Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
Chart-based comparison of VAWA self-petitions and VAWA special-rule cancellation of removal, with eligibility and strategy differences called out side by side.
Eligibility for U Nonimmigrant Status, commonly known as the “U Visa,” hinges on whether the applicant has been the “victim” of a qualifying crime. The regulations implementing the U visa statute contemplate three categories of “victims” who may qualify for the U visa: direct, bystander, and indirect victims. This practice advisory provides a basic overview of the requirements for U nonimmigrant eligibility. It then discusses the definition of “victim” and three different ways to qualify as a vi
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.
Being a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States carries important benefits, including the right to live and work in the United States and the ability to apply for U.S. citizenship after certain requirements are met. However, in some situations an LPR’s travel outside of the United States, even for a brief trip, can jeopardize their status and its attendant benefits. One of these situations is where the LPR has committed certain criminal offenses, even though the offense may be minor
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
8 U.S.C. § 1503 provides pathways for individuals who were denied a right or privilege of nationality to challenge such denials in federal district court and obtain a declaratory judgment that they are indeed a citizen or national of the United States—by birth, naturalization, or derivative citizenship. These claims generally arise in the context of a passport denial or revocation, or a revocation or denial of a request for a certificate of citizenship (N-600). This practice advisory discusses t
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
This one-pager discusses five key takeaways about the J.O.P. settlement agreement, addressing some frequently asked questions received by the J.O.P. Class Counsel team. The one-pager is a must-read for practitioners who represent clients with prior "Unaccompanied Child" determinations, particularly in light of the upcoming February 24, 2025 class cut-off deadline.
On November 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted final approval of a settlement agreement reached by the parties in J.O.P. v. DHS , No. 8:19-CV01944-SAG (D. Md.). The settlement agreement is the culmination of a class action lawsuit pending over five years. This practice alert highlights key points about the agreement that immigration practitioners representing asylum seekers need to know. You can read the full agreement and learn more about the J.O.P. case by v
This resource is designed to help immigration practitioners stay current on significant case law developments over the past year in the intersection of immigration and criminal law. It begins with an overview of notable case law developments before the BIA and the United States Courts of Appeals. This is followed by case summaries of all published Board of Immigration Appeals decisions addressing this area of law in 2024, along with a curated list of case summaries from the United States Courts
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