Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

"Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes

The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the courts of appeals to review “final” removal orders. This Practice Advisory addresses whether a removal decision issued by an Immigration Judge or the BIA is a “final” removal order for purposes of federal court review.

Published On: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 | Download File

Teaching Tolerance

In this early grades activity, students learn about unfair practices in a simulation exercise and then create plans to stand up against discrimination

View Link

Immigrants Impact on Idaho Economy

Published on Thu, Jul 29, 2010

BOISE, Idaho -- A new study shows how immigrants, both legal and illegal, effect Idaho's economy.

Numbers from the Immigration Policy Center show immigrants made up 7.2 percent of Idaho's workforce in 2008. Of that, 3.1 percent were illegal immigrants.

The study also says that if all undocumented immigrants were removed from the state, Idaho would lose nearly $430 million in economic activity. "These immigrants are an integral part of our economy, they're an integral part of our communities and if they were to leave, there would be huge economic repercussions. So if the Federal Government acts, people will be able to come out of the shadows and legalize and pay their fair share on the economy," said Tyler Moran of the National Immigration Law Center.

The study also showed the purchasing power of immigrants in Idaho. Latinos purchasing power totaled 2.5 billion dollars. That a more than 500 percent increase from 1990.

WATCH:

Published in the Fox News

Seeking a Judicial Stay of Removal in the Court of Appeals

This Practice Advisory provides background information about requesting stays of removal from the court of appeals, discusses the legal standard for obtaining a stay, and addresses the implications of the government’s policy with respect to return of individuals who are successful on their appeal.

Published On: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 | Download File

Teaching Freedom, Fairness, and Equality

In this immigration and civic engagement lesson plan, student will wrestle with the essential question: how deep is our commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  They will learn about five historical examples of restrictive immigration law and policy and also about the value of young people’s voices in movements to secure rights.

Read more...

Year Released: 2015

9-12

View File

SB 1070: New Study Released Showing Economic Impact of Latinos Leaving AZ

Published on Thu, Jul 29, 2010

For more than a year, senior researcher Dr. Walter Ewing and research associate Seth Hoy analyzed and compiled data on every state in the US to track the powerful impact immigrants have on this country. The result: A recent study released by the Immigration Policy Center that highlights both the political and economic power that immigrants—specifically Latinos and Asians—have on the United States. With Arizona's controversial SB 1070 scheduled to go into effect today (although a ruling yesterday by US District Judge Susan Bolton blocks some aspects of the law), politicians, business owners and the like should take note.

Published in the Latina

Naturalization Delays

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.

CASESRESOURCES

CASES

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...

Why We Should Applaud ICE's Immigration Initiative

Published on Mon, Aug 30, 2010

As Mary Giovagnoli writes on the Immigration Policy Institute's Immigration Impact blog, 17,000 out of the close to 400,000 people deported in 2009, is not exactly a significant number. Still, I want to argue that these types of small tweaks to the immigration system are crucial to obtaining larger reforms down the road.

Published in the The Huffington Post

The Criminal Alien Program (CAP): Immigration Enforcement in Prisons and Jails

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...