BIA Edge

Practice resources

Practice resources

Immigration Practice Resources

Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.

More filters
Clear all
892 resources 24 sources 826 direct files
Common starting points
Immigration court deadline 606 Asylum merits package 93 Motions, stays, and pretermission 133 Bond, detention, and habeas 79 BIA, PFR, and federal court 447 USCIS and AAO appeals 209 Crim-imm screening 151 VAWA, U, T, and survivor relief 190
Topic: Removal defense Clear Workflow: Crim-imm screening Clear

Results

Showing 13-24 of 61 resources.

Sorted by Newest first
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Jun 22, 2021

Practice Advisory: Overview of Borden v. United States for Immigration Counsel (June 22, 2021) (by IDP, NIP-NLG, and NILA)

^��ľ�{��� )VYu������5&�lV.V�# ���j�W�h��ꮭ��4#陁�큖 F\�$�$��!N�Y��� )�|(�S��j�T?��x���T*U$�Ō����w��K8�������>�q���qy]>�F�'Rb2A+�'�ᕖ��BZ*�%HJl)�@��=;w�e�F���Q��Ξ�@�uQ���rZ9� �v' [ v $H�l�ܝMin���z�Ȳ�>�k� KŒ@��}W��>47�����׬͖&:O� ��__[�7k ��$i�m~�Z����*%�h�0 3�B�[�3p������=�Ox^u����� �v�V�5U��_ujo3���g�����Q�8�]Jmo�v^k�F�Vq���� u�� v�q�n�RKk��"Y8Kk4⫙� ��^\#v��lm���)�S-� �i���Ka�K��ip6ʋ�i&��CF�� h�]��d ��V��Q�sCq��X��fk!�*�s��L�{�V�d���5�Y oHό��&�1��Hk6%C� �LM����'���U;u�pM

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Jun 3, 2021

Practice Advisory: “Realistic Probability” in Immigration Categorical Approach Cases (June 3, 2021) (by IDP and NIP-NLG)

�[��m"1���e<�܊_��Ռ�;x;W��;{���� G�1M�$0�͏}1�&Uv�  PA#љeb�P���]� �fM����ct���g���9�O#9�,(�Y�'��$kp��}S�Eaw�< �-���2�Z�,�u�ꆵ�*��-�XPV�Z��§�QPg�d��:���= OX�e]�Mg��n�YW�;��c��=1`�.�3N�׵����*Q ��Lܞ�/5�'MMĖ�V � ����� ׵'\�ڂ���q(��2[gO�mYu���>�]��/�%�V�A#���Ϊ8���Ň�o�1|�u�#'L<�^���JM�Ժ�y����Zz�촤+Zu�lw�w�[=y,��2Z�Տ���t[��`+�L�6���`�-� ^�������AfBg�۵� ��P�i�{�_���\�'k�=�vU�!y*A���2�!_��AÒ;�� �(:Z��^��0v�c�}l ثe��_����'6�r�/,$zd�Z�"B���k�'hyH ��:��}�&�

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
National Immigration Project Practice advisory May 31, 2021

Practice Alert Update: Proposed Criminal Bars to Asylum - Current Status of Regulations Governing Eligibility for Asylum and (c)(8) EAD

On July 9, 2020, NIPNLG published a Practice Alert examining the intersection of the criminal bars proposed in those regulations. In the latter half of 2020, final versions of all three proposed rules were issued, and were subsequently challenged in litigation before their effective dates. This Practice Alert provides an update on the current status of the rules as they apply to asylum seekers with criminal contacts in light of the litigation developments. As these proceedings are ongoing, this

Asylum Removal defense Crimes and categorical approach Cross-forum Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Legal Resource Center Practice advisory Apr 14, 2021

Pereida v. Wilkinson and California Offenses

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (March 4, 2021), the Supreme Court issued another opinion on the categorical approach, which is the analysis authorities use to decide whether a criminal conviction triggers removal grounds. Pereida focuses on the “modified” categorical approach, which is how courts approach a conviction under a statute that sets out multiple, separate, offenses (a “divisible” statute). Pereida overruled Marinelarena v. Barr , 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

Removal defense Crimes and categorical approach Cross-forum Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
National Immigration Project Practice advisory Mar 10, 2021

Overview of Pereida v. Wilkinson for Immigration and Criminal Defense Counsel

On March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court issued Pereida v. Wilkinson , No. 19-438 (2021), a 5-3 opinion damaging to noncitizens with past criminal convictions who intend or need to seek relief in removal proceedings. The decision creates a national rule concerning the impact of inconclusive criminal court plea and conviction documents for noncitizens applying for relief from removal in immigration proceedings, specifically in cases where the modified categorical approach applies. This practice alert

