Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
This Practice Advisory helps immigration attorneys who file petitions for review to challenge removal orders in the circuit courts.
This advisory seeks to clarify when, where, and how to file an I-212. It also discusses certain special circumstances such as conditional I-212s, nunc pro tunc I-212s, and how a grant to TPS or advance parole may affect the need for an I-212. The advisory addresses strategic concerns such as deciding when to file a motion to reopen versus a conditional I-212, and assessing the risks of triggering other inadmissibility or enforcement issues when advising clients.
Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings. This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.
While the best-case scenario would be for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to approve a person’s naturalization application, receiving a denial after a naturalization interview is not the end of the road. If USCIS denies the naturalization application, persons can seek a USCIS hearing to appeal the denial by submitting form N-336 (informally known as an administrative appeal). Although the process is simple, many do not take advantage of this process.
In anticipation of widespread raids in July 2019, the American Immigration Council has prepared template materials to assist attorneys representing individuals with final removal orders issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. ¹ Materials include templates of: (1) a general skeletal motion to reopen a removal order and motion to stay removal for filing with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or immigration court (for pro se and represented cases); (2) a skeletal motion to resci
Practice Advisory: Constitutional Challenges to Mandatory Immigration Detention After Nielsen v. Preap (July 2019) | American Civil Liberties Union Skip navigation document Practice Advisory: Constitutional Challenges to Mandatory Immigration Detention After Nielsen v. Preap (July 2019) Document Date: July 9, 2019 Download document Download document Skip to PDF content Related Issues Immigrants' Rights Immigrants' Rights and Detention
%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
This advisory focuses on defense strategies for naturalization applicants who are in removal proceedings, especially within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Practice Advisory: Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden, York County Prison | American Civil Liberties Union Skip navigation document Practice Advisory: Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden, York County Prison Document Date: October 23, 2018 Download document Download document Skip to PDF content
%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�
The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, Human Rights First, and Covington & Burling LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s arbitrary detention of asylum seekers fleeing persecution, torture, or death in their countries of origin.
The domestic violence deportation ground at INA § 237(a)(2)(E) sets out four bases for deportability. Recent Board of Immigration Appeals and federal decisions, including the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya , significantly affect each of the four bases. This advisory will provide a brief overview of the deportation ground, and then outline the recent decisions and how they may affect representation in California and the Ninth Circuit. It includes an appendix analyzing common Califor