Immigration Courts
Immigration courts play a crucial role in ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently, providing due process to those facing removal. Learn more about issues facing the courts today and explore the actions we're taking to ensure the rights of immigrants are upheld and legal integrity is maintained.
F- P- v. Holder – Ninth Circuit
Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or related provisions of federal law. While the immediate purpose of filing a motion to suppress is to prevent the government from meeting its burden of proof, challenges to unlawfully obtained evidence can also deter future violations by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens. The Supreme Court held in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), that motions to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment in immigration proceedings should be granted only for “egregious” violations or if violations became “widespread.” Despite this stringent standard, noncitizens have prevailed in many cases on motions to suppress. Read More
Labissiere v. Holder – Second Circuit
Noncitizens facing removal must have a meaningful opportunity to present their cases to an immigration judge. On occasion, noncitizens are deprived of this opportunity due to their lawyers’ incompetence or mistake. Although the government has recognized the need for a remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel, see Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the framework currently used to evaluate whether ineffective assistance has occurred is severely flawed. The Council has long worked to protect the right to effective assistance of counsel for noncitizens in removal proceedings. Read More
Perez Santana v. Holder – First Circuit
The American Immigration Council, working with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, has repeatedly challenged the “departure bar,” a regulation that precludes noncitizens from filing a motion to reopen or reconsider a removal case after they have left the United States. The departure bar not only precludes reopening or reconsideration based on new evidence or arguments that may affect the outcome of a case, but also deprives immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals of authority to adjudicate motions to remedy deportations wrongfully executed, whether intentionally or inadvertently, by DHS. We argue that the regulation conflicts with the statutory right to pursue reopening and, as interpreted by the government, is an impermissible restriction of congressionally granted authority to adjudicate immigration cases. Read More
District Court Holds Hearing in Case About Kids’ Right to Attorneys in Immigration Court
A federal district court in Seattle heard arguments in a lawsuit on Thursday seeking to ensure that all children in immigration court have legal representation. The case received a flurry of attention when press reports revealed that an immigration judge deposed in the case said he had successfully… Read More
Judge Who Believes Toddlers Can Represent Themselves, Only Part of the Problem in the Battle over Representation for Kids
Over the past week, several media outlets reported that Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) Jack Weil claimed that he could teach immigration law to three- and four-year-old children such that the children could represent themselves in immigration court. Now, Attorney General Loretta Lynch claims that the… Read More
D.C. Circuit Hears Case Seeking Records Regarding Immigration Judge Misconduct
Last Tuesday, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which seeks the disclosure of unredacted versions of complaints filed against immigration judges and related documents. To date, the government has refused to turn over the… Read More
Court Says Class Action Challenging Abusive Conditions in Hieleras Can Move Forward
A federal court in Tucson, Arizona held that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must answer allegations of horrific conditions experienced by individuals in Tucson Sector detention facilities (a.k.a. “hieleras”) along the southern border. In decisions handed down on January 11, the court decided that the case, Doe V. Read More
Second Circuit Requires Government to Notify Affected Parties Prior to Visa Petition Revocation
In a breakthrough decision issued at the end of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which sits in New York City, ruled that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must provide notice of its intent to revoke an immigrant visa petition to those who… Read More
Operation Streamline: Ten Years of Criminalizing Immigrants
For the last 10 years, in federal courts across the Southwest border, the federal government has systematically prosecuted unlawful border crossers in group hearings with little-to-no due process. These prosecutions, often referred to as Operation Streamline, were intended to deter illegal entry and reentry. Instead, they have clogged up the… Read More
Giving the Immigration Facts a Fighting Chance
As we move through the 2016 presidential election cycle, the issue of immigration will continue to be a central topic of the debate. The United States is at a tipping point after more than two decades without meaningful upgrades to its immigration system. Current U.S. law does not provide sufficient… Read More
