Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

LAC Wins Release of H-1B Fraud Documents for AILA

Released on Mon, Nov 19, 2012

For Immediate Release

LAC Wins Release of H-1B Fraud Documents for AILA

Washington, D.C.—USCIS released in full the four remaining contested documents in a FOIA lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) and Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of AILA. The documents plainly describe - in more detail than documents previously released in this lawsuit - “fraud indicators” that result in greater scrutiny of certain H-1B applications. These documents are troubling evidence of a near presumption of fraud in H-1B applications submitted by small and emerging businesses and for certain types of positions at these businesses.  The following documents were released:

Background of the LawsuitRead more...

View Release

New Report Finds Legalization of Immigrants Substantially Improves Economic Status

Published on Thu, Nov 05, 2009

A new report prepared for the Immigration Policy Center finds that illegal immigrants who gained legal status in the 1980s via the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) went on to earn substantial gains in their socioeconomic status. The report suggests that, contrary to the idea that legalizing immigrants will increase competition for scarce jobs in the U.S., legalization of many of the 11 million or so current undocumented immigrants would actually yield economic benefits, not only for the immigrants but for the U.S. economy as a whole.

Published in the The Washington Independent

Frequently Asked Questions about the Asylum Clock Class Action Settlement

Released on Tue, Jul 09, 2013

Frequently Asked Questions about the Asylum Clock Class Action Settlement

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC), along with its co-counsel, recently announced a settlement of A.B.T., et al. v. USCIS, et al., a nationwide class action challenging the manner in which the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) determine an asylum applicant’s eligibility for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  This FAQ addresses key questions related to the settlement agreement, such as: who is a class member; what policies and practices are changed by the settlement; how class members will benefit from these changes; when the changes go into effect; and how a class member can complain if the settlement is not properly implemented in his or her case. 

The lawsuit was brought by the LAC, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Massachusetts Law Reform Project, and the Law Offices of Gibbs Houston and Pauw.  For more information about the lawsuit, including a copy of the settlement agreement, visit the LAC’s Asylum Clock webpage.

View Release

Study: Immigration Reform Would Boost US Economy

Published on Fri, Jan 08, 2010

If the United States were to create a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the country, it could boost its gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion in just 10 years, a new study claims.Conducted by a U.C.L.A. economist and released by the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan research institute based in Washington, the study argues that if comprehensive immigration reform were passed it would result in higher wages, which would lead to a rise in consumption that, in turn, would create more jobs and generate more tax revenue.

Published in the Sphere

Groups Sue Federal Government over Failure to Provide Legal Representation for Children

Released on Wed, Jul 09, 2014

Washington D.C. –  The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP today filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of children who are challenging the federal government's failure to provide them with legal representation as it carries out deportation hearings against them.

Each year, the government initiates immigration court proceedings against thousands of children. Some of these youth grew up in the United States and have lived in the country for years, and many have fled violence and persecution in their home countries. The Obama Administration even recently called an influx of children coming across the Southern border a "humanitarian situation." And yet, thousands of children required to appear in immigration court each year do so without an attorney. This case seeks to remedy this unacceptable practice.

"If we believe in due process for children in our country, then we cannot abandon them when they face deportation in our immigration courts," said Ahilan Arulanantham, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "The government pays for a trained prosecutor to advocate for the deportation of every child. It is patently unfair to force children to defend themselves alone."

The plaintiffs in this case include:Read more...

View Release

Immigration status not a question on 2010 Census, despite push by some to ask it

Published on Fri, Mar 19, 2010

To the chagrin of some, that’s not one of the questions included in the 2010 Census forms that have been arriving at homes across the country over the past few weeks.

Census officials said it should not come as a surprise, because the U.S. Census’ 1790 mandate does not require that a person completing the Census reveal their legal status.

 

Published in the Naples News

Release of Refugee Families is Long-Overdue Step

Released on Mon, Jul 13, 2015

Washington, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council welcome plans announced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the release of some mothers and children detained after seeking refuge at our borders with the following statement:

“Today ICE is following through on DHS Secretary Johnson’s previous commitment by taking a long-overdue step forward,” said Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA President. He continued, “Based on what volunteer attorneys, including myself, have seen and heard from clients in the detention centers and from the government’s own data, we know that the majority of families who have been incarcerated by DHS have fled to the United States to seek safety from persecution, torture, and violence and have strong asylum claims under our laws. When looking at alternatives to detention, ICE should turn first to community-based support models, which are extremely effective and far more appropriate for asylum seekers than restrictive and expensive electronic monitoring.”

“Giving mothers and children back their freedom and their dignity makes far more sense than incarceration at taxpayer expense, and will ensure these families’ safety from the traumatic psychological impact of detention,” said Melissa Crow, Legal Director of the American Immigration Council. She added, “As we learn more about this policy and how it will be implemented, we will watch carefully to see if DHS will also take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the Flores settlement, which generally prohibits the detention of children. We would welcome the opportunity to work with DHS to ensure these families are made aware of their rights and responsibilities as they seek protection in our country. Of course, DHS’s ultimate goal should be to end the practice of mass family detention begun a year ago.”Read more...

View Release

Will Arizona's Immigration Law Pass Legal Muster?

Published on Fri, Apr 23, 2010

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial bill Friday that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to be in the state. The new law will require local police to seek proof of immigration status if there is reason to suspect individuals are illegal immigrants.

Earlier Friday, President Obama had criticized the bill as "misguided." He said that the federal government's failure to overhaul immigration law had been an invitation for other jurisdictions to act "irresponsibly." Now that Brewer has signed the bill into law, however, the question is whether it can survive inevitable legal challenges.

Published in the NPR

Supreme Court Issues Disappointing Split Decision in United States v. Texas

Released on Thu, Jun 23, 2016

Washington D.C. - Today, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 decision in United States v. Texas, the case challenging expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).  This means that the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the preliminary injunction against these initiatives will stand. This ruling does not impact the original DACA program launched in 2012. The decision is a huge disappointment for immigrant families and their defenders. It’s bad for American communities, workers and the economy. We will continue to explore all available legal avenues and will urge the government to do the same. Ultimately, the nation needs a permanent solution to our outdated immigration system, and that must come from Congress.  The fight will continue. 

 ###

 For more information, contact Wendy Feliz at wfeliz@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7524

View Release

New Book Reviews

Image: 

Check out new book reviews on immigrant stories from the Community Education Resource Center.

We welcome book reviews from students! Email teacher@immcouncil.org for more information.