Immigration Benefits and Relief

The immigration laws and regulations provide some avenues to apply for lawful status from within the U.S. or to seek relief from deportation.  The eligibility requirements for these benefits and relief can be stringent, and the immigration agencies often adopt overly restrictive interpretations of the requirements.  Learn about advocacy and litigation that has been and can be undertaken to ensure that noncitizens have a fair chance to apply for the benefits and relief for which they are eligible.  

Recent Features

The Dream Act: An Overview

The Dream Act would permanently protect certain immigrants who came to the United States as children but are vulnerable to deportation. 

READ MORE

  • Practice Advisories

Arriving Noncitizens and Adjustment of Status

This Practice Advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all “arriving aliens” from adjusting status if they are in removal proceedings.

All Immigration Benefits and Relief Content

  • Special Report

Investing in the American DREAM

Publication Date: 
December 2, 2010
Each year, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrant students graduate from American high schools and embark on uncertain futures. Their inability to legally work and receive financial aid stalls...
  • Special Report

Reading the Morton Memo: Federal Priorities and Prosecutorial Discretion

Publication Date: 
December 1, 2010
On June 30, 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, issued a memo to the agency that reflected the Obama administration’s oft repeated intent...
  • Press Release

Restrictionist Group Continues Cynical Legacy of Counting Costs While Ignoring Benefits

December 1, 2010

In a new report, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) paints a misleading financial portrait of the DREAM Act.

  • Practice Advisories

Rescinding an In Absentia Order of Removal

Publication Date: 
March 31, 2010
There are two main situations where individuals who were ordered removed or deported in absentia can reopen their cases: (1) they did not receive notice of the hearing, and (2) they did not appear at their hearing because of exceptional circumstances. This Practice Advisory addresses the elements and requirements for an in absentia motion to reopen in both contexts.
  • Blog

Report Provides Solutions to Broken Asylum Employment Authorization Clock

February 12, 2010

Asylum applicants and their attorneys have long struggled to better understand how the employment authorization asylum clock (“EAD asylum clock”) functions. The clock, which measures the number of...

  • Amicus Briefs

Matter of Yauri - Board of Immigration Appeals

Publication Date: 
September 3, 2008
Following DHS's adoption of an interim regulation that gave USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment application of an "arriving alien" in removal proceedings, the Council filed amicus briefs with the BIA and Federal Courts challenging the BIA's general refusal to reopen removal proceedings so that an "arriving alien" with an unexecuted final order could adjust with USCIS. The BIA rejected our arguments in Matter of Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009). Meanwhile, however, USCIS made clear that it retained jurisdiction over these cases despite the final order.
  • Practice Advisories

Suggested Strategies for Remedying Missed Petition for Review Deadlines or Filings in the Wrong Court

Publication Date: 
April 20, 2005
This Practice Advisory addresses situations in which a court might excuse a late-filed petition for review and discusses other administrative and federal court options for remedying the failure to timely file a petition for review. The Advisory also provides an overview of 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which authorizes courts to transfer a case to cure a lack of jurisdiction when an action is filed in the wrong federal court.
  • Amicus Briefs

Bona v. Ashcroft - Ninth Circuit

Publication Date: 
February 24, 2005
The Council filed amicus briefs in numerous courts of appeals challenging the pre-2005 regulatory bar to adjustment of status for “arriving aliens” in removal proceedings. Several courts accepted our arguments that the regulation violated the adjustment of status statute. Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005); Bona v. Ashcroft, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2005). Ultimately, DHS withdrew the challenged regulation and replaced it with one providing USCIS with jurisdiction to adjust the status of an "arriving alien" in removal proceedings. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (2006). The amicus brief filed in Bona v. Ashcroft is representative of the briefs filed in other circuits.
  • Advocacy

Response to DHS’s notice of revisions to Form I‐131, Application for Travel Document and accompanying instructions (submitted Dec. 31, 2012)

The American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. jointly submitted comments addressing numerous aspects of the Form I-131 instructions including revisions to the instructions that provide guidance to DACA recipients on their eligibility for Advance Parole.
  • Advocacy

Letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (submitted Feb. 9, 2012)

This sign-on letter expresses concerns about DHS’s implementation of the new prosecutorial discretion policy, including the agency’s failure to grant work authorization to those who receive a favorable exercise of discretion. The letter also makes recommendations to ensure that DHS fulfills its pledge to implement an effective and fair prosecutorial discretion policy nationwide.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending