ILRC Submits Comment Opposing Proposed Rule to Restrict Work Permits
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a comment urging DHS to withdraw its proposed rule that would dramatically restrict access to employment authorization for many immigrants.
HR1 Fees at USCIS and EOIR
This practice advisory provides information about recently implemented fee increases at USCIS and EOIR. These fee increases are a result of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” also known as HR1. This advisory explores what we know and what we still don’t know about the fees, how to pay them, and potential future changes.
Best Practices for Advising Noncitizens Who Want to Leave the United States
In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. This practice advisory provides guidance to immigration attorneys and advocates who are asked to provide such advice and walks through common issues
ILRC Comment Opposing the Proposed Rule Limiting Work Authorization for Asylum Seekers
On April 23, 2026, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a comment opposing a proposed rule that would significantly limit work authorization for asylum seekers. The ILRC comments that the rule would drastically restrict access to work permits and make it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to survive while their cases are pending. It highlights that the proposal would lengthen wait times, add new eligibility barriers, and allow broad discretionary denials, effectively undermining the asylum system and deterring legitimate applicants. The ILRC contends the rule would cause
ILRC Advocacy Letter to US Department of Justice, re: Recognition and Accreditation Program
The U.S. Department of Justice transferred out all permanent staff from the Recognition and Accreditation program in March 2026, rendering the future of the program uncertain. ILRC wrote to DOJ demanding reinstatement of staff and a return to reasonable processing times for applications.
Civil Penalties and Fines - Part I: How to Appeal a Civil Penalty
This practice advisory is Part I of a two-part advisory on civil fines and civil penalties instituted by DHS against noncitizens. Part I discusses the procedures for instituting a fine and recommendations for contesting and appealing a civil fine instituted by DHS. Part II will discuss statutory and Constitutional arguments and defenses against the issuance of fines.
ILRC Comment to DHS on FOIA Final Rule
ILRC submitted this comment to DHS opposing recent changes to FOIA rules effective January 22, 2026 that restrict public access. DHS published a final rule in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act by unlawfully bypassing public notice and comment. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests and allows DHS in its discretion to administratively close requests that it deems to insufficiently describe the records sought.
Critical New Changes to the Immigration Appeals Process
The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule that changes how immigration appeals are handled. The new rule shortens the time you have to appeal—which is how you ask for another court to review an unfavorable decision from an immigration judge.
Attacks on FOIA Continue
On December 22, 2025, DHS published a final rule impacting processing of FOIA requests by all DHS components. The rule is effective January 22, 2026. Despite the major changes made by the rule, no period of public comment was provided. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests with DHS as of January 22, 2026. FOIAs to DHS must be filed online after that date. The rule also states that DHS can, in its discretion, administratively close or make “requests for clarification” where it deems the request to be an inadequate description of the records sought.
FOIA Alert on Processing Changes – December 2025
In recent months, practitioners have been reporting troubling new patterns in FOIA processing of A-file requests. Some people report unusually high rejection rates on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for reasons related to address requirements. Rejections due to “no record” also have been reported even where the requester is sure that there is a record because they have a partial paper trail of contacts with USCIS. Frequent over redaction of FOIA responses also has been reported. This alert discusses the address issue and suggests how to respond.
Asylum Cooperative Agreements: What You Must Know
Information about these agreements and the rights of asylum seekers in immigration court proceedings if the government makes this argument in an immigration court hearing.
ILRC Comment Opposing USCIS's Rule Eliminating Auto-Extension of Employment Authorization
ILRC submitted this comment on November 25, 2025 opposing the Interim Final Rule (IFR) eliminating automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”). The IFR was improvidently issued without prior notice and comment, is unsupported by data or reasoned analysis, and falsely claims that it is part of a foreign affairs exception intended for regulations which impact international policies.
Screening for Immigration Relief: Client Intake Form and Notes
This resource is a comprehensive client intake form meant to assist practitioners in screening for immigration relief options and assessing red flags. Accompanying the intake form are notes to assist practitioners in spotting issues and relief options as well as a summary of common forms of relief. This sample client intake form is generic, to screen for general relief since the goal at the screening stage is not to make a final determination of eligibility but to assess pathways for relief.
ILRC Comment Opposing Generic Collection of Information - Social Security Information
On July 28, 2025, the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a new government proposal to add extra questions to nine immigration forms, including applications for naturalization, asylum, and green cards.
Responding to DHS Motions to Recalendar
In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has begun filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed proceedings. This trend is raising questions about how attorneys and accredited representatives can respond to these motions and protect their clients’ interests, particularly in cases that have been administratively closed for many years. This advisory explores those questions and offers strategy considerations when determining how to proceed in each case.
