Enforcement

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

FACT SHEET
Expedited Removal Explainer

Expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can quickly deport certain noncitizens who are undocumented or have committed fraud or misrepresentation. 

READ MORE

Detained, Deceived, and Deported: Experiences of Recently Deported Central American Families

First-hand accounts from Central American women and their family members reveal the dangerous and bleak circumstances of life these women and their children faced upon return to their home countries, as well as serious problems in the deportation process. 

READ MORE

Children in Immigration Court: Over 95 Percent Represented by an Attorney Appear in Court

Many children are placed in deportation proceedings before an immigration judge, where they will carry the legal burden of proving that they should be allowed to remain in the United States. The government does not guarantee them the right to a lawyer. As a result, many children navigate the complicated system without legal representation.

READ MORE

All Enforcement Content

  • Press Release

Understanding ICE’s Release of Immigrants with Criminal Convictions

May 15, 2014

Washington D.C. - Understanding the complexities of immigration law and its intersection with criminal law is not easy.

  • Special Report

No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse

Publication Date: 
May 4, 2014
Of the 809 complaints of alleged abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between January 2009 and January 2012, 97 percent resulted in “No Action Taken.” On average, CBP took 122 days to arrive at...
  • Fact Sheet

Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States

Publication Date: 
April 28, 2014
The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which...
  • Press Release

New Report from Center for Immigration Studies on Deportation Data Misleads and Misinforms

March 31, 2014

Washington D.C. – Today the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a new report that makes a range of false claims about deportation data.

  • Press Release

HoldCBPAccountable.org Launched to Expose Border-Related Abuse and Litigation

March 26, 2014

An alliance of immigration advocacy groups announces the launch of HoldCBPAccountable.org, a website that catalogues lawsuits and admini

  • Fact Sheet

Misplaced Priorities: Most Immigrants Deported by ICE in 2013 Were a Threat to No One

Publication Date: 
March 13, 2014

No one can say with certainty when the Obama administration will reach the grim milestone of having deported two million people since the President took...

  • Fact Sheet

The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine

Publication Date: 
March 1, 2014
Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States.
  • Practice Advisories

Seeking a Judicial Stay of Removal in the Court of Appeals

Publication Date: 
January 21, 2014
This Practice Advisory provides background information about requesting stays of removal from the court of appeals, discusses the legal standard for obtaining a stay, and addresses the implications of the government’s policy with respect to return of individuals who are successful on their appeal.
  • Amicus Briefs

Avalos-Palma v. United States - District Court for the District of New Jersey

Publication Date: 
January 21, 2014
The American Immigration Council and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) are seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens for abuse of authority by immigration agents.
  • Amicus Briefs

F- P- v. Holder - Ninth Circuit

Publication Date: 
January 3, 2014
Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or related provisions of federal law. While the immediate purpose of filing a motion to suppress is to prevent the government from meeting its burden of proof, challenges to unlawfully obtained evidence can also deter future violations by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens. The Supreme Court held in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), that motions to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment in immigration proceedings should be granted only for “egregious” violations or if violations became “widespread.” Despite this stringent standard, noncitizens have prevailed in many cases on motions to suppress.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending