This Q&A provides an overview of EOIR’s regulations on voluntary departure, issued December 18, 2008. The regulations, which went into effect on January 20, 2009, address various aspects of voluntary departure, including what happens to voluntary departure when motions to reopen and reconsider and petitions for review are filed.
This Practice Advisory describes the Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder, which rejected the BIA's "comparable grounds" test for § 212(c) relief, and offers strategies for lawful permanent residents and others who may be affected by it.
The report findings closely mirror results released in July by the Immigration Policy Center that said illegal immigrants make up about 2.2 percent of Oklahoma's work force, contributing $580.3 million in economic activity and $257.8 million in gross state product.
Delays by USCIS in deciding naturalization applications have forced many applicants to seek judicial remedies. Section 336(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows a federal district court to review a naturalization application if USCIS has failed to decide it for more than 120 days after the date of the examination. The law allows the court to either decide the application itself or remand the application to USCIS for decision.
Often, USCIS will deny a naturalization application while the case is pending in federal district court. The agency’s lawyers will then move to dismiss the federal court case because the application has been denied. If the case is dismissed, the applicant will face even longer delays as an appeal to USCIS will be required before seeking judicial review of the denial. We have successfully challenged this practice, arguing in amicus briefs that once a case has been filed in federal court, USCIS loses its authority over the naturalization application and must wait for the federal court decision before taking further action.
Bustamante v. Napolitano, No. 08-0990-cv (2d Cir. amicus brief filed May 30, 2008). In a precedent decision, the court adopted the position urged by the Legal Action Center and held that USCIS does not have jurisdiction to decide a naturalization application after an applicant files an action in district court under INA § 336(b). Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2009).Read more...
Studying immigration brings to light the many interesting and diverse cultures in the world. Browse our lessons, printables, references, and articles below for ideas on how to enhance your curriculum in this area. You'll find statistics on U.S. immigration, lessons on Ellis Island, information on the Pilgrims, and much more for grades K-12. Improve students' reading skills as they learn about the lives of immigrants with our language arts activities.
The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is an expansive immigration enforcement program that leads to the initiation of removal proceedings in many cases. While CAP has existed in one form or another for decades, there is still much to be learned about the program, how it is organized, and how it works. What is known is that CAP extends to every area of the country and intersects with most state and local law enforcement agencies.
For years, the CAP program has operated with little public attention and many of its elements have only recently come to light following FOIA litigation against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The information obtained through the lawsuit regarding CAP’s current organization and staffing suggests CAP is not a single program, but a loose-knit group of several different programs operating within ICE. Other than a small number of staff responsible for the administration of CAP at ICE headquarters, there is no dedicated CAP staff. Rather, ICE pulls personnel and resources from across the agency to perform CAP-related functions.
The ICE declarations and deposition also explain how CAP functions within prisons and jails. There appears to be little consistency in, and little or no policy governing, how CAP cooperates with state and local law enforcement agencies in different regions and in how CAP interacts with detainees in different facilities. Instead, CAP appears to function as an ad hoc set of activities that operate differently across the country and across penal institutions, raising questions about the adequacy of oversight, training, and accountability of the personnel implementing CAP.
This information confirms that there is still much about CAP that remains unknown or unclear. Given the breadth of CAP, the centrality of its role in immigration enforcement, and its large impact on the immigrant community, it is critical that ICE clarify how CAP operates.Read more...