Asylum Screening Tool
This tool offers a template that practitioners can use to help identify possible asylum eligibility. The screening questions are intended to elicit information about the basis of an asylum claim, identify possible bars and challenges, and flag areas where further follow-up may be needed. Accompanying the screening tool are some notes to help guide practitioners in assessing relief and spotting potential issues.
ILRC Comment Opposing Generic Collection of Information - Social Media Handles
On May 5, 2025 the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a proposed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule that would require immigrants to disclose their social media identifiers on application forms.
ILRC Comments Opposing Generic Collection of Information - Family and Employer Information
On May 2, 2025 the ILRC submitted a comment opposing a proposed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule that would expand the collection of personal information from immigration applicants.
Sign On Comment Opposing the Generic Information Collection for Social Media Handles, and Family and Employer Information in Immigration Benefits Applications
On May 2, 2025 the ILRC submitted a letter signed by 115 organizations has opposing a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed rule to expand the information collected on immigration forms.
Who Has Initial Jurisdiction Over UC Asylum Claims? Matter of M-A-C-O- and JOP v. DHS
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 confers initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by unaccompanied children (UCs) to the asylum office. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of M-A-C-O-, along with policy changes implemented during the first Trump administration, sought to strip away this crucial protection from many child asylum seekers. Because of these changes and legal challenges by immigrant youth advocates, the current landscape of initial UC asylum jurisdiction has changed. This practice advisory provides an overview of the current state
The New Registration Requirement: Frequently Asked Questions
The Trump administration’s Registration requirement for most undocumented immigrants is another hateful tactic in its campaign to cause panic and fear throughout the country. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been clear that the central purpose of Registration is to gather information about all noncitizens and use this information to locate, apprehend and remove them as quickly as possible. The new registration requirement took effect April 11, 2025.
Trump’s Executive Actions: Impact on Immigration Benefits and Processing
In its first month, the Trump administration has issued dozens of executive orders (EO) that seek to limit access to the immigration system, target foreign nationals for political gain and sow chaos and fear among immigrant and advocate communities. This explainer focuses on aspects of the EOs that target immigration benefits, processing and adjudication.
What a second Trump term could mean for asylum
When the first Trump administration took office in 2017, it immediately adopted restrictive policies on asylum, making it more difficult for asylum seekers to win their cases. Trump returning to office in January 2025 raises fears that asylum-seekers will once again be a focus of the administration’s anti-immigrant policies. Although the new administration will likely enact policies that are harmful to asylum seekers, certain changes would require Congressional action. Moreover, executive actions on asylum could be challenged in court. This alert explores what a second Trump term could mean
ILRC Comment on Securing the Border Final Rule
On November, 7, 2024, the ILRC submitted a comment on the final Securing the Border rule. ILRC had submitted comments on the interim final rule in July 2024, and reiterated our strong objections raised in that comment. The ILRC further objected to the inclusion of unaccompanied children in the threshold count for lifting the border restrictions and the expanded applicability and geographic reach of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.
Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal Proceedings Part 2: Navigating Unfavorable Exercises of Discretion in Removal Proceedings
Part 2 of this 2-part advisory explores some of the unexpected consequences of PD policies adopted by the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) that can prejudice noncitizens in removal proceedings, including the practice of moving to dismiss proceedings over respondents’ objections and failing to appear at hearings.
Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal Proceedings Part 1: Strategies for Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion During Uncertain Times
Part 1 of this 2-part advisory provides updates on DHS’s prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings and explores the various factors that advocates should consider when deciding whether to seek a favorable exercise of discretion from the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). Part 1 also highlights new regulations and discusses how the upcoming presidential election may impact prosecutorial discretion.
ILRC Comment on Temporary Final Rule Automatically Extending Employment Authorization Documents
On June 6, 2024, the ILRC submitted a comment in support of DHS’s temporary final rule (TFR) providing automatic extensions of employment authorization documents. The TFR specifically requested comment on whether the measure should be permanent and how long permanent automatic extensions should be. The ILRC wrote in support of a long and permanent auto-extension policy to ensure that applicants are not harmed by administrative delays that lead to lapses in document validity.
Comment on Biden administration’s Interim Final Rule entitled “Securing the Border”
On July 8, the ILRC submitted a comment opposing the Biden administration’s interim final rule (IFR) entitled “Securing the Border.” The IFR unlawfully restricts asylum access by restricting entry and creating a bar to asylum eligibility when there have been a certain number of encounters at the southern U.S. border.