Litigation

  • Litigation

Challenging USCIS’ Arbitrary Rejections of H-1B Petitions Filed After October 1

This lawsuit challenges USCIS' arbitrarily rejected H-1B petitions filed after October 1 simply because the H-1B worker’s intended employment start date—naturally—also fell after October 1.
  • Litigation

Challenging Drastic Immigration Court Fee Increases That Limit Access to Justice

The Council filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rule that would drastically increase fees across-the-board in high-stakes immigration proceedings.
  • Litigation

Stopping Government Interference to Attorney Phone Access in Immigration Detention Centers

This lawsuit was filed to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement from denying detainees the ability to contact their lawyers and the outside world by phone.
  • Litigation

Stopping ICE From Unlawfully Detaining Immigrant Youth

This lawsuit challenged ICE’s practice of transferring unaccompanied minors who turn 18 years old to adult custody in the agency’s contracted jails and prisons, without considering less restrictive placements.
  • Litigation

USCIS’ Unlawful Denial of H-1B Petitions Spurs Class Action Lawsuit

This nationwide class action lawsuit challenges U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ pattern and practice of arbitrarily denying H-1B nonimmigrant employment-based petitions for market research analyst positions filed by United States businesses.
  • Litigation

Stopping Policies Endangering Immigration Attorneys, Clients, and the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Council filed a lawsuit to close the immigration courts and ensure due process.
  • Litigation

Separated Family Members Seek Monetary Damages from United States

The Council is seeking monetary damages on behalf of six asylum-seeking mothers and their children for the trauma they suffered when torn apart under the Trump Administration’s family separation policy.
  • Litigation

Challenging the Expansion of Expedited Removal

The Trump administration wants to increase its power to deport immigrants without a fair day in court through expedited removal. We’re suing.
  • Litigation

U.S. Employer Challenges USCIS “Not a Specialty Occupation” H-1B Petition Denial That Overlooked Web Developer’s Specialized and Complex Duties

As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continues to scrutinize and reject meritorious H-1B petitions, one emerging pattern is its rejection of petitions for entry level positions. We've sued.
  • Litigation

U.S. Employer Challenges USCIS "Not a Specialty Occupation" H-1B Petition Denial of Market Research Analyst Job

In denying the petition, USCIS disregarded substantial evidence that the employer requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a "specific specialty" because of the complexity and specialized nature of the job duties.
  • Litigation

U.S. Employer Challenges USCIS “Not a Specialty Occupation” H-1B Petition Denial Disregarding Employer’s Evidence of Specific Specialty Degree Requirement

This case is representative of the difficulties employers encounter when new occupations emerge to fill business needs which require at least a bachelor’s degree, but no consensus exists as to the degree requirement.
  • Litigation

Standards for Avoiding Deportation Cannot Be Shrouded in Secrecy

We filed a FOIA request seeking statistical information, as well as policies and guidance, regarding Board of Immigration Appeals standards for issuing stays of removal. Because the government failed to respond, we're filing a lawsuit.
  • Litigation

More U.S. Businesses Are Challenging USCIS H-1B Petition Denials

In recent years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been denying H-1B petitions for jobs that the agency previously approved as being in a specialty occupation. This case is representative.
  • Litigation

Challenging USCIS “Not a Specialty Occupation” H-1B Petition Denial

The denials of employment-based petitions must end. This suit challenges the policy changes that restrict employers’ lawful use of H-1B workers.
  • Litigation

Challenging Credible Fear Interview and Bond Hearing Delays

This case challenges the punitive practice of keeping asylum seekers in custody for weeks or months without access to credible fear interviews or bond hearings and the lack of basic procedural protections—like hearing transcripts and written decisions—in bond hearings, as well as whether asylum seekers must bear the burden of proof in bond proceedings.
  • Litigation

Demanding Answers from ICE and CBP Regarding Their Aggressive Immigration Enforcement Tactics

