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.
Miranda-like Warning for Immigrants Argued in Ninth Circuit
Courts have long recognized that the Constitution requires police officers to inform arrested suspects of their rights—called Miranda warnings in criminal cases—before questioning them about crimes they are accused of committing. The risk is too great that a suspect who is not free to leave and is unaware… Read More
California Court Rules Undocumented Immigrant Can Be a Licensed Attorney
The California Supreme Court ruled last week that Sergio Garcia, a Mexican undocumented immigrant who has spent more than 17 years living in the U.S., should be licensed to practice law in the state of California. In the unanimous decision, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote it is “extremely unlikely” that Garcia would be deported under current immigration policy. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the fact that an undocumented immigrant's presence in this country violates federal statutes is not itself a sufficient or persuasive basis for denying undocumented immigrants, as a class, admission to the State Bar," she wrote. Read More
Class Action Settlement Removes Obstacles Preventing Asylum Applicants from Working
A recent settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of asylum seekers is removing obstacles they faced in obtaining work documents while they pursue their asylum claims. The inability to work for lengthy periods of time has had crippling effects on asylum applicants. Without proper work authorization, they have been vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, have been unable to pay for the legal assistance they need, have had to rely on family members and community organizations for financial help, and generally have felt unwelcome in a country that claims to offer them protection. Read More
The Punishment Should Fit the Crime for Immigrants, Too
The punishment should fit the crime. That maxim is as old as law itself, dating at least as far back as the Old Testament and Hammurabi’s Code. It’s firmly rooted in our Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. That principle—referred to as proportionality—appears in both our criminal and civil law. It forbids, for example, the imposition of a life sentence for passing a bad check. It means that the state cannot sentence juveniles for non-homicide crimes to life without parole. And it disallows extreme punitive damages awards. So what does proportionality have to say when the government tries to deport a lawful permanent resident who, a decade ago, shoplifted $200 worth of merchandise from a department store? Right now, astonishingly, nothing: immigration judges do not even consider whether a person’s banishment from the United States is a disproportionate punishment for a crime before ordering the person’s removal. But advocates are working to change this. Read More
New York’s Highest Court Says that Noncitizens Must Be Warned of Deportation Risk Before Pleading Guilty
The highest court in New York ruled on Tuesday that due process compels state court judges to warn defendants in criminal proceedings who are not U.S. citizens that pleading guilty to a felony may result in their deportation. The court noted that “deportation is a plea consequence of such tremendous importance, grave impact and frequent occurrence that a defendant is entitled to notice that it may ensue…Due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony.” Read More
Supreme Court to Interpret Child Status Protection Act
Last week, several groups, including the American Immigration Council, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court describing the heartrending stories of young people who have been separated from their families due to government processing delays and the shortage of visas. The case, Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, concerns the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which provides relief for the longstanding problem of children included on a parent’s visa application who “age out” – that is, turn 21 and lose their status as a “child”– before a visa becomes available. Upon turning 21, these young adults are unable to immigrate with their parents and must begin the visa application process anew, starting at the back of a new visa line. They end up being separated from family for years, even decades. The stories in the amicus brief make the case for how important it is that the law provide a remedy broadly available to young adults who age-out. Read More
New York City Pilots Free Legal Representation in Immigration Court
In criminal courts throughout the United States, the government provides defendants who cannot afford an attorney with a free public defender. In immigration courts, which are not part of the criminal court system, immigrants who are unable to hire a private attorney and cannot find a free legal service provider are forced to face off on their own against trained government attorneys. Individuals facing deportation had no legal representation in about 44% of the cases the immigration courts ruled on in 2012 – more than 126,000 cases in one year. But a new program in a New York City immigration court could change this system – for a limited number of indigent, detained immigrants, a pilot “public defender” program is providing free representation in immigration court. Read More
Alabama’s HB 56 Anti-Immigrant Law Takes Final Gasps
Immigration advocates who have been fighting against Alabama’s HB 56, the punitive immigration measure often called the “show me your papers” law, declared victory after the state agreed not to pursue key provisions of the 2011 legislation. The agreement is part of a settlement of long-running lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of civil rights groups against HB 56. Alabama. The Supreme Court earlier this year refused to hear the state’s appeal of a previous federal court’s ruling that gutted the law. Read More
Holding the Detention System Accountable for Alleged Post 9/11 Abuses
A dozen years ago, in the days after 9/11, the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn served as the site of unimaginable horror: twenty-three hour cell confinement; sleep and food deprivation; widespread physical abuse; endless humiliation through sexual harassment and constant strip-searches; and relentless taunting and insults. The subjects of these atrocities were not enemy combatants or even convicted criminals; they were simply a group of noncitizens suspected of minor, non-criminal, immigration offenses. Their primary “offense”: the misfortune of being or appearing to be Muslim or Arab in a post 9/11 world. Read More
First Circuit Holds That Immigrants Can Pursue Cases From Outside the United States
Washington, D.C. – Last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that individuals who have been deported must have the opportunity to pursue motions to reopen their cases from outside the United States. A motion to reopen is an important procedural safeguard that helps ensure noncitizens are afforded… Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
