This Practice Advisory addresses situations in which a court might excuse a late-filed petition for review and discusses other administrative and federal court options for remedying the failure to timely file a petition for review. The advisory also provides an overview of 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which authorizes courts to transfer a case to cure a lack of jurisdiction when an action is filed in the wrong federal court.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org for further information.
Stories of Immigration teaches secondary grade students about the value of immigration through selected literature. The lesson also increases student awareness of the important historical periods of immigration and the effects of these events on America.
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).
The Legal Action Center's amicus brief for the Immigration Council and AILA, filed in In Re Ting Ting Chi, No. A96-533-521, argues that K-2 visa holders, the offspring of fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens, may adjust even after turning 21 years of age as they are derivatives of non-citizen K-1 fiancé(e) parents. If you have a case that raises this issue, please contact us at email@example.com.
In Re Anchalee Satidkunakorn, Case No: A096-722-341 (BIA amicus filed)
In Re Qiyu Zhang, Case No: A096-796-201(BIA amicus filed)
In Re Ting Ting Chi, Case No: A096-533-521 (BIA amicus filed)
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Finally, I called up Wendy Sefsaf, communications director at Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports DREAM. She hadn't heard of any presidents issuing public statements against the legislation either, but she did have this to say about the lack of academic opposition: "It diminishes any argument that allowing undocumented students to go to college is bad for universities, in terms of economic impact, pushing other students out, or overcrowding. If it wasn't a good idea, universities and their presidents wouldn't be unanimously in support of it."
This issue covers E-Verify litigation, prolonged detention class actions, favorable BIA precedents, removal cases involving the statute of limitation to rescind adjustment, and recently filed AILF briefs.