CLINIC submitted a public comment on Nov. 7, 2023, concerning the new proposed rule on Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings.

In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “stop-time rule” — used to calculate the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal and the 7-year continuous residence requirement for permanent resident cancellation of removal — is only triggered when the Department of Homeland Security serves a single “Notice to Appear” that contains all of the statutorily required information, including the time and place of the immigration court hearing. As a result of the Court’s April 29, 2021 decision, noncitizens with deficient NTAs who have since completed the required period of time in the United States for cancellation of removal may be eligible to apply for that form of relief, if they meet the other requirements.

CLINIC submitted comments on Dec. 23, 2020, opposing the majority of the proposed rules that would limit motions to reopen, reconsider and stay of removal, which would undermine fairness and

CLINIC submitted comments on Dec. 23, 2020, opposing the proposed limitations on continuances in immigration court proceedings and other policy changes that would undermine fairness and due process.

CLINIC has drafted a template comment to assist you to respond to EOIR’s proposed rule, "Motions to Reopen and Reconsider; Effect of Departure; Stay of Removal." The template comment provides you with language you can use to draft your own comments in opposition of this proposed rule.

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.

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.

This practice advisory provides practitioners guidance on Matter of L-A-B-R-, a decision issued on August 16, 2018. In L-A-B-R-, former Attorney General Jeff Session addressed the factors that an IJ must consider when a respondent requests a continuance in order “to await the resolution of a collateral matter.” This practice advisory suggests strategies practitioners may use to fight for continuances for their clients.

On Sept. 18, 2018, Attorney General (AG) Jefferson Sessions, in two cases he referred to himself, held that immigration judges (IJs) may dismiss or terminate removal proceedings only where the regulations expressly allow or if the charges of removability against a respondent have not been sustained. Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018).