Skip to main content
  • July 12, 2012
    Ms. Wu came to the U.S. legally as a child with her parents, but because of attorney incompetence they were ordered to depart the country when she was 11.  Further ineffective assistance led to a series of missteps as the family filed applications in the wrong place.  New counsel…
  • July 7, 2011
    5th CircuitMr. Robertson-Dewar immigrated to the United States through his father, a U.S. citizen through naturalization.  His father applied for him to obtain a certificate of citizenship when Mr. Robertson-Dewar was 15.  The statute under which he should have become a citizen gave the…
  • August 23, 2011
    Mr. Familia Rosario is a permanent resident who is alleged to be removable as an aggravated felon.  He was convicted of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to import aliens for an immoral purpose (i.e., a house of prostitution).  He pled guilty in a plea agreement that specified that his…
  • November 7, 2011
    Mr. Torres-Tristan is a Mexican man who reentered the United States unlawfully after a past removal.  He sought to gain legal status, and avoid a reinstatement of removal by applying for a U Visa, which may be granted to victims of some types of criminal activity in the United States. …
  • May 25, 2011
    Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria (NIJC as amicus, Supreme Court) This case asked whether an Arizona statute which creates state provisions regarding employment of undocumented individuals – including requiring the use of the federal electronic employment verification system and harshly punishing…
  • August 16, 2004
    In this case the applicant, a child, was subject to abuse - the question was whether the abuse rose to the level of past persecution.  By published opinion, Judge Flaum agreed with our position that it is relevant to past persecution whether an individual was a minor at the time of events, but…
  • September 5, 2004
    In Ramirez v. Achim, a matter of first impression for the courts, the National Immigrant Justice Center obtained federal review over the government's attempt to remove Mr. Ramirez, who had not been ordered deported.When the government seeks to execute a removal order, it has no procedures in place…
  • September 28, 2004
    Before Gontcharova v. Ashcroft, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) applied a draconian standard that required asylum applicants to provide "corroboration" of their testimony, often without explaining what the immigrant lacked or without giving him or her an opportunity to explain why it…
  • November 8, 2004
    The National Immigrant Justice Center submitted an amicus in Leocal v. Ashcroft, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the "crime of violence" definition required intentionality, so that "driving while intoxicated" offenses were not crimes of violence and, therefore, not aggravated felonies.…
  • January 30, 2005
    Hamid involves a Withholding of Removal applicant who sought to present telephonic testimony in support of his claim. The Immigration Judge accepted the affidavit into evidence, but declined to permit telephonic testimony; and then ruled against the petitioner on that very issue.  The…