The American Immigration Council filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with ICE and CBP on October 13, 2017, seeking data on enforcement actions and outcomes since January 2016. With this data, the Council will be able to assess who is being targeted for removal and what the consequences are of the current enforcement framework.
  • Litigation

Holding CBP Accountable for Turning Away Asylum Seeker and Falsifying Paper Trail

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers all too frequently deny individuals fleeing persecution and torture their right to seek protection in the United States, issue summary removal orders against them, and then falsify documents to support their illegal actions.
  • Litigation

Ending Obstacles for Temporary Protected Status Recipients Seeking Legal Permanent Residence

The American Immigration Council has filed a class action lawsuit against officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a federal district court in New York, challenging the government’s unlawful practice of depriving certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders with close family relationships or employment in the United States from becoming lawful permanent residents.
  • Litigation

Challenging Immigration Judges' Refusal to Conduct Bond Hearings

This lawsuit challenges the actions of immigration judges in Charlotte, North Carolina who have refused to conduct bond hearings for people who properly file bond motions with the Charlotte Immigration Court.
  • Litigation

Challenging USCIS Denial of Multinational Manager Immigrant Petition

Prioritizing the immigration of multinational executives and managers recognizes the need for the United States to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy.
  • Litigation

Challenging "Extreme Vetting" of Immigration Benefits Applicants

The Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CAARP) is a secret and unlawful government vetting program that targets thousands of applicants who are Muslim or from certain Muslim-majority countries for delay or denial of immigration benefits.
  • Litigation

Seeking Records on CBP's Participation in Domestic Law Enforcement Activities

This lawsuit seeks to compel CBP to disclose the requested records concerning USBP agents’ practices.
  • Litigation

Lawsuit Challenges Postponement of the International Entrepreneur Rule

Entrepreneurs, start-up companies and a trade association joined together to oppose the postponement of the International Entrepreneur Rule.
  • Litigation

Challenging Customs and Border Protection's Unlawful Practice of Turning Away Asylum Seekers

Asylum seekers are being illegally turned away by Customs and Border Protection officers. We're suing.
  • Litigation

Challenging ICE Interference with Legal Representation at Dilley

This case stems from Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) decision to bar Caroline Perris, a full-time legal assistant with the Dilley Pro Bono Project (DPBP), from entering the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
  • Litigation

Immigrant Rights Groups File Class Action Suit Challenging Trump Administration’s “Muslim Ban”

This intervention is needed to protect the integrity of the United States’ immigrant visa process and the families diligently seeking to reunite with their loved ones.
  • Litigation

Challenging Obstacles to Meeting The One Year Filing Deadline for Filing An Asylum Application

This lawsuit challenged obstacles faced by asylum-seekers in satisfying the statutory requirement that they apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States.
  • Litigation

Adjustment of Status Under § 245(i) for Noncitizens Previously Removed

Duran Gonzalez is a Ninth Circuit-wide class action challenging DHS’ refusal to follow Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004). In Perez-Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit had said that individuals who had been removed or deported could apply for adjustment of status (under INA § 245(i)) along with an accompanying I-212 waiver application. In Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit overturned Perez-Gonzalez, deferring to the BIA’s holding that individuals who have previously been removed or deported are not eligible to apply for adjustment of status. See Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006). The Court subsequently said, however, that some plaintiffs may be able to establish that the new rule should not apply retroactively.
  • Litigation

Photo and Video Evidence of Unconstitutional Immigration Detention Conditions from Doe v. Wolf

Photo and Video Evidence Unsealed in 2020

The...
  • Litigation

Challenging Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities

The class-action lawsuit complaint alleges that Tucson Sector Border Patrol holds men, women, and children in freezing, overcrowded, and filthy cells for days at a time in violation of the U.S. Constitution and CBP’s own policies.
  • Litigation

Employment Authorization Documents Adjudication Delays

Faced with increasing reports from immigration lawyers of Employment Authorization Documents adjudication delays, the Council and several partners filed this lawsuit against USCIS and DHS.
  • Litigation

Visa Programs for High-Skilled Workers

Valorem, an IT consulting company, petitioned to employ a software developer for three years in H-1B status as part of a project development team at its office. Initially, USCIS denied the petition, but later – after Valorem, represented by AILA member Susan Bond, filed suit – approved it for one year.
  • Litigation

Systemic Challenge to Policies at Artesia

On August 22, 2014, the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the National Immigration Law Center, Van Der Hout Brigagliano & Nightingale LLP, and Jenner & Block, filed this lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The case was a systemic challenge to the policies denying a fair deportation process to mothers and children detained in the Artesia Family Residential Center who had fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States seeking safety.
  • Litigation

Right to Appointed Counsel for Children in Immigration Proceedings

This lawsuits seeks recognition of a right to appointed counsel for unrepresented children in immigration proceedings nationwide.
  • Litigation

Complaints Against Immigration Judges

The American Immigration Council and co-counsel Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) seeking information about complaints alleging immigration judge misconduct.
  • Litigation

Lawsuit Seeking Damages on Behalf of Four-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Wrongly Detained and Returned to Guatemala

In March 2013, the American Immigration Council and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, later joined by the Legal Aid Justice Center, filed a lawsuit alleging that CBP officers at Dulles Airport in Virginia unlawfully detained a U.S. citizen child for more than twenty hours, deprived her of contact with her parents, and then effectively deported her to Guatemala. The case was one of ten complaints filed the same week to highlight CBP abuses along the northern and southern borders.
  • Litigation

Lawsuit Against DHS for Failure to Disclose Records on “Voluntary” Returns

In June 2012, the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, filed suit against DHS and CBP for unlawfully withholding records concerning voluntary returns of noncitizens from the United States to their countries of origin. Voluntary return, also known as “administrative voluntary departure,” is a procedure whereby CBP officers permit noncitizens to voluntarily depart the United States at their own expense rather than undergoing formal removal proceedings. Noncitizens may be granted voluntary return to their countries of origin after conceding unlawful presence in the United States and knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to contest removal.
  • Litigation

Access to Counsel Before CBP

The American Immigration Council, with co-counsel Dorsey & Whitney LLP, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel.
  • Litigation

Criminal Alien Program (CAP)

Co-Plaintiffs American Immigration Council and AILA’s Connecticut chapter initially sought records related to the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) through a FOIA request to ICE in December 2011. When ICE refused to release responsive records, Plaintiffs filed suit under FOIA to compel their disclosure.
  • Litigation

Asylum Clock

The complaint, co-filed with the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, was submitted on behalf of a class of untold numbers of asylum applicants wrongfully denied work authorization due to unlawful agency policies and practices. The settlement agreed to by the parties was approved by the Court and applies to the entire class.
  • Litigation

Access to Counsel Before ICE

The American Immigration Council, with co-counsel Dorsey & Whitney LLP, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel.
  • Litigation

Access to Counsel Before USCIS

The American Immigration Council, with co-counsel Dorsey & Whitney LLP, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel.
  • Litigation

Visa Programs for High-Skilled Workers

On behalf of AILA, the American Immigration Council, in cooperation with counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, filed a FOIA lawsuit against DHS and USCIS in July 2010 seeking the public release of records concerning agency policies and procedures related to fraud investigations in the H-1B program.
  • Litigation

Lawsuit on Visa Bulletin, Adjustment of Status

On July 17, 2007, the American Immigration Council was poised to file a lawsuit alleging that the federal government’s refusal to accept tens of thousands of applications for green cards (and discouragement of thousands of other workers from even applying) violated federal statutes, regulations and policies, as well as the U.S. Constitution. Many of these applicants had waited in line for years and were following the government’s rules to obtain a green card. The suit would have argued that the government must comply with its own regulations and policies and accept these adjustment of status (“green card”) applications.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending