Skip to Content

LAC

The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center works to advance fundamental fairness in U.S. Immigration Law and to protect the constitutional and legal rights of immigrants, refugees, and other noncitizens |  Read More »

What's New

Court of Appeals Agrees with the Legal Action Center that USCIS Imposed Arbitrary Requirements for Workers

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the arguments of the Legal Action Center (LAC), of the American Immigration Council, that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unlawfully imposed extra-regulatory requirements on a petition for a worker of "extraordinary ability" (EB-1).

New Report on Asylum Work Authorization “Clock” Released

Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights and the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center released a new study, "Up Against the Clock: Fixing the Broken Employment Authorization Asylum Clock." The report examines the laws, policy, and practice of the “Employment Authorization Document (EAD) asylum clock”— a clock which measures the number of days after an applicant files an asylum application before the applicant is eligible for work authorization.

Litigation Clearinghouse

The Litigation Clearinghouse serves as a national point of contact for lawyers conducting or contemplating immigration litigation. The Clearinghouse issues Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletters, posts Supreme Court developments, and produces Litigation Issue Pages, which are issue-specific web pages focusing on select topics currently being litigated in the federal courts. The LAC encourages immigration attorneys to contact the Clearinghouse to share information about your cases at clearinghouse@immcouncil.org.

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 5, No. 1

This issue covers the Supreme Court’s recent decision on judicial review of motions to reopen; upcoming BIA oral arguments addressing Brand X and whether the date of adjustment qualifies as the date of admission under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); a BIA decision on portability; a favorable K-2 “age out” decision; and motions to reopen after deportation.

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 14

This issue covers the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in an immigration case involving whether a second drug possession offense is an aggravated felony, a new LAC resource on motions to suppress, favorable court of appeals’ decisions on detention and crimes of violence, and res judicata in removal proceedings.

Read all past issues of the newsletter and our other Clearinghouse resources, including the Litigation Issue Pages and Supreme Court developments.

Practice Advisories

LAC Practice Advisories provide in depth discussion and analysis of select substantive and procedural issues in immigration law. The Practice Advisories are intended to assist lawyers and do not substitute for individual legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client's case. 

The Child Status Protection Act

This Practice Advisory updates and replaces three earlier advisories and provides a comprehensive overview of the CSPA, with a discussion of the most recent agency interpretations and court cases.

Terminating Removal Proceedings to Pursue Naturalization before DHS: Strategies for Challenging Matter of Acosta Hidalgo

This Practice Advisory sets out arguments to challenge Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, a recent BIA decision holding that IJ and BIA lack jurisdiction to determine prima facie eligibility for naturalization in order to terminate removal proceedings.

Read our entire list of Practice Advisories.

Our Litigation & Advocacy

The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center engages in impact litigation to protect and advance the rights of noncitizens. The LAC frequently submits briefs as amicus curiae (friend of the court) before administrative tribunals and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and files affirmative lawsuits in limited circumstances.

Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)

In a case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the LAC argues that the CSPA should be interpreted to preserve immigration benefits for foreign born children who, while attempting to immigrate to the U.S., turn 21 while their applications are being processed. Specifically, the LAC argues for a broad interpretation of the CSPA requirement that a child must have “sought to acquire” the status of a lawful permanent resident within one year of visa availability.

District Court Jurisdiction to Review the Denial of an Adjustment of Status Application

Given the stakes involved in immigration cases, federal court review is an important check on the government’s decision-making. In a case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the LAC argues that a federal district court erred when it found no jurisdiction to decide whether the immigration agency was wrong when it denied the immigrant’s application for lawful permanent resident status on a non-discretionary eligibility basis.

The Legal Action Center's amicus brief for the Immigration Council and AILA, filed in In Re Ting Ting Chi, No. A96-533-521, argues that K-2 visa holders, the offspring of fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens, may adjust even after turning 21 years of age as they are derivatives of non-citizen K-1 fiancé(e) parents. If you have a case that raises this issue, please contact us at clearinghouse@immcouncil.org.
Read about all of our impact litigation.