Immigration Courts

Recent Features

Access to Counsel in Immigration Court

Immigrants in immigration court do not have a right to government-appointed counsel. The lack of legal representation has a profound impact on immigrants’ outcomes in removal proceedings.

READ MORE

Empty Benches: Underfunding of Immigration Courts Undermines Justice

Backlogs and delays benefit neither immigrants nor the government—keeping those with valid claims in limbo and often in detention, delaying removal of those without valid claims, and calling into question the integrity of the immigration justice system.

READ MORE

All Immigration Courts Content

  • Blog

Taking Attendance: New Data Finds Majority of Children Appear in Immigration Court

July 18, 2014

As the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the United States border has increased, some lawmakers have argued that children frequently disappear into the woodwork, and propose mandatory...

  • Blog

Why We Are Suing the Government on Behalf of All Children Facing Deportation

July 9, 2014

The thousands of children fleeing violence and persecution and seeking refuge in the United States have brought to the forefront the issue of how our immigration system deals with children. The...

  • Press Release

Groups Sue Federal Government over Failure to Provide Legal Representation for Children

July 9, 2014
The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP today filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of children who are challenging the federal government's failure to provide them with legal representation as it carries out deportation hearings against them.
  • Blog

Study: Providing Representation for Indigent Immigrants Could Pay for Itself

May 30, 2014

U.S. immigration laws provide only minimal due process protections for even the most vulnerable immigrants facing deportation, and in 59 percent of cases, immigrants are forced to navigate the...

  • Blog

Unaccompanied Children Deserve Fair Representation in Immigration Courts

May 13, 2014

News stories and NGO reports continue to document the plight of “unaccompanied children,” and their complex legal issues were brought to the attention of Congress when Attorney General Eric Holder...

  • Amicus Briefs

Labissiere v. Holder - Second Circuit

Publication Date: 
March 21, 2014
Noncitizens facing removal must have a meaningful opportunity to present their cases to an immigration judge. On occasion, noncitizens are deprived of this opportunity due to their lawyers’ incompetence or mistake. Although the government has recognized the need for a remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel, see Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the framework currently used to evaluate whether ineffective assistance has occurred is severely flawed. The Council has long worked to protect the right to effective assistance of counsel for noncitizens in removal proceedings.
  • Practice Advisories

Employment Authorization and Asylum: Strategies to Avoid Stopping the Asylum Clock

Publication Date: 
February 5, 2014
The American Immigration Council’s Practice Advisory, Employment Authorization and Asylum: Strategies to Avoid Stopping the Asylum Clock, has been updated to reflect extensive changes to the manner in which the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) determine an asylum applicant’s eligibility for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).
  • Amicus Briefs

F- P- v. Holder - Ninth Circuit

Publication Date: 
January 3, 2014
Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or related provisions of federal law. While the immediate purpose of filing a motion to suppress is to prevent the government from meeting its burden of proof, challenges to unlawfully obtained evidence can also deter future violations by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens. The Supreme Court held in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), that motions to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment in immigration proceedings should be granted only for “egregious” violations or if violations became “widespread.” Despite this stringent standard, noncitizens have prevailed in many cases on motions to suppress.
  • Blog

Class Action Settlement Removes Obstacles Preventing Asylum Applicants from Working

December 19, 2013

A recent settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of asylum seekers is removing obstacles they faced in obtaining work documents while they pursue their asylum...

  • Amicus Briefs

Blackman Hinds v. Holder - First Circuit

Publication Date: 
November 29, 2013
At issue in the case is whether the Constitution and the immigration laws allow an immigration judge to enter a removal order without considering whether removal would be a disproportionate penalty under the circumstances. The amicus brief by the Council and the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project tells the stories of five individuals who either already have or soon will face the extreme penalty of deportation and a permanent reentry bar for minor or nonviolent crimes committed years earlier. The men and women featured in the brief share many attributes: all were lawful permanent residents; all established significant ties to this country; all left (or will leave) behind U.S. citizen family members; all committed nonviolent crimes; all have demonstrated rehabilitation; and none was afforded the opportunity to explain to the immigration judge why forcible removal from the country was unjustified under the circumstances. The brief throws into stark relief the real life human consequences of stripping judges of the ability to consider the totality of the circumstances before entering an order of removal.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending