Immigration Benefits and Relief
The immigration laws and regulations provide some avenues to apply for lawful status from within the U.S. or to seek relief from deportation. The eligibility requirements for these benefits and relief can be stringent, and the immigration agencies often adopt overly restrictive interpretations of the requirements. Learn about advocacy and litigation that has been and can be undertaken to ensure that noncitizens have a fair chance to apply for the benefits and relief for which they are eligible. Providing avenues for legal status, protection, and family reunification is vital to ensuring humanitarian protection for immigrants. We are leading policy changes that open more opportunities like asylum, visas for victims of crime or human trafficking, and relief for long-term residents. Explore the resources below to learn more.
Bona v. Ashcroft – Ninth Circuit
The Council filed amicus briefs in numerous courts of appeals challenging the pre-2005 regulatory bar to adjustment of status for “arriving aliens” in removal proceedings. Several courts accepted our arguments that the regulation violated the adjustment of status statute. Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005); Bona v. Ashcroft, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2005). Ultimately, DHS withdrew the challenged regulation and replaced it with one providing USCIS with jurisdiction to adjust the status of an "arriving alien" in removal proceedings. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (2006). The amicus brief filed in Bona v. Ashcroft is representative of the briefs filed in other circuits. Read More
Matter of Yauri – Board of Immigration Appeals
Following DHS's adoption of an interim regulation that gave USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment application of an "arriving alien" in removal proceedings, the Council filed amicus briefs with the BIA and Federal Courts challenging the BIA's general refusal to reopen removal proceedings so that an "arriving alien" with an unexecuted final order could adjust with USCIS. The BIA rejected our arguments in Matter of Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009). Meanwhile, however, USCIS made clear that it retained jurisdiction over these cases despite the final order. Read More
Velasquez-Garcia v. Holder – Seventh Circuit
One requirement of the age-preservation formula of the CSPA is that the beneficiary must have “sought to acquire” lawful permanent resident status within one year of the visa becoming available. INA § 203(h)(1). The Council’s amicus brief argued for a more expansive interpretation of “sought to acquire” than the BIA’s interpretation in Matter of O. Vasquez, 25 I&N Dec. 817 (BIA 2012). On July 23, 2014, the court issued a decision upholding the Board’s interpretation but remanding the case after finding that, under the facts presented, the retroactive application of Matter of O. Vasquez to the petitioner would work a manifest injustice. Velasquez-Garcia v. Holder, 760 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2014). Read More
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio – Supreme Court
INA § 203(h)(3) provides alternate benefits - specifically, retention of the original priority date and automatic conversion of the petition - for beneficiaries who are found to have "aged out" under the age preservation formula of the CSPA. The Council opposed the BIA’s restrictive interpretation of this provision in In amicus curiae briefs filed with several Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court, arguing that it should be found to apply to a larger universe of aged-out children. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the BIA’s interpretation. Read More
Texas and Other 25 States File Misleading Brief at Supreme Court
This week, Texas and the 25 other states challenging the President’s executive actions on immigration filed their brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas. The brief attempts to defend the Fifth Circuit’s decision to block expanded DACA and DAPA from being implemented, but instead makes entirely… Read More
Steve King’s Committee Continues Attack on President’s Immigration Actions
This week, the newly created “Task Force on Executive Overreach” and its Chairman Steve King (R-IA) held a sparsely-attended hearing on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, specifically related to expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Read More
Georgia Board of Regents Sued for Limiting Immigrant Students’ Access to Higher Education
The Georgia Board of Regents is being hauled into court, once again, over its highly-controversial policies that limit young immigrants’ access to higher education. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Horsley Begnaud filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Georgia Latin Alliance for Human… Read More
Hundreds of Groups Weigh in on Immigration Case Headed to Supreme Court
A diverse coalition of 326 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in United States v. Texas, urging the court to lift the injunction that has blocked the deferred action initiatives that President Obama announced in November 2014. Read More
Who Would Benefit from DAPA?
Within the next few months, the Supreme Court will determine whether the President’s deferred action initiatives announced in November 2014—namely, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—constitute a lawful exercise of executive discretion. That decision will both… Read More
Obama Administration Files Brief in Immigration Case at Supreme Court
This week, the Obama Administration filed its brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, the case where Texas and 25 other states are challenging the President’s executive action on expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent… Read More
America's story is an immigrant story.
