NILA and the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) teamed up to file an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. In that case, the Supreme Court will decide: (1) whether the exhaustion provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a claim processing rule, and subject to equitable exceptions, or a jurisdictional rule, and not subject to any exceptions; and (2) whether the courts of appeals can review a noncitizen’s claim that the agency engaged in impermissible factfinding or whether the noncitizen must first raise the claim with the agency by filing a motion to reconsider. NILA and CAC’s amicus brief addresses the first question. Our brief argued that the Court should find the exhaustion requirement is a claim processing rule based on application of existing Supreme Court case law, the provision’s text and legislative history, and the absence of any long tradition of treating the provision as jurisdictional. Read the brief here.

CILA, a project of the ABA’s Commission on Immigration, has partnered with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) since 2020 to create many trainings and resources for advocates working with immigrant youth in federal courts. Covering a wide variety of topics and claims, these materials support practitioners by providing detailed trainings, sample pleadings, practice advisories, and other helpful tools. All materials are available for free on CILA’s website, and below is a helpful summary of some key resources. Attorneys and legal staff are encouraged to use these resources and to reach out to CILA if you have any questions or feedback. Read more.

In LaParra-DeLeon v. Garland, NILA submitted an amicus brief and reply brief in support of the petitioner, on behalf of itself and three other immigrants’ rights organizations. The case, a petition for review of published BIA decision Matter of LaParra, involved a notice to rescind an in absentia removal order based on lack of notice. The petitioner and amici argued that, where an individual does not receive an NTA that complies with 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1) under Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, because the NTA does not contain time or place information for their hearing, they have not received the notice required to issue an in absentia order. The First Circuit agreed, holding that, under the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), the petitioner “’demonstrate[d]’ that he did not receive ‘notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a),’” and therefore warranted rescission based on lack of notice.