Immigration Courts
Immigration courts play a crucial role in ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently, providing due process to those facing removal. Learn more about issues facing the courts today and explore the actions we're taking to ensure the rights of immigrants are upheld and legal integrity is maintained.
Council Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Conduct
The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center argued that local police violated the Fourth Amendment by unnecessarily prolonging an individual’s detention based solely on the suspicion that he was not lawfully present in the United States. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court cautioned against prolonging a detention to… Read More
Watchdog Report Offers Misdiagnosis of Immigration Court Backlog
With more than 325,000 cases pending at the start of October, our nation’s immigration courts are indisputably operating under a crushing backlog. The only question is whether and how it can be resolved. In a little-noticed report issued in early November, the Inspector General of the Justice Department levied a number of criticisms regarding the length of time needed to decide individual cases. Although the report makes a few valid points, its ultimate recommendations would prioritize the quantity of decisions made over the quality of decisions issued. Read More
Council Commends Latest Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
Washington, D.C.—Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow Immigration Judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs)… Read More
Supreme Court to Consider Reach of Padilla v. Kentucky
In its landmark decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court confirmed that criminal defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise their clients if pleading guilty to a particular offense could lead to deportation. On Thursday,* the Justices will consider a follow-up question of critical importance for many immigrants placed in removal proceedings on account of bad legal advice: whether the ruling applies to cases that became final before the decision was issued. Read More
Fifth Circuit Joins Other Courts in Holding That Immigrants Can Pursue Cases From Outside the United States
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the government’s ongoing attempt to bar noncitizens from seeking reopening and reconsideration of their cases from outside the United States. Ruling in two companion cases, the court found that the “departure bar”—a regulation barring noncitizens from pursuing their… Read More
Author of Torture Memos Challenges Legality of DACA
As a high-ranking Justice Department attorney after 9/11, John Yoo authored an infamous legal memo arguing that the President, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possessed irrevocable authority to order the torture of alleged “enemy combatants.” Although the memos were subsequently revoked, Yoo has remained an ardent defender of presidential power—except, it appears, when it comes to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion for undocumented immigrants. Read More
AIC Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
American Immigration Council Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship Washington, D.C.—Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow immigration judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs) whose removal would… Read More
American Immigration Council Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow immigration judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs) whose removal would cause extreme hardship to family members in the United States. The ruling marks the fourth opinion from a… Read More
Why Kobach’s Lawsuit Against Deferred Action is Unlikely to Stand Up in Court
Kris Kobach’s official job title is Kansas Secretary of State. But he is better known for drafting—and being hired to defend in court—state and local immigration laws designed to make undocumented residents “self-deport.” His two most notorious undertakings are Arizona SB 1070 and Alabama HB 56, which have largely been eviscerated by federal courts. Yesterday, Kobach embarked on a new legal escapade, filing a lawsuit to block the Obama administration from granting deferred action to so-called “DREAMERers,” undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children. Fortunately, although sure to generate headlines, the lawsuit has little chance of standing up in court. Read More
Alabama Ruling Yet Another Rebuke to State Immigration Laws
As with the Supreme Court’s recent opinion on Arizona SB 1070, initial media coverage portrayed the (technically) mixed rulings on the Alabama and Georgia immigration laws as a split decision. But do not be fooled: yesterday’s opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit represent a sweeping win for the immigrants’ rights movement and a crushing blow to the legal crusade led by Kris Kobach. While yesterday’s victory was not unqualified, the provisions struck down by the Eleventh Circuit were far more significant than those that were upheld. Read More
America's story is an immigrant story.
