Practice Alert & Template Motions: Construing the Reopening Limitation in the Reinstatement Statute

On May 7, 2024, in Suate-Orellana v. Garland, No. 19-72446, 101 F.4th 624, 2024 WL 2004951 (9th Cir. 2024) held that the reopening limitation in the reinstatement statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, subject to waiver and forfeiture. NILA’s newly issued practice alert addresses the decision and is accompanied by two […]

Practice Alert & Template Motions: Construing the Reopening Limitation in the Reinstatement Statute Read More »

Ninth Circuit Adopts NILA Argument in Suate-Orellana

On May 7, 2028, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Suate-Orellana v. Garland, a petition for review litigated by the New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (including several supervising attorneys and law students, and brilliantly argued by Jessice Rofe) with amicus support provided by NILA. The court found both that Mrs. Suate-Orellana’s motion to reconsider sufficiently raised her claim that she was ordered removed on the basis of a defective Notice to Appear and rejected the government’s contention that the BIA lacked jurisdiction over the motion because the removal order had been reinstated under 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(5). With respect to the latter argument, the Ninth Circuit found that the “reopening” bar was a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule and that the government had forfeited its objection. NILA long has been arguing that the “reopening” bar is nonjurisdictional and, thus, subject to a “gross miscarriage of justice” exception, including in an individual petition for review, en banc rehearing petitions to the Ninth Circuit in Bravo-Bravo v. Garland and Guitierrez-Zavala v. Garland, an en banc petition to the Tenth Circuit in Zapata-Chacon v. Garland. NILA and co-counsel currently have this issue pending in the Second Circuit and are interested in co-counseling or providing additional amicus support in these cases.

Ninth Circuit Adopts NILA Argument in Suate-Orellana Read More »

Advocates File Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Chronic Delays in Responding to FOIA Requests

SAN FRANCISCO, Apr. 24, 2024—Today, three immigration attorneys and two individuals filed a prospective class action lawsuit in federal court, challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) nationwide practice of failing to timely respond to requests for immigration records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Advocates File Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Chronic Delays in Responding to FOIA Requests Read More »

Legal Challenge Prompts USCIS to Release Key Immigration Manuals to the Public

PORTLAND, OR – The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and Innovation Law Lab are thrilled to announce that, in response to the lawsuit we filed against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), USCIS has made two important immigration staff manuals available to the public in its electronic reading room. The release of these documents is a critical step for ensuring transparency for noncitizens in expedited removal and reinstatement proceedings.  

Legal Challenge Prompts USCIS to Release Key Immigration Manuals to the Public Read More »

Over 1,000 Asylum Seekers Benefit from Padilla Settlement Within First 90 Days

Following settlement of the credible fear class claims in Padilla v. ICE — a national class action case litigated by NILA, NWIRP, AIC, and ACLU — the government reports that over 1,000 asylum seekers for whom USCIS failed to provide timely credible fear hearings have been issued Notices to Appear and placed in regular removal

Over 1,000 Asylum Seekers Benefit from Padilla Settlement Within First 90 Days Read More »

New Practice Advisory and Template Pleadings – Wilkinson v. Garland: Implications for Judicial Review of Petitions for Review

NILA’s latest practice advisory explains the holding and rationale of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, discusses its implications for petitions for review raising similar issues in other contexts, and suggests steps that a noncitizen whose case is impacted by the decision may take. Accompanying this advisory in Word format are a template

New Practice Advisory and Template Pleadings – Wilkinson v. Garland: Implications for Judicial Review of Petitions for Review Read More »

Padilla v. ICE – Updated Practice Alert

Padilla v. ICE is a certified national class action related to delayed credible fear interviews and bond hearings for individuals who pass credible fear interviews litigated by NWIRP, NILA, AIC, and ACLU. This updated practice alert provides information about the settlement agreement related to credible fear interviews, information about the claims that presently are on

Padilla v. ICE – Updated Practice Alert Read More »

Shopping Cart