Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Test

Test, test, test.

Published On:

Immigration Advocacy Groups Urge Supreme Court to Interpret Child Status Protection Act Broadly

Released on Wed, Nov 06, 2013

Washington, D.C.—This week, the American Immigration Council filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of young adults who, due to long delays caused by visa backlogs, lost the opportunity to obtain their “green cards” before they turned 21. The brief was filed in collaboration with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigrant Justice Center, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The case, Cuellar de Osorio v. Mayorkas, involves a provision of the Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA).  The amicus brief argues that in the CSPA, Congress specifically remedied the problem of children who, due to long delays caused by visa backlogs, turned 21 and lost the opportunity to immigrate with their families before a visa became available.  Specifically, the brief argues that children listed as beneficiaries on all types of visa petitions – and not simply those filed by lawful permanent residents, as the government argues – are entitled to retain the earlier filing date of their parents’ visa petitions when new visa petitions are filed for them as adults.  As a result, they do not have to wait as long for new visas. The brief presents compelling case histories illustrating the hardship that these families have suffered as the result of the government’s narrow interpretation.    

The amici were represented on a pro bono basis by Lori Alvino McGill and Nicole Ries Fox of Latham and Watkins, LLP.  Read more about this case and the Child Status Protection Act on our website.

###Read more...

View Release

Report shows positive impact of remittances on U.S. economy

Published on Wed, Feb 10, 2010

States like California with large immigration populations likely benefit from remittances abroad because of an increase demand in U.S. exports, a report released today shows.

The Immigration Policy Center released the report. The center is the search policy arm of the American Immigration Council in Washington D.C., whose mission is to shape the national conversation on immigration..

Published in the The Desert Sun

Second Circuit Narrowly Interprets Aggravated Felony Bar Under INA § 212(h)

Released on Tue, Jan 27, 2015

Washington, D.C.—Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a precedent decision that will allow a greater number of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to avoid deportation if they can demonstrate to an immigration judge that their removal will result in extreme hardship to close family members in the United States. The Court held that the bar to a waiver under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) applies only to those persons with an aggravated felony conviction who became LPRs at the time that they lawfully entered the United States. The American Immigration Council (Immigration Council) filed an amicus brief in the case with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

The Immigration Council applauds the ruling and repeats its call for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to overturn its contrary decision in Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (2010). With this decision, the Second Circuit joins the seven other Courts of Appeal—an overwhelming majority—to have rejected Matter of Koljenovic. To date, the Eighth Circuit stands alone in upholding the BIA’s decision. The First and the Tenth Circuits have not yet ruled on the issue, although the Council and AILA have filed amicus briefs in two pending cases in the Tenth Circuit. The Second Circuit case is Husic v. Holder. Michael P. DiRaimondo was lead counsel in the case; Thomas E. Moseley was co-counsel. 

View Release

DHS Analysis Finds That 287(g) Program Is a Big, Fat Flop

Published on Wed, Apr 07, 2010

A report out of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) last week doesn't mince many words when it comes to the failure of 287(g), a 1995 law that allowed local and state law enforcement to assume some of the federal prerogative of immigration enforcement.

Published in the Change.org

Immigration Control Program Morphing Into Prisoner Screening Program

Published on Wed, May 05, 2010

The 287(g) program, a lightning rod for criticism, is slowly and quietly melting into an expanded version of Secure Communities, a different and more under-the-radar government program.

Advocates and experts have noticed the switch, as the line to sign up for 287(g), a program that deputizes local police officers to enforce immigration law, has slowed, and the support for Secure Communities, a program screening prisoners for immigration status, grows.

Published in the Latin American Dispatch

President Obama sends National Guard to secure U.S. Mexican border

Published on Wed, May 26, 2010

Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council said, "If the only way you're going to be able to enforce the law is to get really close to that line, if not cross over it, then that's a problem."

Published in the NBC News

Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Innovation, and Welcoming Initiatives by State

Image: 

Browse our state fact sheets on the impact of immigrant entrepreneurs and state Welcoming Initiatives.

The Enforcer

Published on Tue, Jun 01, 2010

The new law, which won't take effect until the summer, compels police to seek identification of individuals they suspect might be in the country illegally - something civil rights advocates believe will lead to racial profiling and other abuses. Despite those concerns, 12 state legislatures have introduced, or are considering, similar legislation, according to a recent analysis by the Immigration Policy Center, the research arm of the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group.

Published in the Government Executive

§ 212(h) Eligibility: Case Law and Potential Arguments

This Practice Advisory addresses statutory requirements for § 212(h) waivers; availability of § 212(h) waivers in removal proceedings for both LPRs and non-LPRs; and situations when a “stand-alone” § 212(h) waiver can, or arguably might, be filed. The advisory also discusses the regulation imposing a heightened hardship standard in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes.

Published On: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 | Download File