Skip to Content



Library of Congress

Presentations and activities offer media-rich historical context or interactive opportunities for exploration for teachers and students alike

View Link

SB 1070 Enforcement Will NOT Be Uniform

Published on Tue, Jul 27, 2010

The procedures followed by individual police agencies are not dictated by the board or the governor, however, and as a new study by the Immigration Policy Center shows there will be a wide variety of enforcement policies within Arizona, even with the law’s heavy-handed language about officers being required to do one thing or another and citizens being able to sue those they don’t believe to be enforcing the law.

Published in the Arizona Republic

Warrantless Arrests and the Timing of Right to Counsel Advisals

In Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 580 (BIA 2011), the Board of Immigration Appeals severely undermined the protections provided by 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c), holding that certain noncitizens arrested without a warrant need not be advised of their rights, including the right to counsel, prior to post-arrest examinations. This practice advisory highlights flaws in the E-R-M-F- decision and suggests strategies for challenging the BIA’s reading of § 287.3(c) and moving to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the regulation.

The Legal Action Center encourages attorneys with ongoing cases involving the timing of the 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) advisals to contact for further information.

Published On: Friday, November 2, 2012 | Download File

The First American Settlers and the First Thanksgiving

Learn and discuss the myths and facts surrounding the first Thanksgiving and the first immigrants by engaging students in a thought-provoking and humorous read-aloud that challenges them to identify dominant and resistant readings of this national holiday.

For lesson procedures, Common Core standards alignment, please click here.

Year Released: 2014


View File

Births to Illegal Immigrants Are Studied

Published on Wed, Aug 11, 2010

Some researchers noted that the Pew figures did not identify families where both parents were illegal immigrants. “If anything, the Pew report highlights how complicated this issue is, given that so many unauthorized immigrants live in families that include U.S. citizens and legal immigrants,” said Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst for the Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.

Published in the New York Times

Service of BIA decisions

<This page is under construction>

The LAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of AILF, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area in a petition for rehearing en banc. The panel held that the BIA does not have to reissue a decision even if the noncitizen says he or she did not receive the decision; the BIA need only show that it properly mailed the decision by regular mail. The decision places the burden on the parties to check (via the toll free hotline) to find out if the BIA has issued a decision. Amici argued that the BIA’s requirement to serve its decision must incorporate both dispatch and delivery.

  • Singh v. Gonzales                        9th Circuit                        No. 04-72701

In defense of the failed Dream Act immigration bill

Published on Mon, Sep 27, 2010

The Immigration Policy Center writes:

Acknowledging the large numbers of illegal Europeans in the U.S., the government devised ways for them to remain in the U.S. legally. *Deserving* illegal European immigrants could benefit from various programs and legalize their status. The 1929 Registry Act allowed *honest law-abiding alien[s] who may be in the country under some merely technical irregularity* to register as permanent residents for a fee of $20 if they could prove they had lived in the U.S. since 1921 and were of *good moral character.* Roughly 115,000 immigrants registered between 1930 and 1940—80% were European or Canadian. Between 1925 and 1965, 200,000 illegal Europeans legalized their status through the Registry Act, through *pre-examination*—a process that allowed them to leave the U.S. voluntarily and re-enter legally with a visa (a *touch-back* program)—or through discretionary rules that allowed immigration officials to suspend deportations in *meritorious* cases. Approximately 73% of those benefitting from suspension of deportation were Europeans (mostly Germans and Italians).

Published in the Washington Times

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Adjustment of Status

A TPS recipient who is otherwise eligible may be granted adjustment of status. One requirement for adjustment under INA § 245(a) is that the individual have been “inspected and admitted or paroled” into the United States.  Both USCIS and EOIR, in non-precedent decisions, have found that a TPS recipient who never made an authorized entry into the United States is not eligible for adjustment of status. The Eleventh Circuit agrees.  However, the Sixth Circuit has held that, under the plain language of the TPS statute, a grant of TPS constitutes an admission for purposes of adjustment of status under INA § 245(a). Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013).   The American Immigration Council, with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, argues in amicus curiae briefs that other courts should follow the lead of the Sixth Circuit and find that a grant of TPS is an admission for purposes of adjustment of status.


Fiallos-Ortiz v. Holder, No. 13-70864 (9th Cir. amicus brief submitted Apr. 10, 2014).

Ramirez v. Dougherty, No. 13-1236-TSZ (W.D. Wash. amicus brief submitted Feb. 14, 2014). The court issued a fully favorable decision on May 30, 2014. Read our statement here. The government has appealed and the case is pending at the Ninth Circuit.Read more...