Removal and Immigration Court

This is one of several memoranda discussing CIS discretion to not place noncitizens in proceedings in certain circumstances, including vawa (p 2) (but read the whole memo). Read along with other documents in this section.

Memorandum on U- and T-Visas written by Michael Cronin from August 30, 2001.

If an adjustment of status was not available to the respondent at the former hearing, the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status, and the respondent merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

This memo lists out instances in which CBP, CIS, and ICE should not issue Notices to Appear, as well as other options after before filing the Notices to Appear.

This memo offers information on EOIR regulations for Motions to Reopen.

In 2006, the Attorney General instructed the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, in consultation with the Immigration Judges, to issue a practice manual for the parties who appear before the Immigration Courts. This directive arose out of the public's desire for greater uniformity in Immigration Court procedures and a call for the Immigration Courts to implement their "best practices" nationwide.

This memo explains the option of USCIS to set a 12-week reponse time or a shorter (ex. 30 day)response time for Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny.

This memorandum supersedes and rescinds entirely the March 31, 2006 memorandum entitled, "Effect ofPerez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft on adjudication of Form 1-212 applications filed by alien who are subject to reinstated removal orders under INA § 241(a)(5)" (the "Perez-Gonzalez" memorandum).

This policy memorandum provides guidance for coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the adjudication of applications and petitions involving individuals in removal proceedings.

A new voluntary departure rule, which went into effect in January of 2009, addressed various aspects of voluntary departure, which this Q&A attempts to answer and clarify.

In February of 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overruled Matter of Gutierrez 21 I&N Dec. 479 (BIA 1996) a person requesting administrative closure may succeed without agreement from the government attorney. In Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), the Board identified factors for the adjudicator to determine whether to close a case.

The CSPA provides relief to children who "age-out" (turn 21) as a result of delays by the USCIS in processing visa petitions and asylum and refugee applications. This practice advisory offers information age calculations and formulas for determining who constitutes a child and at what age.

This advisory offers a detailed overview of filing petitions, from the length of grace periods to litigation in the Court of Appeals.

This practice advisory from the AILF's Legal Action Center offers an overview in when voluntary departure is given and the costs and benefits of such an order.

This analysis of The Supreme Court's decision in Dada v. Mukasey offers insight into the motion to reopen provision.

Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) aff’d 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988)sets the requirement for filing a motion to reopen a case based on ineffective assistance. This practice advisory lays out the Lozada requirements and restrictions.

This practice advisory is the third in a series about the interim regulations, adopted May 12, 2006, which give USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of an “arriving alien” parolee who is in removal proceedings

the Court unanimously held that a statutory provision stripping courts of jurisdiction to review immigration decisions that Congress has declared "to be in the discretion of the Attorney General."