, the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision, O.C.V. v. Bondi , vacating the Board of Immigration Appeals presidential decision Matter of M-R-M-S- , which had wrongfully held that if a persecutor had any motivation other than animus toward the family group, an asylum seeker could not prevail on a family-based asylum claim. The Tenth Circuit rejected this narrowed definition of nexus. The case was litigated in federal court by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and the
Call and message your members of Congress telling them to oppose any effort to give ICE and Border Patrol more funding.
The Laken Riley Act (LRA) was signed into law by President Trump on January 29, 2025. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by expanding mandatory detention of certain inadmissible noncitizens who are merely arrested or charged with certain offenses. This practice advisory addresses the question of whether the provisions of the LRA that seek to vastly increase the number of people subject to mandatory immigration detention would be triggered by children engaging in acts of juvenile
On January 21, 2025, the Trump administration expanded the scope of expedited removal to its statutory maximum, to include certain noncitizens not admitted or paroled who cannot prove they have been continuously present in the United States for at least two years. DHS, Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 90 Fed. Reg. 8139 (Jan. 24, 2025). Several days later, DHS issued a memo directing DHS attorneys to consider moving to terminate ongoing removal proceedings in order to pursue expedited re
On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act (LRA) into law. The law expands no-bond detention for certain noncitizens in immigration proceedings, and it also purports to give states the ability to sue the federal government over immigration decisions they dislike, opening the door to politically motivated and discriminatory actions. The goal of this practice advisory is to support practitioners in defending noncitizens impacted by the LRA's detention provisions. It summarizes
This advisory describes supporting documentation for the Parole in Place program under Keeping Families Together. The adjudications for this program are currently on pause due to litigation. Persons hoping to apply should the program resume may gather and prepare supporting documents in advance.
This practice advisory describes the new “Keeping Families Together” parole in place process for certain spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens including what exactly is it and what you get if approved. It also details the eligibility requirements and application process as well as addressing some of the more “in the weeds” issues such as if the USC spouse is deceased, common law marriages, the different presumptions that apply depending on the applicant’s criminal history or if they have an