Resources on Appeals

You may search for resources either by title or by month and year.

Last updated on

CLINIC submitted comments on March 30, 2020, urging the Justice Department to withdraw its proposed fee increases for immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, filings. CLINIC opposed procedural issues concerning the rulemaking, including the Justice Department’s refusal to extend the 30-day comment deadline in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINIC also argued that the dramatic increases in fees — appeals to the BIA would rise from $110 to $975 — are unreasonable and will prevent people from receiving fair results in their cases.

Last updated on

In Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019), the attorney general held that two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the qualifying time period presumptively bar an applicant for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal from proving good moral character under section § 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Last updated on

The Mercer Law School Immigration Appeals Clinic filed an amicus brief on CLINIC’s behalf on March 11, 2020. The amicus brief lays out how the particular social group of “Honduran transgender women” meets the three-prong test laid out in Matter of M-E-V-G-.

Update: After submission of this, and other amicus briefs, the Department of Homeland Security stipulated to remand the case to the immigration judge.

Last updated on

The Board of Immigration Appeals, issued calls for amicus briefs in two cases where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed immigration judges’ decisions to terminate cases, where the Notices to Appear did not specify the admission status of the respondents.

Last updated on

The notice outlines the administration’s plan to significantly increase fees associated with filings for appeals to BIA, applications for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal, and motions to reopen or reconsider before the immigration courts or the BIA.

Last updated on

On Jan. 22, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision in Matter of Angel MAYEN-Vinalay, 27 I&N Dec. 755 (BIA 2020) concerning requests for continuances by applicants for “collateral relief” pending with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services who are also in removal proceedings. In this decision, the BIA held that a noncitizen’s prima facie eligibility for U nonimmigrant status, and whether that relief will materially affect the outcome of proceedings, are not dispositive, particularly where there are relevant secondary factors that weigh against a continuance.