U.S. Department of State v. Muñoz involves a U.S. Citizen, Sandra Muñoz, who has been separated from her Salvadoran husband, Luis Asencio Cordero, for nearly a decade because the U.S. State Department denied Luis an immigrant visa in 2015.
F.H.-T. (a pseudonym used to protect him and his family) has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Government’s process for deciding exemptions from the so-called “terrorist bars” which precluded him from obtaining asylum.
Amici NIJC, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, represented by Baker & McKenzie pro bono attorneys, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Petitioner in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U. S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013).
In Supreme Court Case Chaidez v. United States, NIJC Argues that Immigrants’ Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Existed Pre-Padilla
Represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Northwestern Law School, NIJC filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court arguing against excessive deference being given to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The issue in Nken v. Holder, as stated in the Question Presented, was the proper standard for deciding whether to stay removal for a person challenging a removal order.
The case of Demiraj v. Holder involves a family of Albanians who fear persecution by a human trafficker, Bill Bedini.
In Vartelas v. Holder, the Court considered whether the 1996 law changes retroactively affected the ability of lawful permanent residents to make brief visits abroad.
NIJC, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and pro bono partner Jenner & Block LLP filed a brief as Amicus in Arizona, et al., v. United States of America at the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Flores-Villar, an individual defended himself against a charge of illegal reentry by claiming that it would be unconstitutional and violative of Equal Protection to consider him an alien.
The Supreme Court ruled that individuals who seek to reopen their deportation orders have the right to appeal to the federal courts if the immigration courts refuse to do so.
