Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

American Immigration Council v. DHS and USCIS

Entire Document Production, August 13, 2012

Key documents:

Pages 2-4: Seating policy- Email directives from 2010 and 2011 regarding policy of allowing attorneys to sit next to their clients and concern that some field offices are not incompliance.

Pages 67-74: Representation overseas- Email correspondence regarding representation of refugees overseas (note that USCIS did not release the “old counsel opinion” referenced in an email).

Pages 117-118, Pages 1670-1671: Directive to review AIC and AILA’s proposed revisions to the AFM

Pages 967-968: Stalled review of the AFM: email correspondence indicating there is “a lot of interest” in amending the counsel provisions of the AFM and an explanation that the amendment process was stalled in 2007.

Page 1355: “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco”- A redacted 2011 email (probably regarding amendments to the AFM) with the title “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco.”Read more...

Deferred Action Q&A

Do you have questions about deferred action.  Use this resource from NILC before applying.  Please seek the advice of an immigration attorney should you have ANY questions go to to find an immigration attorney http://www.ailalawyer.com/.  Beware of scam artists and any body who promises fast processing or guaranteed acceptance.

Year Released: 2012

View Link

Editorial: Overreaching on immigration by making bus drivers criminals

Published on Wed, Jan 26, 2011

While the loss of Head Start would be devastating, it would be far from the only loss the Bluegrass State would suffer if SB 6 became law. The American Immigration Center's Immigration Policy Center recently projected that passage of this bill would cost Kentucky $1.7 billion in economic activity and more than 12,000 jobs.

Published in the Lexington Herald Leader

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 1

This issue covers a recent SIJ decision enjoining the government from requiring specific consent for minors in federal custody, a Supreme Court update, an update on mandatory detention litigation, cases rejecting the BIA precedent Matter of Shanu, and a Q&A on a recent court decision addressing the ABC settlement.

Published On: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | Download File

Utah on immigration: We aren't Arizona

Published on Fri, Mar 25, 2011

Less than a year ago, Utah business leaders worried that their state would follow in Arizona’s controversial footsteps by passing tough new laws to crack down on illegal immigration. Already, there were signs that a divisive debate — the kind that led to mass protests, boycotts and lawsuits in Phoenix — was shaping up in Utah, too.

“Last summer, it was a foregone conclusion that Utah was going to do exactly what Arizona had done,” says Marty Carpenter, a spokesman for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. That worried many of the chamber’s members.

They feared Arizona-style legislation would stall the state’s economy before it really got a chance to recover from the recession. In addition, it might undermine the international goodwill Utah built by hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Passing a law targeting unauthorized immigrants, Carpenter says, risked sending the message that Utah “was no longer a friendly and welcoming place.”

In July, a pair of state employees secretly leaked a list of 1,300 unauthorized immigrants to reporters and police. They demanded that the people on the list be deported. The list included names, addresses, birthdates and Social Security numbers. It even included the due date of a pregnant woman.

The same month, three Utah legislators, including the House speaker, toured the U.S.-Mexican border in Arizona as part of their effort to prepare legislation based on Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, empowering local police to question residents about their immigration status. When sponsors introduced the Arizona-style proposal on the steps of the Utah Capitol, dozens of protesters crashed the press conference and sang “We Shall Overcome.”Read more...

Published in the Stateline

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 6

This issue covers litigation over naturalization delays, subpoenas when FOIA requests are delayed, and developments concerning mandatory detention.

Published On: Thursday, March 2, 2006 | Download File

Immigrant organizations call for action on immigration reform

Published on Thu, May 12, 2011

The reaction from different pro-immigrant organizations to President Obama’s speech this week on immigration was mixed, but all tend to agree the administration needs to lead with action.

In his speech President Obama spelled out on his administrations increases on border security, adding that they have gone above and beyond what was requested by the people supported broader reform as long as there was more enforcement, but now are calling even more enforcement to ensure the border is secure before talking about comprehensive immigration reform. At the same time, immigrant advocacy groups are calling on the president to put a stop to detentions and deportations – other words, to scale back enforcement until lawmakers can fix the system as a whole.

Jonathan Fried of Homestead-based We Count said that president Obama made this speech to boost his ratings with Latino and other immigrant voters, adding that Obama has failed to move immigration reform while his enforcement policies have separated immigrant families.

“It is fine for him to say he’s starting another dialog in immigration but their isn’t anything new,” Fried said, “I think it is an effort to save face and get votes.”

“It is not accompanied by a legislative proposal, if he really wants to send a message he needs to look at what his administration is doing,”Fried added.

The National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities press release said that despite Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate over the last two years no immigration policy reform was enacted, and called on the Obama Administration to change its current enforcement approach.Read more...

Published in the Florida Independent

Naturalization Adjudication Delays

ARCHIVED ISSUE PAGE (LAST UPDATED JUNE 2012)

Section 336(b) of the INA provides for judicial review of a stalled naturalization application. It states that if USCIS fails to grant or deny an application for naturalization before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted, the applicant may apply to the district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The court may (1) determine the matter or (2) remand to USCIS, with appropriate instructions, to determine the matter. If the delay occurs before the naturalization examination date, many litigants seek relief under the mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedure Act. See our Mandamus Litigation Issue Page for information about these types of actions.

Latest Developments|Additional Resources

Latest Developments

Pre-interview Natz Delay Cases

Select pre-interview naturalization delay cases filed as mandamus/APA lawsuits are summarized on our Mandamus Litigation Issue Page.

Class Action and Individual Suits Challenging Delay in the Adjudication of Naturalization Applications

CaliforniaRead more...