Removal defense Crimes and categorical approach Cross-forum Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Legal Resource Center Practice advisory Dec 2, 2020

Eligibility for Relief: Cancellation of Removal for Permanent Residents, INA § 240A(a)

Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) is an important defense for lawful permanent residents who have become removable, due to criminal record or other reasons. The requirements for statutory eligibility are complex, and it is critical for advocates to understand the risks and strategies that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the “stop-time” rule, Barton v. Barr , --U.S.--, 140 S.Ct. 1442 (2020). This Advisory is an updated step-by-step guide to eligibility, potential arguments, a

Removal defense Crimes and categorical approach Adjustment of status Cross-forum Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Legal Resource Center Practice advisory Jan 3, 2020

Eligibility for Relief: Waivers Under INA § 212(h)

Section 212(h) of the INA provides a waiver for crimes inadmissibility grounds, which can be surprisingly useful for undocumented people, VAWA applicants, or permanent residents. It can be applied for multiple times; it has the potential to waive an aggravated felony conviction (unless it is related to drugs); it can be used both affirmatively and as a defense to removal; and it does not always require proof of "extreme hardship." Unfortunately, it can't be used to waive drug convictions or cond

Removal defense Crimes and categorical approach Waivers Cross-forum Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Jan 24, 2019

Practice Advisory: The Conviction Finality Requirement in Light of Matter of J.M. Acosta : The Law Circuit-by-Circuit and Practice Strategies Before the Agency and Federal Courts (January 24, 2019, by IDP)

%PDF-1.7 %���� 1 0 obj <>/Metadata 588 0 R/ViewerPreferences 589 0 R>> endobj 2 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj 4 0 obj <> stream x���mo�:��#� �1L�Ď��� )������MӴ)���B��_�qB I�.ԫu��y��ێ�N�p��������t����i�����N��u��y� �8Yu&��o�'I��]rz�#?� ����1NLb÷�q����� Ȫ�8 ���9#� �k6t2 #�iQ�iQf�� �\L 2��xd�������n��|j6�0��f� X��h9�ԅԐ�%q8�<�\-R��U���5��78#fM

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Jul 16, 2018

UPDATED Practice Advisory: Challenging the Validity of Notices to Appear Lacking Time-and-Place Information: How to use Pereira v. Sessions to overcome the “stop-time” rule and, more broadly, to challenge Immigration Court jurisdiction (updated July 16, 2018, by IDP and NIP-NLG)

%PDF-1.7 %���� 1 0 obj <>/Metadata 486 0 R/ViewerPreferences 487 0 R>> endobj 2 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj 4 0 obj <> stream x��Y[s�F~g��p E',ڻ�f�1��:mR7f�i3y�A���ɸ�����%f�d�V{��w�g׽���n�Q O��N�2M�1�� ����{��eڻL&�")�|ѻZ_�4�,�˴��apv �[! �/�B0��X@��[o�E�5�[�g b޴[ ���A �8H��P�p���_Y����0q�h3z�n� �� �/ڭs����֗ W���vI���0���T��HU�B�"�C��,���<��1�

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Apr 25, 2018

Practice Advisory: Sessions v. Dimaya : Supreme Court strikes down 18 U.S.C. §16(b) as void for vagueness (April 25, 2018, by IDP and NIP-NLG)

%PDF-1.5 %���� 1 0 obj <>>> endobj 2 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj 4 0 obj <> stream x��W�n�@}���G5���F)7J ��*(<�� $.�[��̮ 8q������^�9gfvv��_����2�z� > endobj 6 0 obj <> endobj 7 0 obj <> endobj 8 0 obj <> endobj 9 0 obj <> stream �����JFIF��H�H���� Exif��MM�*������������������b�������j(�������1���� ���r2���������i���

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record
Immigrant Defense Project Practice advisory Apr 18, 2018

Practice Advisory: Litigating CIMT Theft Removal Charges and Adjudicative Retroactivity in the Second Circuit After Obeya v. Sessions (April 18, 2018, by IDP)

%PDF-1.7 %���� 1 0 obj <>/Metadata 254 0 R/ViewerPreferences 255 0 R>> endobj 2 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj 4 0 obj <> stream x��=�r۸���?�i�:e1�'�*Ivώ�l�ɩ��<Ȗ sF"u(ʩ3?���� �&B��ojK�n4�~����U�0����ׯ&U5�\.د�n��?_��{�|�~�%��UV�nvw���r�X���lz6c�z�"���r���q*X�|�� c���ۗ/^�� >�}x���C�,~ $������ z{�/[X�}�w�y���_=6�'����sX�_�8n~v��c��*A��E

Crimes and categorical approach Removal defense Immigration court BIA Direct PDF
Direct PDF Source page Record