Skip to Content

Programs:

Practice Advisories

LAC Practice Advisories provide in depth discussion and analysis of select substantive and procedural issues in immigration law. The Practice Advisories are intended to assist lawyers and do not substitute for individual legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client's case.

View advisories by topic »

  • Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: Fighting Back Against Unlawful Conduct by CBP

    This practice advisory addresses some of the factual scenarios and legal issues that may arise when seeking to suppress evidence unlawfully obtained at or near the border.  This practice advisory supplements a prior LAC practice advisory, Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: A General Overview, which has been updated to address certain strategic considerations concerning motions to suppress, including the advisability and timing of filing a concurrent request for prosecutorial discretion or a lawsuit for damages.

    Published On: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 | Download File

  • Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: A General Overview

    This Practice Advisory provides a general overview of motions to suppress, a tool used to prevent the introduction of evidence obtained by federal immigration officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and related provisions of federal law. This updated version has been changed to reflect recent developments regarding the suppression of identity-related evidence, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, and the impact of widespread Fourth Amendment violations.

    Published On: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 | Download File

  • How to get Judicial Relief Under 8 USC 1447(b) for a Stalled Naturalization Application

    Section 336(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), gives a district court jurisdiction to intervene in a case where USCIS has failed to make a decision on the naturalization application within 120 days of the applicant’s “examination” by USCIS. This Practice Advisory discusses the nuts and bolts of bringing a suit under INA § 336(b). It also discusses when attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act are available.

    Published On: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 | Download File

  • Advance Parole for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients

    One of the benefits of DACA is that a recipient may seek permission – through a process known as “advance parole” – to travel abroad temporarily for humanitarian, educational, or employment purposes.  This practice advisory provides guidance on advance parole eligibility for DACA recipients; outlines how a DACA recipient may apply for advance parole; addresses the legal issues that can confront a DACA recipient considering travel on advance parole, including any potential risks; and finally, covers the impact that the travel may have on the DACA recipient’s future immigration benefits.

    Published On: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 | Download File

  • Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: Cracking Down on 4th Amendment Violations

    Increasingly, state and local law enforcement officers are assisting the federal government in immigration enforcement, whether through formal agreements under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; through participation in Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program; through state laws such as those enacted in Arizona, Alabama, and elsewhere; or through policies promoted by local mayors, sheriffs, and police chiefs.  Motions to suppress seek to exclude evidence obtained by such officers in violation of an individual’s constitutional or other legal rights.

    This practice advisory deals primarily with Fourth Amendment limitations on state and local immigration enforcement efforts and also briefly addresses Fifth Amendment violations that may arise from the same types of encounters with state and local officers.  It also discusses some of the legal issues that may arise when noncitizens in removal proceedings move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a constitutional violation by such officers.

    Published On: Thursday, August 15, 2013 | Download File