Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
Practice alert on USCIS interviews for VAWA self-petitioners, including rollout details and practitioner reporting requests tied to field-office implementation.
Last Updated February 11, 2025 The Trump administration has been targeting immigrant and LGBTQ communities through a slate of Executive Orders designed to erase transgender, non-binary and intersex identities, decimate asylum and refugee protections, and fast track mass deportations. The orders are unprecedented in their scope. Many are blatantly illegal, some unconstitutional, but virtually all harm the LGBTQ and HIV-positive immigrants, families, and communities we serve. Our clients are under
In 2024, USCIS issued a new Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with more lengthy and complicated instructions on evidence that could be included. This guide will help practitioners understand what documents naturalization applicants must submit to the USCIS to accept and adjudicate the N-400 form and when to submit each document.
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
Chart-based comparison of VAWA self-petitions and VAWA special-rule cancellation of removal, with eligibility and strategy differences called out side by side.
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
Velasquez v. Miranda Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (February 1 2024). NIWAP, represented by K & L Gates, filed an amicus brief on appeal from the judgement of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania dated June 20, 2023. The amicus brief argues that any confusion regarding the role of Pennsylvania courts in the process of obtaining SIJ status jeopardizes the ability of a child who is otherwise eligible for SIJ status to receive the protections created for them by Congress. State courts must fulfill th
Under current USCIS regulations, any person under 21 years of age who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements may be granted SIJS. This practice alert addresses many of the unsuccessful arguments that USCIS has not accepted when a petition received by USCIS after the youth turns 21. In rare cases, USCIS has accepted petitions received after the petitioner’s 21st birthday when there is proof that the petition was improperly rejected or receipted by USCIS before the deadline. This practice al
Under current USCIS regulations, any person under 21 years of age who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements may be granted SIJS. This practice alert addresses many of the unsuccessful arguments that USCIS has not accepted when a petition received by USCIS after the youth turns 21. In rare cases, USCIS has accepted petitions received after the petitioner’s 21st birthday when there is proof that the petition was improperly rejected or receipted by USCIS before the deadline. This practice al
%PDF-1.4 %���� 1 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <> endobj 4 0 obj <> endobj 11 0 obj <> endobj 13 0 obj <> stream x�}��J�`� kA�A� \��h���X\[�V�4M�؟�������&.ހ�e(��%���o$����{x�/�@$�*�N�s˥�Q� S�L��eZ}����K�}^�'7��v���!y�.�'��V��>�����s<���^�(���F�>���7�V�=���f���WtV�%J��-�جS�#LQ�"��'IB� EN��Py�zfISP�Y��H)����� ���@� &/C�~�{ �e�6�����1]shE�H� ��0W��'�9�]�Y�?����bM��4 �?��K� endstream endobj 12 0 obj <> stream x�콇{S��.�/|�}�=��_�U]H/'9i����$W5IB��E�+=@ ��{/Ү�\hl �w[�|3
On October 25, 2019, the Attorney General published Matter of Thomas & Thompson holding that adjudicators could only recognize a sentence modification for immigration purposes where the sentence was vacated due to procedural or substantive defect as defined in Matter of Pickering. It was not clear whether this holding was retroactive. Under new DOJ regulations it is now clear that Matter of Thomas & Thompson is not retroactive. Adjudicators will recognize a sentence modification as vacating the