Federal Courts/Jurisdiction
Amicus Brief to Supreme Court Asserting Judicial Review of Consular Visa Denials Available
The American Immigration Council filed an Amicus Brief with the American Immigration Lawyers Association to challenge the government's theory that judicial review is never available when a consular officer decides to deny a visa application. Read More
Amicus Brief Argues that Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Proceedings Should Apply to Evidence Related to Identity in Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry
In the amicus brief filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Council argues that the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings should apply to evidence related to identity, because it is an essential deterrent to ICE’s widespread racially discriminatory enforcement practices. Read More
Amicus Brief to Supreme Court on Judicial Review Over Eligibility Determinations for Certain Forms of Discretionary Relief from Removal
This amicus brief addresses whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review over eligibility determinations for certain forms of discretionary relief from removal for non citizens. Read More
Council and Partners Submit Amicus Brief to Stop the Reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols
This brief highlights the court's many factual errors about MPP in its decision to reinstate the program. Read More
Council Files Amicus Brief on the Legality of Prolonged Mandatory Detention
The amicus brief in Ayom v. Garland urges the eighth circuit to affirm that mandatory detention has constitutional limits, and reject the endorsement of prolonged mandatory detention for people in removal proceedings. Read More
Council Submits Amicus Brief on Two-Step Notice Practice to Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Barr
This amicus brief in Niz-Chavez v. Barr urges the Supreme Court to reject the government’s practice of issuing notice of the time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings in multiple documents over time, instead of in the initial Notice to Appear (NTA), as mandated by Congress. Read More
Ngassem v. Chertoff – Second Circuit
The Council filed an amicus brief arguing that the district court had jurisdiction over the denial of an asylee relative petition in a case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. Case settled without a decision from the court. Read More
Ashcroft v. Abbasi (formerly Turkman v. Ashcroft) – U.S. Supreme Court
The Council, along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), is seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens for abuse of authority by immigration agents. In actions brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the government routinely moves to dismiss these cases on a variety of jurisdictional grounds, including by arguing that INA § 242(g) bars the court’s review of damages claims in any case involving removal procedures, and that a remedy under Bivens is not available in immigration-related actions. In essence, the government is attempting to deprive those who have been harmed by immigration agents of any remedy in federal court. Read More
Avalos-Palma v. United States – District Court for the District of New Jersey
The American Immigration Council and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) are seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens for abuse of authority by immigration agents. Read More
Mata v. Lynch – Supreme Court
By statute, noncitizens who have been ordered removed have the right to file one motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). In most cases, these statutory motions to reopen are subject to strict filing deadlines. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (b)(5)(C)(i). However, as nine courts of appeals have recognized, the deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, a long-recognized principle through which courts can waive the application of certain non-jurisdictional statutes of limitations where a plaintiff was diligent but nonetheless unable to comply with the filing deadline. Several courts have also recognized that the numerical limitation on motions to reopen is subject to tolling. The Council continues to advocate in the remaining courts of appeals for recognition that that the motion to reopen deadlines are subject to equitable tolling and, with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild (NIPNLG), has filed amicus briefs in the Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
