Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
Call and message your members of Congress telling them to oppose any effort to give ICE and Border Patrol more funding.
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 Judges have increasingly begun to pretermit asylum applications--often ordering asylum seekers removed without ever having a chance to have a hearing on their claims. This Practice Advisory (PA) discusses a recent Policy Memo by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Acting Director and a recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision, which have prompted judges to pretermit cases. The PA also contains practical tips on how to fight this practice.
In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has begun filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed proceedings. This trend is raising questions about how attorneys and accredited representatives can respond to these motions and protect their clients’ interests, particularly in cases that have been administratively closed for many years. This advisory explores those questions and offers strategy considerations when determining how to proceed in each case.
Aylaliya Assefa Birru v. Barr (January 11 2021) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. NIWAP, represented by Baker McKenzie, is lead amicus in a brief on behalf of an immigrant domestic violence victim who is seeking relief under the Violence Against Women Act’s domestic violence victim waiver in her VAWA cancellation of removal case. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judge denied her the ability to present evidence of waiver eligibility.
Overview of recent EOIR policy changes allowing dismissal or pretermission of some defensive asylum applications without a hearing, with guidance for practitioners representing people in removal proceedings.
This practice advisory, authored with our partners at the End SIJS Backlog Coalition, Children's Immigration Law Academy, National Immigration Project, and Safe Passage Project, offers strategies at every stage of an SIJS client’s removal proceedings to advocate against the client’s removal and to preserve the record for appeal, including:
This practice advisory, created by The End SIJS Backlog Coalition, is intended to help practitioners navigate removal proceedings for clients with pending or approved SIJS. It offers strategies at every stage of an SIJS client’s removal proceedings to advocate against the client’s removal and to preserve the record for appeal. Section II covers strategies for pleading to the Notice to Appear. Section III discusses challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s evidence of removability. Sectio
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
New EOIR regulations published in 2024 now allow immigration judges and the BIA to administratively close or terminate removal proceedings in a variety of scenarios. These regulations permit—and sometimes require—administrative closure or termination even where the Department of Homeland Security does not agree. In the current hostile enforcement environment, and in light of the rescission of formal guidance regarding prosecutorial discretion, these regulations are an important tool for advocate
A stay of removal prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from deporting a noncitizen from the United States while they continue to challenge their removal order or pursue an immigration benefit or humanitarian protection. This practice advisory discusses the law, procedure, and practical tips for seeking a stay of removal from DHS, immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. courts of appeals.
In Department of State v. Muñoz , 602 U.S. 899 (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a U.S. citizen and her noncitizen spouse had no access to judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of an immigrant visa. The Court held that a U.S. citizen has no “fundamental liberty interest” i n her spouse’s admission to the United States. This practice advisory, by the American Immigration Council, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and the Consular Accountability Project, is intende